Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

1

 

PROCEEDINGS 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 AFFORDABILITY AND STUDENT LOANS COMMITTEE 

 SESSION 2, DAY 1, AFTERNOON

November 1, 2021

On the 1st day of November, 2021, the

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

to 4:00 p.m., before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in

the state of New Jersey.
2

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. TOTONCHI: Alright. Welcome back, 

everyone from your lunch break. Welcome back to the 

committee and the advisors. So before we dive into our

next issue, one unfinished piece of business we have 

regarding the subcommittee is calling for consensus on 

the addition of Anne Precythe of the Missouri Department 

of Corrections to the subcommittee. So at this stage, I 

will ask for that vote. I do see Michaela, you have a 

comment.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, just because before 

the break, when I asked, I was told that this would go 

to subcommittee for them to vote her in, and so I'm just 

a little concerned about the lack of clarity for what 

that protocol is within that subcommittee. And then just 

so that it's on the record that that subcommittee 

doesn't have that kind of like third party facilitation 

that we have here. And if there's any way that we could 

either request that they do have that so that we have a 

consistency within protocols between the subcommittee 

and our main committee.

MR. TOTONCHI: So thank you, Michaela. 

Just a couple of points. One of the reasons why you will 

be voting on this is because the subcommittee doesn't 

have the ability --that voting power-- to add 
3

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

subcommittee members. So to the extent there was an 

inconsistency--Please proceed with this vote rather than 

the subcommittee having its own vote, okay? In terms of 

your second point, we will, you know, we'll certainly 

discuss that further. Okay? Excellent, so at this stage, 

I'll call for, oh, I see, Michaela, your alternate will 

take this vote.

DR. ANDRISSE: That's me, Stan.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay, thank you. Stan, 

I appreciate that. If you could note who your alternate 

is, when you're substituting, that would be great. So 

I'd like to see take a consensus check on the inclusion 

of Anne Precythe on the subcommittee. Okay. That has 

been approved. With that, let's move into our next 

issue, okay? The next issue is total and permanent 

disability discharge, so I'd like to start with Jen 

walking us through the issue paper and text.

MS. HONG: Great, thank you, Emil. I 

just have some general comments to make going into TPD 

before we jump into the actual issues. I wanted to make 

a general comment regarding session one and the refrain 

of and retroactivity that Bethany and others were 

endorsing. I believe it's evidenced throughout our 

proposals and the work we've done prior to this 

rulemaking, for example, to automate processes for total 
4

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

and permanent disability discharge. But we 

wholeheartedly agree with the goals of automation. We 

share concerns about the barriers that applications 

represent. However, as Brian from our general counsel's 

office alluded to in session one, there are limits for 

automation, namely the legal authority to obtain the 

data as well as privacy issues considering sharing those 

data. So, for example, one of the ideas which we agree 

would be great is for all borrowers and eligible 

employers to get credit for PSLF through their taxes. I 

think this was brought up in session one, but we cannot 

obtain information about a borrower's employer without 

legislative change. Secondly, we need centralized 

federal databases. We were able to automate TPD because 

all the information we need is from single matches with 

Social Security Administration and Veterans 

Administration. Someone had mentioned SNAP, TANF, and 

Section 8, Section 8, which are federally financed but 

run at the state level. As much as we would love to 

access those data, we would be looking at over 50 

separate matches, which is not currently feasible. 

Nonetheless, you'll notice throughout that we've 

incorporated automated language into the regulations 

where it's feasible and in the case of PSLF, leaving the 

path open for future automation. On the issue of 
5

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

retroactivity, we also agree that it is an important 

goal. Again, however, it's not always feasible and we 

typically write our regulations prospectively. That 

being said, we've taken some significant actions to 

address issues retroactively. For PSLF, this is largely 

due to the PSLF waiver due to COVID, and we are able to 

adjust payment counting because this change can be 

answered by our systems. However, the other end of that 

is unwinding years of payments to address capitalization 

(as proposed by some in session one) is simply not 

feasible and prone to error and without getting too much 

in the weeds. I just wanted to make general statements, 

just wanted to affirm our support for this refrain 

automation retroactivity, you know, that was echoed 

throughout session one that we've tried to broaden this 

out to the greatest extent possible through proposals 

that we have put forward. But we also wanted to 

acknowledge the very real legal and administrative 

barriers that we face in implementing it. So with that 

being said, I can now move on to total and permanent 

disability discharge. I believe we had a very fruitful 

discussion on this issue at the table during session 

one. We did have proposed regulatory text at that time. 

And I believe both Bethany, John and Josh shared some 

thoughts and provided some helpful feedback on the 
6

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

proposed language. During the intervening weeks, we had 

several conversations with Social Security 

Administration to clarify questions raised during 

session one regarding categories and processes, and we 

made some further adjustments with post language based 

on this committee's feedback during session one. So if 

we could pull up the text, (inaudible). If you could 

pull up, thank you. The proposed language, thank you. 

Okay. If you look at this, the red lines are the initial 

proposed amendments and the highlighted text are the 

changes that we made during the last iteration. And what 

I'll do, I can just briefly review the highlighted 

portions with you so we can kind of refresh and look at

where we made some changes. And you'll notice comments 

embedded throughout the document as well. So starting on 

page two, you see that we added a licensed psychologist 

throughout the regulatory text in addition to proposing 

a nurse practitioner and physician's assistant as 

certifying GPD determinations. And this is after our 

discussions in the first session, we believe that this 

captures the breadth of health practitioners. I can 

certify whether an individual is totally and permanently 

disabled as defined in statute. We did explore various 

categories that Social Security Administration has 

identified certain individuals who can provide evidence 
7

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

to qualify for SSI or SSDI generally, and this is where 

we landed. Under romanette 3I in subparagraph 2, you 

will notice that we've provided catch all verbiage in 

addition to the inclusion of a benefit planning query or 

BPQY regarding any other documentation deemed acceptable 

by the Secretary. And that is just to leave that 

language open in the event that SSI, there's any other 

documentation that as the state provides that we can 

accept it as well. Let me know if I'm going too fast or 

if you want, I could, because it's just rather short, I 

can take questions at the end if we just go over all the 

changes right now. Okay, the second comment on page two 

is regarding Bethany's suggestion that we accept 

documentation that shows onset date within the past five 

years, so we're currently trying to gauge that 

possibility with SSA. I have to say, though, that we are 

bound to what we can work out with a data match with 

them, so it must be data that reliably meets our 

definition for TPD. So with respect to those categories, 

we're staying with the categories that we proposed 

during session one. Pages three and four, again, you'll 

see inclusion of psychologists throughout as a qualified 

professional to make TPD determinations. You'll also 

notice some minor technical improvements throughout the 

regulatory text, and you'll notice this throughout the 
8

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

sessions that we're trying to improve the general flow 

of the verbiage. So far, all the issues where we see 

technical revisions are better ways of saying things 

that are included here. On page five, near the bottom, 

you see that we've changed 60 to 90 days for 

reinstatement again, which is more generous to the 

borrower, and that's just to conform with other 

timelines that we've set for BD and PSLF that we've 

proposed. Then on the last page, there are some 

questions about the verbiage for the automated process, 

which was published on August 23rd of this year, that is 

codified under paragraph D, which we've included, so you 

can see what that says. Also, we had originally proposed 

language to provide greater review, greater analysis of 

forms to provide protection around the physician 

certification for the TPD discharge form. We've actually 

removed that language because we feel like that's better 

dealt with on a subregulatory basis. And that's pretty 

much it. I'm open to questions, comments and concerns 

that you have regarding these amendments that we've made 

since session one.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay, Bethany.

MS. LILLY: Okay, so apologies for my 

confusion on this, but what you can data match with when 

it comes to SSA and what the statute says are kind of 
9

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

two different questions, and these edits don't reflect 

the issue I raised before, which is you're going to have 

folks who don't qualify under MINE or don't qualify 

under an MIP or the other statuses that you've 

identified here-- who have been on Social Security 

Disability for five years, have had that disability for 

five years as the statute requires, and who aren't 

covered by the text you're proposing. So I don't 

actually care whether or not you can data match with 

SSA. I want to see it in the regs that folks who have 

been on the program for five years can get their loans 

discharged. That's a very important point for me. I 

understand that negotiating that out with an MOU, with 

SSA is going to be complicated, but basing it purely on 

those prospective categories, as I mentioned last 

session, just omits folks who aren't going to be counted 

here. I've submitted a data request to the committee or 

to the folks. I'm sorry that it was a little bit late. 

We've got a few other things going on right now, but 

like, I'm honestly confused why SSA would be pushing 

back on that. I am happy to have a conversation if there

needs to be a data exchange. In terms of yes, we can 

verify we have paid out whatever five years of benefits 

is to this person over the past number of years. I'm 

happy to have that discussion, but if we're not 
10

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

including folks who have been on the program for five 

years, I mean, we have stories from legal services of 

folks who have been on the program for 15 years and not 

had their loans discharged. And it makes me 

excruciatingly uncomfortable to rely on this. Without 

the regs actually reflecting that if you have been on 

the program for five years, you get your loans 

discharged. We're not going to ask you what particular 

review category you're classified in. That's effectively 

an irrelevant determination here. I would also say that 

part of the reason I submitted the data request is I 

think it'll help SSA kind of think through what those 

options are. But as I said, I don't think it is relevant 

whether or not the SSA can data match and going down to 

the automation text, it actually makes me more concerned 

now that I'm seeing it because it seems to be limited to 

folks who are in the MINE category. And I assume you 

guys are also going to auto discharge for folks who are 

in medical improvement and have gone through one review. 

So I think you do need to look at that text --like 

regulatorily-- if you're thinking about automating 

beyond that. One of the other reasons I have been 

emphasizing this five-year mark for so long is SSA has a 

CDR background. They have this really long, it takes 

them a while to get through all of their review 
11

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

processes. So people can actually be on the program for 

five years and then like, still be waiting for their MIP 

review. So it captures additional people here. It makes 

sure that folks are getting the relief they're entitled 

to as quickly as they possibly can. And especially given 

that offsets are going to be reinstated come February. 

Like that, I'm just like, I am thinking of legal 

services clients. I'm thinking of folks in my own 

network who have been getting their Social Security 

benefits offset. So I just want to say again, I really 

think you guys should add, even if you can't do the data 

match with SSA, to the text something about somebody 

having a disability four or five years. And again, those 

edits to the automation section all suggest something in 

actual writing, but now that I've seen the text, I 

actually think I'm more concerned about it than I was 

before. So sorry about that.

MS. HONG: No, thank you, Bethany. Can 

I just respond?

MR. TOTONCHI: Yes, of course.

MS. HONG: So, yes, to the automated, 

text, we are going to make some conforming changes to 

that section. So should we take on these additional 

categories, there would be conforming changes to the 

automated text as well. To your point about the 
12

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

relevancy of being able to conduct the match and capture 

all of those individuals that may be eligible for 

discharge. Are you proposing then that those individuals 

would be able to show additional documentation through 

the physician certification process to demonstrate that 

they've been... 

MS. LILLY: I don't think they would 

need a physician certification. They could submit-- I 

mean, you've left yourself other documentation deemed 

acceptable by the Secretary, which I think is a good 

flexibility to give yourself. But for instance, somebody 

who's been on the program for five years is going to 

have records of being on the program for five years. 

They're going to have either, you know, 1099 tax 

filings. They're going to have other things that will 

indicate they've been receiving disability benefits for 

five years. And so part of the reason I wanted you to 

keep that flexibility and I think the Department should 

keep that flexibility is so that folks can provide 

evidence that they meet this standard. Like statutorily, 

it's five years meeting the Social Security benefits 

status. And that's pretty straightforward. There are 

other ways that you could document that, and I know my 

alternate has some things to say, and I think he would 

actually be much better at answering what other 
13

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

documentation pieces you guys could accept in that 

context. So I see his hand up, so I should probably sub 

out for him, but I just-- that is it. Yes, I think there 

are other ways you could look at documentation in that 

space.

MS. HONG: Okay, so before you jump 

in, John, I just want to clarify when you say provide 

evidence, provide evidence to the Department because 

currently we have the automated process and the 

physician certification process. Those are the processes 

available to us to verify whether an individual's 

eligible for TPD discharge. We do not have a process for 

a borrower to directly provide that documentation to the 

Department, just want to make a point of clarification. 

We are exploring it on the automation front first. And 

that's why to the extent that we can capture with SSA 

these eligible categories and automate them for a data 

match, that is our goal here. So that is why we're 

starting there. That's a starting point for us. 

Everything else, we're continuing to have these 

discussions with SSA and certainly need your help in 

finding the best path forward. So with that, if you 

could clarify what you mean to provide and what that 

would entail.

MS. LILLY: I think it could be part 
14

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

of the physician certification process and I don't 

actually see it as terribly different than the physician 

certification process. And I mean, to be honest, you 

make a very good point, I hadn't realized that we didn't 

have a process in place where folks could be providing 

that, but right now when you file a physician 

certification, the physician's signing off on it. That 

doesn't mean that in addition to that, folks couldn't 

provide other documentation. I mean, how, actually, no. 

Let me back up. How do people currently send you their 

benefits plan inquiries? Persis can probably answer this 

question. But like you know, nowadays, if your data 

match misses folks who are MINE eligible or who are 

otherwise qualified, you can follow up with the 

Department with other paperwork. And so to my mind, like 

you can go get a benefits query. You can submit that as 

part of the physician certification process, that was at 

least, I think, my understanding there. I'm going to 

shut up and let Persis talk because she's probably got a 

better answer for this than I do.

MR. TOTONCHI: Alright, go ahead, 

Persis.

MS. YU: Thank you. Yeah, so I do want 

to speak to that really quickly because prior to the 

Department implementing the data match with the Social 
15

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

Security, in fact, well, and currently still borrowers 

can submit the BPQY in order to show that they have the 

Social Security MINE category. And certainly when the 

last time the Department regulated the TPD rules that 

this category didn't exist. And so the Department 

through that rulemaking created this process, and it 

seems that they could do that again in this case. But I 

do want to support the need for why we need to have this 

five-year process. And if I can, I’d just like to read 

the statement of a borrower that one of our legal aid 

partners represents. So he says, my name is Alexander 

and I'll omit his last name. I am 73 years old and a 

refugee from Russia. In 2019, my Social Security pension 

was reduced to repay my student loans. I want to tell 

you what a struggle it was to stop the Department of 

Education from garnishing it. In 1990, I came to the 

United States because of religious persecution. I 

studied English and other subjects at LaGuardia 

Community College and having no money whatsoever. I paid 

for my education with a federal loan. Thereafter, I 

worked as a photography developer, a taxi driver and 

finally a medical technician in a hospital. During this 

time, I made regular payments towards my loans. But in 

2006, at age 58, I became depressed, lost my job and 

went on welfare. My therapist did not think I could work 
16

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

because I was socially isolated, paranoid and couldn't 

concentrate. When I applied for Social Security 

Disability, I was denied. I continue to fight for my 

Social Security Disability benefits in court. In 2018, 

when I was 70 years old, a judge decided that I had been 

continuously disabled since 2006. My benefits thereafter 

were $878 a month. A few months after getting my regular 

Social Security payments, the Department of Education 

offset $54 from them each month. This caused a huge 

hardship because living in New York City is super 

expensive. I sent the judge's decision that I had been 

disabled since 2006 to the Department of Education. It 

told me that the proof wasn't good enough to prove I was 

currently disabled and my doctor needed to fill out the 

form. But my doctor was unwilling to do so, saying I was 

just old, not disabled. Not knowing what to do, I found 

a free lawyer. He helped me file a hardship application 

instead. This meant showing I was poor with bills and 

expenses etcetera. Only then did the Department of 

Education agree to restore my Social Security to its 

full amount, but that was just for a year. So now I have 

to redo all the paperwork. Otherwise my Social Security 

check will be reduced again in February 2022. This 

bureaucracy is exhausting, unfair and something I expect 

in Russia, not the United States. A federal Social 
17

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

Security judge already said I was disabled continuously 

since 2006. Why can't I use that decision? Why doesn't 

one part of the government talk to the other to protect 

me? I am 73, depressed and preoccupied with other 

problems other than my student loans. I would not have 

even known that I had to refile all this paperwork if 

had not been for my lawyer reminding me. Thank you for 

consideration of these comments. Thank you.

MS. HONG: Thank you for that. If I 

could just briefly point to again on page two. And 

you're right about the BPQY, why we added that kind of 

catchall language about other documentation deemed 

acceptable by the Secretary to capture any other 

information that we can settle with SSA in terms of 

whatever could be provided. So if you could take a look 

at that stew on it for a minute, that would be helpful.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Apologies, yeah, 

thanks so much, so I just want to take this opportunity 

to pin on a few more overarching points here. First, 

it's come to our attention between the last session and 

this session that in the Department's current automated 

process-- and much of what I'm going to talk about here 

is automation related-- that it's missing certain 

veterans who qualify for TBD discharge. And so we wanted 
18

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

to first request some information from the Department on 

its current process for identifying disabled veterans 

who qualify for TPD and then just take an opportunity to 

highlight the fact that there are two different ways 

which veterans can qualify for TPD with the Department. 

So under regulations, these veterans can qualify if 

they've been determined by the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to be unemployable due to a service connected 

disability. The Department appears to interpret that to 

mean both that the veteran can be 100 percent disabled. 

And or I should say, the veteran has received an 

unemployability determination by VA through an 

individual unemployability process, which is a distinct 

component of the disability program at VA. So there 

appear to be two different avenues with which the 

Department is identifying individuals at VA, and we 

would certainly like information on how that automatic 

automated process is being conducted to ensure that all 

veterans eligible for TPD are being identified 

appropriately. Separately, we wanted to comment on 

something we raised previously, which is a concern about 

the certification done by a practitioner or PA licensed 

by a state specifically with regard to individuals 

living overseas who may have difficulty finding someone 

licensed by a state. So re-emphasizing a point we made 
19

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

previously there. And then lastly, hit on automation one 

final time. You know, I think just broadly speaking, 

there needs to be more attention given to the 

affirmative nature with which the Department should 

pursue automation here. Language here and in the PSLF 

text, for instance, seems concerningly open ended, I 

think. I understand that flexibility on automation is 

necessary for all the points made so far when talking 

about complexities of working with other federal 

agencies. But I think at this point, seeing all the 

barriers that applications have presented to borrowers 

over the years, that automation really should be a 

foundational aspect of these programs and that language 

surrounding automation should encourage and ensure that 

the Department is pursuing, utilizing and improving 

automation on an ongoing basis. Not that the Department 

will just use automation simply where it's convenient. 

So this is a major concern, I think, for us insofar as 

interpretation of these provisions changing as 

leadership and administrations change. So we really are, 

you know, regulating not just for now, but for the 

future. And I think that the regulation should encompass 

that. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Justin. Jay. 

Oh, Jen, Jennifer, did you want to speak?
20

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

MS. HONG: Yeah, I guess, Justin, if 

there is a request there for data, if you could put it 

in the chat and also provide a little bit more 

specificity on the population of veterans that are not 

getting counted in the match (inaudible)? Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Jaye.

MS. O'CONNELL: Thank you. So my 

question is on conforming language for FFEL. So there 

were no FFEL regs red lines provided and there are 

reinstatement provisions in FFEL in 4O2C 682 402C. So 

I'm just curious about the status of the red lines.

MS. HONG: Absolutely, Jaye, we 

weren't able to get it for this session, but we will get 

it for session three, if you have any suggestions as we 

draft that language. Please feel free to forward that to 

us. We're happy to take it.

MR. TOTONCHI: Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Oh, thank you, Jen, an 

issue that we discussed in the first round that I don't 

see adjusted here, and maybe it's because it's 

statutory, not regulatory, is the three-year 

reinstatement and the potential that within that time 

frame from discharge of the debt, that there may be an 

educational program that meets the borrower's current 

status, but is not reflected. And I wonder if, first of 
21

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

all, if that is statutory, not regulatory, the three 

years, and if it's regulatory, I'm happy to provide some 

language. I would suggest again the five year 

determination of disability, total and permanent, or 

three years, whichever comes, whichever ends sooner. So 

again, if I'm in year four of my determination, why 

should I have to wait another three years before I'm 

able to go into another program? So I'm happy to suggest 

some language, but I didn't see any adjustment of that 

language in this version.

MS. HONG: Yeah, that is not 

statutory. If you could yeah, if you could provide us 

that proposed language, Daniel, we could take a look at 

it.

MR. TOTONCHI: Now, Persis, I do, I 

see your hand up.

MS. YU: You can let John go first.

MR. TOTONCHI: That's what I was going 

to suggest. Thanks, John, go ahead.

MR. WHITELAW: Thank you so much. I 

want to respond to a couple of the narrow questions and 

then I have some broader questions. Jen, I'm going to 

add, and I think she's clarified this a little bit, but 

mistakenly thought that the only way you could get TPD 

was through a physician’s certificate. Even previously, 
22

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

you could do it by showing the BFQY. We think that 

generally speaking, what you want to do is have the BFQY 

plus any other documentation that's deemed acceptable. 

It is easy to get confirmation of when you began 

receiving death benefits or when your disability onset 

began. That is not a difficult piece of paper to get 

from Social Security, and we'll talk about automation in 

a minute, but it's not. It is so much less burdensome to 

have to obtain that, even if it's not automated, than it 

would be to get a BFQY. Regarding automation, I think 

it's important not to confuse substantive eligibility 

for TPD versus how much can we automate it? And I think 

Bethany made this point very well. Our biggest concern 

as we sit here this afternoon is with the substantive 

definition of who is considered eligible for TPD without 

having to go through the extremely burdensome process of 

getting a physician service, a physician's certificate. 

And now I want to just talk about what the Department 

has done. I am profoundly disappointed and stunned that 

the Department has chosen to exclude from the definition 

of those eligible for TP discharge-- Probably the single 

largest group of eligible Social Security recipients, 

that is, all of those individuals who have an onset date 

of at least five years before their application for TPD 

discharge. These individuals, unquestionably, without a 
23

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

doubt, meet the statutory definition of disability. Such 

an exclusion of these individuals has no basis in law 

and policy, it is misguided and cruel, and I thought we 

were done with cruel actions. The statute defines 

disability as one that prevents substantial work and has 

lasted or is expected to last 60 months or result in 

death. Credit to the Department for putting in a way out 

for folks with a compassionate allowance, which is often 

folks who have a terminal illness. The current 

regulation includes those individuals whose disability, 

social (inaudible) will last 60 months. In other words, 

the MINE category, this is a prospective view. We 

proposed inclusion of recipients whose disability onset 

date is five years old so that we know their disability 

has lasted for 60 months, the statutory standard. The 

Department with its failure to adopt this group, has 

excluded individuals whose disability is unquestionably 

within the meaning of the statute. They have provided no 

explanation for this exclusion. It is not social 

purview--The Department has articulated.

MR. TOTONCHI: Yeah, I'm sorry, John, 

your past time.

MR. WHITELAW: Suggest (inaudible) are 

not disabled,

MS. HONG: So I have, I have to 
24

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

respond to that because if there was an impression of 

exclusion here, that was not it. I think you're right. 

We need to not conflate the substantive categories and 

the automation. So we are aiming to capture all those 

categories through automation. We've added catchall 

verbiage in addition to the BPQY about additional 

documentation that the Secretary deems acceptable so 

that we can capture those. We are still in conversation 

to ensure-- to be clear on what those documentation 

needs are, what additional documentation may be needed. 

But there's no exclusion. We included language to 

encompass other forms of documentation, including 

documentation that may demonstrate that somebody has 

been disabled for five years, meeting the statutory 

definition of five years. So our aim is to also capture 

those categories through automation. Again, that is our 

optimal goal here. So there has been no exclusion. In 

fact, we've added that language into page two under 

romanette 3I. So I just want to make sure that that I 

mean, it's pretty catchall language. So I want to make 

sure that folks are on board with that. But you're 

right, we don't want to conflate that. We are on board 

with it. We've added the compassion allowance process 

for those in the compassion allowance, those that are in 

MIP that have been renewed. And that will be captured--
25

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

optimally through the automation process and everything 

else through the catchall category.

MR. WHITELAW: If I can respond 

briefly (inaudible) the category of those who have been 

found disabled as of five years ago or who have been 

receiving benefits for five years. MINE is not about how 

long you've been on disability. And people who have been 

coded as MIP and have had a review--there are lots of 

people who have been on for five years who may be on MIP 

and who haven't had a review. What I do not see as one 

of the substantive categories of eligibility is people 

whose disability onset date as adjudicated by the Social 

Security Administration is five years prior to that TPD 

application. That is a substantive category not 

included. That's the problem here.

MS. HONG: And that's because we're 

currently in communication with SSA and making sure that 

we grab those individuals, but that is still on the 

table. Right now in this moment in time we believe the 

idea has merit. So we just want to make sure that, you 

know, whether SSA has any other policy concerns about 

it, but we certainly flagged it in the comment on page 

two as well. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Persis.

MS. YU: You know, and I just want to 
26

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

support John. And in my reading that group of people is 

not included in the red text that has been provided and 

they should be. And I'm not exactly sure why we need 

Social Security's input since I think as a reading of 

both statutes side by side, the language is basically 

identical with the exception of the number of months. 

And since once we can show the number of months, it 

seems like that should be sufficient for Department 

regulations. But I also wanted to talk more about, as 

you draft the language around the discharge without an 

application and to ensure that when you are drafting 

that language, you are doing so as broadly as possible. 

I appreciate that the Department is looking into new

ways of doing matches and wanting to be sure that 

whatever language you come up with is broad enough to 

cover future categories that are created so that we 

don't have to go back through this process over and over 

again. As I read the statute after the piece that John 

writes about who qualifies once the Secretary learns of 

it, then the Secretary shall discharge the borrower's 

liability. And so that puts a requirement on the 

Department to do automation whenever it is possible, 

whenever it is physically possible, in my view. So the 

language of that section needs to not just conform, in 

my opinion, the categories that we're creating, but any 
27

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

future categories that we want to create and any future 

sources of information that we can find.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. I'm just 

recognizing that Bethany is coming back to the table. I 

don't see any other hands up. There has been some 

additional guidance given to the Department based on 

this discussion. Just so we can see where we're at, I'll 

take a quick temperature check for tentative agreement 

on this. Please show me your thumbs.

MR. TANDBERG: I'm confused as to what 

we're voting on. There was the US back and forth and-. 

MR. TOTONCHI: So obviously, you know, 

the Department has come with, you know, updated red line 

text, so it's on the updated red line text. Yes, there's 

been some discussion, but so I'm asking for a thumbs up 

on the updated red line text at this stage. Does that 

help clarify?

MR. TANDBERG: Yes.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay, great. So let me 

see thumbs. Okay. There are a number of you who are 

thumbs down who have already commented. If folks who 

have not commented yet would like to succinctly state 

their objection, their strong reservation about it, I 

saw David. Joe, you also had your thumbs up but did not 

speak so, go ahead, David.
28

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, I thought there 

was just some substantive critiques offered and you 

know, this is an area where my expertise is lacking, and 

so I just feel like we need more discussion and 

clarification on the points that were raised by Justin, 

Persis, Bethany, Jonathan and others. So just, you know, 

I'm sure we'll get there, just not there yet it doesn't 

seem like.

MR. TOTONCHI: Joe. 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah. Similar to David, 

I think that the concerns raised by Bethany and John and 

Persis were substantive from my perspective, and so 

that's the basis of my vote.

MR. TOTONCHI: Yeah, fair enough. Feel 

free to just say ditto what has already been said going 

forward. Jennifer.

MS. HONG: So I just want to be clear 

on what the sticking point is, and that is the five 

years. There's also the issue that Daniel raised, which 

he's going to provide proposed text for the issue-- that 

Justin raised is kind of separate. I don't view it as a 

regulatory issue. It's kind of a separate question 

regarding making sure that we have all veterans in the 

match. So I just I want to be clear on what's in front 

of us so that we can get to a good place. I felt like we 
29

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

were in a really good place. I feel like we're moving 

toward a good place with this rule. We're looking into 

the five year issue. And we're continuing to have that 

conversation. But I just want to be clear, is that the 

only issue that we're talking about here?

MR. TOTONCHI: Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, thanks so much 

so, and I think that's broadly speaking, right, 

Jennifer. I do want to say that when we're talking about 

actual substantive regulatory language though, we do 

know there is a definition in the regulation for how 

veterans are essentially deemed eligible, right? Then 

determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to be 

unemployable due to a service connected disability. And 

I know that's not within the provisions we're discussing 

here, but to the extent that there are issues with that 

language that is somehow prohibiting the Department from 

appropriately identifying or qualifying veterans, I 

think that would be a regulatory text issue. I don't 

know if that's the case, but really would like to just 

have the information that we requested to drill down 

further on that. Thank you.

MS. HONG: That's helpful, Justin. I 

do have-- the unemployability issue is statutory so that 

if we have language in our regulations, it just mirrors 
30

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

the statutory language about an unemployability.

MR. TOTONCHI: David.

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, I want to 

clarify. I absolutely think we're in a very good place 

and we've moved, we've advanced this regulatory language 

in an incredibly positive direction. I can't answer your 

question as to whether what you stated is the only 

remaining issue. I've had a hard time keeping up with 

the back and forth. I see that Bethany has proposed some 

potential text that I think goes a long way to 

addressing the issue as she articulated it. So I'd like 

to consider that as potential additional red line. And 

if we can resolve this area as far as my understanding, 

I think I'd feel pretty comfortable with it. But I would 

defer to the folks that are experts in this area before 

we took a vote.

MR. TOTONCHI: Yeah, before Jaye 

speaks, yeah for what it's worth, obviously to be, 

David, what you just said makes sense. But for what it's 

worth, to the extent we can pin down the sticking 

points, it's really going to help this overall process. 

So if say, you know, as soon as possible, if you think 

of another issue you haven't thought of, please alert us 

in the Department, okay? Because we don't want this to 

linger for over a month and then raise a brand new issue 
31

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

again, okay? Jaye.

MS. O'CONNELL: Yeah, so without 

seeing regulatory language for the program that I 

represent, I'm not going to be able to give a thumbs up, 

so I just wanted to be clear on that and it's not 

opposition to any of these, these issues. But if I 

haven't seen the language, I can't agree to it.

MR. TOTONCHI: Any additional 

guidance, Jennifer, before moving on? 

MS. HONG: I don't think so, I think 

again, I just want to reiterate that it sounds like, you 

know, the thumbs down has to do with the five-year onset 

of the disability issue that we're continuing to look 

into, and Bethany has proposed some language toward that 

end in the chat. But again, we're still discussing this 

issue. It's still open. We're still discussing it with 

SSA. So whatever it sounds like, everything else except 

for the issue that Daniel raised, and then the issue 

about the physician's assistant that Justin raised, that 

this this frank language. It is in pretty good shape. 

Jaye, we're going to get you some FFEL conforming 

language as well. So, if so, if there's any other 

objection to anything substantive, please let us know 

now.

MR. TOTONCHI: Carol. 
32

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

DR. COLVIN: I had a question 

regarding--Daniel just sent out updated language. When 

we talked about new loan disbursement, especially for 

veterans using vocational rehabilitation, if their 

counselor were to approve for them to go into a teaching 

program--something where they would be licensed to 

actually get a teaching certification. If they receive a 

teach grant and they're approved by a VRE Counselor to 

be in that program, even after they've received the 

disability rating. It seems to me like the language 

would suggest that if their disability discharge has not 

been fully processed, then it might negate it. Is that 

the case? That would be concerning to me.

MR. TOTONCHI: So, if the Department 

wants to look at that and get back, Carol, if you could 

write the question in the chat, make sure we don't lose 

track of it, although I do see a couple of hands up who 

may be able to answer. Persis.

MS. YU: Yeah, so this this may be a 

clarification, but I believe that the reinstatement 

portion doesn't apply to the VA process. That is my 

understanding--is this only for people who would use the 

TPD regs through the doctor certification, or the Social 

Security process? The VA regs don't have any 

reinstatement requirements.
33

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

MS. HONG: That's correct.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Can I just respond? 

I'm sorry that new issue Carol brought up, though, is 

the teach grant piece, which is specifically listed. So 

a student who comes through with VA benefits, who also 

takes a teach grant would be impacted. So it's the teach 

grant specifically that does call back to the loan 

issue. So I second Carol's concern.

MR. TOTONCHI: Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, thanks, I was 

going to emphasize the point that Persis had made, but 

also the one that Daniel made. So I think really what's 

going on here is that the student would still be 

eligible for their veteran's unemployment benefits, but 

may be impacted insofar as something being reinstated to 

the extent that they're taking about one of these teach 

out grants, for instance. But I recognize that that's 

only within certain periods of time as well. So thank 

you.

MR. TOTONCHI: At this stage, 

Jennifer, any additional guidance the Department needs? 

MS. HONG: No. Just to be clear, 

though, the reinstatement provisions only apply to nonveterans.

MR. TOTONCHI: David. 
34

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

MR. TANDBERG: No, that was accidental 

on my part.

MR. TOTONCHI: Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: So just to clarify, 

the reinstatement provisions apply to veterans insofar 

as they may take out a teach grant, but they don't apply 

to VA benefits, correct? I mean, that's what you were, 

saying, Jennifer?

MS. HONG: Sorry, there's noMR. HAUSCHILD: I guess my read on it 

is that these would apply to veterans, but they don't 

apply to the benefits that the veteran is using. You 

can’t regulate VA benefits.

MS. HONG: Right.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Okay.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. Well, with that, 

folks, we will move on to our next issue, closed school 

discharge. I will pass it over to Jennifer to walk us 

through the issue paper and text.

MS. HONG: Okay, great. I can't get 

Vanessa to cue the closed school discharge proposed 

language. One second here. Okay, so we realize we 

received proposals. Okay, so we received proposals from 

Persis and Josh, as well as one from Daniel Barkowitz, 

Heather Perfetti, Jessica Barry and Carol Colvin--that's 
35

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

one proposal from the four of them. The later one from 

Daniel and others we received, we weren't able to get 

back to you. I think we got that on Thursday. So let's 

make sure that we discuss that proposal here today. 

You'll notice that for the proposal that Persis and Josh 

provided, we've made several changes that reflect our 

approaches to the issues raised. We also look forward to 

discussing those as well. Just a general statement 

regarding the closed school data requests that we 

received from committee members. We are currently in the 

process of deploying more data to look at what happens 

to borrowers who do re-enroll versus those who do not. 

And we will share that-- hopefully today, definitely 

within the session. But in the meantime, let us go to 

page one of the regulatory text again. The red line is 

our initial proposal. The highlight is the last 

iteration. And so on page one, in clarifying closure 

date, we'll just read Roman at one. We added a school's 

closure date is an earlier of the date that the school 

ceases to provide educational instruction and ended most 

programs as determined by the Secretary. And then we've 

added a date chosen by the Secretary that reflects when 

the institution had ceased to provide educational 

instruction for most of its students. So it is a more 

encompassing definition. I realized that, and others 
36

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

jump in here as well, from our cursory review, from your 

proposal, we felt we realized that the definition that 

you proposed was more narrowing. We're actually further, 

that's what you see before you. In the same paragraph, 

we've added a romanette 3I to clarify the definition of 

program for closed school discharge purposes. And you'll 

notice the verbiage there is to address the issue of--

if a college changed programs altogether, or awards 

retroactive credentials-- that could have the effect of 

denying a borrower discharge. So this language just 

emphasizes the Secretary's authority to define a pass 

program as multiple levels of zip code under those 

conditions that are stipulated under A, B and C. And I 

believe that this should address the issue raised by 

Persis and Josh on predatory degree stacking and 

enrollment in multiple programs. Okay, so the next 

section, I realize, is not yellow, but pink. Basically 

we're striking comparable program in the definition 

section, but we've embedded it in the discharge 

procedure section under paragraph G at the bottom of 

page six and top of page seven. That's just for 

simplicity. Automated discharge in the middle of page 

two is now paragraph C. We just pulled it in earlier 

from page five. Okay. On page two, under paragraph D, 

you will notice that we deleted the reference to when 
37

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

the loan was first disbursed and added the exception of 

paragraph H, which are the exceptional circumstances. 

And then it's just a reminder there that the black text 

is the current regulatory language. You'll notice we're 

not raising the burden on the application piece 

whatsoever. In fact, we're expanding the automation 

piece for all our discharges, but particularly for home 

school discharge. Page three, again, we've deleted 

comparable program because we're embedding that concept 

later on page six and seven for simplicity. Moving on to 

the top of page four (inaudible)--restating it, so we've 

collapsed paragraphs one and two of C to further 

simplify and to propose to apply the one hundred and 

eighty day look back window, regardless of whether the 

borrower took out the loans before or after July 1st, 

2020. In session one, someone had raised extending the 

window to two hundred and seventy days. We're currently 

conducting the data analysis to understand the 

difference between one hundred and eighty and two 

hundred and seventy days. And we're not quite ready to 

share that today but we'll loop back with you. Page 

five, we've deleted the sentence regarding the 

applicability of the discharge procedures for loans 

disbursed before July 1st, 2020. And at the bottom, 

we've extended the resumption of payment timeframe to 90 
38

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

days from 60 days again to be consistent across all our 

programs. Okay. Page six. Again, to carry forward with 

the idea that we propose to apply the one hundred and 

eighty day look back window, regardless of whether the 

borrower took out loans before or after July 1st, 2020, 

we collapsed paragraphs F and G for simplicity. Also, 

keep in mind that subparagraph five ensures that 

borrowers who did not receive an automatic discharge and 

did not submit a completed application are provided 

another application upon the resumption of payments. And 

we'll see that at the top of page six. Page seven. I 

just want to bring your attention to the concept of reenrollment in a comparable program. I realize there were

a lot of questions about this last time. I want to be 

sure I accurately convey the Department's position. It's 

been our long- standing interpretation of the statute 

that the borrower is only eligible for closed school 

discharge if they are unable to complete the program. 

That's what the statute says. And therefore, we've 

always relied on the concept of re-enrollment and 

completion of a comparable program when it comes to 

closed school discharge. However, over the years, our 

ability to identify which borrowers qualify for an 

automatic discharge have improved. And we're proposing 

to further expand that universe for automatic discharges 
39

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

by capturing all borrowers who did not re-enroll in a 

comparable program. So just to review, and this was the 

question that we had about, oh, what data did you have 

that you didn't have before prior to 2016? Well, there 

it is. Prior to 2016, the Department historically 

required an application for closed school discharge in 

order to receive an attestation from the borrower that 

they did not transfer their credits. Again, and this is 

just based on the statutory interpretation regarding 

borrowers’ eligibility and being unable to complete 

their program. However, in 2016, as a result of 

improvements in administrative data provided to us, the 

Department was able to automatically discharge loans for 

any borrower who did not subsequently enroll in an 

institution. Okay, now we're further proposing to expand 

that universe by capturing all borrowers who did not 

enroll in a comparable program, so we're able to expand 

that universe. And, you know, someone asked during 

session one why we could not do this for borrowers prior 

to 2014. And again, that's because we only started 

collecting program study information in 2014, but now we 

have additional data points. And beginning in 2019, we 

can expand the universe of eligibility for automatic 

discharging further--from 2019 data for those that reenrolled even in a comparable program so long as they 
40

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

did not complete a teach out at the original 

institution. So now that we have that teach out data 

available to us, we can further expand. So I just want 

to underscore that these are all significant expansions 

for automatic discharge since 2016. I realized there 

were a lot of questions about this regarding the data 

points that we have available to us. But over the years, 

given the data points, we were able to propose to expand 

automatic discharge for coastal discharge based on 

information that we now have regarding completing a 

teach out. Again, we are currently conducting the data 

analysis to look at how outcomes vary for borrowers who 

re-enrolled and those who did not. And we will share 

that when it is ready. Finally, the last issues on 

closed school discharge proposed language include the 

three additions we made on the bottom of page seven, and 

that's paragraphs 8 through 10. Eight is a 

discontinuance of a significant share of its academic 

programs. Nine is when a school permanently closes all 

or most of its ground based locations while maintaining 

online programs, and 10 is the addition of HCM2. So I 

believe again, Persis and Josh suggested adding 

heightened cash monitoring. We believe that HCM1 is too 

broad, which while HCM2 may be indicative of significant 

problems in the institution. We also wanted to get 
41

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

feedback on the other suggestion from legal aid folks 

regarding judgments against the school. We already have 

the proposed language under paragraph five, which is a 

finding by a state or federal government agency, and 

we're wondering what would be covered in your suggestion 

that's not currently captured in the proposed language 

(inaudible). And just a point of clarification, we're 

only using comparable program in the context of 

automatic discharges. And that's the effect of the 

earlier deletion of the definition she used here. So I 

see some hands raised, but that's pretty much all the 

changes that we made. I look forward to hearing your 

comments.

MR. TOTONCHI: Great, thanks. 

Jennifer, before David starts, just want to note that 

Josh is present for legal aid. And Jessica is present 

for proprietary. Okay. David.

MR. TANDBERG: Thank you and thank 

you, Jennifer. I really appreciate the thought that's 

being given to revising the language. Since our last 

session, I think we've taken some real significant steps 

forward. Could we scroll back up to the automatic 

discharge section? There was a lot in the comments. I 

think we may have passed them, but. And maybe down a 

little bit more. But anyways. And little further where 
42

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

that comment was, I think it's on the next page. Yeah. 

So the last point that you raised, and I believe it's 

the final paragraph in the comment due to recent changes 

in data reporting requirements. So essentially, correct 

me if I'm wrong, that's saying that a student-- that any 

student that experiences a closure will be eligible for 

automatic discharge unless they complete a teach out at 

their original institution-- so any other student would 

be eligible for an automatic discharge? Is that correct?

MS. HONG: That's correct.

MR. TANDBERG: Okay. Yeah, I believe 

that's something that I would support and, okay. 

Alright, well, I'll think on that, thank you for that 

clarification and thank you for moving in that 

direction.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Dixie.

MS. SAMANIEGO: Yeah. I asked this the 

first session, and I don't see it anywhere in my note 

to[inaudible]. I was just going to ask again, just a 

clarifying question about what the Department of 

Education considers a like comparable program for 

students to transfer into. I know that it sounds like at 

the same level, but in other sections it says the same 

thing. But is there an actual working definition that 

the Department uses or is there like statute on that or 
43

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

something like that? Just for me to understand.

MS. HONG: So this, so this is 

addressed in the language on page one on our program. 

When we say program, the credential is defined by the 

level and zip code in which the student is enrolled. 

That is a program, and then when we redefine it as the 

zip code and level, and then later it's encompassed in 

the teach out. The teach out is I guess a comparable 

program.

MR. TOTONCHI: Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks, and I'll just 

start off by saying that we do appreciate the 

Department's inclusion of some of the proposals that we 

put forward. And just the general direction that this 

proposal is headed. I have comments on a number of 

different areas, but I think we're all started on this 

round is in the automatic discharge provision as 

compared to the discharge provision with an application. 

So if I'm understanding this correctly, any borrower, 

regardless of when they attended a school, if it closed 

after 1986, if they submit an application, they would be 

eligible for a discharge if they didn't attend a teach 

out program. What I don't-- while recognizing, while I 

recognize the Department's data concerns, what I still 

struggle with is how borrowers, particularly those who 
44

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

attended a school that closed before 2014, are only 

entitled to an automatic discharge if they re-enrolled, 

if they somehow, if they meet essentially a heightened 

standard there that they didn't, you know, essentially 

if they re-enrolled they are not entitled to an 

automatic discharge at all, if they attended before 

2014. And to my mind, those are still the borrowers that 

we should be taking the largest steps for. Those are the 

borrowers who are least likely to know of their right to 

closed school discharge relief and who have been saddled 

with debt for the longest. Because the comparable 

program requirement isn't a statutory requirement, I 

think we would propose that for those before 2014 who 

re-enrolled, rather than deny them the closed school 

discharge automatically in its entirety-- that the 

Department either, one, put in the same teach out 

requirement and then do an analysis of whether schools 

before 2014 even did teach out programs. And I suspect 

that the vast majority of them did not. Or two, just 

automatically discharge those loans because again, the 

comparable program requirement is not statutory. And 

it's imposing a harm on the people who have been waiting 

the longest.

MR. TOTONCHI: Jennifer, do you have a 

comment?
45

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

MS. HONG: Yeah. Again. You know, the 

barrier there, as I just laid it out, is we didn't have 

those data available. You know, we're getting more data 

now by program. We don't have the teach out data 

available to us prior to 2014. So that is why we can't 

make them eligible for our discharge. But I understand 

your point. Your point is why can't we just apply it 

across the board? And again, I would say that the 

comparable program, the concept of comparable program, 

does come from the statute, and that's been a long 

standing interpretation on whether a student is able to 

complete their program.

MR. ROVENGER: This is just a quick 

follow up question. Isn't it the Department's 

interpretation of the statute? Because I don't actually 

I don't see language like my read of the statute doesn't 

have that comparable program requirement automatically 

in there. And I don't know, to my mind it, the 

interpretation since it's not mandated by the statute 

just doesn't recognize the inherent harms that exist 

when a school closes. Even if someone does re-enroll, 

you know, the psychological impact of the closure, the 

loss of an alumni network, the fact that someone's 

transcript is going to reflect the fact that their 

school closed even if they did go on to finish another 
46

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

program. And so I would strongly urge you to reconsider 

that interpretation just generally and to put in here an 

automatic discharge across the board for those pre 24 

(inaudible).

MS. HONG: I understand your point, I 

just again, they would still be eligible for discharge, 

just not automatic discharge. They would still get 

their loans discharged and have to submit an 

application.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, folks. 

Please keep your hands up. We are going to take a break. 

So don't put your hands down when we take a break. Keep 

your hands raised in the order that you've raised them, 

okay? We are at 2:17. We're going to round a little up. 

We'll come back in our seats ready to go at 2:30 

Eastern. Okay? We'll see you then. Alright. Welcome 

back, everyone from the break, we were in the middle of 

our closed school discharge discussion. Let's pick it up 

from where we left off. Jessica.

MS. BARRY: There you go. So I have 

several concerns with some of the language, and I just 

want to start at the very beginning, which is how we're 

determining the school's closure date. I first just want 

to say we're still concerned with this language because 

schools can restructure their program offerings even 
47

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

most of their program offerings without diminishing the 

quality of other programs. So, for instance, a school is 

experiencing declining enrollment. They might stop 

accepting enrollments in that program and then teach out 

that program. Schools decide to do that to when the 

market changes or employers’ needs change. And that 

could lead to a school teaching out even a majority of 

their programs over time. So if we're using this as a 

determination for the lookback period, it could 

significantly increase the lookback period to a time 

that was well before the school was even considering the 

thought of closing. So we have some concerns with this. 

I did want to bring up, though I know Jen mentioned that 

we and when I say we, I mean, Daniel, Heather, Carol, 

and I, put together some language as an alternative to 

this that would focus the closure date on the time the 

school either lost accreditation or lost their state 

licensing, which we thought was more concrete. And 

please, Jennifer. I mean, Heather or Daniel, please jump 

in at any time if you have other thoughts. And also our 

language also included some exclusions. And the reason 

why we included those exclusions, too. I would love to 

go through... I don't know if this is the right time to do 

that. I don't know if, Jennifer, you mentioned that we 

would have time to go over those proposals.
48

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

MR. TOTONCHI: We'll certainly ensure 

that we get to that moment if now is not the appropriate

moment. Let's go ahead with hands for now. But Jessica, 

I guess, hold the thought at this stage, please. 

MS. BARRY: Okay.

MR. TOTONCHI: But if we miss it, if 

we move on too fast without addressing it, please remind 

us, Okay, Okay. Joe.

MR. SANDERS: Hi, yeah, thanks. I have 

first a question, then I have a potential comment based 

on the answer. If that works in the three minute 

structure. And the question is for Jennifer or any 

colleague that she chooses to pass it off to. I want to 

go back to the same section that Jessica was talking 

about in the very beginning, the determination of the 

school’s closure date. And I wondered if a Department 

representative could just talk through the reasoning for 

the changes there.

MS. HONG: So generally under 

romanette I, I mean, you could tell from the language, 

it's generally meant to ensure that the definition 

includes whenever it is, whenever our student might be 

affected due to an institution ceasing to provide 

educational instruction for most students. You know, 

narrowing that we felt wasn't useful and we wanted to 
49

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

make sure that it was the earlier of the day as to not 

rule out any students that could have been affected when 

most of the programs that an institution provides, it 

ceases to provide, instruction. The general idea is, you 

know, expand and provide flexibility in cases where 

closures may be prolonged.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, thank you. Thank 

you, Jennifer. That's really helpful. So unlike Jessica, 

I want to voice support for those concepts. And I think 

that these changes are positive. My comment goes to the 

issue that I raised where schools are able to manipulate 

who falls in to and out of the eligibility window by 

when they communicate the closure. This is an issue I 

submitted language on whatever day we talked about 

closed school discharge. I think that this language that 

you've included here gives the Secretary discretion by 

changing the closure date to compensate for those types 

of deceptions. You know, I think you've got some of that 

built into the exceptional circumstances section as 

well, which would allow the Secretary to have the 

discretion to move the window to get more students. But 

I want to emphasize that I think that there is a 

concrete, workable standard that could avoid the issue 

of schools messaging closure to students outside of the 

180-day window. And you know, well, we have a very high 
50

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

profile example of this with the Dream Center and the 

Art Institute of Illinois. I submitted the 

administrator's report, which detailed the deceptions 

around the 180-day window by the school. While the 

exceptional circumstances were triggered in that 

instance and students were brought in. I don't know that 

that would be the case in every instance and students 

who are told that their school is closing are in a 

situation where they're very emotional. They're very 

disappointed. Many want to complete the program in that 

first heartbeat instance where they hear about the 

closure. Many others are very disappointed and have that 

heartbeat moment where they just drop the drop the 

course right then. And so I think that when the students 

learn about the closure, they need to be captured, they 

need to be, closed school discharge eligibility needs to 

be guaranteed for them. So I want to reemphasize my 

proposal to have the schools public or communications 

students-- that it's closing the window whereby 

eligibility is determined. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: David. 

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, first, I'll say a 

definite plus one to what Joe articulated, that's 

absolutely what we've heard from our members, who often 

are the ones left holding the bag in the event of 
51

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

closure and dealing with the implications of trying to 

find a home for students, helping them process their 

applications for loan discharge, etcetera. And so a 

clear cut date that is communicated to the students. And 

I think that's potentially different than when it's 

communicated publicly. And so the communication to the 

students would be what the state higher education 

agencies would like to see implemented. And I feel like, 

you know, again, I feel like the Department has taken 

steps to improve the language even beyond what they had 

provided previously. I reiterate what I had said last 

time, which is we need to recognize harm to students, 

and every student that experiences a closure is harmed 

and their likelihood of completing their credential at 

any institution is diminished. Right. And so I strongly 

support the note the ideas articulated by Josh and 

saying that even moving backwards, every student that 

experienced a closure, automatic loan discharge, I think 

that's simple. And I understand the desire to say, well, 

if a student does complete the program, either they're 

taught out at their current institution or another, or I 

mean, enrolled in a in a program following the closure, 

they're obviously continuing well. Their chances of 

completing the degree has been diminished. They have 

been harmed in other ways. And so I realize it'll be 
52

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

more expensive and not hugely more expensive to just 

discharge all their loans automatically. But I think 

it's the right thing to do. And I realized that we've 

been presented with a counterargument that, well, they 

can apply for a discharge. Well, that's adding an extra 

burden and administrative burden. And I think students 

rightly have reason to question whether their loan will 

be discharged if they file an application, and some may 

never do it, some may do it improperly. So again, I 

would argue for automatic loan discharge for any student 

who experienced a closure.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, David. First, I 

do want to recognize that, Jen, on behalf of student 

borrowers at the table, and I am going to put an extra 

effort to distinguish between Jen of student borrowers 

and Jennifer as the Department negotiator. Okay, Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. I want to use 

this time to talk about a few of the kind of more nitty 

gritty pieces that are in here, so subsection A23. So 

really appreciate that the Department has put in a 

definition for stacking programs. I guess I have one 

concern and one question. My concern is that the 

Department has made it discretionary rather than just 

defining the term program to encompass the stacking 

program. Definitely not wedded to the language we 
53

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

propose. But one of the things, one of the advantages I 

think it had --it did limit the Department's discretion 

in just defining the term. The second comment, which is 

more of a question, is I've read this section like 10 

times and it's a little confusing. But I think if I 

understand what's going on here, I think it actually may 

be more flexible even than what we proposed. And so I’d

be interested in hearing from the Department how it kind 

of settled on these specific, these three specific sub 

points. So that's one issue. Second issue relates to 

subsection C discharge without an application. Really 

happy that it's mandatory if the Secretary has 

information in their possession, that qualifies. I do 

think on top of that, the Secretary, this is one of the 

places where the Secretary should retain their 

discretion. So it's both. They shall do it if the 

borrower meets the requirements and the Secretary may do 

it in other circumstances as their discretion warrants. 

So we would recommend adding in an additional clause 

they're just preserving that discretion. I'll pop back 

on to talk about exceptional circumstances and just use 

the remaining time I have here to just reiterate the 

point about the statutory interpretation and 320 14 

borrowers. And so I'm reading the statute right here. If 

a borrower who received on or after January 1, 1986 86, 
54

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

a loan made, insured or guaranteed under this part, and 

the student borrower on this, or the student on behalf 

of a parent borrowed, is unable to complete the program 

in which such student is enrolled due to the closure of 

the institution and the Secretary shall discharge the 

borrower's liability on the loan. I can pretty easily 

come up with a pretty strong EPA statutory text argument 

if I wanted to on that to say that any interpretation 

imposing some extra requirement is impermissible with 

that language. And I would strongly, strongly, again 

urge you to reconsider it. Thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Marjorie.

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Thank you. So 

again, as everyone has shared, I really appreciate the 

clear effort that the Department has made to incorporate 

our suggestions into the language. And my comment 

really, I think seconds what David was saying about 

really not being clear how not allowing students who reenrolled to discharge their loans benefits them and the 

two points that I wanted to raise, which we discussed in 

the last session. First being this issue of transfer 

credits and that for most students who are coming from 

it, really any institution, but particularly from closed 

institutions, face difficulty in having their transfer, 

their credits transferred. So if these students can't 
55

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

get these credits transferred, not only are they coming 

from a closed institution where these courses and 

credits don't count for anything, but now we're adding 

to their cost and their time to degree. And so it seems 

that we're almost punishing students for deciding to reenroll after their institution is closed, and that's due 

to no fault of their own. And so I would strongly 

recommend that we create language around-- if not 

discharging for closed schools, as David suggested in 

some instance, trying to figure out how to account for 

the fact that these students are not being able to use 

these credits. And so perhaps some formula can be 

created around loan discharge based on credits disrupted 

at the new institution, for example. I think that we 

really need to think about where we're putting the 

burden of cost. And again, this sort of administrative 

process. And so I think that we really need to consider 

the fact that, and again, there's plenty of research 

that show this students may re-enroll, but that doesn't 

do anything for the loans, which now are basically for 

worthless courses or credits that they can't use. So I 

just wanted to point that out because I didn't see any 

language really reflecting that. And we did spend, I 

think, a substantial amount of time in our last session 

talking about the difficulty of students being able to 
56

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

transfer their credits to other institutions. And so 

again, not wanting to put undue burdens on borrowers.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Marjorie. 

Heather.

MS. PERFETTI: I did want to 

recognize, I think Daniel has had his hand up for some 

time, so I would certainly defer to him. I know he was 

part of the group with Jessica. So I did just want to 

note that his hand was up long before mine.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thanks, Heather, I'll 

wait, you're good. I appreciate the recognition, though.

MR. TOTONCHI: No, I apologize. I'm 

going in order, but I see the hand. So if there is 

something I missed, my apologies. But go ahead Heather.

MS. PERFETTI: Alright, thank you. So. 

I certainly appreciate getting the language and to 

follow up on Jessica's comment and the proposal that we 

had pushed forward. We had been working on some 

definition that was trying to carve out circumstances to 

define what a closure was not. And that was prior to 

receiving the next iteration of the language from the 

Department. So I did want to put our proposal into 

context. But I think part of our conversations and 

discussions in leading to that proposal was trying to 

still define what do we mean by closed school? And I 
57

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

know that I had an opportunity to talk with the 

Department's Jennifer about that very issue as well as 

my colleagues. And so we are still trying to identify 

when we talk about a closed school, what is it that we 

are talking about? So when there is a merger or 

acquisition and we know that institutions have quite a 

bit of movement in terms of conversations around that, 

and those decisions can be good decisions in some cases. 

We certainly recognize some of the other institutional 

closures that have been referenced that did harm to 

borrowers. But there are some institutions that close 

well and manage the closure well. And so what we were 

trying to do was to distinguish between those closures 

where there may not be harm to students, and how well an 

institution closes does matter. And we certainly 

recognize that in those planned closures, institutions 

are required to identify and provide information about 

how students’ credits will transfer to partner 

institutions or in some cases, the institution is 

teaching out all of their students as part of the 

closure. So there's no interruption in their academic 

journey with that particular institution. Not to 

diminish other collateral kinds of impacts when an 

institution closes, but there are ways that institutions 

have closed well, so I did just want to add that 
58

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

comment. I'm sure Daniel will follow up on it. I do have 

some other comments, particularly about the credential 

stacking. So when we're through this piece of the 

discussion, I'd like to circle back to the credential 

stacking only because so many institutions are utilizing 

that as an innovative offering to their students who can 

build credentials prior to graduation. I know in the 

other category it is about students not being informed, 

not being told, not understanding that they were 

enrolling in a lower credential program. So I think 

that's a separate issue. But I did want to make sure 

that institutions who are offering these innovative 

credentials are not harmed in this process as well 

because students are benefiting from the stackable 

credentials.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Heather. 

Daniel, you're next on my screen, at least.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you, Heather, 

and thank you, Emil. So first of all, Jennifer from FSA, 

I appreciate the fact that you have taught me a new 

word, the word romanette, that it's not a word that I 

knew before this process. So in looking at the 

romanette, I just wanted to give an example as a I work 

for a public, primarily two year institution with seven 

different campuses. So under the current definition, as 
59

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

proposed, if we were to close one of our campuses as I 

read the guidance provided, that would be considered a 

closure. And every student at every point would be able 

to submit for a closed school discharge. And I don't 

think that's the intention. So again, you know, I just I 

want to echo the comments that were made. The way this 

is written is overly broad. So I appreciate the 

distinction and the concern that Josh and others have 

raised about protecting students, and I'm concerned 

about the overly broad nature of the definition as 

written and I'll expand. So and now I’ll use the term 

romanette. Romanette 1 refers to the school's closure 

date and then leads to romanette 2 --the definition of 

school. And you know, again, at our campuses, we offer 

all or most of our programs at each campus. So based on 

how this is written, it's very hard to determine if, for 

example, we close campus location A, which might be 

three miles from campus location B, is that you know who 

is eligible for closed school discharge? Is it the

entire population or is it just those who attended 

campus A? The way the definition is written, it is not 

very clear and I think is open to interpretation, and I 

don't think the intention would be to allow every 

student closed school discharge when in fact the vast 

majority of the institution would remain open. So again, 
60

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

this speaks to the need, I think, for some further 

defined information about what represents a closed 

school, which is again going back to the language that 

Jessica, Heather and I and others proposed as part of 

the conversation.

MS. HONG: Just a quick follow up, 

Daniel, would generally, although the students in the 

example you provided would be taught out, they would be 

able to complete their program on a different campus.

MR. BARKOWITZ: They would be 

eligible, yes. But I guess the question is, is the 

Department's intention to then go through the analysis 

of all of those students and the potential teach out or 

rather be specific about what is the definition of the 

closure?

MS. HONG: And I think right now it's 

on the back end. In other words, if they were taught 

out, then they wouldn't be eligible for automatic 

discharge.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Automatic, but they 

could, but they could conceivably apply for individual 

discharge.

MS. HONG: Definitely, yes.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Yeah. And again, 

that's my concern. So again, you know, we're a seventy 
61

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

thousand student institution, so just thinking about the 

volume and how that would impact, again, not that we 

have intentions of closing the campus, but just in the 

hypothetical that that presents a huge logistical 

challenge for the Department.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Jaye. Oh, 

sorry, sorry. So I don't know if the ordering is 

different on other people's computers on my computer, at 

least, Jaye is up next and then Jen. Okay, so let's go 

with Jaye first and then Jen.

MS. O'CONNELL: I'll be brief. It's my 

same comment that we need language in order to 

understand the impacts to our program. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay, Jen, go ahead. 

MS. CARDENAS: So I keep there's two 

things, so I keep hearing, yes, the institutions can 

close correctly, but I don't hear anything about like 

the impact on the students, so maybe more clarity on 

that. And then my second question is we're talking about 

proposing all these propositions and the changes that 

we're doing and automatic and applications, right? So I 

want to know what is the deal you're working on to 

improve communication plans that will help the students 

become aware of these processes? Because, yeah, you want 

them to apply. But even right now, they're having a 
62

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

really hard time. We have a hard time already with 

financial aid and other ways of contacting the DOE. So I 

want to know we're going to well, if the DOE is going to 

have a way of improving those communications for those 

students, I guess we didn't really talk about that. You 

all just mentioned it, but I wanted, I guess, more 

clarity on that if possible.

MS. HONG: I mean, yes, absolutely, 

we're continuously making improvements to how we 

communicate with borrowers, and we've already seen that 

on the PSLF front. I think there's been a very 

systematic, strategic way of reaching borrowers that are 

eligible for PSLF and notifying them about the recent 

waiver provision. So yes and yes, we take into take your 

comment and we'll take that back. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Michaela. 

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, I just wanted to 

acknowledge that I think that when we're making a 

distinction of when we're talking about automatic loan 

discharge and folks who can apply because technically 

anybody can apply for anything right, like, for example, 

I'm actually currently a part of a teach out program 

right now, my law school is going for an ABA accredited 

school to a cal bar, so I'll be a part of the last class 

that is ABA accredited. Right. And when this was being 
63

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

discussed, there was utter chaos within the students of 

this institution because we didn't know whether or not 

our school is closing, like we were going to show up one 

day and the school was going to be closed, right? 

Because that happens, especially because it's happened 

in Southern California before. So I just really want to 

acknowledge the impact of like when students are told 

things like we had folks that dropped out right then and 

there they were like, I'm not going to keep spending 

forty thousand dollars a semester that I don't know if 

I'm going to get a degree. Right? We also had like a 

huge influx of folks that transferred out. That being 

said, as a part of a teach out program, I wouldn't 

qualify now. Theoretically, could I apply and then be 

denied? Sure. So like, I think that this argument is 

really interesting and saying, Oh, somebody could apply, 

that doesn't qualify. But we're not really talking about 

that. We're talking about automatic discharge for 

students whose school has been closed and they have 

suffered harm, and that harm also isn't rectified just 

by this student loan forgiveness. They now have expended 

their GI Bill or their Pell Grant or other timelines in 

which these programs place. Right. So I think really 

making sure that we're distinguishing who can apply and 

who would qualify for automatic discharge is important.
64

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Michaela. 

Josh. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. I'm going to 

start with exceptional circumstances and then go to this 

proposal that we've been discussing. On exceptional 

circumstances, so to answer the Department question 

directly. I don't read subsection five or as 

encompassing judicial orders. I mean, I guess it would 

depend on what the definition of agency is, but I would 

have concerns that it would not include a court order. 

And so the additional topic we would want included would 

specifically relate to a judicial finding and order or 

judgment that had a financial impact on the institution. 

The other kind of big picture comment I have on 

exceptional circumstances just relates to the idea that 

it should be presumptive and we put in some proposed 

language in the memo we circulated and might be 

interested in hearing the Department’s position on that 

as it relates to this proposal. I'm not going to spend 

much time on it, but I just want to speak to the broader 

issue of how we're making policy here. And then just 

briefly on the substance of this. So respectfully, I 

don't think we should be determining what constitutes a 

closed school based on hypotheticals that may or may not 

happen in the future when we have a lot of a long 
65

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

history of evidence before us that the bulk of these 

schools that closed are not doing so in an orderly way, 

but are cutting their costs at the last minute, making 

it just creating impossibly difficult situations for 

students and wreaking a lot of harm on these 

individuals’ lives. And so when it comes to how we're 

crafting or proposing these regulations, I think it's 

really important for us to focus on what has actually 

happened in the past and what does the data tell us 

rather than, you know, hypotheticals about what a school 

may or may not do or the one off school that happened to 

close in the right way? Previously on the substance, I 

mean, this is through the definition section. It is an 

attempt to blow a massive hole into the closed school 

discharge regulations. It would remove autonomy from 

individuals who have just suffered an extremely 

traumatic event in their life and from our position it's 

a nonstarter, and we would be very, we would be thumbs 

down on anything coming close to this regulatory 

language.

MR. TOTONCHI: Jennifer.

MS. HONG: I just want to respond to 

Josh's question about you know, writing into the 

regulation, the presumptive posture of the Department 

for exceptional circumstances and kind of throw out the 
66

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

regulations, but generally we don't, right, we don't 

regulate ourselves and we don't regulate the Secretary, 

and we want to provide flexibility to the Secretary and 

the Department. And that's what we're aiming for in the 

language. So in the absence of kind of language 

hamstringing the Secretary, I think this language that 

we're proposing is certainly a dramatic opening up and 

an improvement from the current language. And I just ask 

that you think of it in that way. Where we go into 

temperature check and consensus check is you know-- some 

of the things that we're proposing here, to the extent 

that we can get some clarity on the issues that are 

concerning-- to explore those further?

MR. ROVENGER: Could I respond to that 

really quickly, Emil?

MR. TOTONCHI: Go ahead. Sure.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. So I do so, so 

two comments. The first is that I think the proposed 

language that we provided still gives the Secretary 

discretion to rebut the presumption if one of the 

exceptional circumstances occurred. And so in that way, 

I don't think it ties the Secretary's hands. It just 

forces the Secretary to undertake the analysis. And the 

second comment and more as to why we think it's 

important is, you know. There are going to be, 
67

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

unfortunately, Secretaries that may not be of the same, 

may not have the same philosophical inclination as this 

administration, and one of the issues that we're 

concerned about would be a return to, for instance, the 

last Secretary of education in which leaving discretion 

caused really substantial harm to our clients’ lives.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. Thank you for the 

comment. Now, I don't know what happened on my screen, I 

know Jessica was up next, but for some reason she's not 

shown as next now. Jessica, go ahead.

MS. BARRY: Thank you. So two things I 

wanted to add real quick questions that I wanted to ask 

in the last couple of weeks as I've been talking to 

schools. I had a reach out to me that said that they 

received a bill for closed school discharge of over a 

half a million dollars. And when they went through the 

list of students, about half of those students didn't 

meet the Department's criteria for discharge. So one of 

the questions I want to ask about in this session is 

that process for determining which students do qualify. 

How accurate is it? Does the Department have data on the 

accuracy of that process? So that would be my first 

question. And then I also wanted to raise the question 

of retroactivity. And again, you brought that up right 

after lunch. Does the Department have any concerns with 
68

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

retroactivity, with what's being proposed right now?

MR. TOTONCHI: So I hear the question 

pending, Jessica if you could note it in the chat, that 

would be great. Oh, Jennifer, do you have a response?

MS. HONG: To the first one, I would 

need more information on that to take that back, I don't 

know the details of that particular issue. The second 

one, I mean, you mean in terms of the proposal language? 

No, we don't. We do not. This is what we're putting 

forward.

MR. TOTONCHI: Just so everyone's on 

the same page. I've got just Justin, Joe, and then Dixie 

in the next order. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thanks so much, so 

I'll try to be brief here, I think the conversation is 

probably ongoing. First, I want to echo Josh's point 

about language that ensures the Department undertakes 

the necessary analysis, the necessary and proper 

analysis here. It's similar to a point I was trying to 

make with automation more broadly in these regulations. 

I don't want to distract with automation, but the point 

is that, you know, I don't think we should be shying 

away from language that ensures the agency is conducting 

the necessary analysis and taking the necessary steps 

and improving on those steps going forward. So, you 
69

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

know, regulated in a forward looking manner. I think 

that's important. I'm going to shift topics here quickly

and talk about the teach out. It's instrumental, I 

think, here. And so I think just looking at this from a 

student perspective, we have some concerns about 

students knowing what a teach out is. We understand the 

Department tries to address this in current applications 

by kind of shifting folks around or in the application 

and giving them the definition of what a teach out is. 

But we really think it's important that the Department 

communicate well with student borrowers on what exactly 

a teach out is so there's no confusion around that as it 

is instrumental, as it is instrumental here. So I'll 

just leave it there and probably circle back later. 

Thanks.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Justin. Just 

really quick. You know, I know there's been a lot of 

discussion, but after Dixie's comment, we will take a 

temperature check for tentative agreement. I also just 

want to know-- we're just over 20 minutes until our 

public comment period. So for those of you who are 

signed up to be present, whether on the list or as 

alternate, if you could start coming on the meeting, say 

within the next 10 minutes, that'd be great. Joe.

MR. SANDERS: Thanks, Emil. Two 
70

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

points. One, I want to say publicly that Josh's proposal 

on exceptional circumstances would go towards our 

concern about the ability to manipulate the date under 

which students are eligible by, by removing, by flipping 

the onus on the discretion, right? So it's not just the 

Secretary's discretion at random. One Secretary might be 

good, another might be bad, but flips the presumption, I 

think that would help our support here. The second piece 

I want to emphasize is just for context. Once a school 

announces its closure, the ability of the states, 

whether it's a state attorneys general, my constituency 

or a SHEEO like David's-- to provide, to access levers 

that will help students, right? So a state authorizer 

could shut down a school that's not operating properly, 

a state AG could sue a school that's deceiving students. 

Once the school announces closure, our ability to pull 

those levers really diminishes. Right? The authorizer 

can't do anything because the schools shutting down, 

right? A lot of our tools at the state level are 

prospective right that they are going forward type of 

relief. Once the school announces their closure, they're 

often headed for bankruptcy or receivership. And so our 

ability as state AGs to obtain monetary relief for 

students really diminishes there. So I just want to I 

make that point because that makes closed school 
71

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

discharge an extremely important retrospective, 

backward-looking format of relief for students, because 

so many of the prospective protections that are in place 

don't apply, so closed school discharge is very 

important for my office. We want to see students who are 

in a situation where their school closes-- get relief 

and we want to see that be as broad as possible. Thank 

you for the time. 

MS. SAMANIEGO: Alrighty, so I have a 

couple of things. Overall, I think in this conversation 

and previous conversations, I think there are mainly 

like three things that are really prevalent. It's the 

Department of Education's lack of communication with 

students and for me, what it feels like a really big 

hesitancy for the Department of Education to actually 

meet students where they're at, right? That's been very 

clear since the first session and even today in this 

conversation, but also the Department of Education's 

lack of communication with students, right? And for me, 

as someone who does columns, I do communications all 

day, every day. It would be helpful as a student to know 

what, what step by step, what communications plan does 

the Department of Education have to effectively reach 

students? Because for me and I'm in this phase, I don't 

know what the plan is, right? You can't just send emails 
72

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

and expect like, hey, students are going to read, you 

know, the fine print on an email or like send me a link, 

like you have to get creative. And I know that's 

probably really hard for the Department of Education, 

but you have to do that to actually meet students where 

they're at. You know, students are actually living our 

lives, right? Like, we're working multiple hours a day 

and we're not always in in the right mindset or in the 

mood to actually look at the fine print of every single 

little thing that the Department of Education sends to 

us. Another thing that has been incredibly prevalent and 

evident is the lack of perspective and voices from 

students in these conversations. I get that we're all 

negotiating for our constituencies. But again. We need 

to continue centering the voices of students, but also 

the real life experiences of students. And the last 

piece that I have is that it is all so confusing. There 

are folks who have previously said that schools have 

closed down correctly and in the right manner. The 

entire point of a school doing something correct is not 

closing down. You can't close down and do it in a 

correct manner. The important thing is that you're 

actually harming students. And when you close down, even 

in a correct manner, you will always harm students. A 

thousand percent over and over again, without a doubt. 
73

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

And so I challenge that like there's no way to correctly 

close down a school. There will never be a correct way. 

And so for me, it is confusing because it feels like we 

disregard the experiences of students who are actually 

being, having their school closing down. Right? So I 

asked the negotiators who have said that and I asked, I 

ask for an answer like, I'm confused. How do you close 

the school down correctly? Are we not considering the 

ramifications of a school closing down, the harm or like 

teach out programs, right? Or graduating a program that 

closed down? That degree is practically meaningless.. 

There's harm done. So I'm confused and I'm not okay with 

that.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks for the comment, 

Dixie. Josh, I see your hand up. Go ahead and proceed 

and then we'll move on. Go ahead.

MR. ROVENGER: Yeah, I just wanted to 

because I didn't have the opportunity before just to 

share one quick story from a client of a legal aid 

partner, just to emphasize why the automation of 

discharges for everyone who attended pre 2014 is so 

important. So, in the spring of 1988, Mrs. R was raising 

a newborn daughter hoping to get training for a stable 

job so she could support her daughter. She took out 

about $6,600 in federal student loans to enroll in a 
74

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

data entry program at an American Business Institute. 

After about seven months, the school suddenly closed. A 

federal grand jury had indicted the CEO and 18 employees 

of the parent company for misuse of federal funds and 

falsifying loan applications, among other criminal 

violations. For over 30 years, Mrs. R did not know about 

her eligibility for a closed school discharge. She 

struggled to make her federal student loan payments and 

eventually defaulted on her debt. In 2018 after 

demanding payments of twenty six thousand dollars, Mrs. 

R found her way to a legal aid organization because she 

was concerned about her wages getting garnished. There 

are many Mrs. Rs out in the world who don't know about 

closed school discharge, particularly if they've been 

waiting for a long time and have been saddled with their 

debt for a long time. And that's why, even for those who 

have re-enrolled is just such a critical issue to my 

constituency.

MR. TOTONCHI: Heather. Go ahead.

MS. PERFETTI: Thank you, and I really 

wanted to address Dixie's question, because I think it 

is an important one. Certainly, closures are difficult 

and most difficult for students, so I certainly want to 

acknowledge that there are a variety of forms that 

closures take, which can include planned closures. And I 
75

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

think the ones that cause certainly the heightened 

anxiety are the unplanned closures. And as an 

accrediting agency, we have seen both. And so my 

comments about how well institutions close matter. We 

know that it matters to students and the forms that they 

have to fill out with the creditors and how they have to 

account for every single one of their students during a 

closure is significant during a closure that is planned. 

The unplanned ones are certainly chaotic. But I also 

wanted to reiterate I believe it was Josh who was 

talking about the lack of leverage over institutions and 

that happens with accreditation as well. If we are in a 

position that we have to withdraw accreditation, our 

ability to carry and leverage with that institution and 

get information that is most helpful to students is 

really affected. Once the accreditation is withdrawn, 

accreditors are posting teach out information if we 

receive it and the commission reviews it and approves it 

online for students. Partnering agreements are posted 

there, but we recognize students aren't always coming to 

us. They're trying to get information from a variety of 

venues, whether that's the state higher education system 

in their state, whether that is through the Department 

and certainly through the accreditors. But I did want to 

stress that accreditors are focused on the students and 
76

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

getting good information for students if closure is a 

potential for an institution.

MS. SAMANIEGO: Emil, could I answer 

to that quickly? I promise it won't take too long.

MR. TOTONCHI: Go ahead, Dixie.

MS. SAMANIEGO: Yeah, my issue and 

what I articulated is that continuously the conversation 

is always framed that and we thought the conversation 

was not centering 0n students in terms of like, well, 

there was like a good way, but there's a bad way.. And 

so I appreciate the nuance, Heather, but I still stand 

by what I said. Period, point blank. Period, it's bad, 

right? And we can recognize that we can continuously 

recognize that there are planned school closures, but 

students will be harmed. Right. And I don't think that 

there is like a scale of how bad the harm is. Harm is 

harm, period. And so for me, as a student, I reject the 

notion of like, well, we're going to play triage how bad 

the harm is, period students are being harmed, period. 

It's bad, planned school closure is bad. And that's what 

I was trying to get at. And for me, it was really 

confusing to hear the conversation framed that way 

because in all the conversations that I've had and I'm 

obviously a student and I'm incredibly equity-centered

We never frame the conversation that way because we're 
77

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

not going to place, we're not going to be like, well, 

you know, since it was a planned school closure, it's 

not that bad. Period students are right. Period, 

students are struggling and just because it's a planned 

one doesn't mean that our anxiety and the depression 

students face and the financial struggles and the 

worries that these students face is any less than one 

that was just out of the blue. Right. It's difficult, 

period, and that's what I was trying to get at. And so I 

reject the notion that there is a good way of closing a 

school and a bad way closing a school. Because period, 

it is always bad. The schools should not be closing down 

on students, right, regardless of its plan. And so I 

wanted to reject that and stand firm in what I said. And 

but I do appreciate the perspective that you provided, 

Heather.

MS. HONG: Now I'll just reaffirm, 

thank you for your comment, Dixie, I just want to 

reaffirm the Department's commitment to students and to 

borrowers, especially during this rulemaking. We are 

pleased to hear from you, Dixie, from Michaela, Stanley, 

Jeri, Jen. I mean, it's quite unprecedented the number 

of students and borrower representatives we have on this 

committee. And we recognize that and we're trying to 

make improvements to our programs through this 
78

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

rulemaking. So thank you for your comments. Thank you 

for your continued contributions to the discussion. I 

think it's critical. We want to hear it.

MR. TOTONCHI: Let me ask. Oh, Daniel, 

I see your hand up. Seeing as we're just less than ten 

minutes left, please go ahead, Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Sorry. And I'll be 

quick, and Dixie-. 

MR. TOTONCHI: No, don't be. Go ahead.

MR. BARKOWITZ: I also want to express 

appreciation for your voice and your centering of the 

student experience. I want to echo you. Asked for an 

example, I was one of the people who also spoke about 

this. And you know, again, I want to differentiate 

between I mean, we've heard institutions that have 

closed badly and have made massive harm to schools. I 

just want to offer an example. Josh spoke about 

hypotheticals. I want to give a specific example of a 

good closure to your point, and that would be Wheelock 

College in Boston and its acquisition by Boston 

University. I was not involved with either of those 

institutions. However, I watched it externally and while 

again, all students were allowed to continue and finish 

their programs. We stopped existing as an institution. 

Boston University handled it with great care, kept the 
79

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

location open, et cetera. So, you know, again, I 

understand and appreciate in value that that is the 

exception, probably not the rule. So but you know, my 

concern is that by using the very wide definition that 

we're using, we capture those exceptions as well as the 

rule. So that's just one example. I'm sure there are 

more, but you asked specifically, so I wanted to come 

back and provide that example, and you can read about 

Wheelock College. They were a small, liberal arts 

college in the Fenway in Boston and their acquisition by 

BU, and it was a very positive experience of the 

institution, so.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Daniel. 

Before Josh speaks, I just want to remind folks who have 

signed up for public comment to hop on now so you can be 

in the waiting room and you can be ready to speak at the 

right time. Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. So first of 

all, thank you, Daniel, for the specific example. I 

think that's helpful to hear. I guess where I still 

struggle, though, is if a student attended Wheelock and 

then finished their program at BU, they wouldn't be 

eligible for a closed school discharge either 

automatically or through application. And so I don't, I 

guess I don't see the direct link between what you're 
80

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

proposing and that hypothetical. I'm sorry, not 

hypothetical, example, specific example.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Yeah, so if I can 

respond, I think the concern is and I've heard the 

concern raised that the backlog of cases is overwhelming 

to the Department and that students have been waiting 

and waiting for responses from the Department for 

decisions around their closure. And so my concern here 

is trying to set some understanding of what it means to 

be allowed to close. So again, I think we're also 

getting stuck in the definition the difference between 

automatic discharge, application discharge and 

definition of closed school. Those are three different 

things. And so I struggle with the idea here, and I'm 

specifically responding to the beginning definition of 

what is considered a closed school, not what counts as 

automatic discharge, not what even counts as a discharge 

for application. But how do we determine what is a 

closed school? And in this particular example, the 

Wheelock example, it does speak to the second of those 

issues, which is it wouldn't be applicable for automatic 

discharge, potentially. But if a student decides not to 

continue on at BU and finish their program. I suppose 

the question is would they qualify? Would they qualify 

for that closure? And again, I understand that that 
81

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

wasn't what the student signed up for, they didn't come 

in saying, I choose to enroll at BU. They made a 

conscious choice to enroll at Wheelock, and I get that 

that is by definition, in part, harm. And I understand 

that, however, the program is being offered and 

continues to be offered. So that's where I think I'm 

struggling a bit with how to mitigate that and respond 

to that. And I don't know that we have the final answer 

here, either. But, you know, but I think there are a 

number of questions to consider.

MR. TOTONCHI: Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks so on the 

backlog issue, I think the Department can correct me if 

I'm wrong here, but I'm not sure that's true with 

respect to closed school discharge. It's certainly true 

with respect to Borrower Defense and when we get to that 

topic, we can talk more about that. But I don't know 

that that's necessarily true with respect to closed 

school discharge. I also, I mean, if someone chose not 

to enroll in BU, I think I think you you've said the 

counterpoint, right? Like a student didn't choose to go 

to BU. They chose to go to the small liberal arts 

school. And now that whole plan has been massively 

disrupted through no fault of their own.

MR. TOTONCHI: Jeri.
82

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: Yeah, that's 

exactly why my hand keeps going up and down, because 

it's still a contract and being absorbed into a large 

institution when you planned on something small is the 

disruption. You chose the school for a reason and it's 

still a break in contract not to have that.

MR. TOTONCHI: Michaela. And just so 

folks know what we will want to take a temperature check 

for a tentative agreement before public comment. But go 

ahead, Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, I also when there's 

any changes in accreditation or acquisitions, there's 

also a huge influx within-- instructors, professors and 

the folks actually providing that education. Because 

when folks you know, is, is the university taking them 

on, sometimes they're not. Sometimes they want changes 

in contracts from these instructors that they don't want 

to participate in, right? And so they leave or they find 

other institutions, for example, that happened in my 

institution. We had a huge exodus of professors because 

of the changing of how they're structuring ongoing 

contracts. So I want to reiterate that even in that kind 

of smooth transition, that isn't always as smooth on the 

student receiving end as far as like the services and 

the instructors, professors that you're receiving.
83

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

MR. TOTONCHI: So, Michela, so at this 

stage, I will ask for a temperature check for a 

tentative agreement based on what the Department has 

most recently proposed. I know there's been a lot of 

discussion, but let's still take a temperature check. 

Okay. So please show me your thumbs. Okay. If anyone who 

has not spoken yet has 30 seconds that they want a 

comment, they want to share with them, feel free to do 

so. As to why your thumb is down. Okay, well, sounds 

good, folks, we're just a minute or two away from our 

public comment. I want to thank everyone for their 

efforts today and their hard work. One thing I will note 

is that we will be starting tomorrow on issue three. I 

should say, continuing our discussion on issues to 

eliminate interest capitalization for nonstatutory 

capitalization events. Okay. So with that, we'll start 

to transition to our public comment period. I do want to 

note that of the 10 spots that were available for public 

comments today, only nine were filled and we have no 

wait list. Yes, I just want everyone to know that. So 

with that, let's please start with our, Michaela, if you 

don't mind, we're going to go ahead and proceed into 

public comments, if you could hold.

MS. MARTIN: I just had a quick 

question about the public comment.
84

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay.

MS. MARTIN: Because there's such a 

narrow window in which people can sign up. Is there a 

way---if we're not filling those that we can have folks 

sign up later than that two hour period?

MS. MACK: Right now, the Department 

leaves that open until 12:00, so anyone that you want to 

get into public comment, I would just encourage them for 

that next date to sign up prior to 12, Michaela. But 

that makes it in order for us to get those folks the 

right credentials to access the meeting, make sure that 

we have the appropriate list and the time slots. That's 

kind of how we've organized ourselves. So every day 

folks have up until 12 O'clock Eastern time to fill 

those slots. Sorry, Emil.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Kayla, With 

that, if we could admit our first public commenter.

MR. ROBERTS: Sure, I'm admitting Mimi 

Pascual, who's here representing College and Community 

Fellowship.

MS. PASCUAL: Hello.

MR. TOTONCHI: Good afternoon, Ms. 

Pascual. You have three minutes to make your public 

comments. 

MS. PASCUAL: Thank you. Hello, 
85

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

everyone. I want to thank you and College Community 

Fellowship for giving me this platform to tell my 

educational experience. While incarcerated in 2010, I 

was incarcerated. I was convicted to a 10-year mandatory 

minimum sentence on drug charges. At the time, I was two 

classes away from finishing up a bachelor's degree. I 

never finished up the degree because after I took a 

leave of absence, life took over and I went and I just 

never went back. While incarcerated, I dreamed of 

finishing up my degree, but I found out that because I 

was in federal, I was federally incarcerated, I could 

not utilize Pell or TAP. I made a promise to myself that 

when I went home, I would get my degree. In 2010, 2020 

May. I graduated City College with the Bachelor's of 

Theater with the Assistance of College Community 

Fellowship. Nothing in my reentry program prepared me 

for my continuing education, not a counselor. Not a 

program, not a resource. Nothing. I didn't have the 

tools to not only reinstate myself in school, but also 

to navigate the system. I feel that it is the 

responsibility of the DOE in taking on Pell (inaudible) 

to help individuals finish their degrees during their 

reentry program at the same way that they do other 

populations. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Ms. Pascual 
86

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

for your public comments. Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Gerard 

Scimeca, who's here representing Case Consumer Action 

for a Strong Economy.

MR. TOTONCHI: Hello. Welcome, Mr. 

Scimeca, apologies if we didn't pronounce that 

correctly. You have three minutes for your public 

comments.

MR. SCIMECA: Okay, thank you. Good 

afternoon. My name is Gerard Scimeca. I'm the chairman 

and co-founder of CASE, Consumer Action for a Strong 

Economy free, market-oriented consumer advocacy group. 

Today, my comments focus on the BDR, Borrower Defense to 

Repayment rule once an obscure sleepy regulation now 

being used to target proprietary universities and 

advance the free college agenda. Our conclusions 

concerning the BDR are more fully expressed on a white 

paper we prepared, which we will submit on the record. 

As a bit of history, it should be noted that over the 

past three and a half decades, the federal government 

has steadily pushed private lenders out of the student 

loan market. Today, the U.S. Department of Education 

controls a monopoly over student financial aid. Now, 

education activists are seeking to cement government 

control over higher education by using the BDR as a 
87

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

backdoor to free college and regulate for-profit 

colleges out of business. Beginning more than a decade 

ago, the BDR has been weaponized and targeted against 

for-profit colleges. Yet, as a survey conducted by case 

of more than twelve hundred students firmly concludes, 

if this rule were applied evenly and fairly across the 

entire landscape of colleges and universities, the 

taxpayer subsidized student loan debt relief would apply 

to millions of students dissatisfied with their 

education and add countless billions of dollars to our 

national debt. We know this because we surveyed students 

at the five public, public and private schools with the 

most online students and found that only 3% of them were 

familiar with the BDR, but 82% felt misled and 97% are 

interested in learning more about BDR. You can learn 

more about this survey and our white paper at our 

dedicated website, Collegeloanfairness.com. The proposed 

change to the BDR all but eliminates the rules burden of 

proof for students claiming fraud on the part of their 

institution, and is a massive step forward to realizing 

the goal of free college, a policy a strong majority of 

Americans oppose. Further, this higher education power 

grab by the Federal Government is certain to regulate 

highly valued for-profit colleges out of business as 

they have long been disfavored by a vocal sector of 
88

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

education activists. In short, changes to the BDR to 

liberalize student loan debt relief are an effort by 

free college advocates to circumvent the legislative 

process to advance an unpopular agenda which will 

further result in collateral damage to the for-profit 

schools. Ultimately, this will put nontraditional and 

typically less privileged students in a precarious 

position. Limiting student choice, destroying career 

opportunities, undermining educational innovation, our 

national economy by depriving it of desperately needed 

skilled workers. We urge for an end to the political 

motivations behind the planned corruption of the BDR and 

its certain disastrous impact on opportunities for 

nontraditional students, our workforce and the higher 

education system. Again, our paper and survey results 

can be found at Collegeloanfairness.com. Thank you very 

much.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your 

comment. Brady, if you could admit the next person, that 

would be great.

MR. ROBERTS: I've been meeting 

Elizabeth McNeil, who is the vice president of Federal 

Government Relations at the California Medical 

Association.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, welcome. You 
89

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

have three minutes for your public comments. Oh, you are 

on mute now, now you can proceed.

MS. MCNEIL: Thank you very much. Good 

afternoon. My name is Elizabeth McNeil, and I'm here on 

behalf of the California Medical Association, 

representing fifty thousand physicians in California. 

And I'm here to testify about a problem with the Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness program that is specific to 

California and Texas physicians. California and Texas 

physicians have been excluded from participating in the 

program because of the regulations. And when we met with 

the Department of Education in 2015, the staff had no 

idea that we had been left out and agreed that the 

regulation was not intentional. So here's the issue. 

California and Texas physicians can participate in the 

program under the statutory language, as Congress wrote 

it. But when the implementing regulations were written, 

the Department unintentionally narrowed it to require 

physicians and all (inaudible) hired and paid by a 

nonprofit hospital. So the regulation, unlike the direct 

employment. The original statute also prohibit 

physicians from contracting with nonprofit hospitals to 

provide care. But the regulation prohibited. So how does 

a regulation impact California and Texas specifically? 

Our state law prohibits hospitals from employing 
90

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

physicians. Doctors are not W-2 employees, so our law is 

called the bar on the corporate practice of medicine. 

And the first question we always get from people is why 

don't you just change your state law? And our answer to 

that is that our law is extremely important to 

California and Texas physicians. We fought hard to 

uphold it, and it's just not going to change anytime 

soon. So if hospitals cannot employ physicians, what are 

the arrangements between hospitals and doctors in 

California and Texas? And the most common arrangement is 

that physicians are just certified by each hospital's 

physician medical staff governing board to provide care 

in the hospital period. So Congress has been clear about 

the intent of the program and they need to fix it. The 

California and Texas congressional delegations have sent 

multiple letters to the Department stating that Congress 

never intended to exclude physicians in two states from 

the program, and legislation's been introduced as well 

by Congressman Harder, Senators Feinstein and Cornyn. 

The legislative language is also the regulatory fix that 

we are proposing to the Department. So in closing, I 

just want to say that our physician counterparts in all 

other 48 states receive loan forgiveness and it's just 

not equitable. We should not be disqualified because of 

the unique employment seconds in our state, and we 
91

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

shouldn't be disqualified because the reg is 

inconsistent with the statute. Studies show that our two 

states are going to have the largest physician shortages 

over the next decade, and that's because young 

physicians cannot get loan forgiveness in our states, 

and it's negatively impacting patients and community 

hospitals, rural hospitals, children's hospitals in 

rural areas and underserved neighborhoods. So we urge 

you to consider our proposed solution, and I thank you 

for your time.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your 

comments. Brady, please admit the next person. 

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Joan 

Mercedes, who's representing herself.

MR. TOTONCHI: Hello.

MS. MERCEDES: Hello. Hello. Can you 

see me? Hi.

MR. TOTONCHI: Hi. We it seems that we 

can see your camera is on, but we cannot see you.

MS. MERCEDES: That's strange.

MR. TOTONCHI: It's okay if you like 

to proceed it. Yeah, if you could. Yeah, it looks like 

your video is on, but the camera is not working, but 

that's okay. You can go ahead and proceed with your 

public comment. But if we mispronounced your name, 
92

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

please feel free to correct us.

MS. MERCEDES: No, my name is.

MR. TOTONCHI: Oh, there you are. We 

see you now. Well, welcome.

MS. MERCEDES: Thank you. Thank you. 

Sorry, my name is Joanne. Thank you. So my name is, can 

I start? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Please proceed. 

MS. MERCEDES: My name is Joanne. I'm 

a mom. I'm divorced. I'm a nurse. I live in New York 

City and I come from an immigrant parents and I'm guilty 

of having a dream. My story is no different than any 

other. I dared to dream that I had the right to have an 

education and leave the shackles of poverty behind. My 

relationship with the Department of Education started in 

2008, when I decided to go back to school and become a 

nurse. I met with a counselor in school who explained to 

me that even though I didn't have the money, I could 

qualify for a loan and pay it back with service to my 

community, which I thought was great and fair. But I 

have an education, but I was never meant to leave the 

shackles of poverty. But I'm a nurse. I was. I was not 

informed that the Department of Education pays services 

like Navient that are meant to keep you uninformed. For 

example, that I have waived my period of in-school 
93

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

deferment while getting my master's degree to make 

progress over my loan payment and forgiveness. So with 

my master's degree here, so I continue working full time 

and a qualifying employer. And I found that now, years 

later, after talking to many on a support group for 

providers like me that are in the same exact situation, 

I hope this is know that and consider in-school 

deferment status while working and qualifying employers 

full time should be counted as payments. Second, that 

the interest on my loans are meant for me to pay my 

education over and over with no hope. I live in a one 

bedroom apartment with my 12-year-old son on a 100k 

salary, which some would regard as high or high income. 

I'm sorry. Yeah, right. Well, my income driven plan to 

one day have some hope or forgiveness is over $800. It 

doesn't take make a dent on my loan. It doesn't take 

consideration of my private loans, my $2000 rent, my 

legal fees to keep my child and the cost of living in 

New York City. Nothing. And you wonder how students will 

get into default and can't pay this. I can make I cannot 

max out my 43d plans, my FSA accounts. I need something 

for emergency. And if I switch to a payment that is an 

extended plan with no hope of forgiveness, I pay my 

education three or four times over. Now I understand I'm 

highly educated for the quote of how we help the poor 
94

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

immigrant girl, but it was a lie. I was never meant to 

leave the shackles of poverty. I, I never have a place 

on my own and I cannot help my mom. I leave my house 

holding my breath. Hopeless. I will be working in the 

middle of the Bronx for 13 years as a nurse on raging 

pandemic, and I get there to move. I can't dare to have 

a second job because it will increase my monthly 

payments. But I thank you for taking the time to examine 

this and hope there's some tangible change for people 

like me that cannot be on an income driven plan because 

10% of your salary is almost impossible for one to pay 

their loans even on an extended plan for now over and 

over. So thank you. Thank you. And when you sit down 

with your policymakers to do this, please think of me on 

my bedroom and my one bedroom apartment with my 12-yearold son holding my breath hoping that there is not an 

emergency. I pray every day that my son doesn't want to 

go to school because frankly, I won't be able to afford 

it. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you so much for 

your comment, Ms. Mercedes. 

MR. ROBERTS: I'm letting in Anne 

O'Rourke representing the California Hospital 

Association.

MR. TOTONCHI: (Inaudible) present. 
95

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

MR. ROBERTS: She's in the meeting, 

but it looks like she's still getting her audio and 

video set up. I can let in the next commenter while we 

while I can message her. Is that okay?

MR. TOTONCHI: Yeah, that's fine.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm letting in Jane 

Winzer, who's here representing herself.

MR. TOTONCHI: Hello, Mrs. Winzer. Can 

you hear me? Hello. Hello, Mrs. Winzer. Can you hear me?

MS. WINZER: Yes.

MR. TOTONCHI: Alright, welcome. Are 

you able to turn on your camera?

MS. WINZER: Yes.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. I apologize, 

everyone. Okay, no, excellent. I had switched a setting, 

now we can all see you. Ms. Winzer, you have three 

minutes to make your public comment.

MS. WINZER: Alright, thank you. My 

comment is a plea to implement the PSLF waiver with 

regulations with specific instructions to remove the 

forbearance status for payments made during Chapter 13 

bankruptcy. I have over five years of payments, which 

still do not count even under the waiver without such 

guidance. In 2009, I moved thousands of miles away from 

my friends and family to a remote Arctic community in 
96

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

the pursuit of any employment that would allow me to pay 

my bills. And in 2009, I also consolidated my loans into 

the direct loan program specifically to pursue PSLF. 

Despite the lengths I went to, the fallout from the 

financial crisis led me in 2010 to a Chapter 13 

bankruptcy plan to pay my debts. At no time did any of 

the parties who were paid to advise me, inform me that 

entering Chapter 13 bankruptcy would lead to the dread 

no bill was due forbearance status related to the legal 

prohibition on pursuing a debt. I consider it rather 

obvious that one year after entering the PSLF program, 

had I known that a Chapter 13 would disqualify all 

payments from counting for over half of the planned 10 

years, I would not have entered a Chapter 13 payment 

plan. The promise of the waiver is meant to address 

those of us who made good faith efforts to fulfill our 

side of PSLF but were poorly served. I quote the 

announcement, under the new rules, any prior payment 

made will count as a qualifying payment regardless of 

loan type, repayment plan, or whether the payment was 

made in full or on time. All you need is qualifying 

employment. This has not been the case, however, for 

payments made while in a forbearance status. So twice 

now I've had to deal with a significant blow to my 

mental health from finding out that the forbearance 
97

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

status created by the Chapter 13 bankruptcy has rendered 

my payments ineligible to count towards forgiveness. 

When the waiver announcement was initially made, it led 

to my envisioning the possibilities of finally living 

life rather than being hunkered down in the Arctic and 

paying bills while working for a qualifying employer for 

years yet to come. And when those hopes were dashed, by 

my receiving an email informing me that (inaudible) two 

months would be applicable under the waiver, I was 

devastated. The program promises forgiveness and then 

takes it away even in the waiver through asterisks and 

rules. Please implement the waiver, as stated in the 

announcement that all payments should count, regardless 

of whether no bill was due.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your 

comment. Alright. Are we ready for the next commentary?

MR. ROBERTS: Yep, I believe Ms. 

O'Rourke is in the room with her audio and video all set 

up, so the floor is yours.

MS. O'ROURKE: Thank you very much, 

and good afternoon. My name is Anne O'Rourke, I'm the 

senior vice president for federal relations for the 

California Hospital Association. Thank you for the 

opportunity to share our views on this very important 

subject today. And I appreciate your thoughtful review 
98

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

of this critical program. On behalf of the four hundred 

hospitals and health systems, their communities and the 

patients they care for in California, we urge you to 

allow California physicians to qualify and participate 

in the loan forgiveness program as their colleagues in 

48 other states are eligible to do. We believe strongly 

that California physicians should not be treated any 

differently and ask that the original statutory language 

be recognized to allow all physicians to participate in 

this program. As you may know, California has a state 

law prohibiting us as hospitals from employing our 

physicians. We at CHA have fought to make a change to 

that state law. We have not been successful. And while 

my colleagues at the California Medical Association have 

fought to preserve that law, we have a difference of 

opinion there. We have no difference of opinion on 

whether or not physicians in California should be able 

to qualify for this program, and we stand together with 

our colleagues in the physician community. Loan 

forgiveness is an important recruiting and retention 

tool, particularly in rural and underserved areas. As 

California hospitals struggle to come back from the 

pandemic, our number one need is access to an adequately 

trained healthcare workforce, including physicians. So 

we urge you to allow California's physicians to 
99

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

participate in this program. Thank you very much for 

your time today.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your 

comments.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm letting in Paula 

Gomez, who is an alumni of West Coast University.

MR. TOTONCHI: Ms. Gomez, can you hear 

me?

MS. GOMEZ: Hi, yes.

MR. TOTONCHI: Hi, welcome. You have 

three minutes to make your comment.

MS. GOMEZ: Okay, thank you. Hello. My 

name is Paulo Gomez, and I'm a recent Bachelor of 

Science and nursing graduate from West Coast University 

at the Los Angeles campus. Thank you to the committee 

and the Department of Education for allowing me to share 

my positive experience at WCU. I am a proud member of 

the Tule River Tribe, a sovereign nation that strives to 

improve the livelihood of their members, community and 

surrounding community members. I also live on the 

reservation, which is located in a rural area near 

Porterville, California. My desire to become a nurse 

grew out of my work as a medical assistant and 

immunization coordinator at the Tule River Indian Health 

Center, which struggles to hire qualified nurses, 
100

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

physicians and medical support personnel. Being in a 

rural area, there are few options for me to attend 

either an associate or bachelor's degree program. I 

applied to local, public and private programs for both 

degrees, but my application remained on the wait list 

for two years. This is when I discovered West Coast 

University WCU is fully accredited and has excellent 

outcomes and was able to enroll me in the next term. I 

was able to achieve an associate or an accelerated BSN 

degree in the same amount of time as I would have earned 

an associate's degree. WCU provided an invaluable 

support system for me, especially while I learned online 

due to the pandemic and commuted three hours a day, 

three days a week to Los Angeles in order to learn at 

clinical sites and on campus at the State of the Art 

Nursing Simulation Center. Simulation allowed me to 

practice and perfect procedures that I did not have the 

opportunity to complete in hospital settings. WCU is 

only one of seven California schools that hold 

accreditation specific to simulation learning. I would 

not have found these types of services at the colleges 

in my local area. I am extremely grateful to WCU for 

helping me earn my degree. I also received the award for 

the 2021 WCU Norma Ford scholarship, which will go 

toward my cost of tuition. As the committee, the 
101

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

committee considers regulations that will affect 

(inaudible) universities, I urge you to consider success 

stories like mine. My degree from West Coast University 

will allow me to gain valuable experience in emergency 

settings and hospitals near the reservation. Thank you 

again for your time.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your 

comment.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Kolin 

Wilkins, who's representing himself.

MR. TOTONCHI: Hi Mr. Wilkins, you're 

still connecting the audio. Alright, Mr. Wilkins, can 

you hear me?

MR. WILKINS: Yes, sir, I can hear 

you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Excellent. You have 

three minutes for your comment.

MR. WILKINS: Alright. One moment. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Oh, we lost you.

MR. WILKINS: Can you hear me because 

I have to do the what's it called?

MR. TOTONCHI: It's if you're 

comfortable with the video, you can be on video.

MR. WILKINS: Okay.

MR. TOTONCHI: But you can otherwise 
102

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

proceed.

MR. WILKINS: Okay, one moment. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Take your time if you 

want to figure out your video. There should be a button 

that says start video.

MR. WILKINS: See, I'm trying to get 

the, okay. Can you hear me because I have to read it off 

of my phone, that's why it's cutting off the video.

MR. TOTONCHI: We totally understand 

you're not the first person.

MR. WILKINS: Gotcha.

MR. TOTONCHI: You can please proceed 

as you like.

MR. WILKINS: Yes, sir. Okay. My name 

is Kolin Wilkins, medically retired from the U.S. Army 

in 2015 and currently live in Texas. I enrolled at Vista 

College to earn my degree in medical insurance, coding 

and billing. I chose a school over other schools because 

I was promised a clear pipeline to get a job. I have a 

family to consider, so I did this to support them in our 

future. Leading up to the shutdown, I had no idea what 

was coming. No one gave the impression it was happening 

or prepared us for what would happen after it closed. I 

attended classes up until the very last day, just a few 

weeks from graduating. Then on a Saturday afternoon, I 
103

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

got a text message that said the school was shutting 

down, telling me it's over. No other information was 

given to us. No resources or contact information. The 

change in plans has really impacted my life and my 

family's. I felt like I had the rug cut from under me. 

It's heartbreaking and discouraging. Process was poorly 

handled and left students hanging on hanging. One of the 

most difficult things about this was I was so close to 

finishing, but now I've lost over 20 months my GI Bill, 

no degree, and I can't get a hold of my transcripts. I 

requested to have my GI Bill restored by the VA, but 

hasn't been approved yet. I reached out to the Texas 

Higher Education Coordinating Board to get a copy of my 

transcripts, but haven't heard back from them either. I 

wanted to share my story with you today because while I 

and others wait for GI Bill, restoration, loan 

forgiveness or to request transcripts, all of our plans 

have been put on hold. Everything I planned around this 

school just ended and the students and their families 

are left stranded to pick up the pieces on their own. 

There must be a better way to protect us from the 

aftermath. And thank you for letting me share today.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. 

Brady, do we have anyone else?

MR. ROBERTS: No one is in the waiting 
104

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

room.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you to the to the 

individuals who made public comments. Thank you to the 

committee and everyone here in the meeting for their 

hard work today. We'll pick this up, 10:00 a.m. Eastern 

tomorrow.
105

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

Appendix

Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Zoom Chat Transcript

Affordability and Student Loans Committee

Session 2, Day 1, Afternoon, November 1, 2021

DISCLAIMER:

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a 

recording. Although the transcription is largely accurate; 

in some cases, it is incomplete or inaccurate due to 

inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as 

an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but 

should not be treated as an authoritative record.

From Belinda Wheeler (she/her/hers) to Everyone:

Are there no more questions regarding the prison 

education subcommittee? I just want to check.

From Heather (P) - Accrediting Agencies to Everyone:

I'm having trouble with my video.

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student to Everyone:

My alternate will take this vote

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student to Everyone:

I am returning to the table

From Stan (A) Ind. Students to Everyone:

I am stepping back and the ind. student primary is 

joining.

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

Hi, subbing out for John.
106

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

From John S. Whitelaw (he/his) (A-Disability) to 

Everyone:

Plus one to Justin’s comments

From Daniel (P), Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

Here is the regulatory language proposal:

From Daniel (P), Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

(7) Conditions for reinstatement of a loan after a 

total and permanent disability discharge. (i) The 

Secretary reinstates a borrower's obligation to repay 

a loan that was discharged in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section if, within the 

lookback period the borrower receives a new TEACH 

Grant or a new loan under the Perkins or Direct Loan 

programs, except for a Direct Consolidation Loan that 

includes loans that were not discharged. 

The lookback period is defined as three years after 

the date the Secretary granted the discharge or the 

end of five years from the determination of total and 

permanent disability by a physician, nurse 

practitioner, physician’s assistant, or psychologist, 

whichever ends sooner.

From Daniel (P), Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

Will email this...

From Justin Hauschild (P) Veterans and Service Members to 

Everyone:

With regard to my data request concerning automated 

TPD for veterans: We respectfully request information 

about how ED is executing its current data match with 

VA, including the specific information it requests 

from VA to identify both veterans that are 100% 

disabled and those that have an individual 

unemployability determination. Thank you.
107

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

I'm subbing back in

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

I would be comfortable with text if there was a 

(b)(2)(iii)(D) that said "has a disability that onset 

for SSDI/SSI disability benefits for 5 years"

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

or something like

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

It's eligibility

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

v. automation

From Daniel (P), Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

+10000 to Carol...

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

josh is taking the legal aid seat

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone:

I am subbing back in for Carol.

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+ 1 Josh

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone:

+1 Josh

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

+ Josh
108

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

From Rachelle (A) 4 year publics to Everyone:

+1 Josh

From Bobby (P) Two Year Public Colleges to Everyone:

+1 thanks Josh

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone:

My alternate Jen, would like to tag in.

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

+ 1 to Joe

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone:

+1

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 David!!!

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone:

+1 David

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 Josh

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

+ Marjorie

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone:

+1 Marjorie

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 Marjorie

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student to Everyone:

+1
109

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone:

+1 Marjorie

From Bobby (P) Two Year Public Colleges to Everyone:

+1 Marjorie

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (Ella/She) to 

Everyone:

+1 Jen

From Jen (she/ella):(A) Student Borrower to Everyone:

Jeri will be back

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone:

+1 Michaela

From Daniel (P), Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

To Michaela, I am worried that we not add student 

applicants to an already long queue only to be denied. 

Careful definition of any school closure it important 

to me.

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 Michaela

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (Ella/She) to 

Everyone:

+1 Michaela

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+ 1 Josh -reference court findings specifically

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone:

+1 Michaela again. Great comments. Right on point with 

the idea that discharge does not solve all the 
110

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

students' problems. Lost time and lost grant benefits 

harm students.

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student to Everyone:

To Daniel -These regulations do not prevent people 

from applying. I reject the notion that this solves 

the issue of long queue's.

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student to Everyone:

What criteria didn't they meet?

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student to Everyone:

Jessica could you please also put in chat why people 

did not qualify?

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone:

With the school that I spoke with, some students had 

graduated from the program.

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone:

My question for the Department, is do they have data 

on how accurate their process is to identify students 

who are eligible for closed school discharge.

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student to Everyone:

Jessica, What school? Were the graduates given an 

accredited degree?

From Jessica (P), Proprietary Schools to Everyone:

I don’t feel comfortable sharing the name of the 

school publicly. I am happy to share it with the 

Department if they are interested.

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone:

+1 to Dixie. Simplifying the process for students is 

important.
111

Committee Meetings - 11/01/21

From Jen (she/ella):(A) Student Borrower to Everyone:

+1 Dixie

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 Dixie

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 Dixie

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone:

+1

From Jen (she/ella):(A) Student Borrower to Everyone:

+1 Dixie

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 Dixie

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone:

+1

From Jen (she/ella):(A) Student Borrower to Everyone:

Thank you Jennifer

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student to Everyone:

Watching it isn't the same as feeling it. I feel 

confident that students were impacted differently

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 Micheala

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

ditto re: discussion

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/her) to Everyone:

specifically Josh's and Dixie's comments