DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

AFFORDABILITY AND STUDENT LOANS COMMITTEE 

SESSION 2, DAY 5, AFTERNOON 

November 5, 2021 

 

 

 

 

 

1 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

On the 5th 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 - 11/05/21 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MR. TOTONCHI: Hello. Hello, everyone, 

welcome back from the lunch break. Let's dive right back 

in after a couple of announcements. First of all, I just 

want to recognize the few folks that are at the table 

right now, Rachelle, on behalf of four year public 

institutions, Greg, on behalf of dependent students and 

Eric on behalf of state attorneys general. If I'm missing 

anyone, please let me know before we get back into the 

IDR conversation. Just wanted to raise a quick point 

regarding the caucus process that Josh referenced at the 

end of the morning session. Just for clarity. So we're 

all on the same page in terms of the terminology of the 

use of the word caucus. This is based on section 10 of 

the protocols. Caucuses are only those meetings that take 

place out of the public view during a full committee 

session. So to the extent there are meetings that take 

place in the morning before the full committee session, 

during lunch or sometime between the October and November 

session or the November December session, those are not 

technically caucuses. We just wanted to be on the same 

page regarding what that is. That said, we do open the 

Zoom meeting an hour early at, I believe, 9:00 a.m. 

Eastern every day. And if you would like any assistance 

with creating a breakout room, we can help set up that 
 

3 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

breakout room for you. Likewise, the same is true at the 

lunch hour or even after the session. And so, yeah, a 

sense. Again, a caucus actually stops the main committee 

discussion, so that would require the main committee to 

be in session for a caucus. I see I have him. Just. I 

think so. There's actually-- the protocols that are 

inconsistent with one another because the protocols also 

say that a negotiator can call for a caucus at any time 

and Section 10 doesn't explicitly say that a caucus can't 

occur outside of the session, if that's the 

interpretation that it's going to be adopted. And I would 

ask for a vote, a consensus vote on modifying the 

protocols to specifically allow for a caucus outside of 

session time in between sessions, as I proposed. So it's 

the position of the offenses facilitation team taking a 

look at particularly Section 10, a sentence that states a 

caucus stops the discussions of the fulfillment a caucus 

must be taking place during the course of a full 

committee session. So what you are suggesting would be 

it's our position. It would be inconsistent with the 

protocols. 

MS. MACK: Emil, if I can add 

something to that, as well as took place outside of 

session, between session one and session two. It's my 

understanding that some of you, all of you at different 
4 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

points did get together in what we would term working 

groups. There is nothing to prevent the committee members 

from establishing those working groups and getting 

together between session two and Session three, just as 

was done between session one and two. The distinction 

with caucuses being during session and stopping this is 

that the protocols call for facilitators to be available 

for those and we will during session but would not be 

between session two and three, just as we did not join 

you in those groups between session one and two as well. 

Back to you, Emil. 

MR. ROVENGER: Can I respond to the 

response to my point then please? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Go ahead. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. I really don't 

want to take up a lot of time on this because there's a 

lot of substance to get back. But I do think one aspect 

of the caucus that's particularly important as compared 

to a working group is that when you call a caucus, you 

can call which representatives are going to be there. And 

frankly, we think it's particularly important to have a 

session in between session two and three that includes 

the Department. And so I disagree with the interpretation 

of the protocols to the extent that's the interpretation. 

But I again, reiterate my request for a consensus vote to 
5 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

modify the definition of caucus to include something in 

between sessions and to exclude the requirement that 

facilitators have to be there for that caucus. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks. I'd be just 

repeating myself at this stage, but thank you, Josh, for 

the comment. David. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Emil, I think Brian had 

something to add there. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Oh, my apologies. Go 

ahead, Brian. 

MR. SIEGEL: Yeah. Just to respond to 

Josh, the Department can participate in those meetings 

and we're open to participating in meetings with 

individual parties. I mean, we've done that in the past. 

We're happy to talk to negotiators, either as a group or 

as individuals between meetings where we're under some 

tight time frames this year. So, you know, availability 

might be a problem, but you know, we're open to talking 

about it. What we can't do during those meetings, it 

seems to me-- to be consistent with the role of 

negotiated rulemaking-- is to agree to certain language, 

because that really has to be done as part of the public 

session. But we can certainly talk about alternatives or 

what the goals are and things like that. It doesn't have 

to be a formal caucus, so we remain open to that to the 
6 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

extent people want to talk to us between the meetings. 

David? Yeah, so I feel like I get what Josh is pushing 

towards, and I would definitely support that as the first 

option of having it more of an official meeting of the 

negotiated rulemaking team be a caucus. If that ends up 

not being possible, I would just offer a Chios resources 

in organizing and hosting the Zoom meeting or meetings in 

between. I do think it'll be important to have 

representative representation from the Department in the 

meeting or meetings. 

MR. TANDBERG: And I do think I would 

rather a formal caucus, but if not, I can have staff 

support from SHEEO to facilitate scheduling and hosting 

the Zoom meeting in between. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, David. Josh. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks, yeah. So I 

don't I don't really I'm not tied to what it's called a 

caucus, whatever, I just. The big thing would be getting 

a commitment from the Department to be there. And if that 

doesn't require a vote, that's great. A broad statement 

that you know you're open to dates that wouldn't be 

sufficient. And well, so I hear you on the point about 

specific regulatory language. I do think that negotiators 

have asked a ton of questions and data and made a ton of 

data requests over the past few weeks. And given those 
 

7 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

outstanding questions, I do think it would be helpful 

just to have conversations in the meantime. So again, I 

don't know how we want to, how we want to frame it, but I 

would continue to reiterate my request for a vote if-. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Yeah, Josh, no I 

appreciate that I'll just repeat one thing, Brian said 

that they are, but that is inclined to participate in 

those working groups. One thing I do not want to do is 

spend time with everyone looking at calendars on the live 

stream. If folks would like to discuss, you know, after 

the session for a few minutes to see if something can be 

arranged, we can potentially do that. 

MR. ROVENGER: Totally agree. I do 

think there's a distinction, though, between inclined to 

participate and a commitment to participate, subject to 

working out the scheduling later on. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Josh.. Daniel. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: I'll just note, 

though, that any of the solutions we're proposing loses 

the ability of the public to observe. And so this is 

obviously a fit or a gap measure. Ideally, we could add 

another week. I understand the concern of the feds and 

the calendar, but I would also love, if possible, for us 

to add some time or either in hours or days, so that the 

public can participate as well as needed and observe as 
8 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

needed. You know, the back channel negotiations are 

important, but also the public perspective is important. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Daniel Brian, I 

see your hand went up. 

MR. SIEGEL: Yeah. I just wanted to 

say that I can confirm that based on scheduling will be. 

So you let us know. Give us some options and we'll have 

representatives from the Department at meetings. Now some 

people may want to meet without us if you have particular 

issues among different negotiators that you want to talk 

about. That's fine, too. But if we're invited to 

participate, will be there going. Also noting that as has 

been said, to the extent this is a public process, so a 

lot of this discussion and what we've done in the past is 

to during the formal sessions, then kind of summarize, 

have somebody summarize those private conversations that 

were going on if they reached any just to so that's on 

the public record as well. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Justin. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thanks. And I don't 

want to offer this as the alternative that's more 

preferable to what Josh is proposing, whether it be a 

caucus or a working group, but just along the lines of 

what some folks have been talking about it as this 

potentially being outside the public's view. You know, 
9 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

I'm curious whether the Department might be amenable to 

adding another day, and I understand their concerns about 

sending. And I think discussion has been largely about 

adding days after the third session, but whether the 

Department would consider adding a formal session between 

now and what is currently the third session, in addition 

to maybe a working group or caucus. I don't know exactly 

how much time we need here, but I think that also works 

here some of the issues around the working group or 

caucus happening outside public view. It would also give 

us additional time to work, I think closely alongside of 

whatever happened in the working session or caucus. So 

things aren't lost between then and the third more. What 

might be the fourth session, I guess, at that point. So I 

just be curious what the Department's position is on 

that, since it wouldn't technically be extending the 

timeline. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Jennifer. 

MS. HONG: I just I have difficulty 

just if I saw a possibility to make that happen. I know. 

I don't want to belabor the point on all the logistics 

that have to occur in terms of making this public space 

available in terms of all our contractual agreements with 

even our facilitators. So I just I don't see that as 

being a possibility, which is both on the back end or in 
10 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

between. If we're happy to meet with you all as Brian, 

within the framework that Brian provided to the extent, I 

think we can certainly move things forward in terms of 

discussing general, clarifying the issues and kind of 

getting answers out, but keeping our negotiations for the 

public domain. We can't officially add more time at this 

point. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you all so much 

for the discussion and for the problem solving. So with 

that discussion, first of all, I want to recognize that 

Joe is coming back for state attorneys general so welcome 

back Joe. And with that, unless Jennifer, we have other 

business. I believe we are going to resume with our IDR 

discussion. So, Jennifer, I know you presented some of 

the updated work that the Department that the Department 

did right before lunch. But if you could just help tee 

this up and then we can get feedback. 

MS. HONG: Sure, thank you, Neal. We 

left off here and I realized I needed to tee up this 

interest subsidy issue. I believe we left with, I think 

Joe and Persis Yu having some comments about interest 

subsidy. So remember, as you're going through this 

document, through this proposed tax, remember that we're 

streamlining all the language. So we've taken basically 

four different sections and collapsed them into one. And 
 

11 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

then you have to read it to see which plan is applicable 

for each proposal. So for under interest subsidy, what 

we're proposing and I can just briefly summarize right 

now, basically, there's no, under IDR, there's no 

interest subsidy for IBR. If the calculated payment does 

not cover all interest, the government pays remaining 

interest for three consecutive years. So that's where the 

three years, excluding periods of economic hardship 

deferment from repayment, start.. So that's where the 

three years comes from. That's only for IBR pay as well. 

Pay has the same interest subsidy as IBR, the three years 

for three consecutive years. REPAYE for REPAYE on 

subsidized loans, if the calculated payment does not 

cover all interest, the government pays remaining 

interest for three consecutive years, but on subsidized 

loans after three consecutive years, and on unsubsidized 

loans during all periods. If the calculated payment does 

not cover all interest, the government pays half of the 

remaining interest. And you'll see under--If you can 

scroll, scroll down to five. And. See? Yeah. To the next 

page, I'm sorry for IDR. The plan that we're proposing 

here, what we're proposing, and again, this is T.K.. So 

we'd like your feedback on that, if the payments are $0, 

a percent is subsidized. So the TK is, you know, the 

person, and if you had feedback on that, but that that is 
 

12 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

EIC, our proposal, the whole discussion about the three, 

the applicability of the three years that those are based 

on existing plans. So we're not proposing that or IDR. 

It's actually a percent. 

MR. TOTONCHI: I just want to 

recognize Persis is back at the table for legal aid. 

Michaela. 

MS. MARTIN: I think that or it should 

be one hundred percent of interest is not charged to the 

borrower if they're at extremely low income right now, 

the proposition is listed as one hundred and fifty 

percent of, you know, poverty line. Even if we increase 

that, if you have a zero payment like you cannot make 

payments and interest is accruing like, then you're just 

watching your balance go up. Right? Versus I think since 

negative interest rate, the really should be paused if 

you have a zero payment. And then I also just wanted to 

ask like, I know that this is being proposed for the 

current plan, but do we have any availability to consider 

or to modify the interest subsidy on any of the other 

plants? 

MS. HONG: That's not what is on the 

table. For this negotiated rulemaking, we're trying to 

propose a new plan. So we hadn't proposed any substantive 

changes to existing plans. 
13 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

MR. TOTONCHI: Daniel. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: So in the interest of 

again, using Bobby's quote of making the best plan the 

most awesome, I believe, he said, I forgot the direct 

quote before lunch. The plan to be all end all for 

everyone. I would strongly urge agreement with what you 

just heard from Michaela that we that we use 100 percent 

subsidy for zero. But I actually love to see a 100 

percent subsidy for anyone who doesn't pay in full their 

interest so that in effect, again, I go back to the 

Department's white paper at the start of this process. 

You asked a question about concerns around students who 

see their balances grow. That is true for students who 

have a zero dollar payment. That is also true for 

students who have a payment that is less than the monthly 

required payment or required payment for interest. So as 

we've seen and as we've heard, growth of balance is a 

huge disincentive to continue to make payment. So I would 

support the idea of making any unpaid interest subsidized 

each month. And I would at minimum, if that's not 

possible due to modeling or scoring, then I would at the 

minimum suggest modeling off the REPAYE that half the 

interest would be subsidized as a floor. And I don't see 

any of that language in the EICR section. All I see is 

for zero dollar. So I wouldn't want to be worse than 
14 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

what's currently out there for REPAYE. But again, my 

strong preference is to have all of it subsidized if the 

interest is not paid. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Daniel. I do 

also want to mention that Marjorie is back from four year 

public institutions. Carol. 

DR. COLVIN: I know that we're 

discussing the interest subsidy, however, going back to 

payments, any interest charged to the borrower, 

preferably zero percent for those with a zero payment. 

Understanding that the initiative that we're trying to 

get to is controlling the growth of the outstanding 

balance would be best served by looking at applying any 

payments made while they're on this FEMA plan to 

principal first, we get the same outcome. We're able to 

control that and then they're actually knocking down that 

balance, which would grow at a reduced rate no matter 

what the interest charged would be, just to bring that 

back up. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Anymore comments on G 

through J of the document? If not, at this stage, oh, 

Jennifer, go ahead. 

MS. HONG: Just I know we're about to 

take a temperature check, what I'm hearing is a 

preference for 100 percent of the interest subsidy, if 
 

15 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

not that something equal or better to repeat what we 

currently offer. So if we could just take that, that's to 

come, if we could take that off the table for the 

temperature check. And if you guys just look at the 

other, the proposed language for everything else and 

taking the temperature check. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Does everyone 

understand that? So we're taking a temperature. Okay, 

Bethany, you're shaking your head, 

MS. LILLY: Would you encapsulate for 

us, Emil? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Yeah. So as I 

understand it regarding this one, one hundred percent, 

take that idea and put it to the side for now. And we're 

asking for a temperature check on everything else in G. 

G, G through J. Except for that specific issue. Did I 

accurately capture that, Jennifer? And if there's anyone 

confused, I'll ask Jennifer to tee it up again. 

MS. HONG: Yeah, that's right, Emil. 

So again, we've made significant changes to streamline 

these regulations, I realize we don't have a side by 

side, but that's what we're temperature checking on how 

we communicated that. 

MR. TOTONCHI: So at this stage, let 

us see. Let's take a temperature check on with the one 
16 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

exception regarding the 100 percent issue. Let me see 

thumbs. Okay, I see everyone is at a minimum sideways. 

Thank you for the feedback. Alright, excellent. I suppose 

we should continue proceeding through IDR, Jennifer, 

would you like to tee up the next part, section K? 

MS. HONG: Sure. Section K is on 

forgiveness. I think actually we're going to get a 

temperature check just on Kay, Okay, it's on forgiveness 

and what we're proposing under the new-- the proposed-- I 

see our Plan B IDR is for loans being repaid. Under the 

plan, we received for undergraduate study. The remaining 

balance forgiven after 20 years of qualifying repayment 

and four loans being repaid under the plan that were 

received for graduate or professional study. The 

remaining balance forgiven after twenty five years of 

qualifying repayment similar to REPAYE. I know we've 

started this discussion, but we can continue it here. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Jennifer. 

Joe. 

MR. SANDERS: Hi, thanks. So a couple 

of concerns here, but I'm going to focus on one that is a 

primary interest for state AGs first and then I think 

others are probably comment on other stuff that I can 

come back or get in the chat. On the payments that count 

state AGS have uncovered significant evidence of 
17 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

forbearance, steering servicers that steer people into 

forbearance. And although this current proposal would 

count administrative or mandatory administrative 

forbearance, servicers are steering people into voluntary 

forbearance. Are in many instances and so. We think that 

there needs to be some kind of accounting for that. You 

know, I haven't seen any fix for this elsewhere in the 

neg reg. I don't have the details on what the 

Department's new servicing contracts are going to 

require, but history suggests that this is not a problem 

that's just going to disappear. And so, you know, state 

attorneys general want to see some way to account for 

forbearance theory. Now there was an interesting proposal 

that Suzanne put into the chat on the Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness session this week. Um. It was put forward by 

the Student Borrower Protection Center. And there was a 

consideration in that in that issue paper that 

forbearance, voluntary forbearance is be considered as 

qualifying for purposes of public service, loan 

forgiveness, where there have been investigations or 

lawsuits or settlements by state or federal agencies. And 

we think that is provides a real potential for an 

evidence-based look back of the type that the Department 

has already done in the Massachusetts versus FIA case. 

And we think that there's a real opportunity to include 
18 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

that concept not only in Public Service Loan Forgiveness, 

but here in K. We'd love to hear the Department's take on 

that idea and we are preparing proposed language to 

circulate. We've got it substantially. We've got a draft 

and we're going to send it out soon. But we want to put 

that forward for negotiators to discuss and want to put 

that forward for negotiators to discuss and for the 

DepartmentsMs. YU: So I 100% agree with Joe, and 

I actually am going to come back to this point a little 

bit later because I have a lot to say on this particular 

topic, but I do want to just be even a little bit more 

broad and say that I think again, we have an opportunity 

to radically be better for borrowers and have a better 

cancelation provision in our Income Driven Repayment. I 

think there are two things that I put forward in the 

proposal with regards to cancelation that I submitted to 

the Department earlier this week. One is that we need to 

do cancelation periodically. One of the problems with 

Income Driven Repayment is that it is an all or nothing 

proposition. And borrowers are seeing their balances grow 

for this entire time frame. They're not seeing any 

reduction. There's a feeling of hopelessness, especially 

for folks who have balances that are negatively 

amortizing. They need to see it their credit as being 
 

19 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

impacted. They have no there's nothing helping their debt 

to income ratio if they're trying to purchase a home or 

finance a car. So holding on to this debt with this all 

or nothing cancelation approach just doesn't work. And I 

think it's why we see that of the four and a half million 

borrowers who have been in repayment for more than 20 

years, only thirty two borrowers have ever received 

cancelation. It's an unacceptable rate of cancelation, 

and we need to radically structure how we do cancelation 

differently so that people really can see progress. So 

that's my first proposal is that we need to see 

cancelation periodically. The second proposal that we put 

forth is a way to target the cancelation by borrower's 

income. So we have suggested that you have some kind of 

scale. I'm a lawyer, not a mathematician. So I suggest 

somebody else come up with what the scale should be. But 

for the lowest income borrowers, we should not have them 

paying for this length of time. I suggest looking at 

borrowers who have one hundred and fifty percent of 

federal poverty for three years have cancelation at sorry 

at 150 percent of poverty debt cancelation after three 

years. And I think we do this mathematically through a 

formula that you can create and have that cancelation 

happen, either at that time frame or have it happen 

annually. But to the lowest income, borrowers have it at 
20 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

three years and the highest income borrowers have it at 

15 years. And that way you're able to target the 

cancelation, but you don't have folks in zero income zero 

$0 IDR payments over and over and over again, just going 

through the hoops of recertifying their income when 

they're really not, they're not making payments. We know 

that they're low income. We know that we're going to 

cancel their loans, and a lot of them fall into default, 

frankly, because they can't jump through the hoops. So we 

need to lower the hoops. And so I've submitted a proposal 

on how we can do that. If there's any interest, I am 

happy to come up with language of it, but I would like 

some feedback before actually drafting the law. Thank 

you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. I want to 

recognize Jen is present for student borrowers. Michaela. 

MS. MARTIN: The opportunity, if 

something such as like a proportion ongoing (inaudible) 

versus proposal is something that's on the table at all. 

MS. HONG: I'm sorry, Michaela, could 

you repeat that first part, I just, could you repeat your 

question? 

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, the Persis is 

asking if there's potential that we could have, you know, 

kind of incremental forgiveness rather than an all or 
21 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

nothing approach. And I was wondering if that is 

something that is on the table for discussion before I 

make my (inaudible). 

MS. HONG: We haven't reached a 

decision on that. We're still contemplating it, but it's 

not in the proposed language before you. We just need 

some more time. 

MS. MARTIN: Okay. As far as this 

current timeline being twenty five or twenty years, I 

cannot wrap my brain around it that this is a literal 

lifetime of debt that disproportionately affects people 

of color and folks that are extremely low income. Right. 

This not only affects your ability to buy a house, but 

even getting an apartment right, like being able to have 

your credit rent to get a car, even a used very low 

budget transportation. This affects any kind of economic 

mobility, as you're having to think about what this debt 

that you're carrying around for 20 to 25 years because 

you went to go get an education. We currently have a 

student debt crisis. Like, I can't say that enough, like 

we are in crisis like folks that went to school and have 

this debt need a way out. And so I, I strongly propose 10 

years. Ten years to forgiveness. And the way that this is 

written right now is that it's lumped in with REPAYE and 

PAYE. So I don't know if that's something that we can 
22 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

just swap it out for both of them or if this would need 

to be redrafted specifically for the EICR. But how low is 

the Department willing to go and why are we still looking 

at 20 to 25 years of debt? And again, particularly 

acknowledging, and I'll put in the chat, how this affects 

intergenerational and economic mobility, right? Not just 

student parents who are in school, but 20 to 25 years. I 

feel like a lot of people have kids in that time who then 

are having to take care of their kids and think about how 

they're saving for college for their kids while trying to 

get out from underneath the debt that they also have. I 

know I'm probably running short on time, but the stories 

and of how much this affects folks being stuck in an 

apartment paying more than they would if they had a 

mortgage and then looking at what this is doing to our 

housing crisis, particularly down here in Southern 

California. Not only are they super expensive, but you 

can't even get a mortgage with this level of student 

loans like. I just I just can't conceptualize 20 to 25 

years still in our current situation. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Jennifer, go ahead 

please. 

MS. HONG: Thank you for that. I just 

Michaela, we, I hear your comment and we're listening to 

that. I know you're pushing for 10 years, to the extent 
 

 

 

23 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

that you know, any timeframe or any numbers we put 

forward, you know, finding some kind of rationale or 

support for that certainly helps. 

MS. MARTIN: I think that Persis has 

better rationale for her three and seven year 

distinction, because studies show that after three years 

on a zero income, the odds of you recuperating that money 

is incredibly low. And for other consumer lending, seven 

years is the standard. So I thought that 10 years is me 

coming in with a reasonable, rational proposal and 

splitting the difference between 20 and 7 and 3. Like 

that that is the rationale is that this is far beyond any 

other consumer lending practice and like ten years models 

a standard plan, if the standard is that you're out of 

debt in 10 years, then that should be the standard 

regardless of if you're in poverty or not. 

MS. LILLY: So I want to build on 

Michaela's point with a really concrete example for my 

population and for older adults/seniors. You can if you 

end up in default, you can have your Social Security 

benefits offset, which means the fixed income that you 

are living on gets taken away from you. In fact, you can 

be left with only seven hundred and fifty dollars a month 

to live on. I don't think anyone on this entire Zoom call 

could come up with a way to live seven hundred and fifty 
24 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

dollars a month. And so these are the folks who are going 

to be in $0 for repayment plans. These are the folks who 

don't have any flexibility when it comes to their income 

because they're on Social Security Disability benefits or 

their seniors living on very limited Social Security. I 

mean, seven hundred and fifty dollars is less than SSI, 

less than the program that we give financial support to 

the lowest income seniors and people with disabilities in 

this country. And the fact that, you know, we're going to 

continue to garnish those folks' stuff and not give them 

a route out of default is incredibly frustrating to me. 

But like, I think one way we can prevent that is we can 

set up much more reasonable proposals like Persis's 

proposal. Like, I cannot talk today. We can go with other 

proposals that are much more reasonable. They're going to 

protect these low income borrowers that have massive 

lifetime impacts if this debt continues. I also want to 

touch on which payments because I really appreciated 

Joe's comments earlier about this. We've heard public 

testimony, all of these basically every single time we've 

taken public testimony during these sessions of people 

who get a forbearance that they weren't intending to get 

into that has implications for things. I, especially with 

all the evidence of forbearance steering, especially with 

all of that, I really would recommend that payments under 
25 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

for any type of forbearance count here. I think it's just 

a way to make sure that we're not punishing students who 

get taken advantage of by servicers, which is something 

we have extensive evidence of. And so I really want to 

echo that point and say that I think it's important. 

MS. HONG: Thank you, Bethany, and I 

can just go over what we have proposed here in terms of 

and this is applicable to all the IDR plans in terms of 

deferring forbearing monthly payments. Again, the 

deferments are statutory cancer treatment, Peace Corps, 

economic hardship, military service. And we have also 

included administrative or mandatory administrative 

forbearances, medical or dental internship or residency 

forbearance, National Guard Duty forbearance and DOD 

student loan repayment forbearance. So that's all 

included under the same section. 

MS. LILLY: Yesterday, we had a young 

man who was talking about how he took a voluntary 

forbearance and then got stuck in it because of the 

pandemic and the freeze and all of the rest of this, 

like, that's not. None of these categories are going to 

help that young man. And I think we need to be thinking 

about the witnesses that have come to us and provided 

their testimony about how the system has worked for them. 

And clearly, this is one way in which the system isn't 
26 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

working, and we need to think about going beyond the 

forbearance as you've listed there. Again, I would 

reiterate, I think you should count all forbearances. I 

mean, it's a clear indication of some type of financial 

distress. And I think that should be enough justification 

for the Department to consider it. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Bethany. 

Marjorie. 

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: So I'm just 

going to also add another. This is a question, is there 

some statutory language or reason that we can't count all 

forbearances and deferments? Because again, I think, as 

Bethany shared, that makes the most sense. So that's just 

in addition to her comments. I wanted to address this 

idea of distinguishing between undergraduate and graduate 

degrees. And I'm going to try to keep calm, but I will 

use myself as an example. I cannot be a professor at a 

university like Mizzou in my Department without a Ph.D., 

which means I had to go get a master's and a doctorate. 

So we know across the board and we've heard testimony 

from numerous individuals who are in professions that 

require advanced degrees. It makes no sense to me that 

we're distinguishing between, especially in this day and 

age, that we're distinguishing between a bachelor's 

versus graduate degrees as if graduate degrees are 
27 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

optional, are optional, and in many fields they are not. 

You cannot be a counseling psychologist without a 

doctorate. You cannot be a social worker without a 

master's in social work. So in addition to thinking about 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness because all of these 

individuals would qualify in those areas, why are we 

again penalizing people for doing what they need to do to 

survive? In addition, I want to highlight the report that 

Persis shared yesterday from the Education Trust on Black 

borrowers and in it there's clear language that shows 

marginalized populations, and in this case, Black 

borrowers feel the need and we know through evidence to 

have more advanced degrees to even be competitive with 

their white peers. As a Black woman in academia, I am 

less competitive if I don't have a doctorate. And so to 

say that my loans are somehow don't deserve the same 

attention, I think is again confusing for borrowers. It 

limits decision making in a way that isn't fair and I 

think complicates this process in a way that's 

unnecessary. Now, I understand that there's a distinction 

between types of loans, and that's a different 

conversation. But I would strongly recommend striking any 

language that distinguishes between graduate and 

undergraduate degrees. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Jen. 
28 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

MS. CARDENAS: Hi, I also want to 

support Persis and Michaela. I love their points. I think 

we're at a pivotal point where we can make a difference 

for historically excluded students. So as a student of 

this committee, a lot of students have reached out and 

one thing that I see the same thing, I see inspiration, 

hardship and dreams crushing debt is what I see. So I 

want to share a story from one of those students that I 

got because I think if you want not just numbers, I want 

to give you a person, a person that reached out and told 

us exactly what twenty five years means to her. For a 

very young age, I was told that I needed to get an 

education in order to make it in this country. We need to 

go to school, get a degree. That's how you achieve the 

American dream. So that is what I did. I got my degrees. 

When you're socialized to achieve the American dream, 

they don't tell you that the cost of school nor that a 

person who tries to who. I'm trying to go fast because I 

have three minutes. Hold on. A person who this system was 

designed to exclude. You need, you will need to go to 

schools with recognizable names to even see the door open 

one day. As a woman of color who is in the city 

government to create systematic change and enter spaces 

that have always excluded people like me, I need to have 

degrees. Our names, our parents' connections will not get 
 

29 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

us anywhere. I don't have generational wealth, nor the 

generational social connections to leverage to enter 

these spaces as my white counterparts have. That in 

itself is already assuming a lot of privilege, and these 

institutions come with higher prices. But it's what we 

have to do. By doing that and getting access to these 

institutions. I have now been left out of investing 

economically in myself because I do not have the money to 

invest in my future. My money is going to student loans. 

IDR calculations are unrealistic. It assumes that folks 

have 15% of their income to spare, but it does not 

consider the cost of where I live. On top of that, it 

does not count for your sector. If it was 15 in a private 

sector, I probably wouldn't care, but 15 in a nonprofit 

or government salary where most people of color are 

landing because they want to contribute to the community 

that they're from is too much. Plus the ridiculousness of 

our interest rates that are higher than our car's 

interest. I don't even have a car because of that. An IDR 

my student loans interest grow more than what it's 

reduced by my payments. I owe almost thirty thousand more 

than when I graduated in 2012 because of how much 

interest my loans are accumulating, so I will never be 

done paying them. But I still do them. I do not miss a 

payment. I graduated at twenty three, a traditional 
 

30 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

student and twenty five years means that I will have to 

wait until I'm forty eight to invest in myself and start 

saving for my retirement. Forty eight, the Department of 

Education does not make any changes. It is setting up a 

whole economic class of individuals like myself that will 

not be able to retire. That will not be used to create a 

life. That will not have the safety net for our needs. I 

will not be able to call where we live our homes because 

we will not be able to buy one. We are a committee, so 

here we go. So we are in a community with the power to 

make these changes to actually create change and help 

these students invest in themselves and as a student of 

color representing student of colors, please take these 

real life stories when we're talking about them because 

they're not just numbers. Anyways. I did it under three 

minutes. So yay me. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Greg. 

MR. NORWOOD: Yeah, I just wanted to 

get on here and to vocalize my plus one, I think for what 

Michaela has been pushing since the onset of this 

conversation that low income students are drastically 

impacted by an extended period of debt that they have no 

way of getting out of. Right. I think Persis's suggestion 

should be taken very seriously. I think that Michaela's 

suggestions should be taken very seriously. I think that 
 

31 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

the current administration came in with this notion that 

they would drastically improve or drastically change the 

way in which we talk about or pay for higher education. 

Right. That was a promise from the jump. And he put in 

they put in people in places to make that happen. And I 

feel like we do have right now the opportunity to be 

progressive, to be intuitive, to be innovative. And I do 

not think we're taking full advantage of that 

opportunity. I think that we are getting a little too 

comfortable with the status quo. If that were the 

administration that came in and said, we're going to keep 

everything the way it is this this conversation wouldn't 

be important. But that's not what they said. They said, 

we're going to come in and drastically improve your 

lives, and one way we're going to do that is by 

drastically improving the way you repay for college. 

Well, we're having this conversation, and it seems like 

the Department isn't even considering some of these 

progressive and innovative ideas that are being presented 

at the table. And so I only urge this not even really a 

conversation for the for the people at the table. This 

really conversation is for the people who are watching 

and who are going like, come on, do something, do 

something. I want you to know that you got people at this 

table who are committed to doing something, and we are 
32 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

going to fight until our bones are bare because we want 

to hold accountable, hold accountable this administration 

told us who promised us we voted based on what they told 

us, and they told us that they would drastically improve 

the way we pay for college and I'm not giving up. I know 

Michael's not giving up. I got a feeling a whole bunch of 

other folk aren't giving up until we get to that place 

where they are doing what they said they would do. That's 

what we want. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Greg. Persis. 

Ms. YU: Thank you, and thank you, 

Greg, for that, and just another reminder that this 

administration also promised widespread debt cancelation 

for student loan borrowers. And so to add that to the 

list of things at which this administration promised and 

which borrowers are waiting for. I want to, you know, 

first of all, lift up what Marjorie said and Jen said 

that it is basically indefensible at this point, I think 

to continue to have a distinction between graduate and 

undergraduate loans, given the known racial disparities 

that we have in in the pay scale of Black borrowers with 

graduate degrees versus white borrowers without graduate 

degrees and the degrees that borrowers that students of 

color need to get in order to survive our economy. I do 

want to return to the idea of the forbearances because 
 

 

33 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

that is such a big deal for the borrowers that we see. 

And I want to lift up, and if I run out of time, I will 

jump back into line, some stories from the Legal Aid 

Foundation of Los Angeles on exactly this point to the 

first story is Ms. Hernandez, who attended United 

Education Institute in 2011. When she sought LAFLA's 

assistance in 2019, she was a single parent of three 

children and was living on a combined income of nine 

hundred and fifty dollars a month. Seven hundred dollars 

in wages and two hundred dollars in CalWORKs. Ms. 

Hernandez was never able to afford the standard monthly 

payments on our federal loans. When she reentered 

repayment in December 2011, she called her loan servicer 

and told them she was unemployed and could not afford the 

monthly payments. They deferred her loans for six months 

and we're unclear as to what the basis. And then over the 

next two point five years, the loan servicer put her 

loans in forbearance whenever she called to explain that 

she could not afford the payments. She defaulted in 2015. 

In January 2020, her employer received an order from the 

Department of Education to garnish her wages. She sought 

with LAFLA's assistance and they arranged for her to get 

into a rehabilitation plan. And so now she is in a REPAYE 

IDR plan with a $0 payment. But because of that, she's 

had years of either default or forbearances. Another 
34 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

example, Ms. Smith owed around two hundred and forty 

thousand dollars on a FFEL consolidation loan. She's an 

elderly, disabled African-American borrower living on 

fixed Social Security retirement benefits of one thousand 

eight hundred dollars per month. She suffers from back 

pain, fibromyalgia, chronic depression. Her loans were on 

a repayment plan, with the two thousand one hundred 

dollars payment amount she's never been able to afford. 

Between 2010 and 2015, she called her loan servicers five 

times to say that she could not afford her payments and 

every single time she was put into a forbearance up until 

the point at which again she defaulted. When she got to 

LAFLA, she was put she with the assistance she got into a 

$0 Income Driven Repayment amount, but none of that time 

counts. I will return to my stories later. Thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Persis. I do 

want to just mention the stories are very insightful, do 

continue. We continue to encourage you to share reg ideas 

and solutions going forward. Just noting it's almost two 

o'clock on Friday, our last day of this session as well. 

So and we still have the rest of IDR to cover, as well as 

false certification and potentially revisiting a couple 

of things. So just reminding folks of that. David. 

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, I recognize the 

time constraints that we're under, but it's also 
35 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

important to recognize that we are here as 

representatives of communities and are simultaneously 

negotiating, but also speaking into the public record 

things of important value. And so I felt like it's 

appropriate for me to express my public on the record 

support strong support of cancelation ideas put forward 

by Persis, the 10-year idea put forth by Michaela, the 

forbearance idea put forth by Bethany, and also the 

inclusion of graduate debt that was put forth by 

Marjorie. I also want to express that there are only 

certain areas of policy where the strong empirical 

research combines with the personal stories of 

individuals as such as strong fashion as we see here, we 

are harming a generation of multiple generations at this 

point of people, but particularly the most vulnerable. 

And we see the confluence of poor policy design with 

predatory schools and resulting in just absolute harm to 

people be basically taking the American dream off the 

table for people in a way that we can all observe, we can 

all see it happening in real time. And so it is the time 

to follow the Council of Great-- and think boldly and act 

boldly. And I think we have some wonky ideas that are put 

on the table that can have a tremendous impact. And so as 

a representative of state higher education agencies, I 

support these and look forward to putting these into 
36 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

language and giving my thumbs up. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, David. Joe. 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, I want to I want 

to thank Greg for changing the framing here and really 

bringing us up to where we're talking about student loan 

debt in general and the harm that that that has on 

people. I think that's important for us to remember as we 

get down the weeds and start talking about regulatory 

details. It's easy to get lost and so I really think that 

it's good that we've been pulled back up. And I think 

that in our discussion of Income Driven Repayment and the 

plans on the table for people, there are --these plans do 

have the power to provide broad relief for people. And 

there is a very important context for us to remember when 

we're talking about student loans that doesn't apply to 

other forms of consumer debt. And someone made this point 

earlier that this is not, you know, I think it was about 

the question was about the term, right. We're talking 

about 25 years and most loans don't have that kind of 

term. There's an even more important context here, and 

that's that these loans can't be discharged in 

bankruptcy, right? Any other kind of loan, right you can. 

It's unsecured, you can go and you can get it discharged 

in bankruptcy and there's a valve there. That's a very 

important valve for to allow people to move on with their 
37 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

lives. And that doesn't exist here. You know, my boss, 

Attorney General Raoul testified this August in front of 

Congress in support of a bill that would provide that 

bankruptcy discharge. Now, as we all know, this group 

doesn't have that power, right? The Department doesn't 

have the power to do that, only Congress would have the 

power to do that. But we do have the power to provide 

reasonable discharge options for this type of debt that 

doesn't have that right now. And, you know, others have 

spoken very powerfully about how that affects people's 

upward mobility, people's ability to dream and learn and 

grow. And you know, I think that we need to take that 

seriously. This is an area right here where we can have a 

profound effect on how student loans operate in this 

country, and I urge us not to lose. 

MR. TOTONCHI: For the record, none of 

us muted Joe, he muted himself. I just want to mention 

that. I see Persis and Michaela's hands up. After those 

two comments, we will do a temp check on K just to let 

everyone know, Persis. 

Ms. YU: Thank you. And so I 

appreciate Joe's comments and one thing that to bring the 

conversation back up is to also think about who is not 

expressly included here and that's again defaulted 

borrowers. As I mentioned in the in the two stories that 
 

38 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

I discussed earlier, many of these defaulted borrowers 

were having their Social Security taken. They were having 

their wages taken, even though they qualified for $0, 

zero dollar payments, had they had the wherewithal in, 

many of them tried, right, they tried, they called their 

servicer. They called their servicer five six times 

placed into deferments or forbearances. They've been 

making efforts and they've not been getting into these 

programs, which would give them time towards cancelation. 

And many of them default as a result. And we haven't. I 

have not yet seen a proposal from the Department on what 

it plans to do with defaulted borrowers, and so we're 

still waiting for that. But the other thing in terms of 

this very specific provision that I'd like to see is I'd 

like to see any payments made while in default count 

towards cancelation as well. And I think many folks have 

had we have a GAO report from 2017 which shows that 

borrowers are making payments from their Social Security 

and they're never touching principle, which because we 

have no statute of limitations on student loans and 

because the payments do not count towards Income Driven 

Repayment, they will be making those payments for the 

rest of their lives. And one of the ways that we can 

provide a release valve is to ensure that any payments 

made while in default count towards cancelation on Income 
 

 

39 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Driven Repayment. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Persis. 

Michaela. 

MS. MARTIN: I wanted to touch on a 

couple of things, and it might be a bit of a dramatic 

argument, but I think it's important to acknowledge that 

PSLF and its intention was to help public service folks, 

right? But in public service and in higher education, we 

have had drastic shifts towards the corporatization of 

these fields. Right? I mean, my dad is a paramedic. The 

company that he then worked for afterwards was a private 

company. So if we're basing things just off of, you know, 

I understand not trying to bring in PSLF, but I think 

it's really important in this argument that a lot of 

these jobs caring for the elderly, nursing, these are all 

now starting to move towards privatization and being a 

part of corporations, and that we also have an incredibly 

unstable populace right now. And just acknowledging that 

student loans is something that affects everybody. And I 

think that this idea that we can't get away from 

government debt or from the promises that are giving us 

to us about higher education, that that all adds to this 

kind of instability that we're having right now. And 

because I just wanted to leave off on hopefully make you 

all laugh, is that like I think this also really shows 
40 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

why there's such an obsession with squid games right now. 

And like, if you look online, you can find so many 

student loan squid game memes because so many of us are 

like, I don't think you understand the things I would do 

for the possibility of getting out from underneath my 

student loans. To get out of this (inaudible), right, 

like to have an opportunity, which is what we were told 

that we would have. I was trying to make you laugh, I 

cried instead, like, like 20 years is just absurd. Like, 

I can't, I can't imagine. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Michaela, 

for your comments. Jennifer, do you have anything? You 

know, my instinct is to tee up section K for a 

temperature check, is there any other way you would want 

tee it up? 

MS. HONG: I don't think we need to 

tee it up. I think we've had-- I'm pretty clear on the 

piece on time to forgiveness as well as the concern 

regarding the inclusion of other forbearances. We just 

have to take that back. 

MR. TOTONCHI: So I apologize if I'm 

confused, shall weMS. HONG: Yeah, let's okay, yeah 

let's do it. If people are up for that. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Folks, so we're going 
41 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

to ask for thumbs on Section K, a temperature check. 

MR. TANDBERG: Sorry, are we 

temperature checking the ideas around time. I don't know 

what we're temperature checking. Are we, are we 

(inaudible) the language as it was introduced or are we 

temperature checking the ideas that there seems to, that 

there's broad agreement on that are being advanced in the 

conversation. What are we temperature checking? 

MS. HONG: So all of it. 

MR. TANDBERG: All of it, okay. 

MS. HONG: And so everything under K, 

David, which is the time to forgiveness, as well as 

deferring and forbearing, forbearance. 

MR. TANDBERG: When you say time to 

forgiveness, is it the ten-year idea that we discussed or 

what 

MS. HONG: As proposed. We're taking 

temperature check on what's proposed in the language. 

MR. TANDBERG: In the red line. Okay. 

Thank you. 

MS. MARTIN: The temp check on twenty 

five years just to be very explicit. 

MR. TOTONCHI: I believe so. Let me 

see thumbs. Right there, there are a number of thumbs. 

There are a number of you who have not spoken up during 
 

42 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

this conversation. If your thumb is down and you haven't 

spoken up, please if you could raise your hand and share, 

you know the reason why your thumb is down. Justin. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, I mean, I'm not 

going to recite everything, but I think there were just 

too many good points that need to be considered and they 

are persuasive to me. So I think based on the things that 

have already been raised and what, what, what we've been 

given in proposed text, I'm not comfortable with it. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Any particular, you 

know, just if you have, you know, one, two or three 

compelling items, Justin. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, the payment 

horizon particularly. But I think there's also been 

important points made about deferments and a host of 

other things. So leave it there. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Misty. 

MS. SABOUNEH: I haven't said anything 

so far, but just completely echo what everyone's been 

saying. Twenty five years is ridiculous, we can do so 

much better to support loan forgiveness-- is such a much 

shorter time frame, and agree with the comments about 

forbearance, so just echoing what everyone's been saying. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay, thanks for those 

insights. Daniel. 
43 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

MR. BARKOWITZ: I would just say a 

line was set with Public Service Loan Forgiveness at 10 

years. And so my strong recommendation would be again 

that we look at that as sort of a standard 10 years is 

available for people who are in public service, 10 years 

should be available for those who are low-income. And 

that would be, you know, again, my suggestion. And that's 

really where my strongest argument is. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Noelia. 

MS. GONZALEZ: I agree with what's 

been said, so I don't have much to add, but specifically 

on the timeframe, I think that 240 payments or 25 years 

is a really long time to be making payments or just do a 

loan. I think that shortening that timeframe, I think, is 

imperative to help our students. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Heather. 

MS. PERFETTI: Well, I too don't have 

much more to add. I did have a thumbs down and I would 

just concur with what we've heard from others, as well as 

what Justin put forward about the compelling pieces that 

need to be considered as part of the language here. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Anyone else want to 

speak to this before we proceed to break? Alright. Thank 

you. We will take a break. By my clock, it's 2:07, we'll 

round up to 2:20 for our break. Welcome back, everyone 
44 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

from the break, I just first want to recognize that 

Christina is at the table for two-year public 

institutions, Dixie is in for dependent students. Okay. 

So with that, we're going to continue finishing up IDR 

and then of course, we need to tackle false certification 

as well this afternoon. So Jennifer, if you could tee 

this up for us. 

MS. HONG: Sure. Let's see, we're 

looking at the bottom of page six under L through the 

end, the only things we've already kind of started this 

discussion under procedures. Given the effort, this 

discussion, you know, the whole recertification process 

will be significantly streamlined, automated, as you 

heard Brian mention earlier. We're still trying to work 

out what consent means, but this whole section has been 

rewritten to be much more general to accommodate for any 

changes in FUTURE Act implementation and just to preserve 

flexibility in that regard. So if you turn to the next 

page on page seven, the only question that we had is if 

we could get some feedback on what a borrower's payment 

should be if they do not recertify. And just to give you 

some ideas right above there for REPAYE for example, a 

borrower is removed and placed on an alternate repayment 

plan. Required payment under alternate plan is the amount 

needed to repay the loan in full within the earlier 10 
45 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

years from the date the borrower begins repayment under 

the alternative plan or the remaining period of time that 

the borrower would have needed to repay the loans under 

the REPAYE plan to receive forgiveness. And for pay, it's 

the same as IDR and IBR, and that is that the interest is 

capitalized. Payment has changed to a 10-year standard 

plan amount and repayment period may exceed 10 years. The 

borrower remains on the plan. For ICR the payment is 

changed to 10-year standard plan amount based on the 

amount owed when the borrower began repayment under the 

plan. Repayment periods may exceed 10 years and the 

borrower remains on the plan, so that piece is to come. 

If you had any feedback on what the payments should be 

when a borrower does not recertify, we are happy to hear 

them and that'll take us through all the proposed IDR 

language. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Persis. 

Ms. YU: Thanks. So we I do want to go 

back to the FUTURE Act piece. I kind of teed this up 

yesterday about talking about delinquent borrowers and 

borrowers who are behind on their payments. I flagged 

yesterday the post that New America had with their 

proposal. I'm actually just going to drop in the chat 

right now. They actually do have some regulatory language 

to propose that would allow consent for Income Driven 
46 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Repayment if a borrower becomes delinquent. So it becomes 

kind of like pairs with it so that we could automatically 

enroll borrowers who are delinquent into an Income Driven 

Repayment plan to help prevent borrowers from getting 

going into default where possible. So that's the first 

piece that I wanted to mention. The second piece to the 

to the question about what should the payment be when a 

borrower does not recertify? First of all, this is why we 

need a FUTURE Act, right? Because we know that 

recertification is a huge problem and so many people do 

not recertify. So hopefully this becomes a much smaller 

population with actual implementation of the FUTURE Act. 

But I will say that the structure of REPAYE has caused 

tremendous confusion and hardship for folks who care who 

fall out of REPAYE Because so many people do fail to 

recertify and then try to get back in is such a 

nightmare. I mean, I think that this is probably the best 

argument so far for why we should cap the payment amount 

at the standard plan. Because it is just it is just 

easier to figure out what should the payment be, although 

or maybe it should be zero, you know? So I think what we 

need to do is we need to be figuring out how to make it 

just simpler. What we have now for REPAYE is pretty 

untenable. And so I don't actually have like the magic 

answer for you. But what I would say that the current 
 

 

47 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

system for REPAYE does not work. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Persis. Daniel. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thanks. I would echo 

what Persis said about FUTURE Act, presumably solving the 

problem of recertification, the only issue that I would 

add is just a reminder that borrowers who don't file the 

tax return shouldn't be penalized by the lack of a tax 

return. And I know I just want to again state the obvious 

that in the FAFSA linkage between the FAFSA application 

and the IRS data matching, there will be an ability to 

grab income data that is not specifically related to the 

filing of a 1040, but just a reminder that in this 

situation as well, there will need to be some 

accommodation for borrowers who do not file an annual 

1040. But I guess I would ask why there even needs to be 

language about recertification at all other than it would 

be it would be a standard as part of the annual check 

against the borrower's filed income and that that may be 

the best way to handle it so that there is not an option. 

And then I would support Persis's suggestion by default, 

that it sort of be back to the standard amount. But I'm 

just worried about those people who don't do an actual 

income tax return. And again, we'll be able to catch 

those by virtue of the fact there won't be an income tax 

record. That should be a presumption of no income, not a 
 

48 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

presumption of unlimited income. And I just want to make 

sure that that is part of the formal record and statement 

as well. Thank you. 

MS. HONG: Yes, but we're still 

dealing with the issue of consent. So in the event that a 

borrower does not provide their consent. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Joe. 

MR. SANDERS: Hi. I want to voice 

support for Persis's concept of having people 

automatically enroll in IDR upon a certain length of 

delinquency, and I want to support that with talking 

again about the state attorney general experience with 

investigations of student loan servicers. We have seen 

and we allege in our Navient lawsuits that, you know, 

borrowers who are struggling with long-term financial 

issues don't make enough income to pay their loans. When 

they call their servicers to find a solution, servicers 

are steering them into forbearance. So we think there's a 

structural problem with getting people into the plans in 

the first place, and we support the idea of automatic 

enrollment into the plans upon a certain level of 

delinquency. Now, in the event that that is not possible, 

for some reason, we think there needs to be an 

examination by the Department for requirement in 

regulation that servicers must discuss income-driven 
49 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

plans when borrowers come to them with long-term 

financial problems, we allege in our Navient lawsuits 

that servicers incentivize their call service 

representatives to have low call times. So if you keep 

your call under seven minutes, you get a bonus. Anything 

goes over seven minutes, you don't. I takes longer than 

seven minutes to figure out how to get somebody into an 

IDR plan. Voluntary forbearance can be done much more 

quickly, so we support the automatic option to the extent 

that the Department is not going to go there, there has 

to be some sort of substantive, demonstrable regulation 

put in place to require servicers to discuss these 

options. Otherwise they're illusory. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Joe. Marjorie. 

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Yes, so great 

minds. Again, the point about automation, and while I 

understand what you're saying about consent, this can be 

a rule for both institutions, because I vaguely recall 

way back when I was getting my degrees, having to sign 

paperwork and not having anybody talk me through it. So 

one institution can serve a role in supporting talking 

students through what it means to go through a plan and 

signing those forms and providing their consent to 

automate the process to go into these plans as the 

default as Daniel has suggested. The other point that I 
50 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

would also agree with what was already said this idea of 

recertification when we know that those who don't 

recertify are the ones who are most at risk. And so is 

there a reason that their plans can't simply be 

maintained until there's evidence that it should be 

raised otherwise? Right. So instead of sort of taking 

folks out of their repayment plans, can't we just keep 

them on them until that documentation is obtained? And 

maybe the Department can think about setting longer 

deadlines or longer periods of recertification so that it 

doesn't have to be every year, particularly if at the 

same time so thinking about Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness and other areas. Many folks don't necessarily 

change employment or their income every year in 

substantial ways. So that was a suggestion for that. And 

then my other, I guess, larger point in looking at this 

procedure's issue overall. And thank you, Joe, because I 

was going to raise this as well. What is the 

responsibility for services in this situation? Because 

we've heard time and again from the beginning of these 

sessions how servicers don't properly advise borrowers 

that they either misinformed them or directly lied to 

them because it's to the benefit of the servicer, not the 

student. And so you have all of these students who aren't 

being properly directed into appropriate plans, not 
51 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

receiving appropriate information or not being able to 

reach anyone at all because we know that that happens as 

well. And so I don't know if this would be a part of this 

language here, but I would really like to see something 

from the Department really holding folks accountable. And 

I think all of this language is about holding borrowers 

accountable. And there's nothing here for servicers, 

right? So I can open a Navient and do whatever for 20 

years and then shut down and be like, we're done, and 

that's it. Outside of borrowers sort of having to turn to 

litigation like class action lawsuits and those kinds of 

issues. So I would really like us to think about also 

creating languages for servicers in this situation 

because it seems that that's really where a lot of these 

problems lie. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Marjorie. Well, 

Brian, first I see you have your hand up. 

MR. SIEGEL: Yeah, just to respond to 

those last couple of comments. Our relationship with our 

servicers has nothing to do with these regulations. 

They're governed by the contracts between the Department 

and the servicers. And there is a body of law which 

governs our ability to collect liabilities or to enforce 

terms of the contracts against the loan servicers. So 

that that's really outside the scope of these 
52 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

regulations. The Department, as I'm sure you've seen in 

the announcement by Chief Operating Officer Cordray, has 

taken steps to tighten the oversight and sanctions 

regarding servicers, and we anticipate that that will 

reduce the problems that have occurred in the past. But 

these regulations don't govern servicers. 

MR. TOTONCHI: (Inaudible) goes after 

Michaela, Justin, Suzanne we'll plan on a temp check on 

section L, just so everyone's aware. Michaela. 

Ms. YU: Yeah, I so currently, let's 

say somebody did recertify and the information provided 

wasn't accurate, right, and they should have been paying 

more. There is currently an enforcement mechanism, 

correct? (Inaudible) No? 

MS. HONG: I'm sorry, the question is 

regarding what we have in place for other plans 

currently? 

MS. MARTIN: Mm hmm. 

MS. HONG: Yeah. And they're all 

different. You know, those are right above-- we captured 

in the language for EICR. We just have to (inaudible) 

because we have different requirements for the different 

IDR plans. 

MS. MARTIN: Right, so if we were to 

say if you're on an ICR, you just like auto reenroll, you 
53 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

would be able to capture folks who weren't updating their 

information as they should be. Correct? I ask because 

this is the way that like housing and SNAP, like, which 

is another point I want to make that recertifications are 

so cumbersome when you're dealing with poverty, right? 

Like, I have to do recertification every six months, and 

I have such a struggle trying to figure out which ones 

are six months, which ones are one year, and they're all 

at different times, housing recently, I asked this 

because housing acknowledging this as being a huge burden 

on low income folks has now had, instead of annual 

recertification, a lot of the recertification is every 

two years, including your inspections, sorry, I was like, 

when they come here and look at things, the inspections 

are now not yearly because it was just like so cumbersome 

for folks. And so they did that because they already have 

these enforcement mechanisms in place. So if for some 

reason someone, or like I had a serious wage increase, 

they would be able to capture that. So having more of an 

enforcement lens, then this kind of proactive, you have 

to do this every year or we're going to just put you in 

deferment and now you're going to pay for the rest of 

your life kind of situation that's occurring. So I was 

just wondering, is there anything any like particularized 

reason why we couldn't have folks just auto reenroll or 
54 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

extend the time in which they need to continue reenrolling with this program? 

MS. HONG: We can take that back, I 

think the idea is that, you know, this would be 

significantly-- the issues with recertification would be 

attenuated because of the FUTURE Act that we would have 

this information automatically. Again, we're just working 

out the consent issue to make that information available 

to us. 

MS. MARTIN: And it's not available 

like because I've heard of folks being like, oh, my wage 

increased and I didn't update it properly or something. 

And there is enforcement on that. So where is that coming 

from in that conversation, or are you saying that they 

had already given permission for that kind of check? 

MS. HONG: Yes, the permission is what 

we're trying to work out with the IRS. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Justin. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, thanks. I will 

be quick here, but and I'm not going to offer a specific 

regulatory text because I think to Jennifer's point, 

we're very hopeful that the FUTURE Act is addressing 

these recertification issues, but I would be remiss if I 

didn't mention how big of an issue recertification and 

enrollment into IDR has been for service members, in 
55 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

particular service members who are going into training, 

perhaps right after college and also managing kind of 

that grace period and then the need to enroll, perhaps 

when they're going into basic training. And then, of 

course, for folks on deployments who are either having to 

manage or deal with enrollment or recertification while 

they're overseas, maybe it's a remote combat outpost or 

whatever it is, and you can imagine the difficulties for 

a service member trying to enroll or recertify their IDR 

plan. And of course, this comes with carryover 

implications for PSLF as well. When folks are trying to 

work towards forgiveness, the Student Borrower Protection 

Center put out a great report on protecting military 

borrowers that really drilled into these issues for folks 

that are interested. But I just would have been remiss 

not to mention the impact that recertification enrollment 

has had on service members. Thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Justin. 

Suzanne. Oh, I see Bethany has her hand up as well. We'll 

do the temp check after Bethany. Suzanne. 

Suzanne: Yeah, thank you. I'll be 

very brief. So building upon Joe's point, I mean, the 

paperwork and the servicer's role in contributing to 

these errors cannot be overstated. It's what we license 

student loan services, this is the top number of 
56 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

complaints that we get are about these paperwork issues. 

And I put it in the chat, but I wanted to make sure that 

I called it back because when we were in REPAYE 

negotiations in 2015, the Department did produce data at 

the time about recertification rates, and I believe it 

was 57% of all people were not recertifying within six 

months of their certification deadline, which I think 

really demonstrates a system, a systematic error here. I 

appreciate that we may be moving toward a multi multiyear 

consent process. We asked for that then. If we're closer 

to that today, that is great. But clearly, you know 

whether or not you specifically call out servicers in 

these regulations, servicers are the gatekeeper and they 

are causing this problem in large detail. And one brief 

little anecdote that I even flagged at REPAYE and I'll 

flag it here again is a lot of it might not even be 

regulatory. It could just be guidance. But just the 

communications alone can make a huge difference. I 

actually missed my recertification one year because I was 

doing negotiated rulemaking and didn't see that little 

email that said a message is waiting for you in your 

inbox. I didn't know what that was for. I thought it was 

an annual privacy statement or something. I had no idea. 

It turned out that was actually the email that if I 

clicked three more times, I'd actually get to the page to 
 

 

57 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

say, hey, you're recertification is coming up. I think 

maybe around 2019 finally FedLoan Servicing started 

saying, hey, renew your IDR in the subject header of the 

email. But I mean, that's the level of detail of what 

someone even who is working on these issues for a living 

can miss. And so you can imagine what people being 

inundated with communications all day, how easy it would 

be to miss these things. And that's precisely why we need 

to remove the burden on the individual borrower in every 

possible place we can to keep people in these plans 

because that's how people are falling behind. And if 

we're not going to limit interest, cruel and 

capitalization and all those other things and someone's 

going to slide toward default on an inflated balance, 

then we're completely failing in our mission here to 

provide access to affordable repayment on all these 

different points we're discussing at this rulemaking. 

MS. LILLY: So I just want to flag 

something, because I think it's important to Suzanne's 

point, I actually also have had recertification problems 

with my IDR plan, and it's complicated and the FUTURE Act 

will address a lot of that, but it is not going to 

capture everything. It is not going to capture folks who 

are not in the IRS system. It is not going to capture 

folks who are going to have honestly probably the most 
 

58 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

trouble getting through the recertification process. And 

so I don't want those folks to get left out, and I really 

like the suggestion that it may be every two years, every 

three years. Maybe if income is not going to change, if 

somebody is on, for instance, retirement benefits from 

the Social Security Administration, their income is not 

going to change month to month or year to year or ever, 

really. And so like, I just would really encourage 

thinking about those folks who are not going to file 

while you're doing the future work because I think we 

shouldn't be forgetting about those populations. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, both. So 

we'll move for a temperature check on Section L. 

Jennifer, is there any particular framing you're looking 

for on this temperature check? 

MS. HONG: Right, so I mean, we've 

amended all the language under procedures just to make it 

sufficiently general so that as we implement the FUTURE 

Act, we can make any adjustments as necessary. If we 

could just take a temperature check on that language. We 

have a TK regarding what happens if a borrower isn't 

recertified. So that's just open. But otherwise, if we 

could just look at the language as proposed and take a 

temperature check on that. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Alright folks, at this 
59 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

stage (inaudible). 

MS. MACK: Emil, can you state that 

again? We didn't hear that. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Oh, I apologize. So at 

this stage, in light of the way that Jennifer has teed up 

this temperature check, I'd like to see everyone's 

thumbs. 

MS. LILLY: Just to clarify, this is 

on all of the text and has nothing to do with everything 

we've just been discussing about the amount of payment, 

right? Okay. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Correct. 

MS. MARTIN: It's a little awkward 

that the only thing that says is TK, so we're just temp 

checking the TK. 

MS. LILLY: We're checking the rewrite 

that they did to everything else. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Correct. Is there any 

other confusion? You know, hold on, folks with the 

thumbs, is there any other confusion regarding this temp 

check? 

MR. HAUSCHILD: I apologize. I think 

this we're talking just under procedures here. The 

entirety of procedures. Is that accurate? Or am I, okay, 

thank you. 
 

60 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

MR. TOTONCHI: So now that we're 

clear, can I see folks' thumbs? I believe I see one thumb 

down. Joe, can you succinctly state why you're there? 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, I think there 

needs to be some kind of consideration for how to 

streamline getting people into these plans. If you don't 

do that, then if you don't do. If we can't do that, then 

the problems that we have that the state AGs have raised 

and sued servicers on and spent many, many years 

investigating and looking at are, you know, aren't solved 

here. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. So with 

that, folks, we will move on to, I understand, false 

certification. Oh, Daniel, you have your hand up? 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Sorry, Emil. I just 

again, I know and I'm sorry to belabor this point, but 

I've raised it since Tuesday. I just want to check in one 

more time as we approach the end of the week for the 

Department on the update on Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness processing to date. I understand this is not 

necessarily an agenda item, but it is because it relates 

to the conversation we've been having in the processing 

of the temporary waivers to date. So I understand there 

was a post article fairly recently about servicers not 

getting instructions. I'm just trying to get a sense of 
61 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

where we are in that conversation and what the what work 

is, what good work has been done so far by the Department 

and moving that agenda forward. And I know, Jen, you 

mentioned you might be able to provide a written update, 

if not a verbal update. I just want to note that we're 

still looking for that. 

MS. HONG: Thanks for that, Daniel. 

Let's see if we can try and get it to you all, and we can 

put it in the chat. As I mentioned earlier, (inaudible) 

get that, I'll forward it on. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you. I know this 

a lot on your agenda and I respect that deeply. It is, it 

is also personally and professionally important, so justMS. HONG: I appreciate the reminder, 

I understand. Absolutely. I appreciate the reminder. 

Understand. Absolutely. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Right. Thank you. Let's 

proceed with false certification. So if folks could pull 

that out if you have it handy. Section 685.215. Jennifer, 

if you could tee this discussion up, that would be great. 

MS. HONG: Sure. And if we could cue. 

There we go. Just as a reminder, this is issue number 11 

again under section 437C1. The Secretary is authorized to 

grant a false certification, discharge to direct loan and 

fellow borrowers. If the borrower's eligibility was 
62 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

falsely certified by the school or was falsely certified 

due to the crime identity theft, and we had some 

discussion about this during session one. I remember we 

heard from legal aid, but generally there seemed to be 

some agreement around the issues raised. I see Josh's 

hand up, I know that legal aid did send a proposal in. I 

can go over that real quickly, we did take one of the 

suggestions put forward by Josh and Persis. Just very 

quickly, that was with regard to the (inaudible) 

evidentiary standard, just in general. If you look at the 

proposed text, by the way, we did not have proposed text 

last time, if you recall, just as a reminder. So this is 

the first time of us providing proposed text to you all. 

Jaye, we don't have conforming FFEL language yet, but if 

you could just take the concepts and know that we will 

conform them to the FFEL regs and get that out as soon as 

we can, we will do so. So to the to the point about 

evidentiary standard and rescinding the current 

requirement in general, we've (inaudible) we've cut out a 

lot of (inaudible) basically embrace-- the regulations do 

not require a borrower to submit corroborating evidence. 

We just, the borrower just needs to submit a completed 

application and can submit any additional evidence with 

the application, but is not required to do so for that 

(inaudible) issue that Josh and Persis raised. They also 
63 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

raised an issue which we thought was novel reading of the 

statute, and that is regarding eligibility for release. 

We read this as false certification-- is about the school 

false falsely certifying the borrower's eligibility. If a 

school falsely certifies its own eligibility to 

participate in Title four, we conceive of that as a 

Borrower Defense issue. So and then as far as group 

discharges go, I realize (inaudible)-- that explicit, and 

in other sections of the regulations, however-- I mean, 

we don't have that here, but certainly if it was a false 

certification (inaudible) borrowers to the extent that we 

can identify groups of borrowers. There's nothing 

precluding us from applying these regs to other borrowers 

as well. So quickly just to go through page one. Those 

deletions and additions have to do with disbursement 

date. Did we mention this last time-- we got away from 

disbursement date to origination. We've defined loan 

origination on Page two based on the conversation that we 

had. We actually proposed it. We proposed it in section 

one and then I believe we had further discussion about it 

in session one. Page three again conforming changes to 

ensure that this is when the loan was originated. Again, 

section three in the case when a borrower is requesting a 

discharge because the school signed the borrower's name 

on the loan application or promissory note without the 
64 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

borrower's authorization. We've deleted the romanette 2I 

about providing five different specimens of his or her 

signature. All, if that is required, is for the borrower 

to state that he or she or that the borrower did not sign 

the document in question or authorize the school to do 

so. So that is removing a potential barrier in that 

regard. Page four. Again, just to certify that the 

individual did not receive or benefit from the proceeds 

of the loan with knowledge of that, the loan had been 

made without the authorization of an individual period. 

Full stop everything. After that has been removed in 

terms of authentic, authenticating specimens of the 

signature judicial determinations. All of that--, but we 

have re-worked under romanette 3I, a statement of facts 

and supporting evidence when false certification happened 

as a result of the crime of identity theft. And just and 

just to cleanly state it here, supporting evidence may 

include judicial determination of identity theft, an FTC 

(inaudible) report, documentation of a dispute of the 

validity of the loan due to the identity theft filed with 

at least three major consumer reporting agencies and any 

other evidence acceptable to the Secretary. Just 

technical changes, definition of identity theft and 

reorder (inaudible) simplify. Five to the end, we've 

simplified the reg text here and added at the bottom of 
65 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

page five in the event that we find an application 

submitted on false certification to the Secretary is 

incomplete, we'll, we'll notify the borrower of that 

determination and allow the borrower an additional 30 

days to amend their application and provide supplemental 

information. If the borrower does not amend their 

application within 30 days of receiving notification from 

the Secretary, the borrower's application is closed as 

incomplete and the Secretary resumes collection the loan 

and grants forbearance of principle and interest for the 

period of this collection and activity is suspended. And 

that's just I mean, that's just giving the borrower 

another 30 days rather than outright denying the 

application. Okay. Again, just to reemphasize the end of 

page six, the borrower is not precluded from reapplying 

for discharge under paragraph C of this section if the 

discharge request is closed as incomplete or if the 

Secretary determines that the borrower does not qualify 

for discharge if the borrower provides additional 

supporting evidence. So that does leave open the 

possibility for the borrower to reapply. And then all 

the, you know, the additional requirements regarding 

(inaudible), we have removed. So I think we've been very 

responsive to all the comments that were made in session 

one. I know Josh's hand has been out for a while. We look 
66 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

forward to hearing your comments. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Before Josh starts, I 

just want to recognize that David is back for state 

higher education agencies and Josh, who is about to 

speak, is back for legal aid. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. I just have two 

preliminary comments before diving into the substance. 

One of appreciation for the Department, taking our 

comments into consideration and taking our proposals into 

consideration. And then also one frankly of frustration 

that false certification is an issue that really impacts 

the most vulnerable group of students, a disproportionate 

number of whom are people of color. We have about thirty 

five minutes left in this session, and this is the first 

time we're seeing the reg text reg text. And it does feel 

like a bit of an injustice to those students for us to 

have this time constraint. To that end and in light of 

the somewhat time constraint nature of IDR, we would urge 

the Department for session three to potentially start 

with these two issues in the next week. Diving into the 

substance, so I'll start off on the kind of broader 

statutory interpretation question about what constitutes 

eligibility for relief. So I hear the Department's point 

that schools falsification of its certification might 

constitute a Borrower Defense claim. But I don't think 
 

67 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

that actually addresses whether it would also constitute 

a false certification discharge under this statutory 

provision that the Department has a different statutory 

interpretation. I think that's one thing and a basis not 

to do it. We would disagree with that interpretation, but 

I would understand that. But the mere fact that it would 

also constitute a Borrower Defense, I don't think gets 

directly to the issue of whether the statute would 

justify discharges in that in that situation. Diving in a 

little bit to the high school diploma or equivalent 

discharge section from the corroborating evidence 

standard. So glad to hear that the Department does not 

intend to impose a corroborating evidence requirement. I 

have to admit that I may have just missed it. I didn't. 

That's not the view I took necessarily while reading 

this, particularly in light of the subregulatory history 

on the corroborating evidence. And so I do think some 

affirmative statement on that point could be clarifying 

and useful, or alternatively just information from the 

Department that all of that subregulatory history on 

corroborating evidence has been rescinded. With respect 

to group discharges, we do think this is particularly 

important-. 

MS. JEFFRIES: 30 seconds, Josh. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks, I'll hop back 
68 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

on with my time. I'll stop there and then hop back 

because it's going to take me more than 30 seconds. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thanks, Emil. I think 

you called me. The audio was quiet again, but I think 

it's my turn. So a couple of things. First of all, 

Jennifer, I think there is an and missing and that is on 

page four between and I'm going to use the term properly, 

giving (inaudible) Joe there for a second between 

romanette 2 and romanette 3. I think the and is missing 

because otherwise it reads as it were. So I think the 

intention is that all of these must be true. So in the 

red line again, I think we're missing it again. And I 

don't know if you see that when I'm speaking of at the 

end of two, which is certify the loans, the individual 

didn't receive a benefit or benefit from the proceeds of 

the loan without the authorization of the individual 

semicolon. It needs an and before we get to provide a 

statement of facts. Is that, is that clear? Yes. Okay, 

I'm going to assume it is. The other thing that I just 

want to make mention of is and it's just a best practice 

suggestion. Just a reminder. And I don't think this is 

complex, but just for the sake of the table's discussion 

that it's conceivable that an institution could make a 

secondary award in a second, third or fourth year for a 

student without a new promissory note being signed under 
 

69 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

the terms of the current master promissory note. And so a 

student who is claiming that a loan was originated 

without their permission. Just a reminder that the past 

promissory note does give permission for those loans to 

be made for multiple years. Some institutions do use 

passive confirmation. We use active, but some 

institutions use passive confirmation. So what we often 

hear from students where they're confused, where there's 

confusion around this institution's hear from students 

who have chosen or institutions have chosen passive 

information, they're making a disbursement of subsequent 

year, giving the students 14 days to cancel. But there 

may be some confusion there around that issue, so I can 

answer questions or provide more context. But I don't. I 

don't want to I don't want to include that as a false 

certification. I know that's not the intention of the 

Department or the intention of the regs, but just an 

understanding that there may be sometimes borrower 

confusion around that issue. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Daniel. Josh. 

MR. ROVENGER: Yeah, I'm going to keep 

my head up for now. So going to the high school, back to 

the High School Diploma and ATB issue, before going to 

the group discharge issue, I actually want to focus first 

on the language in A1 1A and it's repeated elsewhere. 
70 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Quote reported not having a high school diploma or its 

equivalent. And we have concerns that this puts an onus 

on the borrower to report then that they don't have a 

high school diploma or its equivalent, which one, maybe 

borrowers don't know that this is a requirement related 

to Federal Financial Aid, and two, many schools don't 

actually ask this question and so there would not be an 

opportunity for borrowers to make that type of report. 

So, for example, one legal aid client named Gloria was in 

her late 30s and an immigrant from Guatemala when she 

lost her job in March of 1989. Afraid for her future, she 

decided to visit Meadow's College of Business in downtown 

Los Angeles. She met with a Spanish speaking school 

representative who assured her that higher education 

would be the best option for her future and that classes 

would be offered in both English and Spanish. Gloria had 

never graduated from high school and the highest grade 

she completed with ninth grade in Guatemala, so she was 

excited for the opportunity to further her education. 

Meadows never provided Gloria with any tests or ever 

asked her about her educational background. Instead, 

Gloria was persuaded to enroll into a nine month medical 

assistance program and was given a large stack of 

documents to sign in order to enroll. All of the 

documents were in English, in English, which Gloria could 
71 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

not read, and one was for a Federal student loan of 

$4,000. Gloria had no idea she had signed for the loans, 

and no one at the school explained what she was signing. 

We think that the reported not having a high school 

diploma language could just be changed to certify the 

eligibility of a student who did not have a high school 

diploma or its equivalent, and it would therefore capture 

students like Gloria. On the group discharge front, so 

appreciate that the Department has authority with respect 

to the discharge and appreciate that not every false 

certification would lend application or situation would 

lend itself to group discharge. But there are situations, 

particularly in the ATB context, where it is appropriate, 

and we're having an avenue in the regulations for 

advocates or other third parties to assert group claims 

would be enormously beneficial to our clients. So, for 

example, the for-profits school, CIT College engaged in a 

widespread practice of enrolling students without 

providing an ability to benefit test as required by 

Federal Law, although it knew that students didn't 

require school diplomas. Rather than provide the required 

tests, CIT had clients pay for and take out an online 

high school diploma test and assured them that the 

resulting diploma was legitimate. This was true across 

the 23 students at this legal aid organization 
72 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

represented. This organization asked for a further group 

discharge if those the Department simply just ignored the 

request entirely. I'll come back up. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Josh. 

Daniel. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: This may wind up being 

a Josh/Daniel conversation, but so my one concern about 

that language change, Josh is the students who certified 

that they do have a high school diploma on the FAFSA. 

It's a question that they sign and attest to. I 

understand again, to your point, bad actors may be 

filling out the FAFSA with the student and advising them 

otherwise. But I'm trying not to pull good actors into 

here, where a student may certify on the FAFSA that they 

have a high school diploma and the school is not 

requiring a high school diploma and relying on that selfcertification. The school needs some protection that if 

they don't have information borrowing that and the 

student has self-certified, the student cannot come back 

later and say, I don't have one, and therefore this 

should be discharged because of misrepresentation. So I 

understand and appreciate the intention, and I'm 

concerned about the language being changed to does not 

have versus reported does not have. And just for your 
 

73 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

consideration as you think about this. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Daniel. 

DR. COLVIN: Building off of Daniel's 

comment earlier on MPNs. A lot of schools do use serial 

MPNs and don't require that a student complete a new 

master promissory note if they have an active one on 

file. So I would request that the Department consider if 

a student files a false certification claim and it is 

approved, that there would be some way to deactivate that 

or terminate that MPN in the COD system so that no school 

could then originate a loan on behalf of the student, 

even if the student actively enrolls that they would not 

be allowed to use that serial MPN because there are very 

important disclosures that are associated with those MPNs 

and useful information that the student should always 

have access to. So if that's been completed on behalf of 

a student without their knowledge, permission or if it 

was done falsely, if that could be taken out of the 

system or somehow marked so that no future school could 

use that. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Carol. Josh. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. Just to quickly 

respond to Daniel's point, so I'm open to working out 

some kind of middle ground language on that. I think at 

the end of the day, though, from my perspective, if the 
74 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

choice is protecting someone like Gloria who was forced 

into signing something that she had no idea what she was 

signing versus the hypothetical student who may try to 

get a false certification discharge in a hypothetical 

situation, I'd go with go with the former, but I'm happy 

to happy to talk through some possible language to thread 

that needle. I want to move on to disqualifying status 

and here I have a question for the Department, which is 

in the issue paper, the Department sought feedback on 

whether the disqualifying status provision should be 

expanded to include not only bars employment that are set 

by law, but also practical bars. And I don't see the 

encompassed in the language in here, and so I'd be 

interested in hearing from the Department why it decided 

not to go that route. 

MS. HONG: Right, we did solicit some 

feedback and discussion at the first session, and then I 

think we landed here. You know, this is just where we 

landed after. I think after taking those other 

possibilities into consideration, they were, you know, 

maybe too open-ended. And so we just kind of stayed with 

our initial proposal on disqualifying conditions. 

MR. ROVENGER: Can I respond quickly 

to that? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Go ahead. 
75 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

MR. ROVENGER: So I would just urge 

the Department then to reconsider that position. I think 

it could be, I don't think the Department. I don't think 

the fix would be that heavy of a lift in terms of 

language. I think just adding the quote or would 

otherwise be unwilling or unable to obtain employment 

could be a phrase in this language that would capture 

practical bars on employment. It is something that is, 

you know, that our client base has experienced, for 

example, students who are unable to obtain or maintain 

employment because they don't speak English or students 

unable to obtain employment because the school lacked the 

type of a program programmatic accreditation necessary to 

qualify the student for professional certification that's 

required not by state law, but by most employers or even 

students unable to obtain or maintain employment due to 

disability, not necessarily because of a law, but because 

of a practical restriction. And so we would urge the 

Department to reconsider that position. I'll come back 

on. 

MS. HONG: So I just so you know, we 

have the clause. I think that's, you know, the other 

reason accepted by the Secretary. You know, those are 

just kind of illustrative there, but we do have that 

umbrella language for those specific situations that 
76 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

you've described. 

MR. ROVENGER: So I think so I think 

my concern, though, is the state requirements for 

employment at the front end of that clause that seems to 

be imposing a legal requirement. And if it's not intended 

to, then that's great. But the way I read that is 

imposing a strict legal requirement. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Michaela. 

MS. MACK: Michaela, please go ahead. 

MS. MARTIN: Okay, I want to support 

Josh, of course, and all the things he said, but also 

added it just kind of contextualize these difference. 

Yeah, you might say on the FAFSA, but often on 

applications, especially when you don't have like a high 

school diploma, I have my GED, institutions just like 

regularly tell you to fill in things weird because of it. 

And so I think if you don't have a GED, they're not like, 

I think there should be responsibility on or being told 

what to put, for example, when I applied to for a 

bachelor's program from community college. There isn't 

actually a space for having a GED because it's like 

assumed you'd have a high school diploma. So if you came 

in and were like, oh yeah, like I went to school, they 

could really tell you, oh yeah, just click the box or 

just put just put fours in for a GPA. Just put this in 
77 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

like, well, it's fine, you know? And so I really want to 

support the idea that just because you click the 

acknowledgment on the FAFSA doesn't mean you weren't 

either told to or that folks aren't perpetuating this 

like, oh, just fill it in some other way, because there 

isn't that standard actually, this is how you fill out 

any of this paperwork. They just tell you what to put and 

you do it. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Michaela. 

Before Justin goes, I just want to note that we're just 

over 15 minutes until public comment. If you've received 

a confirmation for public comment, please enter the 

meeting early before we get started at 3:30. Justin. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thanks, so it's been 

(inaudible) since Josh raised this point and I'm trying 

to be respectful of the idea of not repeating things, but 

I would support Josh's earlier call to start with false 

cert and IDR at the next session just because of the 

short trip they were given here today. And then I want to 

hit on a few points. We also think the group process is 

important. I'm not going to read the anecdotes that I 

shared last time on false cert, but suffice it to say, it 

is a huge problem for service members and veterans who 

are having loans taken out in their names. Often, they 

don't want these loans. And many times they want to just 
78 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

use their VA education benefits. So it is a major 

problem. And the reason I'm bringing this up in the 

context of false cert is because there have been reports 

specifically from college whistleblowers indicating kind 

of the systemic nature of this practice at the 

institution. And so, you know, to the extent this is a 

strategy used by folks authorizing student loans on 

behalf of students and widely used at the school, we 

think a group process is appropriate. The next thing we'd 

like to clarify or perhaps just clarify or recommend if 

it's not currently included, is this idea of electronic 

authorization. That's another thing we see come up a lot 

when we're talking about service members who don't want 

loans and institutions using electronic authorizations to 

functionally accomplish this. So it seems that perhaps it 

could fit here within what the Department has. So I'd 

like some clarification in the Department on whether or 

not they think it's currently included here and where. 

And if not, frankly, we might just be proposing some 

language around that to ensure that it is covered because 

it is a serious problem for service members. And then 

just one more thing. We also think false certification 

regulations should at least contemplate the situation 

where a student is told something is not alone when it in 

fact is and then the student functionally takes out a 
79 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

loan without knowing, right? They didn't want the loan. 

They're told whatever they're signing isn't for a loan. 

Then they end up with a loan. It's a major problem again 

for service members and veterans and something we think 

the Department should consider. We understand, you know, 

it should be relatively analogous to what we're trying to 

accomplish here with regard to just loans being taken out 

without a student's knowledge but we think that there's 

probably some similarities there that would justify its 

inclusion. So again, looking for some clarification, 

though, on the electronic (inaudible) looking for some 

clarification on the electronic authorization issue from 

the Department though, in addition to what I just 

mentioned. Thanks. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Justin. Josh. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks, and I only have 

three more points of trying to compress everything. The 

first is on electronic authorization. Definitely agree 

with Justin that more guidance would be great. I do think 

that I put this in the chart that the presumption should 

be that if a borrower state that they didn't 

electronically authorize a loan unless the Department has 

evidence to the contrary, that should be sufficient for 

the discharge. On loan origination, and this is a 

question either for the Department or potentially someone 
80 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

else on the committee. I just I don't actually understand 

how at what point in time this occurs, that this school 

submits the loan record to the Department's common 

origination and disbursement system. And so it would be 

helpful just figuring out the time difference between 

when the student signs the FAFSA and when this is 

occurring. Finally, for section D7 about a borrower 

reapplying for a discharge. So, agree with the concept 

and believe that it's all that's already in place. We 

actually we actually think that's an area where 

regulation, a regulatory language isn't needed. I think 

we have concerns that a future administration would see 

that language and modify something that already in 

practice exists. And so we would just in light of the 

fact that borrowers are already not precluded from 

reapplying for discharge, we would recommend just 

striking D7. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks. Daniel. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Josh, your friendly 

financial aid administrator here to help on definitions, 

so let me try to explain the FAFSA could be filed as 

early as October. So FAFSA finally opens October of the 

year previous the origination record to originate the 

loan is likely not going to go until that June or July. 

If it's a standard fall start, as the Department says in 
81 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

the reg text, the origination must be secured before the 

disbursement record can go. So there's a little confusion 

here in that the COD record is actually multiple parts. 

There's an origination record to COD for the loan for the 

entire academic year or payment term. And then there each 

disbursement carries a separate COD record. So to your 

point of FAFSA, that literally could be if the student 

files FAFSA on day one, it could be nine months between 

their FAFSA filing or longer, and the could be 10 months 

or 11 months and the origination record being reported. 

So I'm not sure if that helps answer the question. And I 

can certainly talk more or we can talk after if you want. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Josh. 

MR. ROVENGER: Yeah, I think I think 

it does, and I think we may come back with a proposal 

then that with a proposed alternative definition, just 

because I think we have we just want to make sure that 

the loan origination definition in here is near the time 

that the student is asked to actually authorize a loan or 

sign the promissory note. And I guess if that's much 

earlier or it could be months earlier in the process, 

that would cause some concern. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: And again, I want to 

be clear, it could be years earlier. So in the case of a 

master promissory note, remember, the master promissory 
82 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

note is from multiple years for that student, for that 

school, for that program. So that's where the difficulty 

comes in because I could sign an MPN giving the school 

authorization to make multiple years of disbursement. 

Most schools require or suggest active confirmation. I'll 

give you an example. When we award you in your second 

year, we tell you your loan is pending until you come 

back to us and say you would indeed want it. We ask you 

to log into our system and actively confirm the amount 

and the fact that you want the loan in that second year. 

But that's not a second promissory note, that is just a 

confirmation of our award for the second year before we 

then originate and disburse it. But if you're trying to 

tie it to the promissory note for a four year program 

that could have been four plus years ago that I signed my 

master promissory note. So the master promissory note is 

not a good date. I think that's why the origination 

disbursement record of COD is probably going to be your 

best solution. Again, I'm happy to meet offline with you 

and try to figure this out. And I hear and appreciate the 

intention, and it just gets complicated because the way 

the MPN is structured. 

MR. ROVENGER: I appreciate all that, 

Daniel. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Alright, thanks. So at 
83 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

this stage, I'll ask Jennifer on behalf of the 

Department, if you've if we've covered everything that 

the Department needs in terms of feedback at this stage. 

MS. HONG: Yes, and thanks for that 

discussion, just to look back to Justin and Josh 

regarding the electronic authorization. The answer is 

yes, even if an IHE signed for a borrower, it's 

regardless of whether it's electronic or not, it's still 

a false certification. 

MR. TOTONCHI: So at this stage, I 

understand we'll take a temperature check on the entire 

documents, as proposed by the Department. Any questions 

regarding that before we take the temp check? Jaye? 

MS. O'CONNELL: I'm just confirming 

I'm I can vote on the concept understanding the FFEL regs 

will be forthcoming. 

MR. TOTONCHI: I saw Jen nod and say 

yes, and everyone saw her give a thumbs up to that. Okay, 

any other questions before we take the temp check? Okay. 

Please indicate your thumbs for a temp check on these 

changes as proposed. Okay, I see everyone is at minimum, 

sideways. Thank you for that feedback. So, folks, you 

know, we have a few closing remarks, but before I go into 

those, anything from the Department before FMCS gives 

closing remarks and we get into public comment? Oh, 
84 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Daniel, you have a pesky hand up. Go ahead, Daniel. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: I do, I do. I'm sorry, 

so I appreciate. I believe Jen, Jennifer rather posted in 

the chat the update as to the issue I've been asking for 

since Tuesday, which is the update on where we are before 

I make my comment. Is there any further update, Jennifer, 

or is that the entirety of what was able to be provided? 

MS. HONG: That is it. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Okay, so I will just 

say it is a little disappointing because my hope was that 

we have a sense of the numbers of borrowers who've been 

processed at this point and have some statistics about 

what has been able to be done. I know we're a month in 

and I respect that this is complicated and there are lots 

of loans to be managed. But my concern, trajectory wise, 

is the payment pause ends the end of January. Some of the 

borrowers who are then going to have to restart payment 

are going to be borrowers who ultimately have their loans 

forgiven. So I recognize the Department is promised a 

year. I was hoping to have at least some sense of 

progress at this point. So I just want to again state 

that publicly, but I understand the difficulty here. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Justin. Justin. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, no I'm going. So 

there have been a number of requests for, I guess, just 
85 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

data requests and requests of the Department, and I'm 

just trying to get a sense of if there's anything that we 

can do to be helpful in facilitating the Department 

getting back to us on those data requests. I think there 

are a number that that are outstanding and just curious 

if there's anything that we can do as negotiators to make 

it easier for the Department to work with those requests. 

And then another question that I had is I know a lot of 

what's happening on the chart here. I'm just I guess I'm 

just curious about how what's happening in the chat and 

these sessions is being kind of like recorded and made 

public or to the extent that it is being made public, 

just looking for some clarification on that, including 

timelines for when that's happening and whether or not 

perhaps that can be expedited. Thanks. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks for the 

question, Justin. Jennifer, go ahead. 

MS. HONG: And so to your first 

question, Justin, thank you for the offer. We you guys 

have made a lot of data requests and as I said at the 

front of session two some of those are forthcoming. We've 

had to prioritize them, some of them, some of those data 

requests we simply can't fulfill because we don't have 

the data. Some of those data requests we have determined 

that we don't see the relevancy to the issues that we're 
 

86 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

discussing at the table as a necessity in terms of 

informing the discussion at the table. Those that are 

relevant, we are pulling, and I wish it was as simple as, 

we can, you know, tag our data integrity people to say 

this is what we need. They have to pull it. They have to 

put it in the shape that you have requested it in and it 

just takes time. So we expect that forthcoming before 

session three, I'm hoping. To your, I'm sorry, your 

second question was, I forgot. What was your second? 

Sorry. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Related to the chat. 

MS. HONG: Oh, the chat. Yes. So yeah, 

they do become part of the transcript. Both need to be in 

a compliant format. We have to make that 508 compliant 

before we can post it online. We do our best to do that 

timely, but we have to review them and we have to put 

them in a format that's compliant for everyone before we 

post. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Okay. Could I respond 

real quick, Emil? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. We're very 

limited on time at this stage before public comment. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, absolutely. And 

Jennifer totally respect all of that and certainly meant 

it as a genuine offer. If we could collate things or 
 

87 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

whatever might be helpful. But just curious if the 

Department in responding to these requests would at some 

point delineate those that they deem not relevant and or 

just unworkable generally, for whatever reason, just to 

the extent that the parties may still be, you know, 

hoping to get something back on those or expecting 

something back. Wondering if that's something the 

Department could consider? Thanks. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Alright. Thanks, 

Justin. Michaela, do you have a quick word? 

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, my question 

actually was similar to the last point, which was if 

we'll have notice, if our request was denied and then 

notice is the right word, or if there was like a tracker 

or something of the sort-- so that we could know what 

other people requested because it sounds like we're all 

requesting similar or the same thing sometimes, but we 

don't always know that. So if that was anything that was 

in existence, so that we could help with. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. I just have 

a couple of closing remarks, but before I make them, 

Jennifer, do you have anything you want to state? 

MS. HONG: Just very quickly, thank 

you all. This is session two. It's Friday, we’ve it's 

been really gotten to the meat of everything, we just 
 

88 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

really value your continued commitment to this process 

and all the hard work. And we're going to go back and 

we're going to consider everything that was said here. 

And we just thank you for being here with us, sticking it 

out. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Michaela, I'm about to 

make my closing remark. What wasMS. MARTIN: I'm sorry, I got 

distracted with myself stuttering, but can we start with 

IDR next week? Because I think that that informs the 

conversation around a lot of the things that we're 

talking about. And like, it is incredibly vital, 

especially if payments are becoming too like, can we 

start with IDR? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Well, I'll say we'll 

note that, Michaela, at this stage, we also saw those 

comments in the chat, so thank you for that. So with 

that, I want to thank the committee, the Department and 

the public watching and everyone behind the scenes that 

made this week possible. Documents will be shared with 

the committee. Transcripts of the session and the meeting 

chat, they'll all eventually be posted on the 

Department's website in the same place they've been 

shared previously. FMCS will share out in the near future 

a session two summary and send out links for Zoom for the 
89 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

next session. If there are proposals for red text, which 

I know a number of you have stated there will be, please 

send them to FMCS for distribution as soon as possible. 

Obviously, the early earlier you can send it, the earlier 

it can be acted on. This is the way that--so the 

Department has time as they develop new papers and 

proposals in advance of session three. Just a reminder 

that the Prison Education Program Subcommittee will meet 

on November 8th through 10th. The main committee members 

and the public are able to register for access to get a 

link to observe it, and the next week will be December 

6th through 10th, and FMCS certainly looks forward to 

that session. Daniel, I do see your hand up. Public 

comment starts right now. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: I just want to remind 

people to stay on after public comment is done so we can 

schedule a time. That was the only reminder, Emil. Thank 

you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Okay, sounds 

good. With that, let's bring in our first public 

commenter. 

MR. ROBERTS: Emil, I'm admitting Mr. 

Daniel Courier, who is a Bryant & Stratton College 

graduate. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Welcome. Can 
 

90 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

you hear us? 

MR. COURIER: I can hear you. Can you 

hear me? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Yes, we can. You have 

three minutes as soon as you start speaking. 

MR. COURIER: Good to go? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Yes, please proceed. 

You have three minutes. 

MR. COURIER: Okay. Good afternoon, 

and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with 

you today. My name is Daniel Courier and I was born and 

raised in Oakland, Maine, and I was a graduate of Bryant 

& Stratton College. I graduated with my associates in 

Criminal Justice in 2018, and I am currently a field 

training officer with the Suffolk Police Department, as 

well as a member of the Underwater Rescue and Recovery 

Team. I absolutely love my job and I love the challenges 

that have thrown at me daily. As a member of the Suffolk 

Police Department, I've had that many opportunities to 

help the community and provide a service I can honestly 

say I'm proud of. I am going on my fourth year with the 

Department and I truly feel despite the national outlook 

of law enforcement as a whole, the positive changes I get 

to see daily makes it all worthwhile. Prior to becoming a 

police officer, I served in the United States Navy, where 
 

91 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

the majority of my career was spent in the Middle East. 

I'm very fortunate for the opportunities and I have been 

blessed. But I'm also aware that the only reason that I 

was able to capitalize on these opportunities was due to 

the foundation that was built from my education while 

attending Bryant & Stratton College. Prior to attending 

Bryant & Stratton College, I attended a traditional four 

year school at the University of Maine at Farmington and 

eventually moved on to the military. After discharging 

from the military, I still wanted to continue my 

education, but I wasn't looking for the big four-year 

commitment, but more the smaller class structure with a 

diverse setting. I made several school visits locally in 

the Virginia Beach area, and it wasn't until I walked in 

the doors of Bryant & Stratton, where I felt like I found 

my school. I truly found my home at Bryant & Stratton 

College with a smaller class sizes, the extremely diverse 

student body, dedicated and caring instructors and 

educators, and an undeniable sense of family structure. 

As a military veteran, Bryant & Stratton College went 

above and beyond to make sure I had all the services I 

needed to enroll in the school, along with providing 

accommodations, accommodating schedule to fit my needs. 

Bryant and Stratton does an excellent job serving a vast 

diversity, excuse me, vastly diverse student body and 
92 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

making necessary accommodations to ensure students 

succeed in their fields. Attending Bryant & Stratton 

College provided me with the necessary tools and skills I 

needed to become successful in my field. If I had to do 

it all over again, I would have made the decision to go 

to Bryant & Stratton College sooner had I known the 

quality of the education and the real-world experience it 

would have provided. Bryant & Stratton students learn and 

mimic the settings of real-world careers, so once they're 

put in their respective fields, they're able to provide 

and gain high level, a high level of experience and 

flourish within those opportunities. The type of 

experience gained while attending Bryant & Stratton 

College is priceless when applying to the real-world. 

Bryant & Stratton has provided me with an extremely 

unique educational experience at the highest level, and 

I'm extremely proud of that today. Go bobcats. Thank you 

very much for your time and allowing me to share a little 

bit of my story. I value the time I've spent with Bryant 

& Stratton and I'm very thankful for the education I was 

provided that has served me so well in my present career 

in law enforcement. Thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your 

comments. Brady, who's next? 

MR. ROBERTS: I am now admitting 
93 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Tricia Pipchinski, who is representing herself. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Hello, Ms. Pipchinski, 

apologies if (inaudible) you have three minutes to make 

your comments. 

MS. PIPCHINSKI: Okay, I start now? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Yes, please do so. 

MS. PIPCHINSKI: Okay. Six years in a 

matter of three minutes, here it goes. March 18, 2021 I 

thought that my six-year student debt nightmare was 

finally over. Secretary Cardona reversed the Trump Betsy 

DeVos policy for borrowers like myself, who only received 

partial discharge, which was supposed to be a full 

discharge. After attending for-profit colleges Corinthian 

DBA Everest University online, I paid fifty one thousand 

six thirty six and three cents to Everest's scam program 

and got no degree and credits that will not transfer. I 

filed for Borrower Defense hoping for relief. I waited 

over five years to only receive 10 percent discharge. In 

over a year, no response on my request for 

reconsideration application, no updates when I called, 

nobody had answers for me. I contemplated suicide over 

this, thinking this vicious cycle would never end. Even 

since March, it's been extremely stressful. Every time 

that I called the Department of Education for 

information, I would receive a different answer or no 
94 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

answers at all. Why is it so difficult to find an update 

on my Borrower Defense application? I was told it would 

be discharged since it was a partial, but the next time I 

called, I was told that I would not be receiving anything 

more than 10 percent partial. There needs to be change. I 

have screamed and yelled to my mom, why is it so 

difficult? Why do borrowers who were scammed still have 

to go through the not knowing? No answers why. The 

process has been anything but streamlined. It should be a 

clear and easy free stress process. I shouldn't have to 

jump through hoops and constantly relive this nightmare 

of this debt, which is finally coming to an end after 

months and years. It's a vicious cycle which needs to be 

changed, so people who were cheated and rely on Borrower 

Defense have justice and have clear process and clear cut 

answers and not a cycle. I don't have responses from the 

Department of Education. I really hope for-profit 

colleges are banned from receiving aid in the future, and 

the loans for borrowers like myself were scammed are 

dischargeable. Thank you so much for your time. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your 

comment. 

MS. PIPCHINSKI: Thank you. Take care. 

MR. ROBERTS: Emil, I'm admitting 

Barbara Yuker (ph), who is here representing herself. 
95 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

MR. TOTONCHI: Hello, Ms. Yuker? Can 

you hear me? I think I can hear you. Can you hear me? 

MS. YUKER: Yes. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Hello. 

MS. YUKER: Can you hear me? 

MR. TOTONCHI: We can. It looks like 

you're trying to turn on your camera, but may be having 

difficulty. 

MS. YUKER: Yeah. 

MR. TOTONCHI: That's OK. Go ahead and 

give it another shot. Ok. It looks like your video isn't 

coming through, but you can go ahead and proceed still, 

if you like. 

MS. YUKER: Ok. 

MR. TOTONCHI: You have three minutes 

when you start speaking. 

MS. YUKER: Ok. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Are you ready to go? 

Ok. Sorry. 

MS. YUKER: Sorry. Hi. Good afternoon, 

and thank you for your time. I'm speaking to you from New 

Delhi, India, where I'm stationed with my husband. He's a 

lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy. I'm a lawyer and 

practiced law for nearly seven years. For two of those 

years, I worked in public service and qualifying 
 

96 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

employment under the PSL program. Last year, I left my 

job to join my husband in India for his two-year position 

here. This is my first posting as a military spouse. I 

am- sorry. 

MR. TOTONCHI: It's okay, I'm going to 

pause just for a moment. 

MS. YUKER: I'm currently. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay, go ahead. 

MS. YUKER: Sorry, yeah. Just cut out, 

sorry. This is my first posting as a military spouse. I'm 

currently unemployed with a significant amount of student 

loan debt. I'm here to speak about the military spouses 

with student loan debt who are currently overlooked by 

Federal student loan relief efforts, including the PSLF 

program. When spouses are included on military orders to 

accompany service members, they're serving a Department 

of Defense function that the military deems important. 

Yet it also requires a significant sacrifice on the 

spouse's part. Often that means pausing their careers for 

considerable uncompensated, uncompensated periods of 

time. A recent DOD survey found that a quarter of all 

military spouses are unemployed. Roughly six times the 

national average unemployment rate. For more background, 

I invite you to read the 2019 Atlantic article entitled 

The Dismal Career Opportunities for Military Spouses. 
97 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Suffice it to say that spousal unemployment is so severe 

that DOD has identified it as a national security concern 

because it quote compromises the life of military 

families and the readiness of the military force. Many 

spouses have shared their experiences with me regarding 

the difficulties of trying to find any employment, let 

alone PSLF- qualifying employment, while posted abroad. 

To offer some examples, many spouses have recounted gaps 

in employment because they were subject to the 

requirements of those countries and status of forces 

agreement that can flatly prohibit or severely restrict 

spouses from working in the host country. One spouse who 

holds multiple graduate degrees explained to me how, 

despite her best efforts, she could not find qualifying 

work under PSLF in her three tours abroad. Instead, she 

volunteered as much as possible with non-profits within 

the military community. Other spouses have described 

certain postings where they were asked to undertake weeks 

or months of unpaid training to (inaudible) with DOD 

goals in the foreign nation. The fact is military spouses 

dedicate much of their lives to unpaid public service to 

the military. We welcome that service to our country and 

we know the military welcomes and respects our service as 

well. But it appears the PSLF program does not recognize 

our situation or service when it comes to student loan 
 

 

 

 

98 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

relief. The PSLF program is designed to encourage public 

service and alleviate-. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Ms. Yuker, 

that's unfortunately the end of the three minutes. Thank 

you for your comment. 

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Jessica 

Sponsler, who's here on behalf of the American 

Association of University Professors. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Alright, thank you. 

Hello, are you there? Okay. Excellent. Hello and welcome. 

If you'd like to come off mute. 

MS. SPONSLER: I'm sorry, are you are 

you speaking to me? I missed the first 30 seconds of what 

you were saying. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Yeah, no, I was just 

making sure that you're all connected and ready to go. 

You have three minutes to make your comment. 

MS. SPONSLER: Thank you. Hello. My 

name is Jessica Sponsler. I am an art historian working 

as an adjunct professor in Pennsylvania, and I serve as 

the state conference president of the American 

Association of University Professors. This is a path I 

never would have imagined taking as a child. I grew up in 

a trailer park, but I was able to attend an Ivy League 

university with a merit scholarship for my undergraduate 
99 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

degree and cobble together financing for graduate work 

with loans, fellowships and multiple part-time jobs. I 

received my PhD at the height of the Great Recession. 

Even though I was a promising young scholar, applying for 

jobs in 2009 was soul crushing as open jobs that cycle 

were suspended or just disappeared. I took a full time 

position at a small art design college where tenure had 

been permanently suspended. There was minimal 

institutional support for teaching and research at a four 

course load. My salary was thirty five thousand dollars, 

but I had full time work and health insurance. I was 

lucky. I found that I love teaching and I had first 

generation college students who reminded me of myself. 

PSLF seemed like a godsend because I could make an impact 

in the classroom without my student loan debt driving my 

career decisions. I consolidated my FFEL loans and made 

my payment payments each month on an income based 

repayment plan, then my loans were sold to MOHELA. It was 

not explained how this would affect my eligibility. I 

completed my one hundred and twenty payments right before 

the pandemic began. I had heard from news reports and 

colleagues that everyone was having their request for 

forgiveness denied. The only outreach I had were 

telemarketers trying to get information on my loans and 

scam me into paying for help from with PSLF. I never had 
100 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

any direct information from a loan provider or the 

Department of Education. Communication was impossible 

during the pandemic, and any outreach I had was confused. 

Any information that I had was confusing and 

contradictory. In the meantime, my youngest child 

developed a life threatening neuro immune disorder, which 

left her with brain damage and affected her mobility and 

executive function. I taught my child to walk again while 

I was also supervising my daughter's remote learning and 

managing my own online teaching with students who are 

struggling themselves. I did my best to support my 

husband, knowing his career was the only thing keeping us 

from financial ruin. My college decided not to renew some 

faculty contracts, including mine last May. Because this 

hasty decision was made outside of the full time hiring 

cycle. I had to scramble to find adjunct work. I'm 

terrified I will be rejected for a loan forgiveness for 

working part time. It is only recently that MOHELA has 

published any information on loan forgiveness on their 

website. I am still not sure I understand what I should 

do. The waiver period seems designed to help people like 

me, but so far I've heard nothing about it from the 

Department of Education or my servicer. PSLF promised to 

make it possible for people like me who grew up without 

intergenerational wealth to obtain an education. The 
101 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

process should be clear and easy to navigate, or our 

society will lose dedicated educators who just need the 

opportunity to learn. As you complete negotiations next 

month, I urge you to make PSLF as simple and generous as 

possible, so professors like me who've been forced into 

part time work aren't sidetracked by austerity plans at 

our colleges or service or negligence. Thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: You for your comments. 

Brady? 

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Mr. Greg 

Engel, who's here representing himself. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Excellent. I can see 

he's connecting to audio, so he can't hear me yet. 

MR. ROBERTS: It looks like he might 

have stepped away from his computer. Do you want me to go 

to the next speaker and we can return to him? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Yes, please. Thanks, 

Brady. 

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Mr. Devon 

Bijansky, who's here representing himself. 

MR. TOTONCHI: I see that she. Hello? 

I can see. Connecting to audio still so. No one can hear 

me. No, I think we're good to go hello there. Can you 

hear me? Hello, can you hear me? Ms. Devon? 

MS. BIJANSKY: Yes, I'm here. 
 

102 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

MR. TOTONCHI: Ok. Excellent. If you 

could, if you could just state your name one more time 

and we'll give you three minutes to give your comment. 

MS. BIJANSKY: Thank you. Yes. Good 

afternoon. I'm Devon Bijansky. I'm a government lawyer in 

Austin, Texas. I graduated from law school in 2003 with 

about $40000 of student loans at less than two percent 

interest. I'm incredibly grateful for the opportunities 

the availability of student loans has given me, and 

honestly paying them back has never been a burden. But I 

wanted to address you today because the landscape is so 

different for more recent borrowers, both in terms of 

tuition costs and interest rates. So many borrowers have 

had the same kind of bad experience with regard to loan 

servicing and access to information, as I have in the 

last couple of years, but have far heavier student loan 

burdens than I do. And I want to be sure there are 

circumstances- when the pandemic forbearance was 

announced last spring, I planned to keep making my 

payments, but of course was happy to save on interest, 

but I noticed interest was still accruing. I called my 

servicer who said my loans didn't qualify because they 

were privately owned. That was confusing. They're 

definitely private. They're definitely Federal loans. So 

I asked for an explanation and was told the Department of 
103 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Education didn't start owning their own loans until 2010, 

and since I finished school in 2003, didn't qualify. So I 

contacted the Department of Education to try to validate 

what I was being told. I asked if my loans qualified for 

the forbearance, and I was told I had to contact my 

servicer. I explained what my servicer had said and that 

I was trying to confirm if that was correct and again, 

contact your servicer. So it wasn't until the October 6th 

waiver announcement when I first had any chance of 

qualifying for PSLS that I started making any progress on 

learning the facts about any of this? I heard about a 

Facebook group and learned that the issue wasn't when I 

finished school, it was that I had the wrong type of 

loans. I learned that I could have consolidated my loans 

to the direct program and then would have qualified for 

the forbearance. And because I've been over 120 payments 

for a few years now, even if I had kept making my 

payments like I had planned, the waiver meant I would 

have qualified to get those amounts back once my 

application for forgiveness was processed and approved. 

Again, not a big deal for me, but for someone with a much 

larger loan balance and higher interest that could be 

tens of thousands of dollars since they weren't told 

about the option to consolidate to direct, they won't be 

getting that back. This could be someone's down payment 
104 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

on their first home. I've heard multiple accounts of 

people who are well over 120 payments have kept making 

payments during the pandemic because they weren't 

informed about their options. They now qualify for 

forgiveness under the waiver, but they don't qualify for 

refunds, even though they would if anyone had suggested 

that they consolidate to direct. Borrowers shouldn't have 

to rely on Facebook groups to get accurate information. 

And if some borrowers qualify for refunds, the payments 

past one hundred and twenty under the waiver, all 

borrowers- (inaudible) I don't know if this specific 

issue is within your authority, but hopefully someone 

with a role in the waiver process is listening and 

accountability of servicers and access to good 

information about when student loans seems to be squarely 

within your charge. I appreciate your work on these 

issues. Thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you so much for 

your comments. 

MR. ROBERTS: I have Greg Engel ready 

to go whenever he comes off of mute. 

MR. ENGEL: Thank you, I appreciate. 

Thanks for letting me let me be here today. My name is 

Greg Engel. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Before you start Mr. 
 

 

105 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Engel. It's up to you. If you'd like to come on video, 

you may do so, if not-. 

MR. ENGEL: No. 

MR. TOTONCHI: There you go. Please 

proceed. You have three minutes. 

MR. ENGEL: Thank you. My name is Greg 

Engel, and I'm a veteran from Orlando, Florida. I spent 

10 years Active Duty Air Force and 13 years in the 

Florida Army National Guard, retiring in 2005. I'm here 

today to share my story in the hopes that other members 

of the military don't have the same experience I did. In 

2009, I was laid off from my full-time job and began to 

investigate further my education. I looked around and one 

of the one of the one of the universities that that I 

decided to ask more about was the University of Phoenix, 

and I was maybe attracted to their advertisements that 

seemed to be the promise to the world. I called them just 

to ask some basic questions and was afterwards was 

heavily recruited by the University of Phoenix, who 

seemed to bend over backwards to let me know they were a 

military friendly school. Prior to signing up, I asked 

about the cost and the recruiter told me not to worry 

about it and to apply for the G.I. Bill, and that would 

pay for it. I applied for the Post G.I. 911 GI Bill and 

was initially denied. But because I was about to start 
106 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

classes, Phoenix, the recruiters told me that everyone 

gets these denial letters at first and to fill out my 

FAFSA and everything would work itself out. When it 

didn't work itself out, I went to my academic advisors 

who told me to keep going and those denials were 

commonplace and not to worry about it. By this time, I 

was finishing up my bachelor's degree and entering the 

master's program. I'm going to keep going and again 

assured me that this happens all the time. Once your GI 

bill comes through, you'll be reimbursed and everything 

will turn out fine. Well, I wouldn't be here if it didn't 

turn out fine. I continue to ask questions and pursue 

different avenues. The red flags were coming left and 

right, but each time I was given every assurance that 

everything was working the way it always had, and that I 

just needed to be patient. Keep going, they said. Well, I 

did keep going and now I have more than one hundred and 

seventy thousand dollars in student loan debt. I wanted 

to transfer to the nearby University of Phoenix to finish 

out my Ph.D. because of the experiences I was having with 

Phoenix, but none of my credits would transfer. I'm now 

stuck finishing up my degree at Phoenix, so I just want 

to just be able to defer my loans that I never asked for 

and was guaranteed I would be reimbursed for. Phoenix and 

other schools like them sells military friendly, but what 
107 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

they mean is military benefit friendly. They are now 

trying to push me through without allowing me to do the 

research needed that I outlined in my dissertation. I saw 

(inaudible) made me wonder how she made it that far in 

the program (inaudible). She recently received a Ph.D.. I 

couldn't figure that out, but it reinforced my belief 

that their education is basically a rubber stamp, and 

that's never what I wanted. I wanted to actually learn 

something. Now I'm seeking relief because our veterans 

deserve better. Not only quality research like my 

dissertation would provide, but put an end to for-profit 

schools that only see the revenue stream known as the GI 

Bill. No matter what, I'll be on the hook for a hundred 

seventy thousand dollars of student loans at the 

University of Phoenix and in my opinion, they're 

deceptive recruiting practices. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your 

comments, Mr. Engel. Unfortunately, the three minutes is 

up. Thank you. 

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, Emil, I'm 

admitting Ms. Tatiana Figueroa. Should be coming on 

momentarily. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Brady. Hello, 

can you hear me? Hello, Ms. Figueroa? Can you hear me? 

MS. FIGUEROA: Hi, yes, I can. 
108 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

MR. TOTONCHI: Excellent. You have 

three minutes for your public comment. 

MS. FIGUEROA: First of all, I just 

want to say thank you so much for this opportunity and 

taking the time to hear us out. My name is, as you said, 

Tatiana and I'm a psychiatric social worker and work as a 

school-based clinician in the Bay Area. I would like to 

speak specifically about the Public Student Loan 

Forgiveness program. So just a little bit about my 

background. I'm a first generation American. I come from 

a single-parent household. I am a first generation 

college student and I'm the first in my family, immediate 

and extended to get a master's degree. Taking out loans 

for me wasn't an option, but it was a necessity for me to 

pursue my goals and career choice. There was no amount of 

support or working hard to afford college, a master's and 

all of its expenses. I live in the San Francisco Bay 

Area. It's somewhere that I grew up and have always 

wanted to get back to my community. I grew up here and 

have known it even before it became a part of the Silicon 

Valley. So the first thing that I would like to touch on 

is some challenges I've noticed in terms of repayment. 

The first being income-based monthly calculations. They 

are right now at 10%. So for the Bay Area, I'm actually 

considered low income, and because of that, my when 
 

 

109 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

payments are calculated, they're calculated at a federal 

poverty rate and they're taken they're not considered 

sorry, I'm really nervous. They don't take into account 

cost of living. They don't take into account, for 

example, inflation. And because of that, my payments are 

extremely high. If it weren't for me being married and 

having a partner, I would not be able to afford my having 

my own apartment. So I would like for that to be 

considered at least lowered to at least a five percent so 

that it can or at least cost of living considered. I 

think that that's a huge piece. The second piece is that 

because of how high my payments are, there have been 

numerous times I've had to voluntarily go on forbearance 

and have not been able to contribute to my 10-year 

qualifying payments. And because of that, now I'm being 

affected where instead of the time of service and my 

position is being considered, the payments are being 

considered and it's just being dragged on longer. So the 

main things are considering cost of living, lowering the 

income payment, considering forbearance, either an 

opportunity for retroactive payment or for those to also 

be forgiven. Simplifying or shortening the timeframe for 

all buyers. If it weren't for what the current 

administration has done, there would be so many people 

who would not qualify for forgiveness, and I think that 
 

110 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

has a lot to do with how complicated the program is. 

Thank you so much for that, for hearing me out and for my 

time. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your 

comments. 

MR. ROBERTS: I'm admitting Nicole 

Cane (ph), who's representing themselves today. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Hello. Oh, there it is. 

Hello, welcome, can you hear me? I know she can't hear me 

right now, that's why I'm sitting with my ear. 

MR. ROBERTS: And, you know, while I 

can, I can message her to figure that out. Why don’t I 

admit the next speaker? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. Oh, she 

connected. Oh, Ms. Cane. Sorry, Brady, to throw you off a 

little. Ms. Cane, can you come off mute, please? Do you 

see? There we go. Excellent. Great, you have three 

minutes to make your public comment. 

MS. CANE: Okay. Hi, I am Nicole 

Caine. I'm a veteran graduate from AIM, which is the 

Aviation Institute of Maintenance, located in one of them 

and was located in Norfolk, Virginia. I served seven 

years in the military as a helicopter mechanic and I 

wanted to continue doing that. When I got out, I found 

AIM by Google search (inaudible) in the same town that I 
 

 

111 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

was staying in. 

MR. TOTONCHI: I'm pausing the- Ms. 

Cane, if I could recommend the audio is cutting it, and 

just so you know, I paused your time, so don't worry 

about losing any time. I would recommend you turn off 

your video just so we ensure we can hear you clearly 

because it's a little pixilated. Do you see the button to 

stop video? Okay, so I've noted it sounds like we lost 

Ms. Cane At the moment, I've noted she was only 30 

seconds into her comments. But at this stage, if we could 

move on to the next commenter, we'll see what we can do 

to bring Ms. Cane back in to finish her comments. 

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, I can (inaudible). 

This is Kelly Messina, who is here representing 

themselves today. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Excellent. Can you hear 

me? Right now, she's connecting. Okay, can, hello, 

welcome. Can you hear me? 

MS. MESSINA: I can. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Excellent. You have 

three minutes to make your comment. 

MS. MESSINA: My name is Kelly 

Messina, and I'm a public servant on track for PSLF, both 

in my role as a borrower and as a moderator for a 

Facebook group of forty five thousand borrowers pursuing 
 

112 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

PSLF, I've seen an experienced firsthand the problems 

with the program and its implementation from servicers 

not counting months based on arbitrary no bill statuses 

to delays in processing paperwork leading to forbearance 

without informed consent to sending duplicate and often 

contradictory letters to borrowers, to the number of 

formal complaints to PHEAA, the CFPB and FSA required to 

get a single month counted as qualifying, borrowers like 

myself are exhausted and disheartened. Please consider 

the following changes to help the PSLF program more 

closely match the spirit of the law in order to continue 

to attract bright and dedicated individuals to public 

health. Number one, announce the new self servicer as 

soon as possible. (Inaudible) this announcement is 

propagating anxiety among borrowers that the transfers 

will be last minute, haphazard and riddled with mistakes. 

Number two, count any months it takes to transfer to the 

new servicer as qualifying without forced forbearances. 

Borrowers should not be penalized for delays in transfers 

over which we have no control. Number three, remove the 

requirement that one must be employed at an eligible 

employer at the time of forgiveness. Number four, the 

definition of full time for PSLF must be 30 hours for 

everyone. Currently, two people both working 30 hours per 

week, might not both be eligible due to their employer's 
 

 

113 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

definition of full time. This is inequitable to women, 

people of color and others who are often employed less 

than 40 hours due to caregiving needs. Full time must be 

standardized at 30 hours to ensure equitability. Number 

five, expand eligible income-based payments and consider 

capping the percentage of discretionary income at 5%. 

People would pay more consistently if income-based 

payment plans and percentages of income were more 

reasonable. Number six, factor cost of living into 

income-based payment amounts. Discretionary income is 

entirely different in low cost areas versus high cost 

areas. This is entirely unaccounted for in the current 

system. Number seven, allow borrowers to make retroactive 

payments on periods of forbearance, deferment, grace, 

making them PSLF-eligible. This encourages both 

additional loan payments to the Department and PSLF 

mutually. Number eight, allow forgiveness to be 

incremental so that a percentage is forgiven as services 

rendered. For example, 10% after one year, 20% after two 

years. Ten years is a long time to commit to an all or 

nothing program. Finally, add a progress to forgiveness 

track or on studentaid.gov after a borrower has submitted 

their final application. Borrowers should know 

definitively what their date the application was sent to 

FSA for final review and as a reasonably transparent 
Appendix 

Department of Education 

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Zoom Chat Transcript 

Affordability and Student Loans Committee 

Session 2, Day 5, Afternoon, November 5, 2021 

114 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

timeline for forgiveness. Thank you for your time and 

consideration. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your 

comments. I understand we've messaged Ms. Cane several 

times, but have not been able to get a response from her, 

I encourage her if she can hear me to sign up for the 

next public comment period in December. With that, again, 

I want to thank everyone for their hard work and FMCS 

looks forward to the next session in December. 

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 
 

 

115 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

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 Eric (A); State AGs to Everyone: 

Joe will be 10 minutes late or so--I'll be taking over 

for State AGs while he's gone. Thanks 

From Rachelle (A) Four Yr Publics to Everyone: 

I am in for Marjorie for a bit 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Broadway reference for Josh! 

From Greg, A Dependent to Everyone: 

I’ll be on for Dependent students 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

+12 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

+1 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

Or 12, either way 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 to Josh 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

+1 to Daniel 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Thank you for that commitment! 
 

116 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

From Carol (A) Proprietary Inst. to Everyone: 

+1 to Daniel would be better to have it where public 

can view as well 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone: 

I know this is super important but I urge us to use 

the time we do have right now on IDR 

From Eric (A); State AGs to Everyone: 

Joe will be taking over for me on behalf of State AGs 

now 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

We appreciate ED’s statements and look forward to a 

meeting in between sessions. We’ll circulate some 

proposed dates and times for any negotiator who wants 

and is able to attend. 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Thanks, Josh. 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

*Josh (sorry) 

From Rachelle (A) Four Yr Publics to Everyone: 

Marjorie is back for 4 year publics. Going off camera 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

My suggestion is that we add interest subsidies to 

EICR beyond the $0 subsidy. 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 to Michaela re: should be 0% 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Agreed with Joe. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

117 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

And also +1 to Joe's proposal of beyond 

From Persis (P), Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone: 

My proposal earlier was that any unpaid interest 

should be subsidized 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

+1, joe, this would create a cliff for borrowers who 

owe more than $0. EICR should be more generous than 

REPAYE 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

I support Persis's proposal that any unpaid interest 

should be subsidized 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

+1 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

+1 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

EICR should be superior to REPAYE 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

+1 
118 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

Lifting up - taking away the difference btwn grad and 

undergrad 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Yes, Jeri. I agree.... 

From Alyssa (A) Fin Aid Admins to Everyone: 

+1 Joe. Default management companies do this too as 

do some, I stress some, schools with exit counseling 

and default prevention efforts. 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

+1 Joe 

From Justin (P) Service Members/Veterans to Everyone: 

+1 Joe 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Joe 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

+1 Persis on cancellation as it goes.... 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 cancellation as it goes 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 on Persis 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

+1 Persis. Love it. 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

Jen is coming in for me. 
 

119 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Sounds like a good job for Raj! 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+ 1Persis - tax free forgiveness 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 Michaela on long term economic affects 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Michaela on long term economic affects 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

+1 Michaela on economic affects 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

+1 Michaela - those struggling most typically owe less 

than $10k - why make them pay on that for almost as 

long as a mortgage 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

Let's not forget that 20 to 25 years is a best case 

scenario that assumes people can jump through the 

administrative hoops. As Persis pointed out a de 

minimis number of borrowers have been able to so that. 

From Greg, A Dependent to Everyone: 

Preach 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

And 10 years is the standard repayment period. 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

YES!!! 
 

120 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

+100000 Michaela 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

+100000 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

The lack of a bankruptcy discharge option means we 

need to do more here 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 

From Persis (P), Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone: 

1000% Bethany! 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 Bethany 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone: 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/educationpostsecondary/news/2017/11/15/442773/student-loandefault-crisis-borrowers-children/ 

From Carol (A) Proprietary Inst. to Everyone: 

+1 Bethany all forbearances should be considered 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Marjorie re: grad school 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+ Marjorie!!! 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Agreed Marjorie; many of our professions require grad 
121 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

degrees... 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

And PSLF doesn't distinguish 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

+1 Marjorie - and any public service jobs require grad 

degrees 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

*many 

From Bobby (P) Two Year Public Colleges to Everyone: 

+ 1Marjorie! 

From Persis (P), Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone: 

For those who haven't seen it yet 

https://edtrust.org/resource/jim-crow-debt/ 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

Daniel you read my mind! 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 Jen!! 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Jen 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

+1 Thank you Jen! 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone: 
122 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Thank you for sharing that Jen 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Greg 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone: 

+1 Greg 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

+1 Greg 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+ 1 Greg! 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

+1 Greg 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Damn, Greg, so powerful. 

From Jen (she/ella): (A) Student Borrower to Everyone: 

+ 1 Greg 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

+1 Greg!!!! 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

Fantastic advocacy, Greg! 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 Greg 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 
123 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

Great framing Greg 

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone: 

+1 Greg!!!

From Bobby (P) Two Year Public Colleges to Everyone: 

+ 1 Greg

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

coming back. :) 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

With you. Greg, as well. Just on another screen! 

This is our time to make a difference... 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

It’s essential to lift up borrowers stories. The 

solution isn’t to cut them out, it’s to extend the 

time 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+ 100% Persis + David

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Joe's point about bankruptcy

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Such an important point, Joe! 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

+ 1 joe - unlike most consumer loans, student loans

don't get an automatic discharge in bankruptcy
 

124 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

From Greg, A Dependent to Everyone: 

100% 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

unlike most consumer loans, there's no statute of 

limitations on collecting a federal student loan 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

unlike most consumer loans, federal student loans can 

negatively amortize currently 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

and unlike most consumer loans, the federal government 

can garnish wages without a court order, etc. 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Michaela 

From Jen (she/ella): (A) Student Borrower to Everyone: 

+ 1 Michaela!! 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

+100000000 Michaela 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

Greg will take the temp check and then I will join the 

table. 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

It might be more revealing to hear from those whose 

thumbs were not down. 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 
 

125 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Everyone: 

^ 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+ Ditto Justin. 

From Greg, A Dependent to Everyone: 

DAVID! 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone: 

Thank you Misty 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone: 

And yes to David! I would really like to hear from 

folks how were not thumbs down 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

I'll note that I'm also much more comfortable keeping 

PSLF narrow if we shorten IDR to 10 years. 

From Justin (P) Service Members/Veterans to Everyone: 

+1 David on hearing from those whose thumbs were not 

down 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

Can we skip the break today? 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

+1 Josh ^ 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

Another suggestion for the third session is to reduce 

the lunch breaks to 30-45 minutes. 

From Christina, she/her (A) 2-Year Public to Everyone: 
126 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Christina will be at the table for 2-year publics for 

the remainder of the day 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Half hour lunch breaks would work for me. 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Also for me 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

I will be in for Dependent Students 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

I am ok with a shorter lunch next time 

From Bobby (P) Two Year Public Colleges to Everyone: 

Christina will be at the table for 2-year publics 

From Persis (P), Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone: 

https://www.newamerica.org/documents/6935/The_Departme 

nt_of_Education_can_Protect_Borrowers_at_Risk_of_Defau 

lting_on_the_h69ZKwa.pdf 

From Rachelle (A) Four Yr Publics to Everyone: 

+1 on FUTURE helping this 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Daniel on that no tax form default 

From Persis (P), Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 agree that no tax return = $0 payment 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 to Joe 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 
127 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

My alternate, Suzanne, will join to make a comment. 

From Rachelle (A) Four Yr Publics to Everyone: 

Multiyear opt-in to IDR; IDR in case of missed 

payments should be part of FAFSA filing and loan exit 

counseling. 

From Christina, she/her (A) 2-Year Public to Everyone: 

can a self-certification process be implemented for 

borrowers who have not 1) changed employers, or 2) had 

an increase over X% in income? 

From Christina, she/her (A) 2-Year Public to Everyone: 

self-certification can include permission to data 

share with IRS 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

An inability to address servicing through the 

regulations is all the more reason to recognize 

servicer error through payment count lookbacks and to 

add automatic enrollment into IDR for delinquent 

borrowers. 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

Well-crafted regulations are easier for servicers to 

implement 

From Joe; P, State AGs to Everyone: 

We allege that those subject lines are deceptive under 

state law when servicers have promised timely 

notification of recert deadlines 

From Justin Hauschild (SVA) to Everyone: 

+1 Suzanne 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 
 

 

 

128 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

+1 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

+1 Suzanne 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Suzanne 

From Persis (P), Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone: 

+ 1 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Best predictor of next year's income is current year's 

income (or evening last year's income). 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

even not evening 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

And if you don't fix recertification, you don't fix 

PSLF either 

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone: 

David is back 

From Persis (P), Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone: 

josh will take the legal aid seat 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Regarding yesterday's discussion about third-party 

contractors: 

https://www.chronicle.com/article/college-finances-
 

 

129 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

are-being-eaten-from-theinside?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campai 

gn=campaign_3154176_nl_AfternoonUpdate_date_20211105&cid=pm&source=ams&sourceid= 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Josh's proposal 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

I support that 

From Justin Hauschild (SVA) to Everyone: 

+1 Josh on starting w/ these issues next time 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

would be good to start with these later issues next 

time 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

Agree with Josh. 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to 

Everyone: 

+1 Josh 

From Jennifer - ED negotiator to Everyone: 

Limited PSLF Waiver Implementation 

We are tracking the implementation of the limited 

PSLF waiver according to four populations of 

borrowers, and useful to understand before reviewing 

the implementation summary. 

Group 1 includes borrowers with Direct 

Consolidation Loans and previously certified 

employment for PSLF. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

Group 2 includes borrowers with Direct Loans that 

are not Direct Consolidation Loans and previously 

certified employment for PLSF. 

Group 3 includes borrowers with Direct Loans who 

have not previously certified employment. 

Group 4 includes borrowers with FFEL and Perkins 

Loans 

To benefit from the waiver, borrowers with loans 

in groups 3 and 4 need to take actions to place those 

loans in groups 1 or 2. 

Implementation Activities and Timeline 

End of September 2021, provided initial, highlevel talking points to servicers and contact centers 

Early October 2021, provided revised high-level 

talking points to service 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Students are required to answer (and self-certify) 

high school graduation status on the FAFSA. 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

I agree w/ Josh's reading 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

and would support his proposal to revert to the issue 

statement 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 
 

131 

Committee Meetings - 11/05/21 

+1 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

The presumption in electronic authorization should be 

in favor of the borrower. That is, if the borrower 

states they didn’t authorize, that should be 

sufficient unless ED can provide sufficient proof of 

verification 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Students to Everyone: 

What? Not all schools do yearly MPN? Pretty sure my 

school makes me do it yearly. This year I had to do 2 

+, for different kinds of loans 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Not required, Michaela... ;) Your school may require 

it, but it is an option. 

From Jeri (P) Student Borrower (she/her) to Everyone: 

Very high anxiety among borrowers... 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Very, very high anxiety 

From Marjorie (P), Four Yr Publics (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

Can those who are available after public comment stay 

on to discuss working groups, additional time, etc? 

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone: 

I can and think this is a great idea