Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

1

 

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 

STUDENT DEBT RELIEF COMMITTEE

SESSION 2, DAY 1, AFTERNOON

NOVEMBER 6, 2023

On the 6th day of November, 2023, the

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

to 4:00 p.m.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. FRANCZAK: Welcome back from 

break, everyone. I'm Mike Franczak with the FMCS 

facilitation team, and I'll be facilitating the second 

half of today's session. Thank you for the work we did 

and put in this morning. And thank you for all your 

attention and to detail in terms of servicing this 

important topic. It's my understanding Tamy and the 

Department of ED would like to address a matter from this 

morning. So if it's okay with all of you, I'll turn it 

over to Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, Michael. On 

the request to also be a primary negotiator, under the 

protocols adopted by the committee at the beginning of 

our first session, there is only one primary negotiator 

for each constituency. The Department attempted to select 

primary and alternate negotiators who bring distinct 

perspectives to the table. The alternate negotiator is 

welcome to come to the table to speak, but we cannot have 

two voting members for the same constituency. During the 

first session, negotiators proposed adding additional 

constituencies and the committee accepted negotiators 

representing two additional constituencies. We are 

concerned at this time- we are concerned at this time 

about adding additional constituencies, given that we are 
3

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

already midway through the second session. But 

negotiators do have the ability to suggest a new 

constituency and make nominations for the new 

constituency. So if there is a proposal for adding an 

additional constituency, we would ask that you bring the 

information on the constituency group and what unique 

perspective that constituency would bring to the 

negotiations and who would serve in the primary and 

alternate roles. The committee would then need to decide 

whether to add the constituency. Please note that adding 

a new constituency and then accepting new nominations to 

fill the primary and alternate roles would require 

consensus. Michael, I'll turn it back over to you.

MR. FRANCZAK: So that would be the 

process that we would follow. Is there any further 

comments or questions at this time regarding that matter? 

Alright. I'm not seeing anything. So what if we move

forward then with our agenda as we had planned? I believe 

our agenda plan has us picking back up with the eligible 

but did not apply language. So are we ready to do so with 

that particular topic?

MS. ABERNATHY: We are, Michael, thank 

you. I would ask that the team would share their screen. 

Thank you, team. We're going to focus our attention on 

paragraphs D and E. We have drafted this language based 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

upon eligibility for a discharge, based upon a repayment 

plan, versus a targeted relief program. The idea is that 

if the borrower is eligible for the discharge but has not 

applied, we would discharge the loans covered by that 

eligibility. For paragraph D, you can see we list the IDR 

plans and the alternative plan which led to forgiveness. 

For this one, the concept of application is a- is a 

tricky component because a borrower signs up for IDR, but 

does not separately apply for forgiveness. So he would 

see this provision as still picking up someone who 

applied for IDR a few years ago but is not currently 

enrolled. For this section, we talk about discharging the 

entire outstanding balance of the loan because these 

discharges are based upon a repayment plan do not result 

in partial discharges. This paragraph would also capture 

borrowers who are eligible for the shortened forgiveness 

period under SAVE, as long as they meet other 

requirements in that plan in terms of the months that 

count toward forgiveness. In proposed paragraph E, you 

can see similar language but relating to targeted relief 

programs such as Borrower Defense, Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness, and closed school discharges and a catch 

all. Here you will see a reference to some or all of the 

loans balance. I want to clarify that this is not an 

attempt to provide partial relief under the terms of 
5

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

those programs, or adjust how much we would forgive. 

Rather, several of these programs, such as Borrower 

Defense or closed school discharge, can create situations 

where only some of the borrower's loan balance is 

discharged. For example, consider a borrower who has 

received loans to attend schools A and B. School A 

closed, and the borrower is eligible for a closed school 

discharge for those loans. If those loans are not 

consolidated, then we would discharge all the loans 

received to attend school A and leave those from school B 

untouched. But if the borrower consolidated, then we 

would forgive the portion of the consolidation loan 

attributed to the debts received to attend school A. 

Hence, that is a partial discharge because of the 

composition of loans, not the underlying discharge 

program. The same is true for Borrower Defense. I would 

note we already have language in public service, loan 

forgiveness and for total permanent disability that 

largely captures this concept. So there is some 

redundancy for some of these items. During the first 

session, we heard some suggestions from negotiators about 

including other situations in this category, such as 

borrowers who would have met the eligibility criteria 

except for circumstances out of their control. While we 

understand the goals behind this idea, we do not think it 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

is workable. The issue is that often circumstances that 

might be beyond a borrower's control stem from statutory 

requirements in the program, and we cannot override the 

statute through rulemaking. Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness is a good example of this challenge. 

Initially, having FFEL loans is not something a borrower 

could control, but the statute is clear that FFEL loans 

are not eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, and 

we cannot override that statutory requirement. We also 

note that we had mentioned how we are not amending the 

underlying regulations for these programs, which is where 

a lot of anything that is non-statutory would reside. But 

we think that discussing circumstances beyond the 

borrower's control that may have led them not to apply 

for a forgiveness program for which they are eligible is 

extremely helpful. I'll turn it over to you, Michael.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you, Tamy, for 

that context. And with that, I'll open the floor to 

questions and comments over the issue and language just 

shared. So looks like order. We have Kyra Taylor from 

Legal Aid.

MS. TAYLOR: Thank you. I would 

actually like to request a caucus with the Department and 

the consumer advocate primary and the state AG primary to 

ask for clarification about the Department's existing 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

authority under these statutory programs.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright, so I'm not 

sure how the Department wants to handle individual caucus 

requests with a particular constituency within this 

context. I'll defer to at this point how the Department 

wants to proceed.

MS. ABERNATHY: Is it possible for us 

to caucus after we finish the discussion around this 

topic? Would that be appropriate?

MS. TAYLOR: Yeah. I think we can do 

that. That's okay.

MS. ABERNATHY: How about we do that? 

Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. So we will 

come back to that. Other questions or comments. We'll 

begin first with Jessica Ranucci.

MS. RANUCCI: Sorry. I don't mean to 

be difficult. But I still don't understand what's going 

on here. Could you just try again and in plain language, 

to explain what these provisions are doing?

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. So the request 

is for a further explanation in terms of the context of 

the language and what it means and the effect of the 

language. So could someone from the Department address 

Jessica's question? 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MS. RANUCCI: Maybe give an example of 

a borrower or just anything to make it a little bit 

concrete?

MS. ABERNATHY: Michael, Ben is going 

to do that.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay, Ben. 

MR. MILLER: The basic idea is we know 

a lot of times there's borrowers who are eligible for 

things where if they just submitted the application to 

us, they would get the discharge. And so what we're 

saying here is if we can identify people who are eligible 

for those types of discharges, we would discharge them. 

So, for example, you know, there may well be with the new 

provisions in the SAVE program for balance, forgivenessforgiveness at an earlier point, based on a lower 

balance, someone who is eligible for that forgiveness but 

has not actually submitted an application for SAVE. And 

so what we were saying here is if we can identify those 

folks, we would provide them a discharge and just because 

I saw it in the chat, for John's question, you know, with 

all of our automatic discharges, we do provide borrowers 

an opt-out opportunity. We don't typically put that into 

regulatory text, though. Does that make more sense?

MR. FRANCZAK: Jessica. Does that 

answer the question you had?
9

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MS. RANUCCI: I think so. I have other 

questions, but I'll let Richard go.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright, so we'll come 

back to Jessica. What if we next go to Richard Haase? 

Richard?

MR. HAASE: Yes, I understand the 

basic premise that we don't want to amend the underlying 

text for some of these programs, but I do have some

concerns with language that says, you know, for 

applicants who are otherwise meet the eligibility 

requirements, I know a lot of people who seem to meet the 

eligibility requirements for these programs and are not 

granted the forgiveness. And so I'm curious how you know, 

how this language can leave room for, or more explicitly 

account for, people who've been turned away from 

forgiveness or who have entered- who've made decisions 

that have actually invalidated their eligibility for 

forgiveness based on the misguidance, based on being 

given misinformation. I'm in communication with a friend 

right now who had two loans that were both in repayment 

for, I think, 15 years each, that should have been 

eligible for forgiveness. He started the process, was 

told that he had to consolidate them in order to apply, 

and now is being told that the new loan is new, that he's 

no longer eligible. I have friends who are in married 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

households where the two spouses have been paying loans 

for the same amount of time, the same kind of loans. One 

gets forgiven and the other one gets rejected. So, I 

don't- I know that this language isn't supposed to 

necessarily build faith in that process but I do think 

it's important that we find a way to capture people who 

have been harmed by mishandling or misinformation, and I 

think that clearly establishing the eligibility 

requirements is something that we can't take lightly when 

we put the language in the text. I'd like to know how we 

actually help those people if they've already been 

harmed.

MR. FRANCZAK: Richard, could you put 

that question- specific question about helping people 

who've been harmed with the in the chat as well, so we 

don't lose it?

MR. HAASE: I will try.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you. Alright, Sooh, Tamy has her hand raised. Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: I'd like to remind the 

negotiators, a friendly reminder that it will be very, 

very helpful if there are proposals that they want to 

suggest to us, certainly bring them up at the table, but 

we really need to see those in writing in red line 

version. That's really going to help us prepare for 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

session three. So if I could just put another gentle 

reminder there, please propose some mandatory regulatory 

text and get that to FMCS for circulation for us. And the 

sooner the better. Thank you so much.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you, Tamy. So I 

believe I saw a hand raised for Jessica. Now it's down. 

There was a question from Kyra in the chat. Kyra, do you 

want to address your question in the chat before you do 

so via audio?

MS. TAYLOR: Sure, that'd be great. 

Ben, if you could also provide an example of how you 

envision the statutory discharge provision working as to 

a specific borrower, etcetera, I think that would be 

really helpful.

MR. MILLER: Sorry, I don't understand 

what you mean by statutory discharge.

MS. TAYLOR: I'm sorry. The targeted 

forgiveness programs, it's subsection E.

MR. MILLER: Oh. So like, you know, 

for example, we have borrowers who attended schools that 

closed and didn't graduate and they've never applied. And 

so if we could identify them, that would fall under that. 

But what Tamy was saying is that, you know, we have- we 

tried to add language when we redid the TPD regs and the 

PSLF regs to add these provisions where it's like the 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

Secretary is aware, he may discharge them. So we're 

saying in some places that's sort of already there in the 

underlying program regulations as well. So this creates a 

little bit of redundancy. But it's kind of the same idea 

as if we, based upon the data we have, can determine that 

someone's eligible, we give them the discharge again with 

the subregulatory opt-out opportunity.

MS. TAYLOR: And then I just have a 

quick followup question to that. So a number of these 

targeted forgiveness programs also offer other forms of 

relief, in some cases, refunds, the deletion of adverse 

credit history, etcetera. I assume that if relief were 

offered under this provision, it would just be 

cancellation. It would not provide those additional forms 

of relief. Is that correct?

MR. MILLER: Not necessarily, because 

given that these borrowers could also apply, we don't 

want to put someone in a situation where they're about to 

apply, if they get the provision through the waiver, 

they're not somehow worse off by accident. So I think 

we'd have to look at that carefully. But again, because a 

lot of these are going to be people who, if they were 

able to apply, they would get that- they would get that 

relief. And so I think we're not looking to create big 

distinctions there, because that could create a situation 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

where someone was about to act and we caught them first, 

they'd be worse off.

MS. ABERNATHY: And may I just add a 

couple of things here? It does depend on the program 

under which they're otherwise eligible for. And so the 

Department provides refunds when borrowers have paid 

money that the Department determines was not owed. So for 

closed school discharges, because the borrower's not able 

to complete the program due to the closure, the 

Department treats closed school discharges as effectively 

treating the loan as improper when made. So the borrower 

is not treated- the borrower is treated as not being 

responsible for any payments and any past payments are 

refunded. So we would propose to match that treatment 

under this separate debt relief plan. If the borrower 

properly entered repayment on a loan and made payments 

that were properly owed, we do not refund those payments. 

So those payments were properly made and received and 

there is no basis to refund them. However, if the 

borrower made payments in excess of what they were 

required to make for IDR forgiveness, we refund those 

payments. So we would propose to match that treatment in 

this category of relief.

MR. FRANCZAK: Sarah Butts indicated 

or Sherrie Gammage indicated Sarah Butts will be taking 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

over as primary. So, Sarah, if you would like to add to 

the commentary, please raise your hand and we'll go in 

order. Alright. Next we have Jessica Ranucci, Consumer 

Advocates.

MS. RANUCCI: Just briefly, I 

understood what you were saying about the potential for 

partial forgiveness here, based on like the underlying 

loans that give rise to a consolidation loan. If that is 

the only circumstance, I think it would be really 

important to spell out here to distinguish this relief 

from other sort of partial relief frameworks that people 

have used for the statutory discharge programs.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Thank you. 

Lane Thompson, state officials.

MS. THOMPSON: I think that this 

section is at least partially dealing with kind of this 

hanging loan topic that we've been seeing. And I just 

want to point out that in some of the cases that I've 

worked on. The borrower has other loans that should have 

been discharged, by which I mean the one loan they may 

have applied for Public Service Loan Forgiveness or 

something else, but they have five other loans over here 

that still meet all the eligibility requirements but 

didn't get brought in with this loan. So the reason I 

want to point that out is that here it says canceling the 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

loan balance. And I would be curious to see if there's a 

way to apply this by borrower instead of by loan, because 

in my experience, most of the times I see this popping 

up, past what's already allowed is folks who maybe would 

have needed to have consolidated to get access to a 

program. Just wanted to include that here.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you. Lane. Next 

we have Richard Haase, student loan borrowers who 

attended graduate programs.

MR. HAASE: Yes, again, not looking to 

amend existing language defining these programs, but 

there are two other groups for which I believe we've 

already been expecting regulatory language or guidance 

that are absent here and I think have a place in this 

conversation. One are the joint consolidation borrowers 

for whom we- I think many people have been expecting 

language that was already somewhat, you know, floated 

years ago and never made it into practice. And the other 

is for people who are ineligible for public service, who 

do public work but are contracted out by third parties. I 

don't know if they can be brought in here. I do think 

that they both exist outside the regulatory language for 

those programs. So I don't- I think this might be an 

appropriate place to introduce them into writing.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Thank you for 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

your comments, Richard. Next we have Yael Shavit, State 

Attorneys General. 

MS. SHAVIT: Thank you. I want to 

touch on a point that Richard made in comments, which is

that, you know, we have seen consistently that there are 

a lot of people who would be eligible for the various 

statutory programs but are not getting forgiveness due to 

servicer misconduct and other errors that were not within 

their control, including misinformation. And so to that 

end, I'd like to reiterate that I think that to the 

extent the Department is looking for ways to identify 

people who are entitled to relief and need this relief, 

those categories of people need to be identified as well, 

right? The people who meet the purpose of these types of 

programs and are not able to access them because of 

mistakes that are not their own mistakes, and I don't 

believe that providing relief to that category of people 

would in some way conflict with the statutory aims of the 

program to the- of the various programs. To the contrary, 

I think it would be meeting Congress's goals. So I want 

to make sure that those populations aren't left out of 

the discussion.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you, Yael. Next 

we have Sandra Boham, Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, Tribal Colleges, Universities and Minority 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

Serving-Institutions.

MS. BOHAM: Thank you. I just want to 

say a little bit. I put it in the chat as well, but this 

whole conversation about applying for forgiveness 

programs and other debt programs that loan borrowers are 

eligible for, those processes are incredibly complicated. 

And, as we've heard, determining which ones to apply for, 

whether you have to consolidate or whether you don't, 

which loans qualify, all of that, I think our servicers 

are very good at identifying when we owe them money, and 

we know that they track the loan payments and progress 

very well. It would seem that tacking into our 

conversation that we had during the first negotiations, 

that this could be a place where automation would 

definitely fit because we would know which loans would be 

eligible for forgiveness, and they can just be done 

through automation. And I don't know that- I mean, even 

the conversation here is very dense and you have to have 

a lot of information and understand this whole process in 

order to navigate it. Our loan borrowers don't tend to 

have that depth of knowledge. And so it is a challenge. 

And that's what I'd like to say. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright, before we move 

on to the next speaker, is there anyone from the 

Department who wants to address any of the prior comments 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

made more recently? No? Okay, so it's my understanding 

Jalil Bishop is taking as primary for student loan 

borrowers who attended graduate programs and Richard 

Haass. So I'll go to Jalil next.

DR. BISHOP: Thank you. I would just 

again ask the Department for some clarification. So from 

my understanding right now, a borrower needs to be in 

repayment for 25 years or 300 payments. But then under 

this section there is- to me, it seems that it's saying 

that the Secretary can waive the student loan balance for 

a borrower who's eligible for Income Based Repayment 

Plan, which some of the plans include cancellation or the 

forgiveness of debt after 20 years. So I'm- I think I'm 

trying to understand for when you're reviewing to see 

which borrowers would be eligible for this targeted 

forgiveness, would that include borrowers who should have 

been on these plans for 20 years, or should have been on 

some type of Income Based Repayment Plan, but may not be 

captured? And how does that conflict then, with this 25-

year requirement? And hopefully that's clear. But I'm 

just trying to get clarification if there's also going to 

be a review around folks who should be getting the 20-

year cancellation after being on Income Based Repayment 

Plan.

MR. FRANCZAK: Tamy, do you want to 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

address that?

MS. ABERNATHY: I think I'm going to 

have Ben address that.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay.

MR. MILLER: So I think of it as 

paragraph D is saying if the borrower meets the other 

criteria for forgiveness under an IDR plan or the 

alternative plan, but very few people are on that. We 

would discharge them again with the opt-out. So we're not 

changing the periods there of what counts toward 

forgiveness. As you may be aware, we have the payment 

count adjustment that, as part of a correction to some 

long standing challenges, is going to sort of re-baseline 

all the direct loan borrowers' progress toward 

forgiveness on IDR counts, as well as for the Departmentheld FFEL borrowers with respect to IPR. The paragraph C 

provisions related to 25 years since entry into repayment 

would run that clock in a way that counts periods that 

may not be counted toward IDR through the payment count 

adjustment. So, periods and defaults. Certain periods and 

deferments. Certain periods in forbearance. So there is 

some interrelation but there are different periods 

captured in paragraph C that would not be awarded in 

paragraph D.

DR. BISHOP: So, Ben, you're saying 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

that for borrowers, once borrowers receive this payment 

account adjustment, that that adjustment in theory should 

put borrowers who would have been on track for the 20-

year cancellation under Income Based Repayment Plan, that 

adjustment is supposed to bring them back on track or 

account for them being off track?

MR. MILLER: I would look at it as 

it's going to give a reliable account of progress toward 

forgiveness, and includes crediting some time that we 

think should have gone toward forgiveness, but perhaps 

there was misuse of forbearances or certain deferments 

were not properly tracked. But once that's in place for 

everybody, it's going to give everyone sort of a cleaner 

account toward forgiveness that we have centrally 

calculated, which will make it somewhat easier to 

identify some of the people who potentially have hit 

either that 20 or 25 years here on the paragraph D, or 

perhaps the shortened periods on their SAVE.

DR. BISHOP: Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Thank you. 

What if we go next to Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights 

Organizations.

MR. COLE: Yeah, I just wanted to reemphasize the need for automatic discharge based on the 

information available to the Department being the most 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

equitable approach. I think when we talk about Black 

borrowers being disproportionately impacted by the lack 

of comprehensive public education on government programs, 

the automatic discharge is the best way to go. I think, 

again, as we've been talking about making sure those who 

are most impacted by student debt are able to receive 

this relief, I think the more that we expand that, and 

even as we saw in the president's plan, as there was the 

idea that was enacted of means testing and the great 

outcry of folks asking for that to be removed, and that 

being one of the key pivotal pieces, even why this whole 

thing went to the Supreme Court is absolutely necessary 

to be in consideration as we determine how to move 

forward.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you, Wisdom. What 

if we go next to Sarah Butts, who is filling as primary 

for Student Loan Borrowers Who Attended Four-Year 

Programs?

MS. BUTTS: Thank you. We just want to 

thank you all for making the effort to automate the 

processes of applying for some of these programs, 

including the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. 

I'm wondering if you can- if the Department can provide 

data to us on the number of borrowers who received Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness and now have hanging loans that 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

were not forgiven. And also, if the Department has 

information on the number of public service professionals 

or essential workers, as defined by the Department of 

Homeland Security, who actually are not eligible 

currently for Public Service Loan Forgiveness. This would 

include individuals that are working in health care- as 

health care providers, in hospitals working for 

contractors, or also former government and military 

employees that are- that are providing essential services 

but may not qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness 

discharge.

MR. FRANCZAK: Sarah, can you put 

those two data requests in the chat so we don't lose the 

context for it? And the Department can follow up with the 

two requests? Alright. Thank you. Scott Buchanan is next.

MR. BUCHANAN: Yeah. I want to, I 

think, make a couple of observations that hopefully, 

maybe the Department can consider. And as you're looking 

at, since it sounds like you've got other revisions as 

you're looking at making clarifying changes or technical 

changes, I mean, it's critically important, I think, 

especially in this provision. I mean, we're talking about 

literally six lines of regulatory text that sort of 

dramatically change the process by which some of these 

programs would be assessed. And one of the challenges 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

inherent here is some of these- some of this, once again, 

I mean, I think the Department needs to look very 

carefully from a legal perspective, run directly in 

contradiction of the HEA and the statutory requirements, 

not only for borrowers to actively enroll, but also for 

documentation. And I think that would be helpful to the 

Department to clarify how they might address some of 

these issues. For example, under 685.221, in that Income 

Based Repayment Plan, there's a requirement for 

demonstration of a partial financial hardship and going 

back and practically determining, over some period of 

time in long history, whether a Department- a borrower 

would have met those criteria, it's very difficult to 

understand how the Department would do that practically, 

and that could lead to long delays for borrowers 

receiving any benefit. Operationally, it could lead to a 

lot of errors, reliance upon NSLDS data, which everyone 

knows is notoriously fraught with challenges not only in 

the validity of that data, but also how to interpret it. 

So I think it would be helpful for everyone to fully 

understand how the Department would intend to 

operationalize this, because these sound really like good 

things. But if it's going to take us three years to 

determine what borrowers would be eligible under whatever 

rubric the Department decides, that's going to be 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

extremely confusing and frustrating for borrowers and I 

think sort of providing a road map of how the Department 

could do this. And again, at least on the FFEL side, 

further regulatory guidance, because while the Department 

has change requests to make declarations of how processes 

will work on the DL side, on the FFEL side, we rely upon 

regulatory guidance. And there's really no operational 

perspective that's provided in the reg that would even 

show us how to do any of this. So I think that's 

something the Department maybe you could take back and 

look at that section of the language and expand it, but 

then also once again and asked this- for this before, but 

provide us with sort of a legal memorandum or other 

guidance about the boundaries and scopes of how this reg 

would interact with the HEA in such a way that it once 

again could survive legal scrutiny, because I'd hate to 

pass this, take two years to try to operationalize it, 

and then it not happen because it's found to violate the 

HEA.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. So Scott is 

representing FFEL lender servicers and guaranty agencies. 

And Tamy has a- her hand raised. Tamy, I'll turn to you.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. I'd like to go 

back to Sarah's data request. Sarah, we can look at the 

first part of your request with how many borrowers, PSLF 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

recipients with hanging loans. However, the second 

question, we do not have that data, so we will be unable 

to provide that to you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Thank you, 

Tamy. Next in order, we have Jessica Ranucci, Consumer 

Advocates.

MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. I just wanted to 

clarify something. I saw a question in the chat and what 

we were talking about earlier. The way I'm reading this 

is that, you know, sections B, C, D, E, F, G, that the 

Department has of this [inaudible], each independent 

bases for waiver and that somebody might qualify for more 

than one, that's fine. They would just get the sort of 

mass that they're entitled to. But it's- you can look at 

them all separately and someone might qualify for 1 or 2. 

And they would just get sort of the best one that they 

qualify for. Is that the best way of looking at this?

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. Jessica you're 

exactly correct. In fact, we look at looking at the 

interest one as like a one-time fix of everything that's 

out there. And then the other ones, just as you 

mentioned, it could be that they would have more than one 

waiver applied to their respective loan situation, 

depending on all of the different parameters. So, yes, 

you're exactly correct on that.
26

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Thank you. And 

next we have Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights Organizations.

MR. COLE: Yes, I wanted to introduce 

some proposed rulemaking. I put it here in the chat as 

well. But also will submit it via a word document, 

particularly around the state of incarcerated student 

loan borrowers and the proposed rulemaking around 

forgiving the debt of borrowers who have spent or will be 

spending five cumulative years incarcerated borrowers 

with cumulative sentences over five years will likely 

suffer from the problem of lifelong impoverishment, due 

in part to inadequate servicing while incarcerated. 

Incarceration-related defaults cause significant 

financial harm upon reentry for these borrowers. Student 

loan defaults not only hurts borrowers credits, making it 

even more difficult to secure housing and employment 

after release, but it also increases their debt and puts 

them at risk of wage garnishment, precisely when they are 

most financially unstable. They deserve retrospective 

forgiveness, but also acknowledgment of the uncollectible 

nature of their debts and the atonement for the harm 

caused by insufficient help avoiding default. The 

Department's current ten-year write off policy should be 

revisited based on our new economic research, focused on 

financial hardship. Incarcerated individuals face both 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

pre- and post-incarceration. This research finds that the 

employment and earnings among the reentry population are 

uniformly low regarding the sentence length. First time 

incarceration spells, regardless of length, is correlated 

with the lifetime earning of the third and half followers 

lower. In fact, a five-year cutoff likely misses many 

incarcerated and formerly incarcerated borrowers who 

never are going to be able to repay those loans. The 

medium prison spells, at least among state prisons in 

2018 was 2.7 years. Borrowers who are incarcerated for 

five years or more are highly unlikely to be able to 

repay their student debt, and in many instances, it is 

likely that the collection costs will exceed what little 

they are able to pay.

MR. FRANCZAK: Wisdom, thank you for 

that. Could you please put that in a Word document, 

submit that as an email to the FMCS facilitation team and 

we will forward it to the Department from there. Alright. 

Thank you. So we'll move next to Lane Thompson, Lane, 

State Officials.

MS. THOMPSON: Hi. Thanks. I'm afraid 

I'm going to start sounding like a broken record here, 

but I just want to say that this section, again, kind of 

misses the folks who have missing loan data. The people 

with those broken records. By which I mean someone might 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

get rejected for a Public Service Loan Forgiveness 

because it doesn't show that they were in repayment 

during those months. And that might be an error at the 

servicer. It may be that they actually were in repayment. 

I've worked with a few borrowers already who have been 

asked to go get bank statements from their banks where 

they made those payments from 5, 10, 15 years ago. So I 

just want to bring that group back in here that, you 

know, if there isn't proper loan history, that they're 

still getting missed. So anybody who is, you know, 

missing information on their loan record may still be 

missed here.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Looks like 

Angelika Williams is back as primary at the negotiation 

table for private institutions. Is there any further? Oh, 

Tamy. Go ahead, Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: I'm sorry. I should 

have waited to raise my hand. Lane, if you would propose 

some regulatory text around some of that, we'd really 

appreciate that.

MS. THOMPSON: Will do.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. And Lane, same 

process. If you could put that in a Word document and 

share it with the FMCS facilitation team. And then we'll 

forward it to the Department from there. Thank you, Lane. 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

Is there anything further you want to add at this point? 

Looks like you're muted. I'm going to take that as a no. 

Alright. Angelika, do you have your hand raised?

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. I just- so that I 

can have a- increasing my understanding a little bit of 

regarding this text. I dropped it in the chat, but was 

there any specific reason why false certification 

discharges were left out of this text?

MR. FRANCZAK: So your question is, is 

there a reason the FFEL discharges were leftMS. WILLIAMS: False. False 

certification discharges were left out of this text? 

MR. FRANCZAK: Got it. Is there- yeah. 

Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: Based on- without an 

application for false certification, it'd be very 

difficult or impossible to tell who qualified for that.

MS. WILLIAMS: There's a clause in 

there for identity theft. So should schools not report 

this or? So identity theft falls under false 

certification.

MS. ABERNATHY: But we still believe 

that it would be in the best interest to have- we would 

have to have an application. So it would be- that's 

basically our position at this point. False 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

certification, without it, we really need the application 

to see and look at each case individually.

MR. FRANCZAK: Anything further, 

Angelika?

MS. WILLIAMS: No, not at this time.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Next we have 

Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Organizations.

MS. TAYLOR: Thank you. Just following 

up on that last comment, there is a catch-all provision 

that any other loan discharge, cancellation or 

forgiveness program under parts 682 or 685 would be 

covered under part E, targeted forgiveness programs. And 

so presumably that would include false certification 

discharges, unpaid refund discharges, death discharges, 

etcetera. Is that incorrect, Tamy?

MS. ABERNATHY: No, we have that 

provision in there. But I think we need a little bit more 

clarification on exactly- we're kind of confused, so I'm 

sorry. So, Angelika, if you could go back and just re-ask 

your question again and let us take another look at that 

so that we can clearly understand. We know that certain, 

you know, identity theft and things like that, but we 

still believe that having that application assists us. 

But if you would ask us one more time and the team is 

looking at it and want to make sure that we answer it 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

correctly.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think there's context 

that- well I think in collaboration and working with 

universities under the false certification context, that 

the Department may be able to grab without involving the 

students to have to re-explain the situation. One, 

albeit, is identity theft, loans that are certified under 

identity theft, loans that are certified without the 

proper meeting, the proper requirements goes back to our 

conversation about predatory practices. So those 

situations, I think, are ultimately determined by the 

Department while working with universities that could 

eliminate the need for the student to apply for those, 

and having to go back and forth to the university to 

collect that documentation in order to apply, when 

there's other instances where that information could be 

substantiated through conversation with universities. So 

that's why I was just particularly asking so that I can 

get clarity on, you know, why was it not included? I do 

understand- you are correct, Tamy, there are some 

situations where the student may be able to clarify 

through the application their experiences of them being 

involved in this situation, because they may not know 

that they didn't meet the requirements. But just to help 

out some of these students who are, you know, as said-
32

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

stated before, they may not have the knowledge base to 

know these options are out here as well, and that's the 

population I'm sort of concerned about with that 

information being left out.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you for that 

clarification. And we'll try to clarify both you and 

Kyra's at the same point. The catch-all gives us the 

flexibility to pick up those other types of discharges. 

Realistically, it's going to be harder to identify 

eligible borrowers from the ones that we didn't list, 

because the way we're trying to find them for the other 

categories, we don't know how to find all of those. So it 

is possible that identity theft could be one of those 

ones that is picked up, but think it's not a particularly 

large category right now. So what we would probably do is 

continue where we are. But if you have any proposed 

language or something, either Kyra or Angelika, if you 

have anything that you think we should consider, I would 

encourage you to get that to us, for us to take into 

consideration, because I do think it's extremely 

important. We do have borrowers that have been caught in 

that identity theft loop. There's also provisions and 

stuff where we need to have proof of certain things. And, 

you know, there's a lot of lines of different things that 

we have to take as a department to make sure that it is a 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

true, legitimate claim. And so we want to make sure that 

we're being respectful of our taxpayers' dollars and also 

respectful of our institutions and our borrowers.

MS. WILLIAMS: That makes sense. Thank 

you. Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Is there any 

further commentary on this issue related to eligibility? 

Thought we could take a short break now before we get 

into the next topic orMS. ABERNATHY: Michael?

MR. FRANCZAK: Yeah.

MS. ABERNATHY: I believe Kyra wanted 

a caucus.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay. Do you want toMS. ABERNATHY: Kyra, are you still 

wanting that caucus or did we cover some of that?

MS. TAYLOR: I would appreciate still 

having that caucus.

MR. FRANCZAK: And Kyra, who are you 

requesting to be a part of that caucus?

MS. TAYLOR: I would like the 

Department to join the caucus, the consumer advocate 

primary and the state AG primary.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. So let's go, 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

so we can help our FMCS facilitators, can we name each 

person? So we've got the consumer advocates, that would

include Jessica Ranucci.

MS. TAYLOR: Jessica Ranucci and then 

Yael Shavit.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay, and Yael Shavit, 

and then yourself, and thenMS. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. FRANCZAK: And then anyone else?

MS. TAYLOR: And then members of the 

Department's General Counsel would be helpful.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay, so, Tamy, who do 

you want or do you want- do you want to identify folks 

from the Department for that?

MS. ABERNATHY: I would say Ben, 

myself, Soren, Brian Siegel, Toby Merrill.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright, so we have 

Ben, Tamy, Soren, Brian, Toby. Did I miss anyone?

MS. ABERNATHY: Me.

MR. FRANCZAK: Yeah, I got you, Tamy. 

MS. ABERNATHY: It's okay.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. From the 

Department, Ben, Tamy, Soren, Brian, and Toby. Did I miss 

anyone? Okay. Brady, could you help us set that up? How 

much time do we want to allocate for that caucus?
35

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MS. TAYLOR: I think 20 minutes, 20 to 

30 minutes would be fine.

MS. ABERNATHY: We can do 20.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. 20 puts us at 

2:05.

MS. ABERNATHY: Right. We have- we 

still have stuff we need to get through this afternoon.

MR. FRANCZAK: Yeah. And we got public 

commentary at 3. And we also have a- need a needed break 

before the public commentary. Also, I just want- a quick 

message to folks who will be public commentators. If you 

could please come into the meeting or request admittance 

in the meeting at least 15 minutes prior to when you are 

about to speak. So we can line up folks, because we do 

have an hour-long 60 minutes of public commentary. So we 

want to make sure that runs smoothly. So please, so you 

don't get skipped in line, please make sure you log in 

and attend 15 minutes prior to your designated time slot.

MS. JEFFRIES: Mike, I'm just going to 

interject here for a minute. I just need confirmation on 

the record that all parties named are agreeable to this 

caucus to participate. Okay. And did you want FMCS 

participation or no?

MS. TAYLOR: I don't think we need 

FMCS. 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright, great. That's 

all.

MR. FRANCZAK: So let's create that 

and reconvene at 2:05. Alright. Welcome back everyone. 

We're returning from the caucus discussion back to the 

main room. And so I'm going to ask the group if we are 

ready to move to the next topic, which is the FFEL 

language. Are we okay and ready to begin that portion of 

the discussion? Alright. Sound okay? Is the Department 

ready with the language and the context for that 

regulatory text portion?

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. Let's just make 

sure as soon as the team shares the document-. 

FEMALE SPEAKER: I have it. I just 

need your signature because- I filled it out, though. Do 

you want me to- do you just want to bring it?

MS. ABERNATHY: Hello?

MR. FRANCZAK: Someone is not muted. 

There we go. 

MS. ABERNATHY: Wow. Alright. Thank 

you team for sharing this text on the screen. So this is 

issue four where we are in regulations 682.403. We 

propose- let me try that again. We propose adopting some, 

but not all of these ideas for commercial FFEL. This 

section is modeled on other FFEL sections, which provides 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

a way for the loan holder to be compensated for the 

discharge. We focused really on two types of policy 

changes, long time since entering repayment, and some 

instances where the Secretary determines the borrower 

isn't eligible but has not applied. Excuse me. Borrower 

is eligible but has not applied. We propose focusing on 

these items for a few reasons. First, FFEL borrowers, 

like direct loan borrowers, have access to the Income 

Based Repayment Plan, which provides forgiveness after 25 

years of payments. They do not have access to the newer 

Income Based Repayment terms or other changes. So we 

think 25 years is appropriate here. Second, many of the 

targeted forgiveness programs do not apply to FFEL. That 

includes PSLF. Third, the gainful employment provisions 

apply to periods after new FFEL loans were no longer 

issued. Finally, the one-time action around borrowers who 

have balances greater than what they originally borrowed 

relates to our work to fix that problem going forward 

through SAVE. But by statute, FFEL loans of any type are 

not eligible for SAVE. We are looking at some areas here 

that will provide further clarification and- on the third 

session or at the third session. This includes clarifying 

we would be paying lenders 100% of the balances being 

discharged. The amount of time that might be needed for 

this process, and making sure the procedural elements of 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

these regulations are clear. We're also going to look at 

whether the inclusion of Income Based Repayment here 

really works, since these loans are not covered by the 

account adjustment. And also we're still many years away 

for the first commercial FFEL loan being eligible for 

Income Based Repayment. So I'd like to turn it over to 

Michael for wrap-up and- discussion and then wrap up for 

before public comment.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you, Tamy. And 

yes, we want to save 10 to 15 minutes before public 

commentary, which is at 3:00. So we would take a break 

around 2:45 to allow for the tee up for the 60 minutes of 

public commentary. So with that, I'll open the floor to 

questions and comments over this particular issue and 

language that Tamy just shared. Alright, starting with 

Scott Buchanan of FFEL Lender Servicers and Guaranty 

Agencies.

MR. BUCHANAN: Yeah. No, well, thanks, 

Tamy, appreciate that. It sounds like y'all are- we're 

looking forward to some language for the next round that 

hopefully addresses some of the things I would have 

spoken about today already. So I won't go into a whole

lot of detail because I've either already said it before 

today or it sounds like it's being addressed or 

considered here, but I think again, just reiterate some-
39

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

you know, we need to be thoughtful about sort of crossing 

over HEA statutory lines. Obviously, Congress very 

intentionally did not provide certain relief programs in 

the FFEL, whether we liked it or not, for many of us, we 

argued against that distinction when Congress made it, 

but they did it nonetheless, and that was their intent. 

And so we certainly need to be thoughtful about that. But 

I think it also would be, as you highlight, helpful to 

have some more granularity around sort of process and the 

manner in which the Department would make notification 

and pass back and forth information. So they're very 

practically, once again, since in the FFEL program, we 

rely heavily upon firm regulatory guidance outside of the 

change request process and the DL program, having that 

made more clear would be very useful. So we look forward 

to seeing the next round of edits and we'll provide 

comments then. So, thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you, Scott. In 

the chat we have two things to note. India Heckstall is 

coming in as primary for the Civil Rights Organization, 

and Jalil Bishop is coming in as primary for Student Loan 

Borrowers Who Attended Graduate Programs. Alright. And 

with that, I'll go next to Lane Thompson, State 

Officials.

MS. THOMPSON: This is not so much of 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

a comment specifically on the text here and more just 

kind of a general comment. In my experience as a 

regulator, loans that were originally made as FFEL loans, 

even after they got consolidated, are more likely to have 

errors in them here or there. And I guess I just kind of 

want to say I don't really see a whole lot of value for 

borrowers in the FFEL program existing at all. And I'd be 

interested to hear about if there's any options for kind 

of making all of those loans, direct loans, you know, 

that would avoid some of the crossing over to the HEA 

that Scott was mentioning. I just think that this program 

is a real challenge for most people with these loans, and 

I'd like to see the end to it eventually. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Is there any other 

commentary from the Department relative to Lane's? Not at 

this time. Alright. Next we have Kyra Taylor. Kyra?

MS. TAYLOR: Thank you. I wanted to 

ask if the Department is going to provide similar 

language as to school-held Perkins Loans as well.

MR. FRANCZAK: School-held Perkins 

loans, is your question correct? Is the Department 

prepared to address that now, or would you likeMS. ABERNATHY: We're not.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay.

MS. ABERNATHY: We're not.
41

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MR. FRANCZAK: Not willing to address 

it now?

MS. ABERNATHY: No, we're not prepared 

to address it now.

MR. FRANCZAK: Yeah. 

MS. ABERNATHY: Let me clarify. Hold 

on. 

MR. FRANCZAK: Yeah, got it. So, Kyra, 

if you can add that to the chat as a question, that would 

be helpful, please. Alright. Next we have Jessica 

Ranucci. Jessica is Consumer Advocates.

MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. I appreciate 

your explanation that you've crossed reference to 

specific parts of D and E that would apply to the FFEL 

program, but think that since D and E require a loan to 

qualify for the program, I'm not sure that you would need 

to specify, and I don't think it matters a ton, except 

for that E has sort of the catch-all, like other target 

or other forgiveness and discharge programs and I think 

that FFEL borrowers who do qualify for other programs 

that FFEL loans qualify for should be able to fall into 

that catch-all, also. So I would recommend perhaps taking 

out the specificity. I don't think it's necessary here.

MR. FRANCZAK: Is there something 

specific to that language, Jessica, that you think is 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

more specific that you'd like to highlight in some way 

for us?

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah. My point is, just 

think that you could say 30.80 C, 30.80 D, and 30.80 E 

without needing the separate subsections, because I think 

the regulatory text in subsection D and E already 

requires that a loan be eligible for the program as FFEL 

is not eligible for the program, the borrower, in fact, 

wouldn't qualify. Alternatively, to add, I believe it's 

subsection E15, the catch-all provision to that one- oh, 

sorry. Oh I see it is- the catch-all is in there now. 

Yeah. I'm sorry.

MS. ABERNATHY: Again, if you have 

proposed reg text or amendments to what we've provided, 

please provide that to us in a red line Word document and 

we'll be happy to take a look at it. Thanks so much.

MR. FRANCZAK: Yeah. Jessica, thank 

you. So, yeah, so if you could put it in writing what you 

were specifically intending in terms of a red line, that 

would be helpful and share with us. Alright. Alright. So 

problem that as you noted. And then if you could share in 

writing that would be helpful. Alright. Other questions 

or comments? Alright, so it looks like in order we have 

Jalil then Sherrie. So I'll go with Jalil first, Home 

Loan Borrowers Who Attended Graduate Programs.
43

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

DR. BISHOP: I want to potentially 

bring us back a little bit to question one. I think there 

is under 30.80 part B, I think there was a conversation 

that is implied in the text, but didn't get lifted up or 

verbalized for the negotiators, particularly around 

whether or not the Department is considering capping 

interest or even means testing. We talked about it a 

little bit, so I just think I'd want to be on record 

saying that I think for borrowers who are not going to 

have the benefits of SAVE that if we cap interest or put 

in means testing that it has the potential to harm many 

borrowers and to defeat a lot of the relief and ideals 

and principles that the Department has suggested so far. 

So I just want it to be on record that if there is any 

consideration around capping interest, that I think 

that's something that does need to be verbalized for the 

negotiators to discuss and that there's a lot of 

evidence. And I think many negotiators will agree here 

that capping interest in any type of cancellation will be 

harmful for borrowers, or capping the amount of interest 

that can be canceled would be harmful for borrowers.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you for your 

commentary, Jalil. Next we have Sherrie Gammage with 

Student Loan Borrowers Four-Year Programs.

MS. GAMMAGE: And mine is also a 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

comment. I noticed in the regulatory text that they werethat it said a true or exact copy of the original 

promissory note. And I wonder for loans taken 25 years 

ago, say 20 years ago or more, is this- will this create 

an undue hardship and I make this- I wonder this because 

some agencies so, for example, like Sallie Mae, are no 

longer handling student loans and maybe having to get a 

copy of that promissory note or a true exact copy may 

place an undue hardship on borrowers applying for relief 

under this. And as we've already discussed, agencies have 

data problems, especially those older agencies who are 

administering FFEL loans for the- under the Department

for the Federal Government. So I wonder, is there- if the 

Department has any thought of how to proactively sort of 

address that issue.

MS. ABERNATHY: So the prom note here 

isn't provided by the student, but by the lenders and the 

servicers or the guarantor. So that is one way in which 

we would handle that particular circumstance. And there's 

a number- we have a whole division that works 

operationally with those borrowers and those lenders and 

their servicers. So, I don't have all of those details 

off the top of my head. So I don't want to speak ill of 

the whole process, but, you know, it is the 

responsibility of the lender and servicer guarantor to 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

keep a true and exact copy of that promissory note if the 

official, you know, signed exact- if the actual- the 

actual master promissory note or promissory note is not 

available, and there's a whole bunch of provisions around 

that in the regs.

MS. GAMMAGE: Thank you for that 

answer. That clarifies some of my questions.

MR. FRANCZAK: Kyra Taylor, Legal Aid 

Organizations.

MS. TAYLOR: You know, I went right to 

my question about the Perkins Loans without stating the 

obvious, which is we are really excited that the 

Department is extending relief to commercially held FFEL 

loans. I will say many of our clients do not realize that 

they have FFEL loans, let alone that their loan is 

commercially held, and that cuts them out of forms of 

relief that they desperately need. And so we are really 

excited to see this provision within the Department's 

proposals.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you for your 

commentary. Other questions or comments related to the 

topic. I'm not seeing any. Any additional comments from 

the Department? Nope. Okay, so it's 2:21. We could take 

our break now and that will then- it'll just be a little 

bit longer break before the public commentary. Are we 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

okay to take a longer break for such purpose or not?

MS. ABERNATHY: So I think there's a 

couple of reminders that I wanted to mention. First of 

all, we are addressing Josh's comment about the primary 

and alternate constituency group, so please don't think 

we just ignored that. We did have a couple of flags and I 

wanted to be mindful to say we are working on that and 

we're- FMCS will be working with Josh directly on that. 

So, stay tuned for next steps. The other piece of 

information I'd like to mention is we really- we know you 

guys are working hard and we appreciate it, but we're 

going to ask you to work a little bit harder for us in 

providing the reg text, any proposed amendatory or 

changes to our reg text. If you could get that to us no 

later than a week from Tuesday, we're going to need to 

have time to digest what you guys give us and go back to 

the table to try to amend our own proposed regulations 

for session three. And with the holiday and everything 

going on, we really want to try to get this information 

and come back for session three, including as much as 

possible based on your suggestions and your proposed 

amendments. So if you could just get that to us a week 

from Tuesday or excuse me, get it to FMCS a week from 

Tuesday, we'd be forever grateful. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you. Tamy. Any-
47

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

oh, Jalil has his hand raised, so I'll call on Jalil, 

Student Loan Borrowers Who Attended Graduate Programs. Go

ahead Jalil.

DR. BISHOP: I would just like the 

Department, particularly related to the last request for 

us to send, you know, regulatory- proposed regulatory 

text, for the Department to give some clarification 

around what I think has been a consistent argument that 

something is not being covered or included or addressed 

because it's already covered by SAVE. I think, at least 

for me, it's- it limits what I may propose in regulatory 

text, if it's being presented at the Department's stance, 

is that they're not- you're not going to engage things 

that are already covered by SAVE and so I think some 

clarification around that because the Department also is 

making arguments, I think in this session and the 

rulemaking and the final rule around REPAYE that there's 

a lot that goes wrong with any of these different 

programs or plans or waivers, so there seems to be a 

working assumption that SAVE is going to work 100% 

without an issue, and that it's going- that because SAVE 

in theory captures a borrower that here in this process, 

we shouldn't be trying to create additional relief or 

really ensure that borrower is captured. So I just think 

some clarification so that when we're drafting our own 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

regulatory text, we have a sense of the Department is 

going to engage things that may, in theory, be covered by 

SAVE, which we simply just don't have enough evidence 

for, since SAVE is so new.

MS. ABERNATHY: So, if you could 

provide us an example that might help us better answer 

your question, but I will say this. I would go ahead and

put in your proposal and let us take a look at it, and 

the SAVE regulations, while they are new and they are 

being implemented in stages, it's quite possible that 

what you're seeing right now is still current REPAYE, and 

it hasn't completely switched over to all of the 

provisions of the SAVE program. So for us to take a look 

at what you offer us, don't worry about what's in SAVE, 

what's not in SAVE, put in what you think the amendment 

should be and let us take a look at that. And then if you 

have a specific example, we might be able to further 

clarify that for you.

DR. BISHOP: No, I think that helps. I 

think the- I more wanted to just make sure for myself and 

another the other negotiators, that we weren't limiting 

what we put forward by some of the, what I think is the 

responses that that's already been [inaudible].

MS. ABERNATHY: I don't want you to 

limit your proposals. Go ahead and put them in and let us 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

navigate through what is or is not covered in that way. 

And that way the burden is on us. Also, I believe 

Wednesday- Wednesday, I'm sorry. I believe the date for 

next Tuesday is the 14th, so that would be the date that 

we would want the proposed amendatory text to be 

submitted by that date, okay? I just want to clarify 

that.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. So that 

answers Jessica Ranucci's question in the in the chat. So 

it's November 14th date. Alright. Moving on. John 

Whitelaw. John, feel free. 

MR. WHITELAW: Yeah, I have a bit of 

an elephant in the room question. What happens if there's 

a shutdown to this process and what you folks are able to 

do? You know, we all hope there isn't. But, you know.

MS. ABERNATHY: There are a number of 

ways that we will prepare for that and communicate out to 

you should that time arise. At this point, just note that 

we are looking at all of those provisions- you know, all 

of the things that we need to look at, and we'll 

communicate out to you when we have it- when we have an 

actionable plan, if it- if it's necessary.

MR. WHITELAW: Okay. So you'll let us 

know hopefully sometime that week I would imagine since.

MS. ABERNATHY: Well, we hope so.
50

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MR. WHITELAW: 15th, 16th, one of 

those days.

MS. ABERNATHY: Just get your reg text 

in to us first and then we'll worry about everything else 

after.

MR. WHITELAW: Alright.

MS. ABERNATHY: We definitely will 

communicate out to you. We will not leave you guys 

hanging.

MR. WHITELAW: It's obviously going to 

be- you know, maybe it'll all go away, but we're not 

holding our breath.

MR. FRANCZAK: Well, we will 

communicate what we know as soon as we know with all of 

you and go from there. And we appreciate your patience, 

and we'll work through it as best we can. Alright. Any 

other questions or comments or elephants in the room?

MS. ABERNATHY: No more elephants in 

the room.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. It is- I have 

2:28 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. What if we brought back 

all the negotiators- we take a break, and what if we 

brought back- ask all the negotiators to come back by 

2:50 p.m. Eastern Standard Time? That would give us 10 

minutes to make sure everyone's online. We got our folks 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

lined up for the public commentary. And then we'll go 

from there. If you are registered to provide public 

commentary, please arrive at least, you know, 15 minutes 

prior to your designated slot. We can admit you. If 

you're not in the order that you are listed, we would go 

to the next person. So it is of high priority that you're 

on the meeting call at the time of your designated time 

slot. So please, if you would, help us honor that so that 

your message gets put forward. Brady Roberts, is there 

anything further on that you want to add?

MR. ROBERTS: The only thing that I 

would request of folks is when they log on early, you all 

registered for public comment with a- with your name 

obviously, and then a constituency group if you wanted to 

provide one. If you want to have any indication of your 

name, just so we can match identities to folks that we're 

letting into the room, that's really helpful on our end, 

just so we don't accidentally skip over anyone. And we 

can progress along as quickly as possible from one 

speaker to the next.

MR. FRANCZAK: Yeah. So, yes and 

that's why it's critically important you log on early so 

we can make sure we can match the name of the person 

who's coming in with who we have listed as the designated 

speaker for that time slot. And they have to match. So 
52

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

please log in with the name you identified in registering 

for your time slot. Alright. Anything further on that 

before we take our break? Alright. If not, let's take our 

break and reconvene in 20 minutes. We'll reconvene back 

at 2:50 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. We can cut live 

feed.

MR. FRANCZAK: Welcome back. So we are 

going to start next the public commentary section of 

today. And as was agreed at the last session, this 

particular period will be up to 60 minutes in length. 

Each registered participant will be given up to three 

minutes to share their perspective, and we will honor 

that as we move forward. And so next I'd like to share 

with facilitator Brady Roberts, who has an announcement.

MR. ROBERTS: Just again, if folks who 

are logging on to the public comment wouldn't mind 

confirming the name that they registered under, so we can 

let you in. And I know that Tamy had a few wrap-up 

comments.

MR. FRANCZAK: I believe we're going 

to do those at the end of the public commentary. Yes. 

Okay, so, Brady, whenever you're ready, we'll get started 

with the public commentary.

MR. ROBERTS: Sounds good. I'm 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

admitting Tina Spitler, who is here representing herself.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Tina, can you 

hear us?

MR. ROBERTS: Looks like she's got 

audio enabled. Tina, can you hear us?

MS. SPITLER: I cannot hear you. I 

can't hear you.

MR. ROBERTS: Let me- let me message 

her and try to work on her sound. While I'm doing that, 

I'd like to admit the next speaker.

MR. FRANCZAK: Yeah, let's go to the 

next person. 

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, sorry about that. 

I'm admitting Craig Young, who is here representing 

himself.

MR. FRANCZAK: Craig, can you hear us? 

Looks like Craig is connecting to audio. Can you hear us? 

Craig Young, can you hear us? Say something so we can 

check if we can hear you.

MR. YOUNG: Hello? You can hear me?

MR. FRANCZAK: Yes.

MR. YOUNG: Okay.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. You're all 

set. You have three minutes.

MR. YOUNG: Can you give me one 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

second? I just need to get my glasses.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay. 

MR. YOUNG: Okay. Ready.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. How about if 

you begin as of now. 

MR. YOUNG: Okay. Thank you for having 

me today, I am here to speak about the new regulation 

that support the inclusion of hardship forgiveness under 

the proposed regulations. The definition of hardship 

should include family caregivers, specifically those who 

provide care for dependents with long-term medical needs. 

According to one study, 45% of these caregivers report 

experiencing negative financial impacts from caregiving. 

Yet, according to the AARP, caregivers save the 

government an estimated $600 billion per year through 

free labor. The average hours are 24 hours per week for 

all caregivers and 40 hours for 1 in 4 caregivers. That 

forgiveness is urgently needed because the need for 

caregiving is expected to only increase, especially as 

the baby boom generation moves to retirement. My 

experience includes care for my mother, who lost her 

health insurance and passed away from cancer after she 

had a long-term struggle finding a health insurance 

company to receive care coverage. It also includes my 

grandmother, who I took care of for 18 years until she 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

passed away in 2019. She suffered from Parkinson's 

dementia, which included emotional disturbances such as 

yelling, hallucinations, cognitive decline, physical 

decline and towards the end, being bedridden. I fed her, 

helped her keep her comfortable and provided financial 

support. After eight years, she received some homecare. I 

continued to provide home care support, administering her 

medication, dressing wounds and advocating for her 

through the assistance of legal aid. There are an 

estimated 53 million Americans who provide this type of 

care. A disproportionate number are people of color. 

Caregiving takes a considerable toll on the health, 

emotional state, mental state, and financial well-being 

of caregivers. This is why I'm here to support the 

inclusion of caregivers in terms of any definition 

related to hardship. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you, Craig, for 

your testimony. Brady, who's next?

MR. ROBERTS: We still have Tina on. 

I've been trying to work with her on her audio issues. 

Tina, any chance you can hear us now?

MS. SPITLER: Yes, I can.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, great. If you 

want, you can turn your video on, and then whenever youyou're ready, you've got three minutes.
56

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MR. FRANCZAK: Looks like she just 

muted herself. Here we go. Tina, can you hear us?

MS. SPITLER: Yes.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay. Start whenever 

you're ready.

MS. SPITLER: Okay. My name is Tina 

Spitler, and I have been working as a pediatric nurse for 

Children's Healthcare of Atlanta for over 30 years, 

dedicating my life's work for caring for children, ill 

children in need. I'm also a Parent PLUS Loan borrower 

that is eligible for PSLF due to children's qualifying 

under section 403(b). I'm speaking to you today to 

advocate for Parent PLUS borrowers. I'm extremely 

grateful for the PSLF waiver, which allowed previous 

payments that would not have qualified towards PSLF to be 

counted. Under this wonderful initiative, I now have 

seven years of qualifying payments counted. I'm now back 

in repayment, but unable to make qualifying payments 

because of the high monthly cost under the Income 

Contingent Repayment Plan. The only repayment plan 

available to Parent PLUS borrowers under the plan is the 

Income Contingent Repayment Plan. Under the ICR, monthly 

payments are extremely high and I am unable to find the 

money to make the payments, which counteracts the efforts 

pursued by the Biden Administration to reform the PSLF 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

system. I have now reached seven years of qualifying 

payments because of the PSLF waiver, but I will be unable 

to make qualifying payments for the next three years, and 

therefore loan forgiveness is out of the realm of 

possibility. It would be extremely beneficial if the 

eligible repayment plans could be expanded for Parent 

PLUS borrowers seeking PSLF, especially to include the 

new SAVE Plan. Even though three years of repayment under 

a large monthly payment seems possible through budgeting 

and restraint, the payments are so large that it is 

literally impossible to pay. For example, under the ICR 

plan, my monthly payment would be $1,800, which is higher 

than my current mortgage. That amount is unpayable for my 

family because in addition to our monthly mortgage 

payment, we also have property taxes, utility bills, 

three elderly parents to care for, personal health care 

expenses, contributions for retirement, groceries, and 

nearly all of these expenses have been rising in cost 

because of inflation and increased property values in 

the- since the COVID pandemic. This problem is not unique 

to my situation. It is an issue that falls under question 

five being investigated by the committee. I would like to 

ask the committee to consider my situation during their 

negotiations to- in pursuance of solving issues that fall 

under the specific category. As a mother, I wanted to 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

provide the best opportunities for my children through 

pursuit and college education and the possibility for a 

family with two Parent PLUS Loans. The debt I have 

accrued from borrowing to provide for my children's 

education has been a huge burden on my finances. I do not 

mind continuing monthly payments to qualify for loan 

forgiveness under the PSLF plan, but I truly cannot 

afford the monthly payments under the current ICR plan. 

Even when my husband experienced unemployment last year 

and our monthly income was cut in half, the monthly 

payment was still unaffordable and an impossible amount 

to pay for average working public servant. I would like 

for there to be an end in sight for this huge financial 

burden, and there could be, if I could pursue PSLF under 

a more affordable repayment plan. I'm here before you to 

implore you, the Committee, to expand the available 

repayment plans for Parent PLUS borrowers under the PSLF, 

specifically to include the revolutionary SAVE Plan 

created by the Biden Administration. It would be life 

changing not only for me, but for other Parent PLUS 

borrowers.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you. And it looks 

like she dropped off. Alright. Okay, so who do we have 

next, Brady? 

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Michelle 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

Cote- is logging into the Zoom user, but she's here 

representing herself.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay. 

MR. ROBERTS: Michelle, on your end, 

if you wouldn't mind logging out of the public link 

because there's like a five-second audio delay and we're 

going to get a bit of an echo. So if you can shut down 

that link and then whenever you're ready you have three 

minutes.

MS. COTE: Okay, thank you. Just one 

sec. Okay, I am ready. Can you see me?

MR. ROBERTS: We can, yes.

MS. COTE: Okay, and you can hear me? 

Okay. Awesome. Okay, so, dear Committee, I want to thank 

each and every one of you for listening today and for all 

of your hard work and creating the essential change 

needed to end rising student loan interest. I'll be as 

concise and as clear as possible. I paid my way through 

undergrad qualifying for the Pell grant as was considered 

low income. I worked from 7 to 5, went to school from 6 

to 10 daily. My grades suffered, so I knew I couldn't 

work when going into my master's program. I had to bring 

up my GPA to get accepted into a PhD program. 

Unfortunately, I had no idea my grad school had no 

connections for internship placement so I was unable to 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

become licensed to work in my field, affecting the 

competitiveness of my PhD app. So as I scrambled to make 

use of a useless master's degree, I started taking full 

stack science courses for pre-med. I didn't have steady 

at- excuse me, didn't have time to study for the MCAT 

when loans became due, so I had to choose to delay loans 

for a year. I was lucky to get an entry job in clinical 

research because of my science background. However, 

during this time I lost a child and became very ill with 

Lyme. I couldn't work for over a year and interest kept 

growing. At this point I'm considered permanently 

disabled and unable to work. Yet I choose to push through 

and work despite a challenging- of the challenge of 

overcoming daily symptoms. I came out of school with 

around 62,000, which had ballooned to almost 95,000 due 

to interest forbearance and capitalization alone. The 

problem is the amount of crushing student debt and 

capitalization that has prevented me from being able to 

rent, much less own, a home. At this rate, I will never 

be able to pay back what I owe as interest continues to 

climb daily. To add insult to injury, my student loan 

servicer, Nelnet, can't give me a straight answer what 

plan I'm enrolled in. I've applied for the SAVE Plan more 

than once on the Federal.gov website, just to make sure.

After spending four entire days on hold for over two 
61

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

hours per call, Nelnet still can't tell me what type of 

loan I'm enrolled in, when my next thousand dollar 

monthly payment is due or why they have demanded monthly 

income statements for my IDR SAVE plan when the.gov 

website clearly states income taxes and W-2s are 

accepted. I'm a consultant and the company I work for was 

closed two-. I don't get vacation or sick days. I don't 

get paid time off to take any such time. So further 

confusion, Nelnet told me I've asked for forbearance once 

again and I have not. Then when I finally get them on the 

line, they read someone else's loan terms and contracts 

to me, telling me nonsense while giving me out someone 

else's private information. Committee members, please 

help. We're not asking for handouts. We're just asking 

for fair rates- for fair interest rates and a cut to loan 

[inaudible] rising interest rates. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you for your 

testimony, Michelle. Brady, who do we have lined up next?

MR. ROBERTS: Mike, I just admitted 

Ashley Nelson, who is here representing herself.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: It looks like she's incan you hear us?

MS. NELSON: Yes, I can hear everybody 

now.
62

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright, Ashley, you 

have up to three minutes for your public commentary. 

Start when you're ready.

MS. NELSON: Okay. Thank you very 

much. Hello. Thank you for having me here today. My name 

is Ashley Nelson and I am a social worker and a student 

loan borrower. When the one-time student loan 

cancellation program became available last year, I 

applied. As a Pell Grant recipient, I would have received 

$20,000 in student loan cancellation. One month after I 

applied, I received an email from the Department of 

Education stating that my application was approved for 

loan cancellation. I relied on this information to make 

the decision to leave my Public Service Loan Forgivenesseligible job to realize my dream of starting my own 

business, a business that I took a pay cut to establish. 

After leaving my PSLF-eligible job, a few months later, 

cancellation was struck down and now I am on the hook for 

my entire student loan balance and I am no longer 

accruing qualifying payments. I was financially harmed 

when the cancellation program did not go through, and 

many others relied on this cancellation and very much 

needed this too. I asked that the Department of Education 

use negotiated rulemaking to make good on loan 

cancellation that was promised to borrowers because the 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

Department has the authority to do so and should honor 

their commitment to provide this relief. Thank you for 

your time and consideration. I relinquish the remainder 

of my allotted speaking time.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you, Ashley. 

Alright, Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Alexa 

Stipkala, who is representing her employer, which is the 

Cantera group. 

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright, Alexa.

MR. ROBERTS: It looks like they've 

logged on and they've enabled audio.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alexa, can you hear us? 

You're muted at the moment. There you are.

MS. STIPKALA: Yes, I can hear you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay.

MS. STIPKALA: Open for me to speak?

MR. FRANCZAK: Yes. So you have up to 

three minutes. Feel free to start as soon as you're 

ready.

MS. STIPKALA: Thank you for this 

opportunity. I would like to pose a question that I 

haven't seen addressed anywhere else. How will future 

student loan repayment proposals recognize the work of 

Federal contractors? As you're aware, the Federal 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

government staffs a large number of positions by way of 

contracting mechanisms. These allow the Government to 

meet mission needs without the cumbersome process of 

bringing on Federal staff, and they allow the Government 

to relinquish these workers when the need has been 

satisfied, or another company can better meet these 

needs. Some estimates suggest that 40% of the workers 

carrying out the US. Government operations are Federal 

contractors. Due to the nature of contract work. These 

workers do not enjoy the longevity and stability of 

Federal employment, yet they are working side by side 

with Federal employees to carry out the same mission. 

What can the Biden Administration do to improve student 

loan forgiveness eligibility for this category of worker? 

In my instance, I have close to 12 years of work directly 

serving Federal government operations, though I've only 

ever been employed by contracting entities. This 

concludes my comment. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you, Alexa. 

Alright, Brady, next up?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Audrey Cobb, who's representing herself.

MR. FRANCZAK: Audrey, can you hear 

us?

MS. COBB: Yes.
65

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay, so you have up to 

three minutes for your public commentary. Feel free to 

start as soon as you're ready.

MS. COBB: Okay. Hello. My name is 

Audrey Cobb. You can hear me?

MR. FRANCZAK: Yes.

MS. COBB: Great. Okay, so I'm a 

former public school teacher in Florida. I taught from 

2000 to 2013. I applied for the Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness program, and I was denied because there's a 

special start year of 2007, so only 6 of my years were 

counted instead of the 13. I believe this is unfair to 

all teachers who have taught. I believe that at the very 

least, I should get six years' worth of forgiveness 

prorated. And at the best, I should get all of my student 

loan debt forgiven.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you. Audrey. 

Anything else?

MS. COBB: No. I think this just isn't 

fair to all the teachers that have done this, that the 

2007 was just a magical number, and it only starts from 

2007 on, so only 6 of my 13 years were counted. And when 

I was told this, it like literally shattered me because 

of my student loan debt. And they told me, just teach for 

four more years. And I said, you know, I'm so poor as a 
66

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

teacher in Florida, I can't possibly do that. So I just 

hope that the Government can see that, you know, teachers 

are amazing and I gave 13 years of my life. And I feel as 

though it should be forgiven, not just because, I didn't, 

you know, teach after 2007 for 10 years because I stopped 

in 13. That's it.

MR. FRANCZAK: Audrey, thank you for 

your public commentary.

MS. COBB: Thank you. Bye-bye.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you. Bye-bye. 

Brady?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, I just admitted 

Samer Hassan. He's representing himself.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: And it looks like he's 

connected to audio, but his video is not- Samer, do you 

maybe have like a- yeah, I was going to say privacy. 

Yeah. Okay.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Yeah, Samer, 

you have up to three minutes for your public commentary. 

Feel free to get started as soon as you're ready.

MR. HASSAN: Okay. Thank you. One 

second. Okay. Good afternoon, I am Samer Hassan, a 

student loan borrower. I took out student loans for 

undergrad at Columbia University in New York and grad 
67

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

school at the University of Chicago Harris School of 

Public Policy. Thanks for taking the time to listen to my 

comment as you all work diligently to establish a rule 

related to the modification waiver, or compromise of 

Federal student loans. We were told to do everything we 

could in order to achieve the American Dream, and that 

included taking out extortionary loans. Neither of my 

parents finished beyond their freshman year of high 

school, and I ended up graduating from an Ivy League. I 

firmly believe that a college degree is a catalyst for 

moving up the economic ladder in life. We go to school to 

seek fulfillment and use it as a step toward achieving 

our dreams. Yet the reality is a life full of worry. 

Worry for our future. The future of the nation, as it 

rather saddled millions of student loan borrowers with 

bills they can't afford, rather than do everything it can 

to ensure they succeed. Imagine a nation that supports 

its people instead of building hurdle after hurdle after 

hurdle. This government has money for endless genocidal 

wars, while we can't even have access to healthcare, 

public transportation, or quality education. The 

Administration needs to start treating students like the 

investments in this country they really are instead of 

liabilities. Now that school is over, I worry if I will 

be able to pay off $120,000 worth of loans. My story is 
68

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

not unique. 40 million student loan borrowers are 

screaming at the top of their lungs for an equitable 

pathway to achieving the American Dream. The Department 

has the authority to cancel student loan debt and 

establish a better- establish better mechanisms for 

achieving a college degree. Canceling up to 50K in 

student loan debt would significantly reduce the racial 

wealth gap, secure economic mobility for communities 

historically marginalized, and lift the burden of the 

student debt crisis for millions. The original plan to 

cancel student debt relief in amounts of 10K and 20K for 

Pell Grant recipients should be the start, not the 

ceiling. Additionally, while we welcome the SAVE 

Repayment Plan, the Biden-Harris Administration must 

leave out borrowers- must not leave out borrowers who 

pursued graduate education or supported their children in 

accessing higher education by ensuring any adjustments to 

fix the student loan system include. Thank you, and 

Parent PLUS borrowers and that they equally benefit from 

such adjustments. Thank you so much for taking the time 

out of your day to read my- and to listen to my 

testimony.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you. So, we havethere are four folks who were scheduled to be on who have 

not logged in to comment, so we are moving more quickly 
69

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

through this public commentary section. So if there are 

folks who were waitlisted and you are interested in 

providing public commentary, please log on and we will 

work to get as many within the time slots that we have, 

up to the 4:00 timeframe. Brady?

MR. ROBERTS: I've admitted Neal 

McCluskey, who's the Director of the Center for 

Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. 

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay.

MR. MCCLUSKEY: Thank you. My name is 

Neal McCluskey, and I am the Director of the Center for 

Educational Freedom of the Cato Institute, which is a 

nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research 

organization. My comments are my own and do not represent 

any position of the institute. First and foremost, I want 

to express my disappointment in the makeup of this 

committee, not who is on it. I think every member seeks 

to represent their constituencies well, but who is not 

representatives of the millions of taxpayers who foot the 

bill for revenue loss due to decreased debt repayment. 

Only about 14% of Americans ages 18 and above have 

current student loans. 23% have already repaid, and a 

large majority, 63%, have never had student loans. The 

committee should have a majority representing American 

taxpayers who have never had loans, but instead they have 
70

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

essentially no representation. This is especially 

concerning given that the average lifetime earnings for a 

bachelor's degree or above, versus anyone's education 

with high school diploma, is between an additional 1.2 

million and $3.1 million, depending on the level of the 

degree. People who attend college are poised to be major 

economic winners. They should pay the costs of investing 

in themselves, not taxpayers. They should also bear the 

risk of an overly expensive or poorly scrutinized 

investment. That incentivizes thoughtful, efficient 

education. Alas, creating a committee composed 

overwhelmingly of people representing groups that will 

benefit from debt cancellation will actually hurt future 

prospective college students. The promise of easy 

forgiveness will incentivize colleges to charge ever 

higher sticker prices on the grounds that many students 

will feel they can accept those prices without having to 

actually pay them. A 2017 survey found that half of 

students expected at least some of their debt to be 

forgiven. What is being discussed by this committee could 

amplify that. And who do skyrocketing prices hurt most? 

The people who need or most need help. Those from low 

income families, especially in areas where few people 

know how the student aid game works, who see giant 

sticker prices and rule schools out. In other words, 
71

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

reducing the amount of loans that borrowers need to repay 

both hurts taxpayers and many of the people that Federal 

Student Aid is supposed to help. And all of this is 

occurring through a bureaucratic process that is grossly 

undemocratic and a violation of constitutional separation 

of powers. It is the legislative branch, not the 

executive, that is charged with writing laws, including 

the major components of Federal programs. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright, Neal, thank 

you. Alright. Who do we have next, Brady?

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Emmett 

Blaney, who is representing himself. 

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Emmett, can 

you hear us? Emmett?

MR. BLANEY: Hi. Can you hear me?

MR. FRANCZAK: Yes, Emmett. We can 

hear you now. Can you hear us?

MR. BLANEY: Yes.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. You have up to 

three minutes. Feel free to start as soon as you can.

MR. BLANEY: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. My name is Emmett Blaney. I'm a Coloradan, a 

social worker, and a student loan borrower. I'm 

representing myself. Thank you to the entire negotiated 

rulemaking committee for taking the time to hear my 
72

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

comments on student loan cancellation. In June, I 

graduated with my Master of Social Work degree. Like many 

social workers, I pursued this degree to serve the public 

interest. The price I pay to perform this service is 

$49,907 in student debt. Due to the size of my debt and 

the size of social work salaries, I'm forced to pursue 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The PSLF program seems 

like my only hope at paying off my loans, but it is a 

complicated, lengthy, and stress-inducing process. It is 

not a substitute for debt cancellation. Sometimes when 

I'm up late at night, I find myself googling unanswerable 

questions. Questions like, is the Supreme Court going to

get rid of PSLF? Or should I wait to have a child until I 

pay off my loans? These searches are often followed by a 

recurring dream. I'm alone in the middle of a massive 

body of water, kicking as hard as I can, desperately 

trying to keep my head above the surface. The stress is 

not isolated to me. The data shows that many young adults 

are in the same position. I speak to you personally as 

members of the committee to say, if you are a baby boomer 

or a part of Gen X, my generation's net wealth is less 

than half what yours was when you were my age. Your 

retirement accounts grow more than double the rate of 

mine. Racial wealth disparity makes these gaps even more 

egregious. Young Black Americans and Latinos earn 57 and 
73

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

64 cents, respectively, for every dollar earned by young 

white Americans. Young Black Americans have amassed only 

a 10th of the wealth of young white Americans. The great 

news is we have an opportunity to change this. We can 

take the first leap. You can take the first leap. The 

original plan to cancel student debt in amounts of 10 

thousand and 20 thousand for Pell Grant recipients should 

be the absolute bare minimum of student debt 

cancellation. Canceling up to 50,000 in student debt 

would open the door to closing the racial wealth gap, 

encouraging young adults to participate freely in our 

economy, and inspiring young people to pursue fields that 

desperately need us. Fields like social work. I pursued 

my education with the intention of serving the greater 

good, but I can't serve the greater good if I can't keep 

my head above the water. I urge you to fight for student 

borrowers trying to make our way into the world. I urge 

you to fight for an equitable pathway to student debt 

cancellation. I can't keep my head above the water, but 

you can throw me a life jacket. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Thank you, 

Emmett. Brady, who's next up?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, I just admitted 

Anh Nguyen Tran, who's here representing herself.

MR. FRANCZAK: Anh, can you hear us?
74

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MS. NGUYEN TRAN: Yes, I can hear you. 

Can you hear me?

MR. FRANCZAK: Yes. So you have up to 

three minutes for your public commentary. So feel free to 

start as soon as you're ready.

MS. NGUYEN TRAN: Sounds good. Good 

afternoon, everyone. Thank you for giving me the chance 

to speak. My name is Anh Nguyen Tran. My comments are my 

own and represent my own views. And I'm a former student 

loan borrower. I have already paid off my student loans. 

I'm here to speak because I recognize that there are 

still many Americans struggling under the weight of this 

debt. I want to confirm to everyone that even people who 

have no personal stakes in student loan cancellation 

recognize its importance. I was personally able to pay 

off my loans during the COVID pandemic when interest 

rates were paused. I was lucky that my loans were under 

10K and that I was living at home. Because I wasn't 

burdened by student debt, I decided to pursue graduate 

level education. However, there are so many Americans 

that have not been as lucky as me in today's economy, 

with inflation causing gas and food prices to skyrocket. 

It's continued to increase, especially in high cost of 

living states. I can't imagine how I would have been able 

to pay off my loans, especially if my debt had been any 
75

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

higher. How can people save for emergencies, retirement 

or other major life events such as being laid off? How 

can people afford to pay for the roof over their heads if 

they're burdened by student debt repayments? And how can 

people continue to pursue higher education at the 

graduate level if they decide to, with this debt they 

have? Graduate education is oftentimes a good path 

forward for people who want to invest in their economic 

futures. And this is not the only thing that student debt 

can deter people from. Student debt can discourage people 

from moving locations to areas beneficial for their 

career paths, for instance, or from buying a home. 

There's so many ways that student debt can prevent people 

from experiencing economic mobility. I commend Biden's 

original plan to cancel 10K or 20K for Pell Grant 

borrowers, but I sincerely believe that this should only 

be the [inaudible]. There should be no ceiling for 

student debt relief, and students of color have higher 

loan debts on average and are more likely to struggle 

with debt repayments. They are also more likely to drop 

out of college, which may leave them thousands of dollars 

in debt and no degree to show for it. Canceling up to 

$50,000 in student loans will promote economic mobility 

for millions of Americans, especially those from 

marginalized communities. I also commend the Biden 
76

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

Administration's SAVE Repayment Plan, but I argue that 

parents who borrowed on behalf of their students under a 

Parent PLUS Loan should be included as well. Thank you, 

everyone, for your time and your efforts.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you. Brady, who 

do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Justine Obiakor, who's here representing Young 

Invincibles.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright.

MS. OBIAKOR: Hello, thank you 

everyone.

MR. FRANCZAK: Can you hear me?

MS. OBIAKOR: Yes, I can hear you. Can 

you hear me?

MR. FRANCZAK: Yes. So you have up to 

three minutes for your public commentary. Feel free to 

start as soon as you're ready.

MS. OBIAKOR: Okay. So thank you, 

everyone. Good morning. My name is Justine. I'm a newly 

licensed registered nurse and a current psychiatric 

mental health nurse practitioner graduate student and 

also a student loan borrower. I wanted to speak from the 

perspective of having 50K plus loan in that area, and 

actually six figures plus, at this point. I'm first 
77

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

generation American and coming from migrant parents, 

having access to loans was taught to be, you know, an 

opportunity of American Dream and that there were no 

other options. But as I continue on in my education, I'm 

seeing the repercussions of it. Although I do not regret 

my investment in my education and my development, I do 

severely worry about myself, my peers, and the future 

generations coming up being faced with this burden to 

then have to figure out how to pay it back. Right now I'm 

doing a program. It's a combined program, so I came in 

with a different degree. I have my bachelor's in mental 

health and my masters and health policy, and I basically 

did a crash course in nursing, and now I'm specializing. 

So my goal here today is to really urge the Department of 

Education to do everything possible for student loan 

borrowers. I'm at the point where I continue to take on 

debt because I'm in it so deep now, there's no other 

option. Working in public health and public policy wasn't 

going to be able to provide the life and the resources 

that I needed, especially being first generation and 

having family to support and also try to encourage them 

to continue on in their educational journey, as I'm the 

first one to go to a university. So right now, I really 

urge that you guys consider, as you're delegating and 

conversating around this, about really lifting the burden 
78

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

of the student debt crisis for millions of Americans. I 

know my story is different, but it's not the only one. 

There's many other people that probably have it even more 

than I do. So I really do encourage you guys to continue 

the efforts for relief in and amounts of, you know, 20 

plus K for the Pell Grant recipients and also looking 

into the savings of valuable education repayment plan 

that the Biden-Harris Administration, you know, said that 

they were going to pursue for graduate education. And 

also, to look at the people who supported their children 

by getting student loans for their Parent PLUS borrowers, 

and really figuring out a way that we can invest in our 

people and our economy as far as the personal development 

and education. I'm passionate about the work I do, but I 

also need to be able to take care of myself to continue 

on and do this work. So I'm not saying that this is an 

easy request, but I do understand that there's other 

countries that do things differently and don't think it's 

an impossible thing to reimagine how we- how it is we 

approach education, and especially this debt crisis, 

because, again, I'm in a situation- that was three mins?

MR. WEATHERS: 30 seconds left.

MS. OBIAKOR: Oh, okay. I'm in the 

situation where I'm going to continue on and teach. I 

basically joined a student loan forgiveness program. And 
79

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

this is just me scratching for ways that I can be free. 

I've worked in public health. I've worked in nonprofits. 

I understand the ten-year debt forgiveness. I'm saying 

there has to be a creative approach that we can really 

address the needs of people to be developed and pursue 

their passions, but also be able to take care of 

themselves and not carry this burden on. So I really urge 

you guys to come together and get creative in these 

conversations. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you, Justine, for 

your public commentary. Alright, Brady, who do we have 

next?

MR. ROBERTS: I just submitted Desiree 

Veney, who is the vice president of the Morgan State 

Chapter of the NAACP. 

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay. Desiree, can you 

hear us?

MS. VENEY: Yes, can. Can you hear me?

MR. FRANCZAK: Yes. Alright. You have 

up to three minutes for your public commentary. Feel free 

to start as soon as you're ready.

MS. VENEY: Okay, great. First, I want 

to say good afternoon. My name is Desiree Veney. I'm the 

Vice President of the Morgan State Chapter NAACP as well 

as a student loan borrower. Thank you all for taking time 
80

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

to listen to my comment as you all work diligently to 

establish a rule related and modification, waiver, or 

compromise of Federal Student Loans. First, I want to say 

being a out of state student at an HBCU has significantly 

impacted my school and financial experience, particularly 

when it comes to borrowing loans. While attending a 

Historically Black College University, it has been very 

enriching and both empowering, but it also has came with 

its own set of challenges. As an out-of-state student, 

tuition costs are higher, and securing financial aid or 

scholarships specific to my state of origin, which is 

Pennsylvania, has been more limited. This has led to a 

heavier- a heavier reliance on student loans to cover the 

gap and consequently I find more of myself facing a 

larger debt burden compared to in-state students. I also 

come from, you know, a bigger, larger family, so, you 

know, financial security sometimes began to be a problem, 

but even then, I plan to further my education. So with 

that- you know, with that, having that in the back of my 

head, sometimes knowing that I'm already kind of so deep 

into the debt already and I still plan to pursue to be 

successful sometimes can be, you know, a burden mentally, 

physically, financially. It just goes more than just 

financially, I would say. For Black and African 

Americans, getting an education is one of the top 
81

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

priorities. Yet, debt from student loans has emerged as a 

significant obstacle to success in the workforce. I 

believe that the Black population, especially Black 

women, will greatly benefit from the cancellation of up 

to $50,000 in school debt. Borrowers who are burdened 

with college debt suffer from far reaching adverse 

impacts that hinder their capacity to participate in the 

economy and prosper in the modern labor market. We need 

to ensure economic mobility for historically marginalized 

communities, alleviate the burden of the student debt 

problem for millions of people, and drastically narrow 

the racial- excuse me, the racial wealth gap, which is a 

large problem within our economy and our- in the United 

States in general. Furthermore even while we applaud the 

saving on valuable education repayment plan, the BidenHarris Administration must make sure that borrowers who 

are supported and who support their children or, you 

know, are pursuing graduate education, that they're not 

left out. So I feel that this repayment plan will be a 

great way to save, you know, not only African Americans, 

but our nation in general and give everyone a chance to 

further their education.

MR. FRANCZAK: Desiree, thank you for 

your public commentary.

MS. VENEY: No problem. Thank you for 
82

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

this opportunity. I truly appreciate it. 

MR. FRANCZAK: Sure. Brady. Who's up 

next?

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Markyel 

Pittman, who's the State President of the Mississippi 

Youth and College and the Co-Chair of the Political 

Action Task force at the NAACP. 

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay. Markyel, can you 

hear me? You're muted at the moment. Can you hear us now?

MR. PITTMAN: Good evening, everyone.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright, Markyel, you 

have up to three minutes forMR. PITTMAN: My name is Mark Pittman, 

I'm the State President for the Mississippi State 

Conference of the Youth and College Division. I first 

want to thank you all for this opportunity and to our 

director that is on. Thank you for the opportunity as 

well. I am a proud Native of the great state of 

Mississippi, where I attended and still am attending 

Jackson State University as a grad student in political 

science. And today I kind of want to talk about what I've 

endured in the hardship of being a Black man attending an 

HBCU and kind of some of the things that I've endured. So 

growing up in the Mississippi Delta, as you all may know, 

is one of the poorest regions in all of America. It is 
83

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

not likely that most Black men make it out and further 

their education past high school, if they make it out of 

high school. And being a Black man that made it out and 

was able to go to Jackson State to look and pave new ways 

not only for my community, but Black men as a whole, this 

was not an easy loophole. I was raised by a- in a singleparent household by my mother, and I seen how my mother 

had to work two and three jobs just to sustain and make 

sure that I had a proper education, and just to make sure 

that I could do what I wanted to be in life. And once I 

got to Jackson, I thought that maybe because I'm going to 

a HBCU, a curriculum that was built for me where I could 

be my own natural, proud Black self, it was not what I 

thought it was. When I got there, my living conditions 

were well below means. When I got there, I realized that 

I did not have the same resources that the University of 

Mississippi had, or the University of Mississippi State 

had. And so being- knowing that I was already, for one, a 

Black man and having strikes against me, when I got to 

Jackson State, I didn't feel like I wanted to feel. I 

didn't have that same aspiration and that same drive, but 

I knew that I could be that person to potentially help my 

university get to where it needs. And so as time went on, 

I finally did get my degree and I thank God for my 

university simply because it made me the man that I am. 
84

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

But this is not an easy system, because for people that 

are like me, this is- I'm probably one out of every 200 

students that have this opportunity being a Black man 

from the Mississippi Delta. And so I want to plead with 

you all on today that student debt should be erased a 

lot of people in the state of Mississippi do not have the 

opportunity to even go to college, simply because they 

cannot afford $200,000 worth of debt. And once we get out 

of these places and get out of school, we have the 

mindset, okay, will I even get a great enough job or a 

good enough job to be able to go on and pay off this 

student debt? And that's my question. Will I be able to 

get the right job once I get out of school in order to 

pay my student debt off? This is not easy in Mississippi, 

where the average Black salary for a Black man is about 

40-

MR. FRANCZAK: We have- we have other 

public commentators, we have to share the time.

MR. PITTMAN: I beg your pardon. Is 

somebody speaking? I can't hear.

MR. FRANCZAK: Yes. This is Mike 

Franczak, facilitator. The three-minute time period has 

been- has- is up. So, thank you for your time. We 

appreciate it. Alright, Brady, who's up next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 
85

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

Matthew Moore, who's here representing himself.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright.

MR. MOORE: Hello. 

MR. FRANCZAK: Matthew, can you hear 

us?

MR. MOORE: Yeah, I can hear you.

MR. FRANCZAK: So you have up to three 

minutes for your testimony. Please start as soon as 

you're ready.

MR. MOORE: Okay. Yeah, so, hello. My 

name is Matthew Moore, and I'm a resident of Washington 

State. First off, I want to thank those for continuing to 

fight for student loan forgiveness. I believe that is in 

our best interest to make education free as an educated 

populace is a benefit to all society. This is a good step 

towards that goal. Today I'm making public comment to 

share my experience and thoughts. Hopefully this 

information is valuable. From my perspective, going 

through a college program was a necessary option to 

achieve my goals of becoming an engineer, for the sake of 

contributing to a better design world. College not only 

offers a space to learn, but more importantly, a way to 

prove your competence to prospective employers. 

Unfortunately, it seems that the latter point has created 

a pathway for the price of higher education to inflate, 
86

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

which it has done significantly over time compared to 

wages. To the young and unsuspecting student, this 

situation has only gotten worse. Fortunately, I was old 

enough and wise enough to lessen my burden by earning an 

engineering degree through a combination of community 

college and public college, which left me with a less 

than average debt of 23,000. However, I still cannot 

anticipate the future. I graduated right at the height of 

the pandemic and was fortunate enough to work as a 

student researcher, earning enough that if I didn't have 

any needs, such as food or shelter, I could pay off in 

about a year. Unfortunately, my needs left no room for 

debt repayment. As pandemic cooled off, I was later able 

to get work as a service provider for the Weatherization 

Assistance Program, earning enough money that if student 

debt was my only obligation, I could pay it off in half a 

year. Around this time, I was now supporting my then 

girlfriend with an equal amount of debt, so my position 

was the same. Our basic needs left no room for debt 

repayment. In 2022, I took a job as a civil engineer in 

public sector that did create a pathway for repayment, 

but would at the cost of pausing our life goals for being 

for an indefinite amount of time. Our primary goal is 

being marriage, finding a permanent home, and fostering 

or adopting kids. Soon after beginning this new job, I 
87

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

was ecstatic as we both received emails to apply for 

student debt relief, which we accepted shortly after. Not 

long after that, we achieved one of our goals and got 

married at the local courthouse. When we later found out 

the decision for student debt relief was reversed, it was 

like a stab in the back. Knowing that the issues 

surrounding the inflation of the cost of education has 

been recognized by the Federal Government, dangling 

relief in our face and then taking it away is just sick. 

On average, after rent, utilities, food, healthcare, 

taxes, maintenance and other necessities, all of which 

continue to inflate in price, I will just make enough 

with diligent spending that we can only barely make our 

payments and nothing else, effectively pausing our goals 

for a decade. That's my situation. Thanks for listening.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you for your 

public commentary, Matthew. Next up, Brady?

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Just admitted Lisa 

Salmons, who's here representing herself.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay. Lisa, can you 

hear us? 

MS. SALMONS: I can hear you. Can you 

hear me?

MR. FRANCZAK: Yes. Alright, so you 

have up to three minutes. Feel free to start as soon as 
88

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

you're ready.

MS. SALMONS: Okay. Hello. And thank 

you for having me today. I graduated in 2020 with a 

Doctorate in pharmacy, and it is concerning to me that 

after working tirelessly during the pandemic, not one 

healthcare worker has a seat on this committee. It is 

uncommon for several types of healthcare workers to work 

within settings that would qualify them for PSLF, 

including pharmacists, even though most of us work in the 

community providing critical access to medications. Many 

health care workers are drowning in student loan 

payments, but are being considered by the Government to 

be high wage earners. Wage is not the equivalent of 

wealth. And regarding wealth, I'm a second-generation 

college student in my family, but just barely. My mother 

graduated from medical school and residency when I was a 

freshman in high school. This left my parents with almost 

no time to prepare for my college tuition. I would like 

it to be known and be entered into record. As the student 

loans currently stand, the Department of Education is an 

active participant in predatory lending. In the three 

years I was obtaining my doctorate, I borrowed $152,000. 

As of 8/23, my loans carry a balance of $172,000. With my 

current interest rates, my loans are accruing $748 in 

interest every 30 days, and depending on which available 
89

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

plan I pick for repayment, I will pay 220 to $330,000 to 

repay the original $152,000 I borrowed. During COVID, 

business owners filled out a one-page application for PPP 

loans and were not required to prove they were 

experiencing hardship and had $800 billion forgiven. They 

also did not have to prove they were in business 20 to 25 

years to receive this stimulus. Students deserve the same 

courtesy. The SAVE program does not help graduate student 

borrowers. The student loan burden is making it 

impossible for the healthcare community to attract the 

brightest applicants. I have some ideas and requests to 

reduce student loan financial hardships. I am proposing a 

one-time $100,000 forgiveness for every healthcare 

graduate student loan holder now and upon future 

graduation. That includes OT, PT, pharmacists, DNP, NP, 

PA, etcetera. Regardless of loan age and income amount, 

applicable for all loans, Parent PLUS subsidized and 

unsubsidized, and for the Department to reduce student 

loans by $10,000 for every year that a student works 

within the field that they received a degree in, 

especially healthcare workers, including a current 

retroactive lookback. This, in turn, will incentivize 

students to be good stewards and borrow money with the 

intention of working in a field that they borrowed in. 

I'm also requesting the Department of Education get the 
90

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

regulatory text before the proposed November 2024 date. I 

understand that you would love to unveil this right 

before the election to sway voters. It is time the DOE 

remembers that we are also taxpayers and not political 

pawns.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you for your 

testimony, Lisa. Alright. Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Emily Fardo, who is here representing herself.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay. Emily, can you 

hear us?

MS. FARDO: I can. Can you hear me?

MR. FRANCZAK: Yes, Emily. All good. 

So as soon as you're ready, you have up to three minutes. 

Feel free to start as soon as you're ready.

MS. FARDO: Can you see me? I don't 

think my camera isMR. FRANCZAK: We can't see your 

camera. 

MS. FARDO: Okay. Alright, no problem. 

I'll go ahead and get started. Thank you. Hello. My name 

is Emily Fardo, and thank you for giving me the 

opportunity to speak with you all today. I received my 

Doctor of Pharmacy in 2018, but it was a bittersweet 

accomplishment as it marked the beginning of my journey 
91

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

with a substantial debt burden exceeding $230,000. This 

encompasses my personal loans and my Parent PLUS Loans. 

On my pursuit of higher education, while personally 

enriching, has left me facing financial hardships. Today, 

I would like to propose some resolutions and forgiving 

interest accumulating on these loans for borrowers, 

regardless of the loan amount, length and time and 

repayment, income in profession, and allowing students to 

only pay on the original principal. It's a known fact 

that many of us in this country hold professional 

degrees. We do hold a bulk of the student debt. My 

situation is not unique, as many pharmacists and other 

healthcare professionals find themselves in similar 

predicaments. We earn slightly more than the average 

middle class citizen, yet our significant monthly loan 

payments strain our finances, and regrettably, our income 

levels often disqualify us from loan forgiveness programs 

despite our genuine financial hardships. The Department 

of Education has made the process of acquiring a student 

loan very easy, and the repayment and forgiveness process 

is almost impossible. My father was unemployed and was 

approved to take out a Parent PLUS Loan on my behalf, 

amounting to approximately $150,000, which now I pay for 

and does not qualify for Income Based Repayment options. 

As of graduation, my loans totaled $230,000, with an 
92

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

average interest of 7%. I chose the standard ten-year 

repayment plan, which will equal about $400,000 in total 

repayments. The interest alone accounts for about $1,300 

per month. Currently, after taxes, I'm making $6,000 a 

month and paying $3,000 each month towards my student 

debt, which is about 50% of my income. Given my monthly 

student loan payments of about 50% on top of other 

expenses such as rent, groceries, car payments and 

insurance, I'm left with barely $200 per month, making it 

nearly impossible for me to purchase a home, save for 

child care, let alone pay for any unexpected medical 

expenses. I've always earned just above the government 

threshold and have never qualified for financial 

assistance or relief, even though I've worked tirelessly 

throughout the pandemic. Personally, I've administered 

thousands of vaccines, worked demanding 80-hour weeks to 

ensure the safe supply of life-sustaining medications to 

my community. During the pandemic, billions of PPP loans 

were granted to businesses with little to no proof 

required to show that they were experiencing hardship, 

yet students like myself are held to a higher standard 

and are required to jump through all kinds of hoops to 

prove our hardships. I'm just asking-. Thank you. In the 

beginning of the pandemic, bills were introduced to 

reward health care workers for working tirelessly during 
93

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

COVID, and those have not come to fruition. I'm asking 

today that the Department of Education do something about 

this and forgive interest accumulating on these loans for 

all borrowers, as these loans have left us facing extreme 

financial hardships. Thank you all for listening and for 

your time today.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you for your 

public commentary, Emily. Alright, next up Brady.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Stacey Borden, who's the founder of New Beginnings 

Reentry Services.

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright, Stacey, can 

you hear us? Stacey, can you hear us?

MS. BORDEN: Yes, I can hear. 

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay, sounds like 

you're all set. As soon as you're ready, you have up to 

three minutes. Please begin.

MS. BORDEN: Thank you. Dear members 

of the Department of Education, my name is Stacey Borden. 

Thank you for allowing me the space to speak regarding 

student loan debt relief, negotiated rulemaking. I'm here 

today to bring to your attention a pressing issue that 

affects individuals like myself who have faced 

significant challenges due to our experiences within the 

criminal justice system and subsequently, the burden of 
94

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

student loan debt. I humbly request your consideration of 

the unfairness surrounding the student loan debt policy 

as it pertains to formerly incarcerated individuals. My 

personal experience, I spent three and a half years at 

Framingham State Prison and subsequently entered 

obstacles when attempting to pursue higher education at 

Boston University. Despite my strong desire to become- or 

better myself and contribute positively to society, I was 

informed that I did not meet the sentence equivalent 

requirements for a four-year degree program. However, I 

was permitted to audit certain courses and writing 

history and mathematics, although these efforts did not 

lead to any credits toward a degree. It is important to 

note that the Massachusetts Correctional Institute 

oversees both the Women's State Prison and all the male 

state prisons, and it should ideally be offered equitable 

programing and leadership roles for individuals 

incarcerated. Inconsistencies in access to education can 

perpetuate disparity and hinder successful reintegration 

into society upon release. Upon my release in 2010, I 

embarked on a journey to pursue higher education in 2011 

and successfully completed my master's degree in 2016. 

During my educational journey, I initially received a 

Pell Grant for the first two years, which was an 

inevitable support. However, this financial aid 
95

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

discounted or discontinued leaving me with a substantial 

student loan debt burden. I have worked in the nonprofit 

and human services sector since 2015, and I still work in 

nonprofit, assisting women returning from prisons to help 

them reintegrate back into families and communities, 

earnings there are still keeping me in an impoverished 

state, most likely due to my criminal court- [30 

seconds]. I'm sorry?

MR. WEATHERS: 30 seconds remain.

MS. BORDEN: One of the most expensive 

housing markets in the country, while grappling with the 

weight of $68,000 student loan debt has created an 

unsubstantial financial hardship. It is disheartening to 

face the reality that even after paying my debt to 

society and contributing to my community, I'm still 

struggling to make ends meet and lead a stress-free life 

at age 62 years old. Is that my time up? 

MR. FRANCZAK: Alright. Thank you 

Stacey. Appreciate it. Alright. So Brady, we have, I 

believe, three more slots still designated. So who's up 

next?

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Nancy 

Nearman, who's the Assistant Director of the Education 

Debt Consumer Assistance Program.

MR. FRANCZAK: Nancy, can you hear us?
96

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

MS. NIERMAN: I can hear you. Thank 

you.

MR. FRANCZAK: Great. You have up to 

three minutes. Please start as soon as you're ready. 

MS. NIERMAN: Great. Good afternoon. 

My name is Nancy Nierman. I am the Assistant Director of 

the Education Debt Consumer Assistance Program, a New 

York State funded program which provides free assistance 

to borrowers struggling with student loan debt. We've 

provided counseling to thousands of individuals over the 

past four years, and it is from this experience that I 

speak to you today. There are several issues I'd like to 

address. First, on the subject of hardship, I feel 

compelled to highlight the plight of Parent PLUS 

borrowers. The number of Parent PLUS borrowers has 

increased by almost 20% in the last nine years, and the 

size of the debt that they are holding has risen by 

almost 80%. Borrowing $100,000 per child or $25,000 per 

year is not uncommon. And between the high interest rates 

and limited repayment options, many borrowers cannot 

afford any repayment plan. The idea that parents are in a 

better position to absorb the cost of attendance for an 

affordable- for an undergraduate degree is misplaced and 

is jeopardizing the middle class. Without access to more 

affordable repayment options, these borrowers will be 
97

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

forced into default. We implore the Department to allow 

Parent PLUS borrowers to access more generous repayment 

plans like SAVE. On the issue of how the Department can 

assist borrowers who are eligible for forgiveness but 

don't apply for it, we appreciate the efforts made by the 

current administration to address long-standing issues 

with programs like PSLF and IDR forgiveness. However, 

changes have come with a set of complex and ever-changing 

rules, making it almost impossible for the average person 

to figure out what they need to do to benefit. 

Additionally, servicers often provide inaccurate 

information, compounding the problem. Borrowers with nondirect loans face a deadline of December 31st to 

consolidate and gain access to forgiveness programs 

without losing some or all retroactive credit. As 

advocates, we simply don't have enough time or resources 

to reach and educate every borrower who falls into this 

category. Borrowers with Pell, Perkins, and HEAL Loans 

should be able to consolidate and get retroactive payment 

credit towards forgiveness with no set deadline. To do so 

otherwise is simply unjust, as these are often the 

borrowers who have been dealing with this debt for 

decades. And finally, I'd like to talk about the issue of 

servicer accountability. If a borrower acts or fails to 

act- fails to act based on misinformation from servicers 
98

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

and they miss out on opportunities or suffer harm, they 

should be held harmless and their issue be corrected. I 

offer up a few recent examples. One client had different 

loan repayment histories and should have qualified for a 

full balanced forgiveness under the IDR account 

adjustment, but MOHELA incorrectly advised them that loan 

consolidation would cause them to lose all retroactive 

credit, leading to partial forgiveness and extended 

payments with no apparent recourse. In another case, I 

listened with my own ears as a client who had both Parent 

PLUS Loans and her own student loans, was told to 

consolidate all her loans together to gain access to 

SAVE, which is incorrect and would have left her with an 

unaffordable ICR payment for her entire balance. So, I 

thank you again for allowing me to address the committee.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you, Nancy, 

appreciate it. Alright, Brady, did we go through everyone 

on the registered list? 

MR. ROBERTS: We do, we have time for 

one more on the waitlist, who I just admitted, and that's 

John Burkey representing Burkey Capital LLC.

MR. FRANCZAK: Okay, so we'll take 

this last one. John, can you hear us?

MR. BURKEY: Yes. 

MR. FRANCZAK: John, okay, you have up 
99

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

to three minutes. Please start as soon as you're ready.

MR. BURKEY: The subject of my 

comments would include the cohort of almost all student 

loan debtors. A significant consequence of student loan 

debt has been a delay in homeownership and the 

opportunity for wealth creation via the home ownership 

ladder. Often, the burden of paying down or paying off 

student debt impairs savings for down payments. This 

delay results in a seemingly endless treadmill of never 

getting ahead with rising rents, rising home prices, and 

compounding the issue, albeit likely only temporary 

rising interest rates. Accordingly, an impending dynamic 

structural paradigm shift in mortgage lending may provide 

an opportunity to enable home ownership more 

specifically. Traditional- traditionally, mortgage 

lenders are limited to loans not exceeding 97 to 100% of 

the home's collateral value, or what's known as LTV loan 

to value. However, considering advances in data and 

processing technology, behavioral credit analysis, and

the historical record of home appreciation averaging 

about 4.3%, it may be possible to issue home purchase 

mortgages that fund the home purchase and pay off student 

loans. Given the historical growth and if you want to 

consider a 120% loan to value, meaning the home purchase 

plus 20% to pay off the student loans, in less than five 
100

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

years, the home value could exceed the mortgage balance, 

effectively using wealth creation to extinguish the 

student loan debt, and this would be at no cost to 

taxpayers. To follow is a little bit of a template could 

be used for the rule. I don't know exactly where it would 

fit in. For any lender issuing a first lien fixed rate 

mortgage for the purchase of a primary residence whereby 

the mortgage lender pays off the borrower's student debt 

balance owed to the Department of Education, and includes 

that paid off amount in the mortgage, and in the event 

the mortgage loan subsequently defaults including but not 

limited to bankruptcy and by some sort of legal 

proceeding, causes a deficiency of the house liquidation 

proceeds to satisfy the mortgage loan balance, the 

Department of Education would reinstate the student loan 

debt to the student borrowers up to the deficiency 

amount, not to exceed the original student loan amount 

that was paid off and pay back that amount to the first 

lien mortgage lender. We call it a clawback provision and 

it would allow almost everyone-. And that's it.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you John, 

appreciate your public commentary. Thank you to all who 

gave public commentary. Encourage folks to register for 

future public commentary sessions. Unfortunately, that's 

all our time for public commentary today. I believe the 
101

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

Department of ED has some wrap-up comments, and I'll turn 

it over to, I believe, Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you. Michael. 

Thank you so much, FMCS, the ED team, my PCG team, 

negotiators and the public. We've had a full day of 

formidable discussion and have heard a lot of good ideas. 

As a reminder, please submit your proposals, amendatory 

text to us no later than Tuesday, November 17th. We look 

forward to seeing you again tomorrow and continuing our 

work on student aid- student debt relief negotiations. We 

plan to start the discussion with gainful employment and 

low financial value and CDR, cohort default rate, in the 

morning, and wrap up the afternoon with a discussion on 

the hardship issue paper. We welcome your important 

feedback. Have a wonderful afternoon and thanks again for 

your participation in this very important work.

MR. FRANCZAK: Thank you everyone. 

We'll see you tomorrow.

 
102

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

Zoom Chat Transcript

Student Loan Debt Relief Committee - Session 2, Day 1, Afternoon, November 

6, 2023

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

may be present.

From Brady Roberts (FMCS Facilitation Team) to Everyone:

Would folks mind changing their display names to indicate their 

role and constituency group?

From (A) Josh Divine - State AGs to Everyone:

What is the timeline for submitting the proposal for a new 

constituency?

From John S. Whitelaw, (he/him) Advocacy Director, CLASI 

(Delaware) to Everyone:

I assume there would be an opt out for folks who qualify but do 

not apply?

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

Can you also speak to the statutory discharge provision, Ben?

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

Sarah Butts will take over as Primary

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Agree with Richard's comments. Consolidation has been a major 

problem for borrowers. If borrowers are eligible for PSLF and or 

already received PSLF discharge and have hanging loans, we would like 

them to forgive those hanging loans.

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

How does “has not successfully applied for, but otherwise meets 

the eligibility requirements” catch the many borrowers who appear to 

be eligible or were eligible but have been denied due to servicer 

mishandling, misinformation, etc.?

From P- Sandra Boham, HBCUs, TCCUs, and MSIs to Everyone:

I agree that the process for PSLF is prohibitive. The application 

process is difficult and creates a barrier to applicants who are 

eligible. It would seem that this is another area where automation 

would be an option

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree that the pro..." with ���

From A-Sherrie Gammage-4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree that the pro..." with ���

From (A) - David Ramirez - 2yrBorrower to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree that the pro..." with ���

From (P) Angelika Williams: Private, Nonprofit 

Institutions to Everyone:

How does this text consider the interconnected aspects with other 

sections we previously discussed? For instance, there are Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) applicants who might qualify for 

waivers as outlined in Borrower Eligibility Requirements paragraph c.
103

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

From (P) Angelika Williams: Private, Nonprofit 

Institutions to Everyone:

“Borrower Defense to Repayment and False Certification” can this 

text be revised to include False Certifications.

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

Would like to see Joint Consolidation borrowers and Public 

Employees contracted by third party employers added to the regs here.

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

+1 to Yael

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

+1 to Yael - PSLF reconsideration is not working (taking many 

months, returning the same errors), and there is not a reconsideration 

process for most folks who are rejected from TPDD, BDR, IDR etc.

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

+1 to Yael: providing statutory relief to people eligible but 

wronged in loan servicing does not run conflict to the intent of their 

respective programs

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrowers to Everyone:

Coming in as primary

From P-Vincent Andrews-Veterans & Service Members to Everyone:

Tied to Richard's point above, Veterans leave the military and go 

on to primarily work for these 3rd party government contractors. If 

difficult to understand that this work for the government isn't 

included in public service credit

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

+1 Sandra!

From A- Susan Teerink - Private non-profit 

institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 Sandra!" with ���

From A- Susan Teerink - Private non-profit 

institutions to Everyone:

Susan Teerink is coming in as primary for Private instutions

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Can the Department of Education provide data on the number of 

borrowers who have received PSLF forgiveness, but nonetheless have 

remaining loans that were not forgiven (i.e. hanging loans).

From John S. Whitelaw, (he/him) Advocacy Director, CLASI 

(Delaware) to Everyone:

Automation is critical for individuals with disabilities as the 

TPD experience has shown.

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Can the Department of Education provide data on the number of 

borrowers who are public service professionals (i.e. essential 

workers, healthcare providers, former military working for 

contractors) who do not qualify for PSLF despite their years of public 

service.

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

Agreed that we appreciate that the Department is exploring ways 

to increase automation to provide relief to borrowers

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:
104

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

Reacted to "Agreed that we appre..." with ���

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

Reacted to "Agreed that we appre..." with ���

From (A) - David Ramirez - 2yrBorrower to Everyone:

Reacted to "Agreed that we appre..." with ���

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Agreed that we appre..." with ���

From A- Susan Teerink - Private non-profit 

institutions to Everyone:

Angelika Williams has returned as primary for Private instutions

From A-Sherrie Gammage-4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Agreed that we appre..." with ���

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

+1 for need to address borrowers with missing/broken loan data

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

+1 re: missing payment history/student loan data

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Sher Gammage is coming back in as primary for 4 year borrowers.

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

Can we move to our caucus?

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

How is the Department addressing communication to borrowers who 

may qualify for borrower defense? I ask because folks may not know 

they are eligible

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

Restatement of my question: Besides posting on ed.gov has the 

department sent a letter or email to borrowers informing them of their 

rights under borrower defense? It seems to me that now would be a good 

time to do it proactively if it has not been done in that we are in 

negotiated rulemaking sessions

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

India Heckstall coming in as primary for civil rights orgs

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrowers to Everyone:

Coming in

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

Is the Department planning on providing a similar provision for 

school-held Perkins loans as well?

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:

+1 to not include a means test requirement for this relief

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

+1 re: not requiring means testing

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

+1 to not include a means test requirement for this relief

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

+1 no means testng

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) A- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+1 no means testing

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

+1 for not means testing this relief
105

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/6/23

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:

+1 to Kyra's support for ED's inclusion of commercial FFEL loans

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

+1 to Kyra

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

+1 to including FFELs here

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

+1 to Kyra's support of including commercial FFELs

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to including Perkins loans

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

Is that date 11/21?

From John S. Whitelaw, (he/him) Advocacy Director, CLASI 

(Delaware) to Everyone:

Ms. Wilkerson will be subbing in for me during the public 

comment.

From A- Edward Boltz (NACBA/NASLL) to Everyone:

Alternates too?

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 everything Tina has said. Parent Plus borrowers who 

consolidate should not be excluded from SAVE and should be addressed 

in this rulemaking session

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) A- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 everything Tina h..." with ���

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

Reacted to "+1 everything Tina h..." with ���

From (A) - David Ramirez - 2yrBorrower to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 everything Tina h..." with ���

From A - Jordan Nellums -Currently Enrolled 

Postsecondary to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 everything Tina h..." with ���

From P- Sandra Boham, HBCUs, TCCUs, and MSIs to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 everything Tina h..." with ���

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) A- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Removed a ��� reaction from "+1 everything Tina h..."

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) A- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 everything Tina h..." with ���

(ED Note: Files are available on the Department of Education’s 2023-

2024 Neg Reg website)