Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

1 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING

STUDENT DEBT RELIEF COMMITTEE

SESSION 1, DAY 2, MORNING

OCTOBER 11, 2023

On the 11th day of October, 2023, the following 

meeting was held virtually, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 

p.m.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

2 

P R O C E E D I N G S+- 

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Good morning and welcome to day two of the Department of 

Education public policy negotiated rulemaking. I'm Mike 

Franczak, FMCS facilitator for the morning session. 

Welcome you here for our second day and hopefully 

another good experience as we had yesterday. Cindy 

Jeffries has posted in the chat room the public live 

stream link. There was a capacity issue from earlier. 

We've had a large number of people show interest. So the 

Department has increased the capacity to allow more 

people to view this live stream. So thank you all for 

taking care of that. I'll begin with the roll call. And 

what I'll do is I will announce whether the person's 

primary alternate their constituency group and their 

name. In the response, would you please indicate HERE to 

indicate you are present? Okay. So I'm going to run down 

the list I have. Please identify yourself with Here. 

Alright first, primary civil rights organization, Wisdom 

Cole.

MR. COLE:

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Alternate, civil rights organization, India Heckstall.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

3 

MS. HECKSTALL:

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Primary, currently enrolled postsecondary education 

students, Jada Sanford.

MS. SANFORD:

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Alternate, currently enrolled postsecondary education 

students, Jordan Nellums.

MR. NELLUMS:

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Primary, Federal family education loan lenders servicers 

or guaranty agencies, Scott Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN:

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Alternate, Federal family education loan lenders 

servicers or guarantee agencies, Benjamin Lee.

MR. LEE: 

Here.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

4 

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Primary, historically Black colleges and universities 

tribal colleges and universities and minority-serving 

institutions, Sandra Boham.

MS. BOHAM:

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alternate, Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

tribal colleges and universities and minority-serving 

institutions, Carroll Peterson. Present, Carroll?

MS. PETERSON:

Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Yes. Thank you. Alright. Primary, legal assistance 

organizations that represent students or borrowers, Kyra 

Taylor.

MS. TAYLOR: 

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Alternate, legal assistance organizations that represent 

students or borrowers, Scott Waterman.

MR. WATERMAN: 

Here.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

5 

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Primary, private nonprofit institutions of higher 

education, Angelika Williams.

MS. WILLIAMS: 

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. And it's my understanding that Susan Teerink 

from the private nonprofit institutions of higher ED 

alternate is out today. Alright. And then primary, 

proprietary institutions, Kathleen Dwyer.

MS. DWYER: 

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Alternate, proprietary institutions, Belen Gonzalez.

MS. GONZALEZ: 

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Primary, public institutions of higher education, 

including two-year and four-year institutions, Melissa 

Kunes.

MS. KUNES: 

Here.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

6 

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alternate, public institutions of higher education, 

including two-year and four-year institutions, J.D. 

LaRock. Oh, that person's joining late. My apologies. I 

had a note for that. Didn't catch it soon enough. 

Primary, state attorneys general, Yael Shavit.

MS. SHAVIT:

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Okay. Alternate, state attorney general, Josh Devine. 

Alright, not present. Primary state attorney. I'm sorry. 

State officials including state higher education 

executive officers state authorizing agencies and state 

regulators of institutions of higher education, Lane 

Thompson.

MS. THOMPSON: 

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alternate, state officials including state higher 

education executive officers state authorizing agencies 

and state regulators of institutions of higher 

education, Amber Gallup.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

7 

MS. GALLUP: 

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Primary, student loan borrowers who attended 

programs of two-years or less, Ashley Pizzuti. Not 

present. Okay. Alternate, student loan borrowers who 

attended programs of two years or less, David Ramirez. 

Also not present. Primary, student loan borrowers who 

attended four-year programs, Sherrie Gammage.

MS. GAMMAGE: 

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Sherrie. Sher. I apologize. Alright. Alternate, student 

loan borrowers who attended four-year programs, Sarah 

Butts.

MS. BUTTS:

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Okay. Primary, student loan borrowers who attended 

graduate programs, Richard Haase.

MR. HAASE:

Here.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

8 

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Okay. Alternate, student loan borrowers who attended 

graduate programs, Jalil Bishop.

DR. BISHOP: 

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you. Alright. I'm also told Michael Jones, who was 

primary for US military service members veterans and 

groups represented, is out today. Alternate for that 

group, US military service members veterans or groups 

representing them, Vincent Andrews.

MR. ANDREWS:

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Primary, consumer advocates, Jessica Ranucci.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alternate, consumer advocates, Ed Boltz.

MR. BOLTZ: 

Here.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

9 

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Primary, individuals with disabilities or groups that 

represent them, John Whitelaw.

MR. WHITELAW: 

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Okay. And I believe we will be discussing the alternate 

for that constituency as a part of our administrative 

matters today. And then I'm going to just check in with 

some of our Department folks, including general 

counsel's office and then our chief negotiator for the 

Department. So let me begin with general counsel's 

first, Toby Morrell. Are you present? Toby?

MS. MERRILL: 

Yes, I'm here.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Thank you. General Counsel, Soren Lagaard.

MR. LAGAARD: 

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

And lastly for the general counsel, Brian Siegel.

MR. SIEGEL: 

Here.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

10

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. And then chief negotiator for the Department, 

Tamy Abernathy.

MS. ABERNATHY:

Here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Did we miss anyone? Alright. If not, thank you. 

We'll- just as a quick review reminder for the naming 

conventions, if you came in a little later as a reminder 

from yesterday, if you are primary, please list yourself 

P. As alternate, list yourself as A. Include your name 

and your constituency group. Please raise your hand your 

virtual hand if you wish to speak. Though as per the 

protocols, it will be for 30, sorry 3 minutes with 30 

second reminder. And we will continue with consensus 

with a show of thumbs. Up, meaning in agreement, side 

you can live with, down in dissent. Okay, so that takes 

us next. Yes.

MR. WEATHERS: 

If I could, Ashley Pizzuti is now in the meeting if you 

want to.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. So let's note that Ashley Pizzuti a primary for 

student loan borrowers who attended programs of two-
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

11

years or less is now present. Can I (inaudible) here if 

she's here?

MS. PIZZUTI: 

I'm here.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Great. Thank you. Alright. So what I was going to do 

next is go to administrative matters. And the first, I 

believe, is a nomination for an alternate for the 

constituency group that was created yesterday, which was 

individuals with disabilities or groups that represent 

them. That group was added yesterday. John Whitelaw was 

nominated and accepted as primary. My understanding John 

Whitelaw has an alternate nominee for that constituency 

group. John.

MR. WHITELAW:

I do, and first, I apologize for my awkward appearance 

today. I had an emergency client visit and I'm on route 

between spots, but have pulled over because, you know, I 

don't really want to wreck the car during this meeting. 

It is my pleasure to nominate as an alternate Waukecha 

Wilkerson. I believe everyone was sent a brief outline 

of her bio and so I don't need to- I'm not going to 

repeat any of that. I think based upon my conversations 

with her, she would make an excellent alternate. She was
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

12

lurking yesterday on the public watching. So she was 

aware of what happened yesterday. I suspect she is on 

today and assuming there's a favorable vote, would be 

delighted if she could join as an alternate.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. So John Whitelaw has nominated Waukecha 

Wilkerson. Everyone should have received her bioperson's bio for review. Is there any discussion? Any 

hands? John, I don't assume you're going to add anything 

so I assume your hand is down and you're being safe and 

driving so that's understood for that. So if there isn't 

any further discussion on the nomination, what if we do 

a quick consensus check. Are we in agreement to add 

Waukecha Wilkerson as the alternate for individuals with 

disabilities or groups that represent them? Can we have 

a thumbs? Alright. Don't see any dissent. So I believe 

we are in agreement and Waukecha Wilkerson is added as 

an alternate for that constituency group. I guess John 

or Cindy, would you please reach out to her?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Yep. We got it. We're on it. I'd like to also ask that 

the alternates or if the alternates sitting in for 

primary, if you're not sitting at the main table for the 

discussions you make, we invite you to go ahead and turn 

your cameras off at this point.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

13

MR. WHITELAW: 

And I'm just going to turn mine off for the next 15 

minutes while I get back to my office.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Yes. Please concentrate on your driving. Thank you.

MR. WHITELAW: 

I pulled over for this. It's all good, but I'm gonnaI'll be listening, but I'm just going to turn my camera 

off. You do not need to see me driving.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. It's also my understanding the public comment 

is full for today. There is a wait list, however, if 

you're interested, please feel free to add your name. 

There is more and expanded time in November, on November 

6th and 7th for additional public commentary period. The 

period will be increased from 30 minutes to 60 minutes. 

So that is an understanding and notation I wanted to 

add. Alright with that, the next thing I believe is 

we're going to go through the overall issue overview and 

also a day one recap, I think by Tamy and Ben. So who am 

I turning it over first to?
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

14

MS. ABERNATHY: 

That would be me Michael, thank you so much. Welcome 

back everyone. We hope you had a productive day. We took 

some time yesterday afternoon to reflect on your 

comments and your suggestions, and we decided that 

instead of just jumping into the questions this morning, 

that we would take a few minutes to reframe some 

conversation and provide a little bit more information 

that you requested. So I'm going to turn it over to Ben 

to have him share a few words and frame our conversation 

before we jump in today.

MR. MILLER:

Thank you Tamy, and good morning everybody. So as Tamy 

said, we want to provide some clarity in response to the 

discussion yesterday, which we hope will help the 

negotiators understand how we're thinking about waiver a 

little bit better. So in this rulemaking, we're using 

waiver to describe canceling some or all of a borrower's 

outstanding loan balance. You might hear this also 

referred to as cancellation or discharge or forgiveness 

as shorthand. But for these discussions we're using 

those words interchangeably. And in particular, what you 

see in the issue paper is we've identified five 

categories of borrowers for whom we're exploring, 

waiving meaning, discharging, or canceling some or all 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

15

of their loan balances under the Higher Education Act. 

What we're hoping to do as we move into each of these 

questions is to get a sense from the negotiators how 

both you and your constituencies feel about the idea, 

and to get your feedback on how to best structure it. So 

I just want to provide a couple examples. So the first 

question in the issue paper we raised was identifying a 

group of borrowers whose outstanding balance is larger 

than what they originally borrowed. In that case, we had 

asked for thoughts on a proposal to reduce those 

borrowers’ current balances back to the amount we 

originally borrowed. We heard many detailed ideas or 

suggestions, such as removing the capitalization or 

accumulation of unpaid interest and then applying 

payments to that amount. That kind of feedback is 

helpful as we explore what is possible. Other 

considerations that would be helpful to get feedback on 

from the committee around whether borrowers should have 

entered repayment for a certain period of time, before 

having all or part of that amount above their 

outstanding balance wave, and if so, for how long and 

how should we think about structuring that provision 

overall? The second question in the issue paper is a bit 

different. We heard a lot about the need for automation, 

and we agree with you. From Borrower Defense to total 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

16

and permanent disability discharges, we have seen many 

examples where eligible borrowers are not applying for 

loan forgiveness. We've also tried to write provisions 

into our previously issued regulations that allow the 

Secretary to provide a borrower a discharge of their 

loans without an application, if he determines that the 

borrower is eligible. We see this waiver proposal as 

building on that. We'd want to pick up this idea for 

programs like Income Driven Repayment and others. In 

those cases, we aren't proposing amending the terms of 

the program in terms of what it takes to be eligible. 

Rather, we're looking to change how a borrower can get 

relief once eligible. On this question, we also heard 

some really helpful ideas, such as the one from the 

negotiator who suggested including borrowers who would 

be eligible for a discharge except for circumstances 

outside their control. Today, Tamy is going to walk us 

through three more questions. Plus, there will be time 

for negotiators to share ideas we didn't propose. With 

each of these, we're hoping the committee members 

approach them through the following lens. One, if the 

Department were to provide full or partial cancellation 

for a borrower who falls into this category, how would 

you structure that regulatory provision? So this can 

mean things like, what types of loans are eligible, what 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

17

types of borrowers are eligible, do they have to have 

been in repayment for a certain period of time? Things 

of that nature. And along those same lines, what the 

eligibility criteria would be. I also wanted to try and 

clarify a bit on the lines between what are things we 

are looking to do here in this rule and what we're not 

looking to do here in this rule. We heard a lot of ideas

about what employer occupations are eligible for PSLF, 

how to treat in-school deferments, things of that 

nature. Those are part of specific requirements that are 

in the PSLF regulations, which you can find in 34 CFR 

section 685.219. We amended those regulations last year. 

So while we always welcome ideas for improving the 

student loan programs, we do not plan to amend those 

regulations through this process. In this process, we 

are talking about adding or changing regulations that 

would largely be in 34 CFR part 30, which is debt 

collection. I know that phrase is a little bit 

confusing, but this would apply to waiver as well. So I 

strongly suggest that you take a look at that section as 

we're thinking about how we might structure regulations 

here. So PSLF is relevant here because it's one of those 

areas where we consider under our second question, in 

the issue of paper. Borrowers were eligible for 

cancellation do not apply, but reforming the details of 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

18

the program overall don't fit within what we're trying 

to do here. I know that what we can do on interest can 

also get confusing here. So let me try to clarify that a 

little bit as well. We cannot change the interest rate 

on a student loan. That is set in statute by Congress, 

and regulations are subordinate to statute. So we cannot 

issue a regulation that says the interest rate on loans 

going forward will be set to 2%, or something of that 

sort. That requires congressional action. What we can do 

is talk about how long-term challenges with interest 

have affected borrower's ability to repay their loans, 

and whether our existing improvements to the program, 

which will help borrowers going forward, might need to 

be complemented by a one-time solution to put borrowers 

on more solid ground. Hence, you see the discussion in 

the first question about trying to find ways to deal 

with people who have balances that far exceed what they 

originally borrowed. Finally, I wanted to note that we 

got into a lot of details yesterday about things where 

the Department does not issue regulations. Because loan 

servicers are our contractors, we have a more direct way 

to make changes to what servicers do through the 

contracting process. We do not regulate our instructions 

to servicers. Similarly, we don't regulate things like 

outreach strategies or our website because we want the 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

19

ability to be flexible and improve as we learn more 

about what works. What I will say, though, is the whole 

idea behind the second question is to not make us 

dependent upon successful outreach, but rather to give 

us the flexibility to automate more widely when we can. 

I hope that provides a bit more clarity. So to sum up 

briefly, think of each question as a group of borrowers 

where we might discharge some or all of their loan or 

loans. And as you consider that idea, what we're looking 

for is general support or opposition for the idea. And 

then ways you would refine or clarify it so we can turn 

it into regulatory text and move toward seeking 

consensus. Thank you very much for your time.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you. Ben. There are a couple hands. Do we want to 

take those first before Tamy would share anything 

further? Okay, let's take those. The two hands I saw 

raised were Kyra Taylor and Jessica Ranucci. How about 

we start with Kyra?

MS. TAYLOR:

Thanks, Michael. Ben, thank you so much for that summary 

and that clarity. That was helpful. I did want to 

correct one thing. So you noted the general consensus 

amongst the committee that interest should be waived to 

reduce the amount outstanding to the original principal 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

20

borrowed. However, the second part of that proposal was 

that payments made be reallocated to that original 

principal. So for some borrowers, that may fully pay off 

their debt. So I just wanted to clarify that one point, 

because that seemed like a really important proposal 

that was discussed and supported by the committee.

MR. MILLER:

Yeah, we heard that. I was just trying to give an 

example of that's the type of constructive feedback 

that's helpful for us to think about it.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Up next, Jessica Ranucci.

MS. RANUCCI:

Thanks again, Tamy and Ben. I really do think that 

framing was very helpful and I really appreciate it. 

Just one minor clarification and then one request. Ben, 

were you suggesting that the Department is interested in 

this rulemaking and talking about ways to automate 

already existing programs like IDR?

MR. MILLER:

Right. So that's what we were trying to get at with that 

second question is basically if you look at, for 

example, at the PSLF regulations, when we redid those, 

we put in text that essentially says if the Secretary 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

21

determines the borrower's eligible, he can discharge the 

loan without an application. And what we're looking to 

do is sort of add potentially an additional provision 

somewhere here in part 30 that I think you could think 

of as kind of a general catchall that would apply to IDR 

which is kind of the largest of these discharge programs 

where we don't have language like that. But we also know 

there's a lot of different circumstances for borrowers 

out there and things of that nature. And so we are 

trying to sort of belt and suspenders it a little bit. 

But that is the general thing we're trying to get 

through with question two is basically to say, if we 

wrote in something that was a more general provision to 

say, if we figure out someone's eligible for the 

discharge, what do people think about the idea of then 

allowing us to sort of say we can discharge them without 

an application, but, you know, it would almost certainly 

involve an opt out period on their part.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Got it. So just to clarify, think you're saying other 

discharge programs are on the table at the negotiation 

to the extent we're talking about automatic automating 

already existing processes? Okay. And then my request is 

I think this conversation is really helpful, but I do 

think that the red lines, you know, ultimately are going 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

22

to be the most helpful in moving forward. And so I was 

hoping by the end of the day, the Department could give 

us a timeline for providing red lines before table two. 

I know that might take you guys a little bit of time to 

figure out, so I wanted to ask it early in the day.

MR. MILLER: 

Yeah, I mean, we're committed to bringing any red lines 

we can and you'll get it a week before the session. You 

know, I think it depends a little bit on- I think some 

of these things you can see are relatively concrete and 

they're sort of dials we need to turn or feedback we're 

looking for others are a little bit broader. So you know 

we'll definitely have red line for some of these things. 

But whether or not we have red lines for all five 

questions at session two, I can't commit to at this 

point because we have to discuss some of them and see 

what we think.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Jessica could you put that request in the chat so it's 

not lost?

MS. RANUCCI: 

Yeah.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

23

MR. FRANCZAK: 

The red lining request. Alright, next we have Melissa 

Kunes.

MS. KUNES: 

Thanks, Mike and Ben, thank you so much for framing that 

issue for us. I've found your explanation quite helpful 

and added clarity to my thinking. The one issue I do 

want to ask about is in the regulatory text, in terms of 

the Secretary's authority to waive. It appears as though 

there seems to be a cap of $100,000 he has the authority 

to waive. Is that something that we need to keep within 

our thinking as we go through our deliberations?

MR. MILLER: I would say, let us handle that side of 

things, because we can kind of think about that as we 

work through it. And, you know, what you'll see is we'll 

do a scrub of what we think we can legally do, what we 

think we can operationally do, and what we want to do 

policy wise. So would not get too worried about that 

part. And we can sort of try and clarify that as we work 

on the reg text about what you need to be concerned 

about as you go forward on that.

MS. KUNES: 

Thank you.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

24

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Angelika Williams.

MS. WILLIAMS: 

Thank you. And thank you, Ben, for that explanation. 

Once again, to echo everyone else, that was extremely 

helpful. I'd like to revisit question number one, 

because I brought up the Pell research data as a huge 

advocate of doubling the Pell to prevent loan debt. But 

now, listening to your introduction and explanation, I 

wonder now if there's an option where if you're looking 

at the amount of payment, like an individual who has 

already paying on their loans and the outstanding 

balance is higher than originally borrowed. Looking at 

that, in the amount repaid, if the amount repaid is 

equivalent to the amount that's borrowed, could the 

remaining balance be waived? So I would like to put that 

suggestion out there or that comment out there.

MR. MILLER: 

Yeah, if you could put that in the chat.

MS. ABERNATHY:

Oh I'm sorry, Ben.

MR. MILLER:

Sorry. Go ahead, Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Can I take this one? Angelika, thank you for that. If 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

25

you would put that in the chat. We are going to have all 

of the chats and all of the requests from our 

conversations memorialized, and then we will take those 

as action items. And those that we can fulfill we will 

definitely, you know, communicate with you guys and 

we'll engage in those conversations as we proceed 

through the rest of the negotiation. So thank you for 

that suggestion and for tweaking it slightly based on 

what you heard today. We look forward to getting back to 

all of you with all of those requests you asked of us 

yesterday and today. Future requests.

MS. WILLIAMS: 

Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Sher Gammage.

MS. GAMMAGE: 

Yes. Could you please define red lining?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Yes, ma'am. What we do is we take the original existing 

text, regulatory text, and present exactly what is in 

regulations currently. We then do what is called 

redlining. So we actually go into that existing 

regulatory text and propose a mandatory text in what's 

called redlining. So word has a function in it that when 

we want to track our changes, so we want to delete a 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

26

word, it would cross it out. If we wanted to add a word, 

it would put it in, but it would keep it in a respective 

color to indicate that these are the proposed changes 

that we wish to discuss with you during the next set of 

negotiations. So it's simply a document with side by 

side where you know what it currently says and what we 

are proposing to change or add.

MS. GAMMAGE: 

Thank you.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

And also the other thing I want to make mention, one of 

my colleagues just reminded me of, we are working on new 

concepts here, so there may not be existing regulatory 

texts that we're going to red line, but you would see 

our additions in red line. So if there's a whole 

component that we feel we need to add because we know 

that this is new territory for us, we are, you know, 

exploring what we're going to create through our 

mandatory regulatory language. Does that help? Did that 

answer your question, Sher? Great. Wonderful.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Is there any more overview or recap from yesterday 

before we begin diving into the other subtopic issues of 

the five that were listed? Is there any further overview 

or recap from Department officials? Alright. If not, 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

27

alright. So yesterday we tackled issues one and two in 

terms of initial framing with question and discussion. 

It's my understanding we're going to hold on three for 

the moment and go to issue number four first in the 

morning. And we'll come back to three and then five in 

the afternoon or after lunch. So is someone from the 

Department ready to tee up question number four or issue 

number four?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

I believe Vanessa will share her screen. Thank you, 

Vanessa. Give me just a second. I'm having a little bit

of a technical, technological difficulty. There we go. 

So we are deciding- we've decided to move to question 

number four for this morning as Michael discussed. This 

is about entering repayment many years ago. The Higher 

Education Act generally lays out repayment plans besides 

the ten, the standard ten-year option that end after no 

more than 20, 25 or 30 years of payments. Most repayment 

plans, such as the Income Based Repayment, adopt limits 

of 20 to 25 years. We have seen that borrowers can and 

do end up holding loans for extended periods of time. 

For these individuals, debt taken out is a young adult 

can easily follow them into middle age or beyond. The 

Department has taken steps to address situations where 

borrowers have ended up in repayment for longer than 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

28

they should have. We've corrected long standing errors 

in payment counts and misuse of forbearances that have 

helped borrowers receive forgiveness approval. Recent 

changes to our Public Service Loan Forgiveness and 

Income Driven Repayment Plans will also credit borrowers 

for some periods in deferment or forbearance because of 

concerns that whether to use these options or stay in 

repayment are overly confusing and may not have been 

offered to them. However, borrowers with older loans did 

not have the benefit of these provisions put in place. 

Data have shown that very old loans are unlikely to ever 

be repaid. Congress and the Department have provided 

borrowers with many additional benefits for their 

student loans over time. There are many borrowers, 

however, who borrowed or entered repayment before the 

creation of those various benefits. Since those benefits 

were not available when those borrowers took out their 

loans, those borrowers may have struggled to repay their 

loans in ways that those taking on debts today may not. 

The Department would like the committee's thoughts on 

this question. How should we treat loans that first 

entered repayment years ago, including, well prior to 

the creation of additional benefits? And how should the 

Department apply the FCCS compromise principle to loans 

that the borrower is unable to repay in a reasonable 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

29

amount of time?

MR. FRANCZAK:

There was something placed in the chat as a question 

from Angelika Williams. It says, is it possible for the 

Department to forgive the remaining outstanding balance 

if the borrower has fully repaid their current student 

loan debt, matching the total amount borrowed through 

their payments? So that is a question. I don't know if 

the Department wants to respond yet for that. Angelika 

is there anything further you want to add in the framing 

of that particular question?

MS. WILLIAMS: 

No, not at this time. It was a revisiting yesterday's 

question number one so that I can rephrase my 

suggestion.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Understood. Thank you.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

And Michael we'll consider that. So thank you for 

putting that back in the chat, Angelika. We'll try to 

answer that next time.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Alright. Thank you. Alright. So I'm going to go in the 

order that I see folks so got lined up Kyra Taylor, Jada 

Sanford, Jessica Ranucci, Lane Thompson, and Yael 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

30

Shavit. Alright. So let's begin with Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: 

Thank you Michael. So we are broadly supportive of the 

premise of this question that borrowers who have older 

loans should be entitled to cancellation here they have 

been in repayment for long enough. Broadly, the longer a 

borrower is in repayment, it raises questions about 

their ability to repay. These are borrowers who have had 

periods in forbearances, in deferments, because they 

were unable to make payments. These are also borrowers 

who are more likely to have periods of default. In fact, 

in the student loan information that the Department 

provided to Senator Warren in 2021, 4.4 million 

borrowers had been in repayment for 20 years or more, 

and roughly half over 2 million borrowers were in 

default. Of that 4.4 million, only about a quarter, less 

than a quarter have received relief under the Income 

Driven Repayment account adjustment, suggesting that 

many of these borrowers have periods of default that 

mean that they will be in repayment for even longer. 

These old loans bear the scars of servicing misconduct, 

a forbearance steering of misinformation that was 

provided by servicers. And they also bear the scars of 

policies that were fixed for newer loans. But where 

those policies did not provide retroactive relief. In 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

31

terms of default, we know that of the borrowers in 

default, there are many borrowers who have been subject 

to the collection powers, but because they are so low 

income, those collection powers have not touched those 

borrowers’ principals at all. There is no statute of 

limitations on the collection of student loans, and so 

these borrowers can remain in default indefinitely. This 

keeps them in a cycle of poverty, which is cruel because 

those collection powers which include wage garnishment, 

tax refund offset, which includes the seizure of poverty 

protection programs like earned income tax credits and 

child tax credits, and the seizure of Federal benefits 

like Social Security are seized. Meaning that borrowers 

in poverty are even more in poverty and are stuck in 

poverty, and borrowers who are close to the poverty line 

are pushed below the poverty line. And as said before, 

this can occur until the borrower dies. Thus, their 

student loans, which were intended to be a mechanism out 

of poverty towards upward social mobility, end up 

trapping them in poverty in the long run. The Department 

has the authority now to cancel those debts where the 

borrower is making no progress towards paying down their 

principal under the Federal Claims Collection Standard, 

which allows compromise where the Government is unable 

to collect in full a debt in full within a reasonable 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

32

amount of time, or where there's doubt as to whether or 

not the Government can defend its case in court. These 

loans also have missing MPNs, they have missing payment 

histories, etcetera. But I will stop there. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Next we have Jada Sanford.

MS. SANFORD: 

Yes, I just had a question. In the Federal Claim 

Collection Standards, reasonable is said a lot. Is there 

a certain definition for reasonable?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Jada, let us get back to you on that. Unless one of our 

attorneys wants to. Soren, can you take that?

MR. LAGAARD: 

Thanks, Tamy. Yeah. No. We'll get back to you on that. 

Really appreciate it, though.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Seeking clarification on the definition or 

examples of reasonable. Alright. Next we have Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI:

Thank you. I just want to echo everything that Kyra 

said. I think she really laid out why this is such an 

important question to be asking, and why any proposal 

made by the Department I think, in my view, really 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

33

should take this into consideration. What our office 

gets lots of calls from people who have student loans 

older than I am. I think it's, you know, these really 

follow people for their lives and it's a huge detriment 

to them. And the IDR adjustment is a great start, but it 

doesn't solve everything. I would like to ask the 

Department to consider thinking about July 1st, 2010, as 

potentially an important marker. If you are considering 

like a one-time program here, because borrowers who had 

loans before July 1st, 2010, I think really are situated 

at the intersection of a lot of the issues that this 

brings up. Number one, many of them have FFELs. Those 

FFELs were not eligible for many of the relief programs. 

As you note, those programs are available to people 

going forward. And many people who borrowed in the last 

decade that they were not and often are still not 

eligible for. People whose loans are from before 2010 

have obviously been in most- have had those loans for 

about we're looking at about coming on 13.5 years. So 

even counting the three and a half year COVID payment 

pause, those loans have been outstanding for at least 

ten years, maybe next month or the following month. I 

think there's well documented servicing issues that 

occurred before 2010 and in that are particularly 

relevant for these loans. And also as we go out further 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

34

and further in time and in pre-2010, loans become a 

smaller part of the portfolio, I think it becomes more 

and more of a burden on the system. I think the point 

that Kyra made yesterday that one of the best ways to 

fix the student loan debt system going forward is to 

take essentially some loans off the books so we can do a 

better job of collecting the loans that are collectible 

versus trying to collect many of these decades old loans 

that are not collectible. I think that looking at loans 

before 2010 would be a really good way to ease the 

burden on the system, particularly because many of these 

are subject to different servicing, different rules, 

different actors than post 2010 loans.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Next, Lane.

MS. THOMPSON: 

Yeah. Thank you. I wanted to share a borrower story 

here. One of my complainants is an elderly gentleman. 

He's retired from his job. He attended college in 1982, 

most recently. And he went to a school that's now 

closed. So he took out that debt in 1982. He doesn't 

actually really remember taking out the debt. He thought 

it was all grants, but that's neither here nor there. He 

had that debt. He defaulted on it. He consolidated into 

a direct loan, in the 2010sand he now has about 4 or 5 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

35

times what he borrowed, showing as a balance. So the 

reason I wanted to bring up that lovely gentleman's 

story is because I don't think it's at all unique. 

Right. And that's loans that are 40 years old and that 

he's never actually made any payments on. He took him 

out in order to get a job, had his whole career and 

still has the loans at the end and to me, that seems 

like a big kind of divergence from what we're trying to 

do with student debt.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Thank you for sharing. Yael. Next up.

MS. SHAVIT: 

Thank you. I want to add support to the points made 

earlier by Kyra and also by Jessica, by noting that our 

offices have the unique ability to see how pervasive and 

systemic the servicing and programmatic failures were 

that resulted in borrowers relevant to this question 

still bearing the burden of debts for so long. You know, 

many of these borrowers should have been able to avail 

themselves in IDR but were forced into delinquency or 

misled by servicers into forbearances and consolidations 

that prolonged the repayment terms and were against 

their economic interests. A lot of these borrowers spent 

time in default because their servicers didn't help them 

access IDR so, you know, I think at a bare minimum, when 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

36

we're looking at borrowers whose loans have spanned a 

period of considerable servicing and programmatic 

misconduct that is systemic and pervasive in nature, 

again, at a bare minimum, these borrowers who have 

undergraduate loans with balances over $21,000, they 

should not bear those burdens of those loans for more 

than 20 years. Right. They should be brought back to 

what would have been a reasonable timeframe under IDR 

plans. And I want to note again that that's a bare 

minimum because of the nature of the conduct that 

resulted in the positions that they found themselves in. 

And I think when you look at the principles that go 

along with the justifications for compromising debts, it 

aligns perfectly both with respect to the duration of 

debt, the reasonableness of making continued attempts to 

collect these long-standing debts for recoupment 

purposes. And additionally, when you look at the legal 

defensibility of debts that have been subjected to the 

type of misconduct that so many of these debts have.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Thank you. Just want to note that Jalil Bishop, 

alternate, is taking over as primary for Richard Haase 

among student loan borrowers who attended graduate 

programs for purposes of this topic discussion. Alright 

next, Melissa Kunes.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

37

MS. KUNES: 

Thank you Mike. I look forward to the Department's 

determination and recommendation of what reasonable 

might encompass, and I think that this group as a whole 

can come quickly to a reasonable definition. I look 

forward to that conversation, but I also want to 

underscore and continue on some of the comments that 

Kyra was making regarding the Federal Claims Collection 

Standards, in that it is becoming more expensive to 

collect these debts for the Government, for society, 

than it is that these debts will actually put money back 

into the Government's coffers. So this has become a lose 

proposition for our society. We're spending too much 

money to collect money we're not going to collect. So I 

want to kind of put that out there as a frame point also 

to support canceling these older debts.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you for sharing, Melissa. Next up, John Whitelaw.

MR. WHITELAW: 

Yes. Thank you. First, I want to endorse everything that 

has been said, especially by Kyra earlier. I want to and 

I think this some of the folks will understand this 

already and know it, but I think it's important to 

understand how little money is protected by people who 

receive Social Security benefits. And while that is not 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

38

directly caused by the Department, given that it is the 

Department of Education debts that are being collected 

from these, many of whom are indigent folks, it's 

important to understand the terrible economic 

consequences of this. Only $750 is protected. That means 

that any income above $750, including in Social Security 

income, is subject to attachment. That number is not 

indexed to inflation. That number has remained 

consistent for decades. And you see, so therefore what 

happens is and I have worked with these folks, you have 

people whose sole income is $900 a month in Social 

Security, and $150 is being attached for student loans. 

These are the most vulnerable people. And if we can't-, 

you know, regardless of sort of whether they're 

protected under the loan aspects or don't have access to 

the relief, collection against these vulnerable 

individuals needs to stop. And many of them have had 

debts, as has been noted for decades, and many of them 

have now become seniors eligible for Social Security 

retirement or disability and they are just being 

absolutely clobbered. And the amounts that are being 

recovered are tiny from the purposes of ED and their 

loans but are devastating in terms of their ability to

survive monthly.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

39

MR. FRANCZAK:

Thank you for your comments, John Whitelaw. Jalil. 

Bishop.

DR. BISHOP: 

Thank you. So I want to also underscore and just second 

a lot of the comments that have been shared here. I 

think it's just urgent and crucial for us to understand 

the impact of having borrowers sit with their student 

loan balances, particularly student loan balances that 

have grown to outrageous levels over decades. And I 

think it's particularly for borrowers who have not just 

sat with these burdens of student debt for 20 years. But 

really, again, that promise of a ten-year standard 

repayment was something that wasn't really true, wasn't 

really possible. And I think we have to keep bringing 

the conversation back to the fact that when people 

borrow student loans, it wasn't with the agreement that 

they would have it for 20 years or 25 years. And to have 

someone sit with a growing balance that is causing 

hardship financially, mentally, generational wealth, how 

they're planning their life, how they're managing basic 

needs and saying that is okay for them to carry that 

debt for 20 to 25 years, I think, is something that we 

need to rethink when we're thinking about reasonable. I 

would ask the Department to consider that if we have 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

40

evidence that a borrower has not been able to make 

payments within that ten years, that it may be 

reasonable to conclude that we're not going to be able 

to collect on that debt and also consider those groups, 

for some type of waiver cancellation. And my final note 

would be that in August 2023, the white House Council of 

Economic Advisers released a blog post just highlighting 

what happens to borrowers’ balances, particularly when 

they make $31,000 or less, and that in a 20 year time 

frame, they can see their balance increase by 78%. So I 

want us to have that in mind when we're thinking about 

what's reasonable, and that 20 years really is 

unreasonable, particularly for our most struggling 

borrowers.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Thank you for your comment, Jalil. Wisdom Cole.

MR. COLE: 

Thank you so much. I definitely agree with my colleagues 

earlier in their points, particularly around 

cancellation of these older loans. But if they want to 

make sure that we point out the fact that Black 

borrowers are tended to be the folks to carry those 

older loans because of interest caps and because of 

circumstances that are oftentimes not recognized by the 

Department. You know, I think that the approach that the 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

41

Department has to acknowledge the challenges faced by 

these borrowers who may not have access to the same 

benefits and repayment options as the more recent 

borrowers. And so, definitely thinking about some of the 

options that are available to the Department, 

particularly assessing financial hardship by applying 

the compromise principle and assessing financial 

hardship and capacity to repay if borrowers are 

genuinely unable to repay the loans in a reasonable 

amount of time considering partial forgiveness, 

discharge, or other debt relief options. I also think 

that there is a severe communication and transparency 

issue, making sure that we maintain clear and open 

communication with borrowers with older loans, ensuring 

that they are aware of their options and rights, and any 

changes in the loan terms and benefits. I also think 

it's very important to really expand this conversation, 

to collaborate with Congress to enact legislation that 

addresses the unique challenges faced to borrowers with 

older loans and provide them with equitable access to 

benefit repayment options.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Wisdom. Next up, Ashley Pizzuti. You're 

muted, Ashley.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

42

MS. PIZZUTI: 

Sorry about that. So kind of two questions here. What 

kind of authority does the Department have to actually 

cancel these older loans? FFEL loans? Perkins? Would we 

need to take these older loans and put them into direct 

loans in order to cancel them first? I'm just interested 

in hearing kind of how that works. Also, it is, you 

know, we're talking about the definition of reasonable. 

It's unreasonable for somebody at 18 to take on a 

massive amount of debt and not be able to save for 

retirement and then become a burden to Social Security 

and essentially an elderly person without the means to 

support themselves because they spent an entire lifetime 

paying off, trying to get on the hamster wheel of these 

loans and pay them down and get their Social Security 

taken from them in these times. You know, I know 

personally that my retirement is not that great. It's 

nothing that I'll be able to live on in my older years, 

especially the way that inflation is going and it just 

feels like a constant hamster wheel of survival versus, 

anything where it's supposed to be a security net for 

our society.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Thank you, Ashley. Tamy, you have your hand raised. Do 

you want to address anything in particular first, or 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

43

would you just want to go through the order of the 

negotiator hands? Your preference.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

I would like to address this one because it's very 

timely to some of the things that we're actually seeking 

the committee's input on. Ashley made very good points. 

What is our authority? What we are trying to do through 

these negotiations is exactly that. Establish the 

authority by which we can look at all of these different 

things that we are presenting to you and come up with 

regulations and a path for actual looking at these older 

loans and establishing which of these older loans would 

qualify for some sort of cancellation. And along those 

same lines, we're very interested in hearing from our 

negotiators about the inclusion of FFEL. And, you know, 

if there's anything that you can add to that we really 

do want to hear your thoughts on that. So as we go back 

and we formulate regulations, we're encompassing all 

that we can encompass.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you. Tamy. Alright. We have, Kyra Taylor next.

MS. TAYLOR: 

Thank you. I just want to reiterate, I think it is 

essential that we consider FFEL, Perkins, other types of 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

44

loans when we're thinking about this cancellation, 

especially because those loans have been outstanding the 

longest. And as my other committee members have already 

raised, they are more likely to have been subject to 

servicing misconduct. However, I'd like to transition a 

little bit just to discuss the two separate prongs. So 

under the FCCS there's inability to pay, but that is 

separate from whether or not the Government has 

determined that it is unable to collect in full within a 

reasonable amount of time. Reasonable amount of time is 

not defined within the Federal Claims Collection 

standards, and it is not currently defined by the 

Department. So the Department could determine what is a 

reasonable amount of time, and it could do so using the 

data it has about borrowers in default who are not able 

to make substantial progress on paying down their debt, 

as well as looking at how long a borrower has been in 

repayment broadly. If a borrower has been in repayment 

for 20 years and then goes into default, it may be 

unlikely that the Department would be able to collect 

substantial amounts to pay down their outstanding amount 

of debt. To put a little bit of color on the data that 

the Department does have. A 2016 GAO report on Social 

Security offset, looking specifically at older 

borrowers, found that three fourths of amounts collected 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

45

via Social Security offset applied to interest and fees, 

and did not apply to principal. One third of borrowers 

remained in default for five years, and this was 

depriving them of their Social Security money, which in 

many cases is the money that they need to survive. 43 of 

those borrowers had loans that were over 20 years old, 

and 10% had loans that were over 30 years old. These are 

extraordinarily old loans. The Department could decide 

today that using the Federal Claims Collection 

Standards, that it can discharge those debts. In 

addition, the Department could look at borrowers who 

have had IDR payments of zero to determine that they are 

not reasonably- they are not able to collect in full 

within a reasonable amount of time for those borrowers. 

Same of the Parent PLUS borrowers where the student had 

an estimated financial contribution amount of zero. 

Borrowers who were already low income before they 

borrowed those Parent PLUS Loans. Additionally, 

similarly, borrowers who are older the age of 65, and 

are surviving on retirement income are also less likely 

to be collectible, even if they default via the 

Government's collection powers. And in addition, I would 

like the Department to consider a borrower’s noncompletion of their degree as a basis to determine that 

they will not be able to collect in full within a 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

46

reasonable amount of time. Over 60% of borrowers in 

default in 2015 did not complete their program. I'll 

stop there. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Thank you. Next up, Jessica Ranucci.

MS. RANUCCI: 

I second everything, Kyra said. I Think those are really 

important. I would like to add just two brief points. 

One is, I think including FFELs are essential. You know, 

just to reiterate the point that I expressed yesterday, 

borrowers don't choose who their lender is and the fact 

that borrowers with different types of loans, they might 

not even be aware of different types of loans, have such 

different benefits and obstacles is really unfair. And 

that that is an appropriate use of the Department's 

authority. And I'd also just like to add that I think 

that Kyra gave an example of many, many ways that the 

Department can use its authority to effectuate automatic 

relief, which there's a broad belief here that that's 

really important. I would also encourage the Department 

to consider a non-automatic backstop. There are always 

going to be financial circumstances that are not taken 

into account by the automatic programs. There's always 

going to be people who fall through the cracks and I 

think that there are specific ways that the Department 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

47

could craft financial standards that would allow 

borrowers to affirmatively apply. Again, affirmative 

applications are much less preferred to automatic, but 

it is an important backstop for people who desperately 

need the relief. I think we'll probably talk about that 

further with question five. But the questions about 

borrowers who've had loans for a long time and the 

borrowers in financial hardship necessarily are 

intertwined because borrowers who've had loans for a 

long time are the ones experiencing financial hardship. 

Also think Ed is going to come in for me briefly. Thank 

you.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Jessica, can you clarify when you said non-automated 

backstop? What does that mean or look like for you?

MS. RANUCCI: 

Sure. I Think that I'm imagining that if the Department 

by regulation, for example, authorizes automatic waiver 

of certain categories of loans or certain categories of 

borrowers among the types Kyra mentioned, that there 

also be an application-based option for borrowers who 

may be experiencing significant financial hardship, but 

who do happen to just not fall into one of those 

categories, and whose financial hardship could be 

evaluated through common standards. I think there are 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

48

other examples of where the Department evaluates 

hardship based on common standards, but that wouldn't 

have to be set out in advance or it might be more fact 

specific that would not be appropriate for broad scale 

automatic cancellation.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you for the clarification. Jalil Bishop.

DR. BISHOP: 

Thank you. Definitely want to provide support for 

Jessica's point around the backstop, I think is a 

commonsense approach to have both an automatic strategy, 

but also opportunity for folks to highlight some of 

their individual or unique circumstances. I'm also 

wanted to raise a question to the Department around when 

considering the reasonable time, how they handle missing 

data for borrowers. So, you know, when loans were turned 

back on in October, I happened to be back home. I'm from 

outside Cleveland, Ohio and I worked with a lot of 

people in my family, particularly folks in my family who 

are over 60 years old, who have been in repayment for 

15, 20, 20 plus years. And some of the issues that I've 

run into over the years and trying to support and 

provide guidance to folks moving through our complicated 

student loan system is it's not always clear for loan 

servicers from request to the Department that there is 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

49

clear payment history, that there's always clear data on 

just what alone originally was, what was the repayment 

history around that loan. And I'm wondering if when 

we're considering what to waive, if that could also be a 

category of borrowers where we don't have complete kind 

of payment history or data or just really information

about what those loans originally were, that also could 

be considered a bucket or approach for waiving some of 

this debt when we can't give fully accurate information.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you. A couple of updates in terms of primary 

alternate switches. So Sarah Butts is becoming a primary 

instead of Sherri Gammage for student loan borrowers, 

four-year programs. And it looks like Ed Boltz is 

becoming primary for purposes of this discussion with 

respect to consumer advocates in place of Jessica 

Ranucci. Alright. So let's next go to Lane Thompson.

MS. THOMPSON:

Thank you. I wanted to talk about the FFEL, Perkins, 

HEAL, all the non-direct loan types. A couple things on 

those. One, I've worked with so many borrowers whose 

Perkins loans do not have a clear due diligence history, 

and that's just one of those things where I don't know 

why those loans exist at all if there's not that clear 

history there. So just that's one point on its own, but 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

50

also that a lot of these older loans now have been 

consolidated and re consolidated and have gone from one 

servicer to another and back again. And that whole 

process has made the resulting balance really hard to 

understand and don't even just mean for borrowers, I 

mean for servicers and for the Department to explain. So 

I think that that's really kind of a great point, that a 

lot of those loans have gotten more confusing than they 

are collectible. And the other thing just kind of want 

to throw in on that is the kind of the idea of a statute 

of limitations and the technology in the way that 

technology moves. A lot of the older borrowers that I 

work with are not able to access the internet, do not 

have the technological skills to apply for these 

programs and or don't have a computer at all. They 

didn't know they would need one for these loans from 40 

years ago. So I think that I just really want to point 

out that there are several factors that lead to the 

older loans being more complex, harder to deal with, and 

just really detrimental to elders especially.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Lane. Yael Shavit.

MS. SHAVIT: 

Thank you. I want to note that I share the 

interpretation of the Department's authority that Kyra 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

51

put forward. But I also want to emphasize that I think 

the Department not only can but should consider the 

length of a repayment term or how long loans have 

existed, rather, in determining what constitutes a 

reasonable amount of time. And it is critical for all 

the reasons stated and won't belabor them that FFEL and 

Perkins borrowers be included in the relief. But I also 

want to flag another consideration that the Department 

raised in its issue paper when it noted that other 

agencies, and considering the propriety of debt 

cancellation, that they consider whether continued 

collection would defeat the purpose of the benefit of 

the program, and want to flag and say as emphatically as 

I can that saddling borrowers with lifetimes of 

insurmountable debt runs counter to the purpose of the 

HEA, which was to provide borrowers with educational 

opportunities that are affordable and the resulting 

benefits that should come from a valuable and affordable 

education. I think this is a principle we should keep in 

mind in these discussions and want to note that this 

principle also lends support to the other categories of 

borrowers that should be eligible to relief that Kyra 

mentioned when she spoke earlier, which support as well. 

But I don't want that to get lost in the conversation. 

Thank you.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

52

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you. Yael. Next, Ed Boltz. You're muted, Ed.

MR. BOLTZ: 

Thank you. In addition to another cohort that I hope 

that the Department will take into consideration for 

looking at both the time of repayment and the ability to 

collect from would be those borrowers who filed a

chapter 13 bankruptcy. Because those, you know, were in 

a repayment plan that was overseen by a Federal court 

maximizing the amount that they could pay to all 

creditors for a period as long as five years but until 

recently, and I do want to congratulate and thank the 

Department for its good work on easing the undue 

hardship standards with bankruptcy and also the pending 

regulation that would allow those payments during 

chapter 13 to count towards forgiveness period. But 

until this point, those people were largely precluded 

from participating in any Income Driven Repayment Plans 

in direct contravention of the bankruptcy code and 

Federal law. So they were in effect punished because 

their finances were so terrible and that is- but their 

bankruptcies are evidence of both the time of repayment, 

the age of those loans and also their lack of likely 

collection from them going forward. So I hope that that 

would be another cohort that could be considered for 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

53

forgiveness not a bankruptcy discharge, but the 

forgiveness under these standards. Thank you.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Next, Jessica Ranucci.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Sorry about that. Hi. I just would like to raise up a 

comment that Jalil put in the chat, which is that if the 

payment and loan history are unclear or missing due to 

consolidation or otherwise, then we should cancel those 

loans. I strongly agree and I think that this is a basic 

principle of consumer law that is also articulated in 

the FCCS, which is that there is significant doubt 

concerning the Government's ability to prove its case in 

court. The sort of basic loan documents are the only way 

that a creditor can prove its case in court. And so I 

think the Department should really look at areas where 

the record keeping is not perfect. This is a- it's a 

real issue. My office has helped dozens, if not hundreds 

of individuals who have obtained student loan discharges 

that come with refunds, attempts to get those refunds. 

And there's often serious issues with the collections 

records. We're talking about loans again, loans that are 

older than am. You know, people don't have paperwork 

from the 80s, from the 90s, from servicers that no 

longer exist, and guaranty agencies that are no longer 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

54

guaranty agencies. So I think that it's really 

important, not just from an ethical perspective, but 

from a legal perspective to look at that. And then the 

other thing I would ask is, I don't want to put you on 

the spot, but I think that this issue of FFELs is 

obviously one on which I feel strongly and I think some 

other people feel strongly, but I'm not sure, I think it 

would be helpful to hear, to give a chance for the 

servicers to weigh in here, since they obviously see a 

side of FFELs that maybe the borrowers and advocates 

don't necessarily see.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Thank you, Jessica. Ashley Pizzuti.

MS. PIZZUTI: 

I just want to share a quick personal story about the 

record keeping and the information coming from the 

Federal Student Aid website. My husband and I are both 

class members of Sweet versus Cardona. We've recently 

had in June had a very big chunk of our loans forgiven. 

He had a loan prior to attending our proprietary school, 

which dates back 20 years. And he was- he did receive 

the letter that he would get the one-time adjustment. We 

have logged in to the Federal Student Aid and downloaded 

our data and in that data he has his loans originated in 

1901. That is the date that is listed in his data from 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

55

the Federal Student Loan Aid website. It also isn't 

clear that the remaining balance that is sitting on 

there, even though he's had the one-time adjustment and 

the Sweet versus Cardona forgiveness both, he still has 

a balance of $12,000 on Federal Student Aid. It is not 

with Nelnet. It is only on Federal Student Aid. It is in 

the data and they are not sure where that is originating 

from. It is not clear in the data. It's not clear 

anywhere. And he also apparently took out these loans in 

1901, which makes him very old. Probably the oldest 

loans that we are talking about right now.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Ashley. Thank you for pointing that out. Alright. Next, 

Kyra Taylor.

MS. TAYLOR: 

I wanted to add something else about the purpose of the 

Higher Education Act. Undoubtedly, student loans and 

just financial aid broadly has opened up access to 

higher education in this country. However, I think 

there's the unintended impact that we often hear from 

legal aid clients, where they may be the first in their 

family to have attended- have gotten any postsecondary 

education. However, their student loans for some to look 

at their kids and say, I don't know if I want this for 

you. I don't know if I want this life for you. I don't 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

56

know if I want you to have to endure the hardships that 

I have had to endure under my student loan debt. I think 

that that is all the more true for folks that have much 

older loans. And so if we don't have a solution to this 

problem, I think it will contradict the intent of the 

Higher Education Act as well.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Kyra. Next up, Wisdom Cole.

MR. COLE: 

You know, I want to just really hone in on the fact 

that, you know, the Department should aim to balance the 

need for fiscal responsibility with a commitment to 

helping borrowers manage their student loan debt 

effectively. Applying the FCCS compromise principle 

should involve assessing each borrower’s individual 

circumstance, ensuring that solutions provide a fair and 

appropriate given special challenges faced by borrowers 

with older loans. Definitely want to bring attention to 

the fact that for borrowers who took out loans before 

the introduction of certain benefits and repayment 

options, the Department could consider grandfathering 

their loans, meaning that the borrowers to retain their 

original loan term and benefit that may not be as 

favorable as current options, but were the terms under 

which they borrowed. I know that we've talked about the 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

57

interest rate reduction and freeze being an issue 

necessarily in Congress and I think that the changing of 

interest definitely understand that being a 

congressional matter but the waiving of interest should 

be something that we should definitely dive into, 

considering the fact that interest rates are 

significantly higher than the current market rates.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Wisdom. Next, Angelika Williams.

MS. WILLIAMS: 

Yes, I want to point out one of my statements that 

applied in the chat to echo the groups that Kyra 

previously mentioned. I'd like to include bars to obtain 

loans before July 1st, 2010, and now have children 

currently enrolled in college for whom they had to apply 

for Parent PLUS Loans. Repaying their loans may have 

hindered their ability to save for their child's 

educational expenses. Consequently, I urge the 

Department to take into account that borrowers who have 

both student loans and Parent PLUS Loans may face 

challenges in repairing their obligations.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thanks, Angelika. Jalil Bishop.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

58

DR. BISHOP:

Thank you. A comment along the same lines around Parent 

PLUS borrowers. Yesterday, Department shared with us 

that some of the language and stances around why Parent 

PLUS borrowers were excluded from the SAVE Plan. I think 

it's important for us to still, in this rulemaking, 

think about creative and flexible ways to make sure that 

parents who are carrying plus loans or consolidated 

loans to repay plus loans have access to some of these 

benefits. So when considering parents who have been in 

repayment of Parent PLUS Loans, I think we do need to 

think of creative ways to make sure that they have 

access and relief. Because what we know, particularly 

for Black borrowers who carry a disproportionate amount 

of Parent PLUS Loans, is that they were given these 

loans often when they already had a $0 expected family 

contribution. The Department often takes the stance that 

parent borrowers had- they were older, so they had a 

better understanding of the loans they were borrowing, 

or that they had a better understanding of their ability 

to repay, therefore, they should be treated differently. 

But I think that when you're dealing with a parent 

borrower who has already been told that they have a zero 

expected family contribution, and they're being told the 

only way to fund their child access and higher ED is 

through taking this loan. That is not really a choice 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

59

that most parents are going to take on that loan and do 

what they have to do to hopefully increase their child's 

odd of mobility. So I would just like the Department to 

just open up I think the flexibility and creativity 

around what we can do for Parent PLUS borrowers, 

particularly because they were excluded by choice by the 

Department and the last rulemaking under the state plan, 

what can we do here to make sure that Parent PLUS 

borrowers also receive relief?

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Jalil. Kathleen Dwyer.

MS. DWYER: 

Thank you. You know, I want to amplify many of the 

things that have been said here today regarding all 

plans being included and all forgiveness options. And in 

particular, you know, sometimes regulation, it seems 

like it's written in such a way that it's only thinking 

about the young borrower, the traditional straight out 

of high school into college borrower, but many people 

here have highlighted the fact that borrowers come in 

all ages. They come at all stages of life. And by 

excluding some of the relief metrics and some of the 

programs that they're in, it's kind of excluding an 

entire class of people as many of the other commenters 

have said, particularly with respect to how this is 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

60

impacting borrowers who are, you know, having Social 

Security, who are older, who are carrying plus loans and 

their own current loans. So I think when we get to the 

point of looking at regulations, we just need to take 

care that we're looking at it as a perspective of a 

borrower can be really of any age in the adult lifespan. 

And a lot of times we're kind of discounting that fact 

when we set those regulations.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Thank you, Kathleen. Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Thank you, Michael. I guess our reframing of our 

conversation for today really did help us when we 

started to discuss these questions, because you guys 

have given us a plethora of information, all wonderful 

things to consider. We really appreciate the 

conversation. We would like to move forward. On to the 

next question, if that is okay with the committee? 

Because we have so much- we feel like the next two 

questions and giving you guys time at the end of the day 

to circle back with us on anything else we'd like to 

consider while we propose regulatory text for the next 

session, we think that that would be extremely 

important. Kyra, I know your hand is up. If you would 

still like to speak, give me a thumbs up so I know that 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

61

there's something. Yes. Okay. But after Kyra, we'd like 

to move forward, if that's alright?

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Understood. Thank you. Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: 

This is very briefly. Thank you so much, Tamy, for 

letting me have just one more word. I would just like to 

reiterate that the Department has the authority to 

cancel the debt as to some of these borrowers now, under 

the Federal Claims Collection Standards, there's- it 

could do things now if it's finding- I think we've all 

discussed ways in which we would want the Federal Claims 

Collection Standards to be broader. And that is 

certainly a great place to amend the regulations. 

However, these borrowers have been waiting with these 

debts for 20 years, many, many years and are suffering 

under the hardship of the weight of trying to pay for 

this debt, especially as repayment restarts. So I would 

just ask that the Department consider using its current 

authority to discharge the debts for which it knows the 

borrower does not- it will not collect in full within a 

reasonable period of time, or where there's doubt 

concerning the legal enforceability of the debt.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

62

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Thank you. Thank you all for your comments on 

issue number four. I believe now we're going to circle 

back to issue number three. Was my understanding? Are we 

okay to proceed in that way?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Yes we are. Would one of my team members please put up 

the question? Thank you. Vanessa. The Department 

recently published its final rules as very recently, as 

of yesterday, published its final rules on gainful 

employment. These rules protect students from 

unaffordable debts and poor earnings outcomes at career 

programs. We estimate this will help protect 700,000 

borrowers a year who would otherwise enroll in low 

performing career programs. Separately, the financial 

value of transparency component of the rules would 

provide acknowledgments of unaffordable debt to about 

120,000 students not otherwise covered by the GE program 

accountability framework. The gainful employment rule 

measures programs on two criteria. The first is that a 

typical graduate's debt to earnings ratio should not be 

more than 8%, or less than, or equal to 20% of 

discretionary income. The second requirement is that at 

least half the graduates of a program have higher 

earnings than a typical high school graduate in that 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

63

state who does not have a postsecondary education. The 

rule protects students from attending programs that have 

led to unaffordable debts and poor earnings outcomes. 

But borrowers who enrolled in a low financial value 

program are still left with debts. In addition to the GE 

rule, the Department has other accountability metrics 

based on borrower outcomes, such as measuring an 

institution's cohort default rate. The Department is 

holding accountability programs that leave students with 

unaffordable debts and preventing future students from 

being able to take out loans to attend underperforming 

programs. However, current, and previous students 

attending low financial value programs are left with 

unaffordable debt. We see participation in a low 

financial value program as an appropriate circumstance 

to waive repayment of Federal student loan debts. 

Because these debts would be waived, they would not be 

assessed as a liability against the institution that 

offered the program that provided insufficient financial 

value. That means we would not be seeking any sort of 

institutional recruitment here. The Department would 

like the committee's input on how should we consider 

debts taken out by students to attend programs, when we 

later find that such programs did not provide a minimum 

level of financial value sufficient to make loans 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

64

affordable for many or most borrowers.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you. Let's see, as for clarification, do we knowI know Jalil Bishop was alternate serving as primary. Is 

Jalil still serving as primary or is Richard Haase 

reconvening as primary? Alright. I'll just ask Jalil and 

Richard to work that out, please. Alright, so we have 

issue three teed up around, as Tamy laid out, we have a 

hand raised, beginning with Jessica Ranucci.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Hi, thank you so much for raising this. I think that 

this is a critical piece of any plan that the Department 

comes out with. I think there are many students who 

obtained essentially no value from the programs that 

they attended. And they attended those programs, often 

because of outright misrepresentations or false promises 

that were made to them about what those programs would 

give them. There are some real equity consequences of 

that where these programs often targeted borrowers of 

color, single moms, veterans, other groups who ended up 

disproportionately being affected by programs that 

provided not a minimum value. My office is contacted by 

borrowers, often from various schools, who are worse off 

than as if they had never attended the school. Not only 

did they often lose multiple years of earnings, they're 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

65

often people who are adults who are working, who left 

their jobs to try and get a better job. So they lost the 

years of earnings. They lost the childcare money that 

they had to pay to go to their classes, sometimes at 

night. They lost, you know, potential races they could 

have gotten from those multiple years out of the 

workforce. Then what are they left with at the end? If 

they were able to complete a degree that was essentially 

worthless? So I think that this is crucial. I really 

appreciate that the Department has put this on their 

list and have some specific ideas, but I'll get back in 

line. I just wanted to state my support strongly.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you. Jessica. Next up, Sarah Butts.

MS. BUTTS: 

I just wanted to lift the idea. I agree that this is an 

important group of borrowers, but that sometimes what's 

perceived as a low financial value program is actually 

of significant value to society. There are many 

professionals that are working for the greater good for 

the health of their communities, at the individual and 

macro levels that may need relief. We could look at 

individuals who have been working for a long period of 

time post attainment of undergrad or graduate, or twoyear programs who have very low salaries, who may even 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

66

qualify for public benefits themselves. There are 

unfortunately, in our society, essential workers who 

make enough money- don't make enough money to be able to 

sustain and support their family. So just wanted to lift 

that and appreciate the addition of the consideration of 

this group of borrowers.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Sarah. Kyra Taylor.

MS. TAYLOR: 

Thanks, Sarah. I'm sensitive to that point, and so would 

actually like to reframe this instead of talking about 

low value programs, talking about programs that do not 

return the income premium that would be appropriate for 

that amount of debt. In addition, I want to say two 

points. One, as a fundamental matter, it is extremely 

difficult for a borrower to project whether a program is 

worth thousands of dollars of investment or what that 

type of debt burden is going to look like for them in 

their lives. It is extraordinarily difficult to predict 

if you're going to have a medical emergency, if your 

family member is going to become dependent on you, if 

you're going to lose your housing, if you're going to 

struggle to find a job. No one has a crystal ball where 

they can predict what their future is going to look 

like. This is even more true for first generation 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

67

college students and nontraditional college students. 

Furthermore, many of the clients’ legal aides work with 

trust that the Government is going to ensure that the 

bad actors that Jessica was referring to before will not 

be able to receive taxpayer benefits. However, that 

trust has been mis founded often in the decades that the 

Higher Education Act has allowed predatory schools to 

receive Federal Student Aid. Legal aides have long been 

in support of using things like the gainful employment 

rule to provide students with relief. I think that is 

extraordinarily important. However, I think we should 

also consider that borrowers who have debt and earn less 

than a high school graduate in their state should also 

be entitled to relief. So I am happy that the Department 

is considering those proposals here. But again, I think 

there's a need to right size the debt to what borrowers 

can reasonably repay here. And so I would ask that the 

Department also consider things like non-completion as a 

basis to discharge debt, in addition to schools where 

the income premium is not proportional to the amount of 

debt that the borrower has borrowed.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Kyra. Richard Haase.

MR. HAASE: 

Thank you. Yeah, I agree with Kyra and with everything 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

68

that's been shared in this question so far. I think that 

the framework that was set- established under gainful 

employment is something that I wonder if there's a way 

to apply it towards other programs as well, graduate and 

undergraduate ones. I agree with what's been shared 

here. I think that there is really meaningful work being 

done in our communities. People who donate their lives 

to working within the arts, within nonprofits, preschool 

educators, people who, you know, pursue degrees and go 

into programs that we really need desperately in our 

communities and wonder if there could potentially be any 

kind of index similar to what's used in gainful 

employment that could be applied to these types of 

programs as well.

MR. FRANCZAK:

Thank you Richard. My understanding Benjamin Lee 

alternate is becoming primary for purposes of the 

discussion representing Federal family, education loan 

lender servicers or guaranty agencies. Alright. Next up, 

Ashley Pizzuti.

MS. SHAVIT: 

I also just accidentally lowered my hand, but I'm happy 

to jump back at the end of the line too.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

69

MS. PIZZUTI: 

Do you want to go first since you were in line? You can, 

that's fine.

MS. SHAVIT: 

Sure. I mean, I'll just say briefly that I agree with 

what was just stated, particularly the notion that this 

concept can be applied outside of the context of GE 

schools for the purposes of determining the appropriatethe propriety of debt relief and would encourage the 

Department to think that way. And also, you know, the 

problem of non-completion is a real one and I support 

Kyra's proposal that non-completion should be a factor 

in determining the value of education in this way. You 

know, one thing to consider as well, you know, metrics 

that include and I say this as in addition, not instead 

of the metrics that we've already been talking about, 

but, you know, where borrowers attended schools for 

which student loan repayment rates demonstrate that some 

notable percentage of borrowers have been unable to pay 

down their principal during a certain period of time. 

Again, across programs is another way to assess value. 

And, you know, I also want to flag here that this is an 

area where I think the Department would benefit from 

incorporating a way to consider findings made by state 

AG offices about schools, the value of education offered 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

70

by schools, and determining cohorts of borrowers who 

should be entitled to relief, and doing it in a way that 

is streamlined and recognizes that we're often the ones 

in the position to be doing these types of 

investigations that result in meaningful information, 

being able to incorporate that quickly, to provide debt 

relief to borrowers affected by school conduct is 

helpful and appropriate, and would save departmental 

resources.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you. Next up, Ashley.

MS. PIZZUTI: 

So I have some very valuable perspective on this and the 

fact that I did go to a what is considered a bad apple 

for-profit school. I've also spent the last decade 

organizing other borrowers from these schools. The 

Department has a vast amount of information at hand. 

They have folks who are listed on the schedule C of 

Sweet vs Cardona, which is a list of schools that are 

considered- that make up the class that have a 

significant amount of Borrower Defense applications to 

them. I personally applied for Borrower Defense in 2016 

and only received relief in June due to this lawsuit. I 

know that we had the DeVos era who then, you know, 

deregulated it all, but the fact that we are still to 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

71

this day, putting the burden of proof on to the 

borrowers to prove that their school has misled them. 

Even though there- a lot of these schools have had 

countless attorney generals lawsuits against them and 

settled FTC-, the cards are stacked against them. Many 

of these schools have shut down because they couldn't 

follow the regulations put in place to this day, and the 

students are still on the hook for these loans. If they 

didn't fall under the Sweet versus Cardona class, which 

is made up for anybody who filed for Borrower Defense as 

of June 22nd of last year, they are still responsible 

for proving that their school has misled them, even 

though the Department has endless amount of information 

from these schools. Not only that, I know that these 

regulations only cover Federal loans, but for a lot of 

these proprietary schools and for my personal situation, 

the bulk of our loans are private. So having these 

Federal loans taken off of our credit scores, not being 

required to pay them back, and the setback that they 

have caused is only a very small assistant in what a lot 

of these borrowers have to experience with these loans.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you. Ashley. Next up, Jessica Ranucci.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Thank you. I would like to encourage the Department to 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

72

consider, as Ashley suggested, that there are some 

serious issues here that apply specifically to closed 

schools and to consider in addition I understand the 

cohort default in gainful employment, I get that you 

have to consider adding closed schools here. There's 

specific statutory authority for discharging loans for 

students whose program- who couldn't finish their 

programs due to the school's closure. But really, school 

closures are an indication often, not always, but often, 

of serious problems at the school and the Department can 

identify automatically many of the students who attended 

closed schools and use that as a basis for waiver. Those 

students do not have access to many of the benefits that 

are typically associated with postsecondary education, 

like an alumni office or a job placement office, those 

schools are gone. To the extent the Department doesn't 

feel that all closed schools would be a basis for loan 

cancellation, although I think frankly it should be, I 

think that there are real ways to distinguish among 

types of closures that would allow cancellation to 

students for whom the school's closure really was an 

indication that the school was not provided value. For 

example, schools that closed without an approved teach 

out with their accreditor. That's a sign of a 

precipitous closure, schools that closed while on 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

73

heightened cash monitoring status. They're really- I 

think it's- essentially the theme is that the theme 

triggered that would trigger a teach out that, you know, 

we already have in regulations certain criteria that are 

designed to indicate a potential precipitous closure and 

I think those same criteria, you could look back and 

say, okay, if these criteria existed before a school 

closed, that was probably a precipitous closure. That 

was probably an indication of school quality and I think 

that the Department could make that assumption and 

really get needed relief to a lot of people.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Jessica. Kathleen Dwyer.

MS. DWYER: 

Thank you. You know, I agree with the thoughts that have 

been advanced on applying gainful employment to all 

programs, regardless of institution type, on how 

borrowers cannot possibly predict what life 

circumstances can happen to them, and that relief 

programs need to take that into consideration. And also 

the part about how there are some professions that do 

valuably contribute to society. Yet society does not 

reward them financially in such a way that can lead to 

stability. You know, I work at a nursing college, a 

college that's solely focused on nursing. So, you know, 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

74

we do so much work in understanding we're providing an 

option for people to get into a specific career pathway, 

that is what they want to come to our school and do they 

their goal is seeking employment. And that's- we offer 

programs that support that. But I know that there are 

some programs that people are going to be interested in, 

regardless of whether that will pay off financially. And 

I think, too, again, as we're considering potential 

regulations that could result here, there's so many 

technological advancements that are happening at a very 

rapid clip now, it would be difficult to regulate 

knowing which programs are going to pay off financially 

for that student taking on that debt. Because the 

societal complex landscape can really change on a dime, 

as we've kind of seen here lately. So it may be 

difficult for us to assure students which programs are 

going to pay off with any certainty and just advised 

that that thinking, as regulations are crafted and 

developed to understand, could we know? Do we even know? 

And then what would happen if we didn't know? And also 

with schools, because they don't want to show up on a 

list of offering programs that are of a minimal 

financial value. Would schools begin closing certain 

types of programs simply because of that score, and how 

would that impact our society? So those are some of the 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

75

concerns that I'm thinking about today.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Thank you, Kathleen. Richard Haase.

MR. HAASE: 

So this might be a little bit out in left field and it's 

connected to the conversations we've been having about 

trying to identify the value of what people do for 

financial value or income potential of what people do 

after they graduate. It's easy for us to identify 

certain professions, ones that really jump into our 

minds right out of the gate. Like I said, preschool 

teacher, people who work in community services and, you 

know, social welfare and things like that, and 

nonprofits. I'd be remiss just because I feel like 

sometimes they're left out of the mix, and it could be 

difficult to draw a clear correlation between what they 

do and what they've studied. But small business owners, 

I feel like make up an important part of our communities 

and are often left out of these conversations. So again, 

not to make a complex situation like financial value 

transparency even more complex by trying to quantify 

something like that, but just want to put them out there 

as a group of people who sometimes, you know, they've 

got their college degrees, they take on debt, they move 

into their communities and set up shop and hire local 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

76

employees and things like that and often are struggling 

under a lot of debt as well. So not sure how they play 

into it, but I just feel like, you know, if there's any 

prospect of exploring something like FCT outside of the 

certificate programs in for-profits that there might be 

some way to make sure we don't leave SBOs out when we're 

looking at certain types of occupations.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright, thank you. Lane Thompson.

MS. THOMPSON: 

Yeah. I wanted to speak to the Borrower Defense to 

repayment and closed school thing a little bit. I've 

worked as a student loan coach and then now in this role 

as ombuds with a lot of folks who attended schools that 

either got group discharges under Borrower Defense to 

repayment or are showing up on that exhibit C list on 

the Sweet settlement. And I spend a lot of time with 

these folks trying to navigate this process. And in most 

cases, their debt ultimately will be forgiven. So I just 

really want to point out that the amount of hoops that 

people have to jump through to access Borrower Defense 

to repayment and closed school discharges are often 

really onerous. I know that Ashley is absolutely not 

alone and waiting since 2016 to get that discharge, and 

I know there are tons and tons of folks right now who 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

77

are feeling really anxious about what the administrative 

forbearance means for them while they're waiting to have 

their Borrower Defense to repayment application process. 

So not to say that we're going to open the Borrower 

Defense to repayment regs, understand we're not doing 

that, but rather to say that perhaps folks who have had 

an application pending a certain amount of time, or 

whose schools are on that list, could have all of their 

debt canceled regardless of whether or not they have 

applied. Just a thought.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Thank you, Lane. Kyra Taylor.

MS. TAYLOR: 

Thanks, and I appreciate Lane's comments about how 

difficult it is to go through the Borrower Defense and 

closed school discharge regulations. We appreciate the 

Department's improvements to both sets of regulations, 

and it's the last, and I believe that 2021 rulemaking. 

However, there's still a lot of hoops to go through. And 

I think with closed school discharges in particular, 

it's limited in terms of who it applies to, as Jessica 

mentioned before. And for closed schools that closed a 

while ago, there may- the school may have kept incorrect 

records, there may be subsequent battles and also we see 

that there are borrowers who are getting wrongful 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

78

denials of their closed school discharge applications as 

well. So we are- the legal aid community is strongly in 

support of providing relief to borrowers who attended 

closed schools, regardless of whether or not they 

graduated. In terms of connecting this to what this 

means for borrowers who attended closed schools, 

oftentimes, as Jessica mentioned, when schools close, 

they close for a reason. So the brand name of the school 

is also impacted by the school closure. Borrowers may 

have a harder time getting a job because they attended a 

closed school. If they attended a closed school many 

years ago, no one will recognize the name of the school 

that they attended also meaning that they may not get 

the employment benefits of that degree. The school will 

no longer offer career services because it has closed, 

so we see borrowers who would love to take advantage of 

career services and cannot do so. In addition, a number 

of schools closed before 1994 and those borrowers are 

ineligible for closed school discharges, and they still 

have extraordinarily old debts and are still struggling 

under the weight of that financial burden. And so we 

would strongly encourage that the Department cancel 

those debts as well. Additionally, in terms of impacts, 

many closed schools again, don't have records, which 

creates problems for closed school discharges. But it 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

79

also may create problems if the borrower- if the student 

needs records from the school for their employment as 

well. So these borrowers face a number of barriers, and 

the Department should provide them with some relief in 

terms of their loans.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright, thank you. Ashley Pizzuti.

MS. PIZZUTI: 

Another quantifier that I thought- that I would like to 

put out there is the accreditation. So a lot of these 

for-profit schools that were listing were accredited by 

ACICS, which is now proven to not really be everything 

that they were- they said they were going to be. They 

failed on, you know, looking out for these schools and 

looking out for the borrowers. They were shut down 

during the Obama Administration, they were brought back 

from DeVos, Biden again has now decided that they should 

not be allowed to practice anymore for several reasons. 

I think that any of the schools that were listed under 

those should be considered a group. I know that the new 

rules that went into effect in July that would allow 

groups of these schools to apply for Borrower Defense 

together with a collective amount of evidence, is now 

being held up with litigation. But I believe that the 

Department or actually, I'm not sure, but I believe that 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

80

the Department has the authority to create their own 

groups and not put the burden on to the organizing of 

these schools and the students that attend them.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Ashley. Wisdom Cole.

MR. COLE:

Yeah. I think it's important for us to really understand 

the definition of programs and institutions and economic 

value to students. I think it's important for us to 

expand the definition in terms of recognizing that for 

Black college and university graduates tend to earn an 

average of 15% less than their white classmates and are 

more likely to be unemployed or underemployed. And so we 

can really expand that definition to all public and 

private institutions that Black college graduates or 

students go to. And so really thinking about the minimal 

level of financial value due to racial discrimination 

that happens within higher education, as well as the 

rates of unemployment that happen due to discrimination 

in hiring practices. I think it's important for us when 

we're thinking about student debt for this group or 

population, that we again meet the minimum floor that 

was already proposed by President Biden, and canceling a 

minimum of $20,000 in student debt for those who are 

recipients of the Pell Grant, because all of these 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

81

programs are not providing the value necessary due to 

these factors that are not being considered in 

admissions and graduation and in the job workforce.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Wisdom. I'm going to ask us to wrap up final 

comments on this issue three by 11:50 and then we'll do 

a quick debrief from the morning and then set up for our 

afternoon. So final remarks conclude no later than 

11:50. Alright? So let's next- and my understanding is 

Jalil Bishop is now primary for his group. So we'll take 

John Whitelaw next.

MR. WHITELAW: 

Just briefly and to reiterate what Wisdom said for 

students with disabilities. So just as racial people of 

racial minorities, Black and brown folks have lower 

incomes, people with disabilities also have 

significantly lower incomes across the board than people 

without disabilities. And many of those individuals with 

disabilities will not qualify for total and permanent 

disability discharges because they are, in fact 

participating in the labor force, except at a reduced 

level of earnings. And so it's especially important that 

in these areas that we're talking about in this last few 

minutes that folks with disabilities have and lower 

incomes have access to relief. And then echo the remarks 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

82

that were made earlier by the other folks.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, John. Jessica Ranucci.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Thanks. I just want to be explicit in echo what I 

understood Kathleen and- points I understood Kathleen 

and Sarah to be saying earlier. Which is that look, not 

everyone goes to college to make a lot of money, but 

there are plenty of people who do go to schools to for 

the earnings premium. They have a job, they, you know, 

stop earning wages to go to school as an investment in 

their salaries. And I think that the one advantage of 

the Department considering the already existing gainful 

employment framework as a basis for waiver, is that I 

think that the gainful employment framework does do a, 

you know, relatively good job of identifying those 

programs that really people do go to for the earnings 

premium and so appreciate the Department is really 

looking at those programs in particular, because that 

seems to be one of the places where it's most 

appropriate to consider this.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Jessica. Jalil.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

83

DR. BISHOP: 

Thank you. I think it will be important for the 

Department to define for us just- and I think, Vincent, 

you may have asked this question earlier. Really, what 

authority or powers or just mechanisms they may have in 

mind already to approach this question of what does it 

mean if a program does not provide a minimum level of 

financial value? So for me, I see this question as 

expanding beyond a lot of the discussion, which focuses 

rightfully so, on for-profit institutions and trying to 

think about programs and borrowers more broadly. So it 

would be useful to also hear from the Department what 

criteria, tools or mechanisms they are thinking about or 

have authority to use in trying to gauge this minimum 

level of financial value. Because I think that this 

matters when we are thinking about the points that 

Wisdom raised about people of color who are navigating 

unequal labor market, which we have a lot of data around 

going back 30 years, when we're thinking about different 

careers that aren't as well paid in the labor market. I 

think understanding how the Department is approaching 

this and then what tools or mechanisms they have will be 

useful for us in some future sessions.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Thank you, Jilil. Kyra Taylor.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

84

MS. TAYLOR: 

I was just thinking about the cohort default rate and 

gainful employment data and one thing that has not come 

up in our conversation thus far is that there were some 

predatory schools that were attempting to gain this data 

using things like forbearance, steering, etcetera. And 

so Yael mentioned earlier the need for an alternative 

calculation, like looking at the volume of borrowers who 

have been able to make payments that would touch their 

principal over periods of time. And so I would just 

strongly encourage the Department to consider 

calculations like that as well, to avoid some of those 

data issues that may come up. There's also a question- I 

am curious about how much data the Department has, 

because I would want to make sure that it reaches back 

to folks in the 80s and 90s. Again, legal aides see 

borrowers who attended much older schools as well, for 

whom there may not be cohort default rate data or 

gainful employment data.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Kyra, can you place that information in the chat? And 

then we have Yael Shavit.

MS. SHAVIT: 

Thank you. I appreciate Kyra making that point. And in 

fact, the reason that I made the proposal that I did was 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

85

specifically because of the [inaudible] of cohort 

default rate data that we've seen, and it's not 

exclusive to cohort default rates. So I do want to make 

one suggestion, which is, in the context of the gainful 

employment negotiated rulemaking, which I participated 

in, there was a lot of discussion of different metrics 

that were potentially available to the Department and 

could be useful, some of which I think probably weren't 

ultimately- didn't may not have made it into the rule 

because of the specific framework of gainful employment 

and the consequences to institutions, which may not be 

as relevant for the purposes of identifying the issue of 

loan value relevant to waivers and compromise here. And 

so one thing that the Department may consider is going 

back and looking at some of the discussion about 

different metrics that happened in the context of that 

negotiated rulemaking, with an eye towards the question

being answered here. When you take it apart from the,

you know, other complicated factors that are at play in 

considering the framework of gainful employment, 

specifically with respect to institutions.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Okay, thank you. I believe that is all the comments for 

issue three. Is there anything from the Department

feedback wise based on what they've heard in terms of 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

86

negotiated responses for issue three at this time?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

I think the biggest thing that I could say here is that 

this is exactly the kind of conversations we had hoped 

to have around this issue. We thank everyone for their 

comments. There's a lot of work that we need to do, and 

we look forward to working with you to accomplish that. 

Please make sure your specific questions and or data 

requests are in the chat, because that's where we'll 

focus our attention after negotiated rulemaking to try 

to get answers and responses to the ones that we're able 

to do so on. This has been formidable conversation, and 

we thank you for opening up to us about the feelings and 

some of the ways that you think we can do and craft this 

new potential regulatory language. I don't know if any 

of my colleagues, Soren or Ben or Toby, have anything 

that they'd like to interject at this point, but if they 

want to come on screen and say a couple of words, that 

would be great. Or not.

MR. FRANCZAK: 

I'm not seeing anyone yet jump into the pool. So. 

Alright, so we have the afternoon lined up. What- I'll 

just throw out times. Would we like to begin the live 

stream again at 1:00?
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

87

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Yes, please. And my colleagues told me that their 

screens froze on them. So that's why they weren't able 

to just jump in and say something. So I think 1:00 is 

fine?

MR. FRANCZAK: 

Alright. Does anyone want to add something before we 

break at this time? If not, that could be our beginning 

place at 1:00 as well. Alright, so what if we have our 

live stream begin at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time? I'll 

ask the negotiators to log in by 12:45 so we can hit 

that 1:00 live stream start. So we thank you again for 

your- this morning, the productive conversation and the 

great dialog. Alright. We'll plan on seeing you then 

after lunch. Thank you.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

88

Zoom Chat Transcript

Student Loan Debt Relief Committee - Session 1, Day 2, Morning,

October 11, 2023

*Chat was copied as presented, as a result minor typos or 

grammatical errors may be present.

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

Can you please re-send John Whitelaw the link for today’s 

negotiations?

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Borrower-Graduate to 

Everyone:

Richard Haase is waiting on the link for this meeting

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

Ashley is trying to get into the zoom!

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

Thank you!

From P- Jessica Ranucci (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

My request is: (a) please provide redlines of regulatory text 

before Session 2, and (b) please let us know the timing for 

providing these regulations. I understood the Department to answer 

question (b) by saying that any available redlines will be provided 

one week before the session.

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

To add to Jessica’s point, it would be especially helpful to have 

proposed regulatory text for session two particularly on issues for 

which there is broad committee support (like addressing interest)

From P- Jessica Ranucci (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

+1 to Kyra

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Borrower-Graduate to 

Everyone:

+1 to Kyra
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

89

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

Is it possible for the Department to forgive the remaining 

outstanding balance if the borrower has fully repaid their current 

student loan debt, matching the total amount borrowed through their 

payments?

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Borrower-Graduate to 

Everyone:

Coming on as primary Graduate Borrower

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 to discharging debts that were issued prior to 2010

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

Also support canceling debts of that age

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

The system was plagued by widespread system failure and those 

balances are less about the cost of education than they are about 

miscommunication and mismanagement of the system

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2yr Borrower to Everyone:

+1 for 2010

From A-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 for 2010 proposal

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to Everyone:

+1 for 2010 proposal

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 for discharging loans from 2010 and before

From A-Amber Gallup-State Officials to Everyone:

+1 for 2010 proposal

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 for discharging loans pre-2010 that the dept. has no reasonable 

chance of collecting as full under the current regs
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

90

From A-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Agree with Melissa

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

Agree with Melissa

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 It would be good to helpful to define "reasonable" in that it 

costs more for the gov to collect versus what they collect in 

payment

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 John

From A-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Agree with John. Collection through social security is problematic.

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

Agree with John - federal benefit offsets defeat the purpose

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

I think the power to waive debts that the department can’t 

reasonably expect to collect should be applied to anyone who’s sole 

income is Social Security

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

+1 John

From Sandra Boham TCU, HBCU, MSI to Everyone:

I agree with Kyra, and everyone else so far. Borrowers do not take 

out loans with the intent of non payment, but it is not reasonable 

to discuss repayment separate form the economy as a whole. Loan 

payments that might have been manageable have become burdensome 

witht he current inflation and the fluxes in the economy over the 

years.

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Agree with John and + 1 Richard

10:46:56 From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Borrower-Graduate 

to Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

91

Blog post from White House that shows 20 yrs often leads to a 

78% increase in one’s balance: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/08/22/newstudent-loan-repayment-plan-benefits-borrowers-beyond-lowermonthly-payments/

10:47:06 From A-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Agree with Wisdom.

From Sandra Boham TCU, HBCU, MSI to Everyone:

I think an automated system to forgive debt is critical as well. I 

am aware of a person who died and the family has spent the last 

year trying to settle the loans.

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

+1 Wisdom

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to Everyone:

+1 Wisdom

From A - Jordan Nellums - Currently Enrolled Postsecondary 

Education to Everyone:

+ Wisdom

From (A) Edward Boltz (Consumer Advocate: NACBA/NASLL) to 

Everyone:

Student loans should be forgiven for anyone who completed a Chapter 

13 bankruptcy plan and received a general discharge. Those 

borrowers paid their creditors, including student loans, as much 

as federal bankruptcy law requires (often more that any IDR), for 

a period of a 3-5 years and were, in violation of 11 USC 525, 

explicitly and illegally excluded from participating in any IDR 

because that would be a burden for the servicers.

From A-Carol Peterson HBCU Langston University to Everyone:

Agree with Sandra Boham, an automated forgiven would be needed

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 Wisdom - transparency in collection efforts is key.

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+ Wisdom
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

92

From A-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

If the Department decides to forgive older loans (say, before 2010) 

consolidation should not be required. Consolidation is a barrier 

and can be confusing to borrowers.

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Consolidation also raises the loan amount from fees

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

+1 Kyra

From A - Jordan Nellums - Currently Enrolled Postsecondary 

Education to Everyone:

+1 Kyra

From P - Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights Organizations to Everyone:

+1 Kyra about borrowers who did not complete their degree

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year Browwers to Everyone:

+1 Kyra

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 to the groups of loans who Kyra identified as unlikely to be 

collectible

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 Jessica

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to those groups

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

Defining “reasonable” using the available data is a great start.

From P - Melissa Kunes - Public 2 & 4 Yr Institutions to 

Everyone:

All loan programs, FFEL, Perkins, Direct, should be included in 

these waiver accommodations.

From Sandra Boham TCU, HBCU, MSI to Everyone:

I think FFEL and Parent Plus should be considered as well. Many of 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

93

these loans were taken by older borrowers to support their children 

through college. Some are 1st gen and did not fully understand the 

implications of these loans as the interest rate tends to be

higher.

From Sandra Boham TCU, HBCU, MSI to Everyone:

Agree with Melissa

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Sarah Butts will become primary

From Sandra Boham TCU, HBCU, MSI to Everyone:

Many students who choose public service professions, education, 

social work, fire departments, police, community organizations, 

rural communities, do not make the salaries that others make. 

Likely never will. Needs to be a better understanding of this 

dynamic

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

^^^^

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Borrower-Graduate to 

Everyone:

If the payment and loan history is unclear or missing due to 

consolidation or otherwise then we should cancel the loans

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

agreed

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

yea agree Jalil

From P-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Yael

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

In addition to the groups Kyra mentioned, I'd like to include 

borrowers who obtained loans before July 1, 2010, and now have 

children currently enrolled in college, for whom they've had to 

apply for Parent PLUS loans. Repaying their loans may have hindered 

their ability to save for their child's educational expenses. 

Consequently, I urge the Department to take into account that 
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

94

borrowers who have both student loans and Parent PLUS loans may 

face challenges in repaying their obligations.

From A-Carol Peterson HBCU Langston University to Everyone:

Also students in Prison that cannot pay is an important group for 

forgiveness.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Borrower-Graduate to 

Everyone:

The text that should help to define reasonable: “For instance, when 

exercising waiver authority under other statutes, some agencies 

consider whether collection would be against equity and good 

conscience, and agencies have articulated numerous factors that may 

weigh in favor of an individual waiver, including when collection 

would defeat the purpose of the benefit program or impose financial 

hardship, among other considerations.”

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:

+ 1 to the need to provide relief to Parent Plus borrowers

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

Agree with Carol about incarcerated borrowers

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:

+1 to Jalil and Jessica

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Jessica

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 Jalil and Jessica

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Jalil

From P-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Agree with Angelika, re: Parent Plus borrowers.

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 to Angelika’s point re: the need to provide relief to borrowers 

who have debt from both their own education and their child’s 

education
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

95

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 on parents carrying loans for themselves and their children

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:

+1

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 to Jalil’s point

From P-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Many young people have lost parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This creates added hardship for single parents, who need to borrow, 

Parent Plus loans.

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

+1 to Jalil's point

From A - Jordan Nellums - Currently Enrolled Postsecondary 

Education to Everyone:

+ to Jalil’s point

From P- Jessica Ranucci (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

+1 to Kathleen's point that borrowers represent people in all 

stages of life and we should take all those experiences into 

consideration

From P-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Agree, Kathleen. We need to consider these issues of student loan 

debt relief, across the lifespan.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Borrower-Graduate to 

Everyone:

+1 Kathleen and I wonder if excluding Parent Plus borrowers is 

fully legal when considering the nature of how these are lent and 

the continued exclusion from beneficial programs? I feel like this 

must violate some type of consumer law

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

Serving as primary for Grad Borrowers

From P - Kathleen Dwyer - Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

96

+1 to Sarah's comments

From John Weathers to Everyone:

just a reminder, please change designation in name when switching 

from alternate to primary. thank you

From P-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Agree Kyra.

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to Everyone:

+1 Kyra on depicting debt burden

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to Everyone:

*predicting

From P-Vincent Andrews-Military & Veteran Groups to Everyone:

I'm interested in how the Department already approaches these 

issues in regards to what authority they currently believe they 

have to resolve these issues?

From Sandra Boham TCU, HBCU, MSI to Everyone:

Agree 100%

From P - Scott Buchanan - FFEL, Servicers, GAs to Everyone:

Ben Lee will step to table as Primary

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 to providing relief to borrowers where data shows that graduates 

are unable to pay down their principal

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

In the context of this conversation, I propose that the Department 

provide a clear definition of "financial value." Higher education 

institutions often face external factors beyond their control, such 

as individuals who have earned degrees in Criminal Justice 

potentially encountering employment difficulties if agencies 

consider their financial aid history when making hiring decisions. 

Several agencies now request graduates to furnish this information 

for employment verification. If a person's financial aid history 

significantly affects their employment prospects, it can inevitably 

become a concern with implications for loan repayment.
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

97

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 on providing cancellation to all borrowers that attended closed 

schools (even if they completed their program)

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Borrower-Graduate to 

Everyone:

+1 Ashley - If the Dept has already marked a institution or program 

as low return or fraudulent then it said cancel the debt associated 

with the institution/program. Do not make the borrower rehearse 

(prove) the fraud you already know about

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:

+1 on providing cancellation to all borrowers that attended closed 

schools (even if they completed their program)

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to Everyone:

+1 on providing cancellation to all borrowers that attended closed 

schools (even if they completed their program)

From P- Jessica Ranucci (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

To add on closed schools: The schools' closure also means that 

crucial records relating to attendance and the loan programs no 

longer exist which causes into question the enforceability of the 

debt under the FCCS standards

From P-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Agree, Kathleen. Many workers provide significant value to society, 

but their jobs are not financially lucrative.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Borrower-Graduate to 

Everyone:

^Great points. There is a way to cancel debt for low return 

credentials without creating negative incentives for institutions. 

We can focus on providing relief for the borrower.From P- Jessica 

Ranucci (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

+1 to Ashley's point on accreditation. Loss of accreditation, or 

the revocation of the accreditor's authority, is a strong 

indication of a low-value program.

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 one to Ashley's thoughts on accredidation
Negotiated Rulemaking – 10/11/23

98

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Borrower-Graduate to 

Everyone:

Now primary as Graduate Student Borrower

From P-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Agree, Jessica.

From John Weathers to Everyone:

Jalil, please place that request in the chat. thanks

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Borrower-Graduate to 

Everyone:

How does the department define “did not provide a minimum level of 

financial value” for a program? How does this definition account 

for students outside the the for-profit sector? How do we this 

automatically without placing more burden on the Dept or borrowers?

From (P) Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

What programs and timeframes does the Department have CDR data and 

GE data for?