U.S. Department of Education, Student Debt Relief Committee Negotiated Rulemaking Summary of Session One – October 

10-11, 2023

U.S. Department of Education

Student Debt Relief

Negotiated Rulemaking

Meeting Summary

November 6 & 7, 2023

Welcome

Introductions

FMCS Facilitator welcomed the parties to Session 2 and conducted the roll call of negotiators, General 

Counsel for the Department of Education, and the Federal Negotiator. 

Old Business

The Department provided verbal responses to some questions and data requests that were made at 

Session 1.

Additional Membership Discussion and action

There was a request for a new consistency group with an existing alternate negotiator being named

primary. There was opposition to move negotiators around as they were each carefully selected by the 

Department for their current roles.

The committee was reminded that, per protocols, proposals can be made to add additional groups

however the proposal needs to name the constituency and provided a name for a primary and alternate. 

Bios would need to be submitted to the negotiators prior to discussion and movement at the table to act 

on the proposals.

No further action on this item was brought forward during the two-day session.

It was announced by FMCS that Primary Negotiator for U.S. Military Service Members, Veterans, or Groups 

Representing them, Michael Jones had notified FMCS and the Department that he is no longer able to 

fulfill the role. Therefore, Vincent Andrews will move from the alternate role to the Primary. The alternate 

position will remain vacant for now.

Membership

The following individuals are the members of the Student Loan Debt Relief Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee: 
U.S. Department of Education, Student Debt Relief Committee Negotiated Rulemaking Summary of Session One – October 

10-11, 2023

Community of Interest Primary Negotiator Alternate Negotiator

Civil Rights Organizations Wisdom Cole, NAACP India Heckstall, Center for Law and 

Social Policy

Legal Assistance Organizations that 

Represent Students or Borrowers

Kyra Taylor, National Consumer Law 

Center

Scott Waterman, Student Loan 

Committee of the National 

Association of Chapter 13 Trustees

State Officials, including State 

higher education executive officers, 

State authorizing agencies, and 

State regulators of institutions of 

higher education.

Lane Thompson, Oregon DCBS -

Division of Financial Regulation Amber Gallup, New Mexico Higher 

Education Department

States Attorneys General Yael Shavit, Office of the 

Massachusetts Attorney General

Josh Devine, Missouri Attorney 

General’s Office

Public Institutions of Higher 

Education, Including Two-Year and 

Four-Year Institutions

Melissa Kunes, The Pennsylvania 

State University

J.D. LaRock, North Shore Community 

College

Private Nonprofit Institutions of 

Higher Education

Angelika Williams, University of San 

Francisco

Susan Teerink, Marquette University

Proprietary Institutions Kathleen Dwyer, Galen College of 

Nursing

Belen Gonzalez, Mech-Tech College

Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, Tribal Colleges and 

Universities and Minority-Serving 

Institutions (institutions of higher 

education eligible to receive Federal 

Assistance under title III, parts A and 

F, and title V of the HEA)

Sandra Bohan, Salish Kootenai 

College

Carol Peterson, Langston University

Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) 

Lenders, Servicers or Guaranty 

Agencies

Scott Buchanan, Student Loan 

Servicing Alliance

Benjamin Lee, Ascendium Education 

Solutions, Inc.

Student Loan Borrowers Who 

Attended Programs of Two-Years or 

Less

Ashley Pizzuti, San Joaquin Delta 

College

David Ramirez, Pasadena City College

Student Loan Borrowers Who 

Attended Four-Year Programs

Sherrie Gammage, The University of 

New Orleans

Sarah Christa Butts, University of 

Maryland
U.S. Department of Education, Student Debt Relief Committee Negotiated Rulemaking Summary of Session One – October 

10-11, 2023

Student Loan Borrowers Who 

Attended Graduate Programs

Richard Hasse, State University of 

New York at Stony Brook

Dr. Jalil Bishop, University of 

California, Los Angeles

Currently Enrolled Postsecondary 

Education Students

Jada Sanford, Stephen F. Austin 

University

Jordan Nellums, University of Texas

U.S. Military Service Members, 

Veterans, or Groups Representing 

them

Vincent Andrews, Veteran Vacant

Consumer Advocates

Jessica Ranucci, New York Legal 

Assistance Group

Ed Boltz, Law Offices of John T. 

Orcutt, P.C.

Individuals with Disabilities or 

Groups Representing them

John Whitelaw, Community Legal Aid 

Society, Inc. (CLASI)

Waukecha Wilkerson, Sacramento 

State University

Federal Negotiator

Tamy Abernathy, Director of Policy 

Coordination Group for the Office of 

Post Secondary Education

The Agenda 

The Department provided draft redlined regulatory text for the negotiators to consider one week prior 

to the Session. Throughout the two-day session the parties addressed the following:

• Regulatory Text ahead of Subpart G

• Students who owe more than they borrowed

• Long time in repayment

• Borrowers that were eligible but did not apply

• FFEL 

• Low financial value programs

• Gainful Employment 

The Department also provided an Issue Paper on Hardship one week prior to the start of Session 2 as well 

as posting on the Department’s website.

The Department provided an overview of the paper. There were eight questions that were read and 

discussed in depth one at a time by the negotiators and the Department.

1. Applying a standard used in providing student loan discharges through bankruptcy in the 

Department’s regulations would require the Department to establish a standard for review. At 

present, bankruptcy discharges are governed by an undue hardship standard, which courts have 

interpreted using the Brunner test (or another, similar test called “totality of the 

circumstances”). This relies upon three factors: (1) being unable to maintain a minimal standard 

of living, (2) the financial circumstances are unlikely to change, and (3) there’s been a good faith 

effort to repay their loans. While a hardship process under the Higher Education Act need not 

be subject to the same test, these standards may be informative of the considerations other 
U.S. Department of Education, Student Debt Relief Committee Negotiated Rulemaking Summary of Session One – October 

10-11, 2023

policymakers have used to identify hardship. Given that, which elements, if any, of this undue 

hardship consideration would be appropriate to adopt here? How can they be assessed in a 

manner consistent with the Department’s limited capacity for individualized review?

2. Many of the forms of hardship identified, such as familial wealth or significant expenses for 

medical or childcare, are not obtainable from the Department’s administrative records. Given 

that, what types of administrative data might be available to the Department related to the 

areas of hardship identified?

3. How should the Department consider operational limitations in administering a hardship 

process, such as limited resources, the need to rely on other agencies or external parties to 

provide data, and the challenges in requiring borrowers to complete applications?

4. If the hardship process was based upon an application, what upfront criteria should be put in 

place before a borrower could apply, given the significant operational limitations on an 

application-based approach?

5. The Department already offers income-driven repayment plans to assist borrowers who are 

facing monthly financial hardships over an extended period. Should a hardship approach 

consider past, present, and future circumstances creating additional financial hardship? How 

could the Department account for past, present, and future potential borrower situations in a 

streamlined manner? 

6. IDR plans are based on Federal poverty guidelines, which vary by family size. The Department 

uses the Federal poverty guidelines as an indicator of the amount of income needed for 

necessities that should be protected from student loan payments, such as food and housing. 

How should the Department determine whether the Federal poverty guidelines are or are not a 

reasonable approximation of a particular borrower’s necessary expenses? 

7. Which of the items proposed by negotiators above in the summary from Session 1 are most 

indicative of a hardship that would not otherwise be captured by an existing Federal program, 

such as income-driven repayment, total and permanent disability discharges, or something else? 

8. What thresholds or standards should the Department use for the items above to determine if a 

borrower is experiencing hardship?

Public Comment

The Committee provided a sixty (60) minute opportunity for public comment at the end of each day. Public 

comment was received on both days of the session.

Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held via Zoom Gov December 11 & 12, 2023.
U.S. Department of Education, Student Debt Relief Committee Negotiated Rulemaking Summary of Session One – October 

10-11, 2023

Next Steps

FMCS will distribute a final summary and a final agenda to the negotiators. In addition, the Department 

will distribute draft regulatory policy text prior to the next negotiation session. Any redlined regulatory 

text that committee members want to share with the Department should be sent to the facilitators no 

later than close of business on November 14, 2023. Additionally, any questions members have should be 

directed to the facilitators. All requests for a meeting with the Department should be sent to the 

facilitators to seek arrangements.

Committee members will communicate with others within their communities of interest to inform and 

get feedback from them.