Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

1

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 AFFORDABILITY AND STUDENT LOANS COMMITTEE 

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING SESSION 3, DAY 2, AFTERNOON

December 7, 2021

On the 7th day of December, 2021, the

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

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

the state of New Jersey.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. ROBERTS: Welcome back, everyone, 

I hope you enjoyed your lunch break, just as a reminder, 

my name is Brady Roberts and I'm facilitating on behalf 

of FMCS this afternoon. So I want to jump right into 

where we left off the AM session and just briefly recap 

where we are. So we took and heard a lot of red lines 

and proposals the first two weeks and the result of 

those solicitations is what you have in front of you 

today. Issue paper number 10 on IDR. Consistent with the 

process as we set it out, I'd like to now move us to do 

a consensus check and see everyone's thumbs if we are in 

fact in consensus, great. And if not, I'm going to ask 

folks to come off of mute and add any new proposals that 

would move them to from a thumbs down to a sideways 

thumb. But before that, I see Joe your hand go ahead.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, thanks, Brady. 

Just a process question, if we concensus check now, does 

that commit us to moving on from IDR?

MR. ROBERTS: So, consistent as to how 

we've handled the first, I think, four at this point, 

consensus checks, we would we would then move on to 

what's next on the agenda, which is PSLF the first issue 

of PSLF and then time permitting we would we would 

circle back to IDR at the end of the week.
3

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MR. SANDERS: So I'm going to go ahead 

and say, I don't I don't think we should move on from 

IDR. So if a consensus check means moving on, I don't 

think we should do that. I think there are large 

outstanding issues here and I. You know, there is a red 

line that some of us have been working on. A big group 

of people discussed it and I think it would be 

productive personally to put it up and walk through it. 

And, you know, I think that that's like consistent with 

a good faith process here. So that's what I would 

propose. I don't think we should move on from this topic 

yet. It's a very important topic. It ties into PSLF, and 

I think we should address it further.

MR. ROBERTS: Jennifer, I saw your 

hand, do you want, do you want to quickly respond on 

behalf of the Department? Otherwise, I'll just go down 

the hands that I see.

MS. HONG: Sure, Brady, I was actually 

going to respond to the idea about moving on. And just 

to clarify that just because we take the consensus check 

doesn't mean that we we wouldn't be revisiting this 

issue. But if this if this is the red line that was 

submitted earlier, we did, we did take it into 

consideration. But I mean, I'm certainly amenable to 

walking through it if you prefer to do that. But to 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

date, all the proposals that we received on IDR, some of 

which was, you know, brought up again at this session. 

We did, we did take it under consideration. So 

everything that we've received thus far we've taken, 

we've thought about it. We've tried to consider it, 

we've gone back and forth with it, and this is where we 

landed. That being said, I'm certainly open to, you 

know, if you want to go line by line, language by

language we can, we can we can do that.

MR. ROBERTS: Right. So I guess, Joe, 

I have a question for you. Will this be language that 

much of the committee will be seeing for the first time?

MR. SANDERS: So we had a, we had a 

caucus in between sessions with a big group, and we met 

again last Monday, when the Department's language came 

out, it got dropped into a Word doc. It does not have 

any of my proposals in it, so I haven't sent it to the 

Department. I don't know if somebody else did. 

Personally, I think would be productive to do some line 

by line, we haven't done any. I think it's been done in

negotiated rulemaking in the past and I'm just afraid if 

we move on, it's not going to we're not going to get 

back to it because there's so much on the table here. 

And I think this is an important topic.

MR. ROBERTS: Michaela, go ahead.
5

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, and I want to first 

clarify Joe, you're talking about are you talking about 

line by line of what the Department has proposed. 

Correct? Or are you talking about line by line of a 

different proposal?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I'm talking about 

the and if people don't want to do it. I'm just trying 

to get us to where we're working through some of this. 

So I'm talking about the document Marjorie created on 

Monday after we got the new language. That said, if we 

want toMS. MARTIN: No, I just wanted to 

clarify that I wasn't missing anything (interposing). So 

my I also want to reiterate the concern that if we take 

consensus right now that we won't get back to this right 

unless we're having some kind of commitment saying that 

this would be the first topic we'd come back to. But 

with so many topics potentially not reaching consensus, 

there's no way that we would know that this would be 

able to come back. And what that would look like. In 

this effect, like, yeah, I understand it's tied to PSLF, 

but arguably like PSLF is for a smaller portion of IDR 

participants, right? IDR is a huge program and then a 

couple of specifics, one,I know this is super low on the 

agenda, like on the priority list, but like, could we 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

please rename it? Calling it EICR is so problematic. We 

already have IDR. We have ICR, IBR like they all blur 

together. And so when we want to incentivize 

participation into something, calling it like such an 

obscure name, it's like really difficult, right? So if 

we could, I have like a whole list, mostly from Reddit. 

Also, I think I submitted one. I really like calling it 

the BEAR Plan. I also like Student Loan Affordability 

Plan, which is SLAP, but, you know, it's questionable. 

And then also like, you know, on substantive like again, 

lowering forgiveness time, or if we want to focus low 

balance borrowers finding some way to have either like 

folks who have had zero or a certain payment for a 

certain amount of time. But I also propose like a sign 

on bonus, right, that if the question and with the 

contingency, if there isn't the authority to do like 

partial forgivenesses as like Persis's plan had, if we 

could just do ten thousand of forgiveness under IDR, 

IECR, whatever we're going to call it, please, can we 

rename it though?

MR. ROBERTS: Jen, I see your hand.

MS. HONG: So, yes, we're still taking 

suggestions on on the name as far as I know, so feel 

free to send those forward Michaela. I I may have spoke 

too soon. I didn't realize that this is this is a 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

proposal that we haven't seen and that that might be. I 

mean, we may have some reservations about doing it 

because I just don't know how fruitful that would be. I 

would need to take this back to others, so I wouldn't be 

able to respond very fruitfully to a proposal that we 

haven't seen yet.

MR. ROBERTS: Right, and I think that 

might be where some of the value in taking a consensus 

check would be is that it would give all negotiators on 

the committee time to consider new proposals and then 

again, with the expectation that we have time at the end 

of the week to come back. But Marjorie go ahead.

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: So I was just 

going to ask if we could just go ahead and do the line 

by line read through, and I think for those of us that 

have worked on the proposal, we could simply refer to it 

when making suggestions or asking clarifying questions. 

I think we've made very clear sort of our big picture 

issues, and it might be easier to point specific points 

in the regulatory language to then either offer 

suggestion or get very specific clarity as to what's 

been provided by the Department so far.

MR. ROBERTS: I got you. Bethany, go 

ahead.

MS. LILLY: I was just going to 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

explain or suggest exactly what Marjorie had to say, 

because I think doing it that way will also give the 

Department a very clear sense of where I think all the 

negotiators have consensus and think the Department 

should revisit the proposal. And so I would hope that it 

would also be helpful for the Department.

MR. ROBERTS: Gotcha. So Jennifer, I'm 

open to hear your thoughts on this. And just to clarify, 

Marjorie, this would be the line by line that Joe and 

some other negotiators have been working on. Or is thisDR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: No, what the 

Department provided.

MR. ROBERTS: I see, Okay.

MS. HONG: I apologize, can you repeat 

that one more time. The proposal on the table is to go 

through the language. The proposed language for IDR?

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: From what the 

Department provided, I think. So we sort of talked about 

it broadly, right, we went through it (inaudible), so I 

think now there are several of us who feel that it might 

just be helpful to actually go through the language and

just have the conversation based specifically on the 

written language in what the Department initially 

shared.

MS. HONG: Sure.
9

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MS. MACK: Brady, you sound like a 

robot at the moment, so Michaela, let me go ahead and 

call on you.

MS. MARTIN: Underwater robot. I was 

just going to say that I think it was really important 

that we did that big picture because we wanted to see if 

this was a negotiation. So I know that like, I feel bad 

Jennifer because you went to go line by line and we were 

like, no, and now we're like, yes. But I do think it was 

important that we did have that time to kind of like air 

our thirty thousand foot view issues and then now we can 

go into a deep dive. So I just want to like fully 

support what Marjorie with us, but also like give you 

the support and I recognize that that's what you started 

with. But I think both were really important.

MS. HONG: Yeah, I mean, I understand 

that I'm happy to accommodate. It's it's a lot of ideas, 

and I know that we've kind of got back and forth and 

we've talked a lot about it. A lot of issues. I'm happy, 

you know, I'm happy to go through the text again, if 

that's helpful for people.

MS. MACK: Okay, so is the thought 

that we should pull up the documents as it was proposed 

by the Department, walk through that in terms of 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

language and see what suggestions, thoughts and ideas 

folks might have as we walk through the reg text? I 

think that's what I'm hearing, if that's the case, 

Vanessa, could I ask that you share the document up on 

the screen? And if we can scroll to the top and it looks 

like we are near there now. Perfect, thank you. Let me 

open it up to the group as we walk through this section 

by section. Who would like to help us begin? Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: Can we please change the 

name now, because that's the first thing that comes up? 

I'm sorry, it was the appropriate time, it's line by 

line. It says that Expanded Income Contingent Repayment. 

I have I worked really hard on acronyms, and I'm sorry 

to keep showing you all my notebook, but like I had a 

whole list of words that we could use. So far, I think 

the ones that are most appropriate is probably BEAR or 

SLAP. I kind of really likes SLAP, but I know that some 

people might find that to be a negative connotation. But 

you know, like it slaps like it's like a be a positive 

slang. But like, how would we go about that? Like 

proposing a name? Could it be BEAR? Borrower's Earnings 

Adjusted Repayment.

MS. HONG: Well, we just add a comment 

bubble on the name and then any (inaudible) throw some

suggestions in there.
11

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MR. ROBERTS: And before I ask for 

name suggestions, am I still a robot?

MS. MACK: You're good, Brady. Go 

ahead.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, great. So I 

heard BEAR and SLAP. I would also encourage folks to 

utilize the chat box if they have any other suggestions. 

And then Michaela, did you did you want to note anything 

else or is it okay to move on to Persis?

MS. MARTIN: It's okay to move on, I 

just wanted I was just hoping that we could get that 

name change.

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah. Persis, go ahead.

MS. YU: So I put it, I put this in 

the chat, but I'm still going for ABC Affordable Budget 

Conscious repayment. That's actually not why I raised my 

hand. I have thoughts on all the things. So this is, I 

guess, maybe this is a little bit below here. As we're 

talking about family size, I think that's kind of the 

next thing on the screen. And then just to note that in 

our previous conversations, it seemed like there was 

actually pretty general consensus among all the 

nonfederal negotiators that we wanted, the for married 

borrowers who file separately, we wanted it to file the 

ICR, IBR, and PAYE plans and not the REPAYE model. And 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

so that's a place where I feel like the negotiators were 

pretty clear on our preference. The Department asked us 

for our preference. We stated our preference. And that's 

not reflected. And so my suggestion is that under family 

size paragraph 2 be included to add ICR or ABC or BEAR 

or whatever, and that it be struck from from the third 

one.

MR. ROBERTS: Vanessa, are you able to 

capture that in a comment bubble?

Vanessa: I'm sorry, I missed that, 

could you repeat that?

MS. YU: Sure, so we're looking at 

under let's see, this is the definition of family size 

and number two, striking “and” and adding ICR and for 

paragraph three striking ICR, which would effectively 

treat married borrowers the same under the ICR, IBR, and 

PAYE as you earn plan, where borrowers who are married 

but file separately would not need to be not need to 

include their spouses income.

MS. MACK: Persis, just what Joe just 

shared in the chat capture that so that we could put 

that in a comment?

MS. YU: That's correct.

MS. MACK: Perfect. Just thought that 

might help, Vanessa, if we could just post that in a 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

comment.

Vanessa: Yeah, that helps. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: And Michaela, go ahead.

MS. MARTIN: I think that the 

confusion was and just for folks who might be watching 

that there's a lot of highlighted parts that come before 

this, but those highlighted parts are actually parts 

from what I can tell that are under other plans. Is that 

correct? And that we can't change them, but there is 

proposed changes in those. So the first change that we 

see to the new plan is under family size. Is that 

correct?

MS. HONG: Yes, that's correct, and 

thanks Michaela. So if you guys just so you refresh our 

memory, we when we came out with language in session 

two, it was all new language because this is a proposed 

rewrite of all the IDR plans currently there. Pardon me?

MS. MARTIN: The whole thing is new? I 

thought that only I thought that these sections existed, 

and we're just adding, and that's why we weren't allowed 

to touch the other plans.

MS. HONG: The con, so the concepts so 

okay, so there's two things, there's the technical 

revisions to the all the IDR plans. So right as they are 

right now, it's very redundant. Like they each have 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

their own section. REPAYE has its own section, you know, 

it's redundant and it's confusing. So we said, let's put 

it all under one section, but the only thing that we're 

making substantive changes to is this new proposed plan. 

So this is so in in caring for the substantive changes 

of the of this proposed EICR plan, we're also making 

technical revisions to this whole section in the 

regulation, but we're not changing substantively any of 

the other IDR plans. Does that make sense? So right now, 

it's a new section 209 rewrite, and we're putting all 

the IDR plans together, one two three four five and then 

certain certain definitions apply to certain plans, 

whereas currently we have, like ICR has its own 

regulatory section. I'm sorry, I don't have that. We 

could probably pull it up if we really wanted to. So 

this is when we came in session two all this was new and 

then the highlighted portions are only those things that 

have changed from two to three. But all of this text, 

all the proposed reg text is new, reg text to reorder 

that whole IDR section. Does that make sense? And then 

highlighted issues (inaudible) are or only for two and 

three. And then in making some of those revisions, some 

of them, some of these revisions don't pertain to the 

new plan. They're just technical revisions that we 

notice even from two to three to the existing plan.
15

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, I mean, like, I'm 

not a fan that like the I get that they're just 

technical changes, but if the largest substantive change 

here is just to the cost of payment monthly payments, 

right, like there's some other ones. So I guess making a 

whole new plan still sometimes doesn't really fully make 

sense in my brain when we could have just made those 

changes to an existing one. But I do understand I just 

wanted to point that out for anyone watching like, well, 

why aren't they talking about all this other thing that 

that that that would be the reason why we're not. And 

then back to the line items I do agree with with Persis 

on the changing it. Changing family size, I mean, back 

to where we were. Sorry.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, anything else 

on family size, committee members?

MS. LILLY: Can Vanessa indicate 

Daniel and Michelle's or sorry, I'm failing at speaking 

words today, Michaela's support for the proposal? Thank 

you.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, that's helpful 

too in that as we're doing this in the chat, if you just 

want to officially note your endorsement and 

suggestions. Well, Vanessa and I see Joe's as well, 

Vanessa, you are already on this piece, if you want to 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

begin moving down the document. Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thanks. So I'm not 

sure if if anyone has anything before this. But I have a 

question about the partial financial hardship 

definition, which is the bottom of page two, which is 

right below where you are Vanessa on the screen, you 

were almost there. No. Go back. Sorry, you were at new 

borrower right there. So this applies to IBR and PAYE

only. Is there any reason that EICR would be excluded or 

included in terms of these definitions or what what 

what's the I'm sorry for this. What's the impact of 

partial financial hardship on further definitions?

MS. HONG: Alright, so we didn't you 

know we didn't include this as an eligibility criteria 

for the proposed EICR plan. So this is just carrying 

out, well, wordsmith carrying over and then further 

wordsmithing because it is applicable to IBR and K.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Okay, thank you. So 

the next thing I would look to is poverty guidelines. So 

there was a comment made earlier and I added a resource 

about poverty guidelines, and I and I would suggest the 

Department include or consider a this is on the next 

page top of next page, Vanessa. So if you go to page 

number three, top of the next page, here we go. I would 

like to add that under poverty guidelines, there be a 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

consideration of the cost of living allowance and namely 

a cost of living allowance, as referenced by the 

Department of Defense in consideration of Military 

Housing Allowance are factors that are used as part of 

that adjustment. So if we can look at metros, this will, 

I think, address a concern that that Michaela and others 

have addressed about cost of living in high cost areas. 

So again, you know, it would seem to be a resource 

published by another part of the federal government that 

could be used without great a great deal of difficulty.

MR. ROBERTS: And Vanessa, feel free 

to come off of mute if you need any guidance from Daniel 

and how you'd like that captured, like that captured.

Vanessa: Is there anything you want 

me to add to that comment bubble Daniel or is that fine? 

The cost of livingMR. BARKOWITZ: I’ll put the resource

again in the chats.

Vanessa: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: Great, thanks. And 

Vanessa, whenever you're ready, feel free to bring down 

the document.

MS. LILLY: I just want to add, I 

think, to continue consistently with the discussion of 

I'm not sure this is something I would defer to the 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

Department on, but under partial financial hardship, 

like if we are mirroring the EICR plan to PAYE and IBR 

rather than REPAYE, I don't know if you need a change to 

sub two on the next, just down on the next page, 

Vanessa, sorry. I don't know if you want to add a 

reference there, but that's just like that is one of the 

things we were walking through here with the marriage 

piece of this trying to make sure that it was all 

consistent.

MR. ROBERTS: And then Daniel, I still 

see your hand up, is that just a holdover if you want to 

contribute to what Bethany just said?

MR. BARKOWITZ: Sorry.

MR. SANDERS: Maybe we could just put 

a note on that paragraph that says, like, conform to 

family sized paragraphs two and three question mark.

MR. ROBERTS: And Persis, I see your 

hand.

MS. YU: Yeah, I just want to clarify, 

though, that it is not our intention to create a partial 

financial hardship to requirement for this plan. 

Correct? So we wanted to clarify for the purposes of 

family size, but not clear, but not impose a partial 

financial hardship, right?

MS. HONG: I think we're good with how 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

it is. I don't know that we need to-. 

MS. LILLY: I withdraw. We can delete 

this comment. I just wanted to make sure every time I 

see marriage, in those words together, I get a little 

twitchy. But if Persis is comfortable with, we can 

delete it here. Sorry, Vanessa.

MS. HONG: I think the important thing 

is that we're getting your ideas captured.

MR. BARKOWITZ: And if I can, I have 

now, Vanessa, the reference, so the reference is paste 

pasted into the chat for the poverty guidelines. It is a 

base of eight percent for anyone in one of these metro 

areas. And then on top of that, an additional percentage 

based on the particular housing metros that are 

highlighted. I give this as an example. This is only one 

example of cost of living allowances. But again, the 

idea here being that this is specifically one that is 

provided by by the federal government in virtue of 

military adjustments for military housing allowances.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Daniel. And 

then, Vanessa, thank you for capturing that, I think we 

are okay to move down the document a little bit more.

MR. BARKOWITZ: I'm going to jump in 

Brady and raise my hand again just because I feel like I 

can add add, I can at least be the first one to say 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

this. I won't be the last one to say this. I think 

you're going to hear near-universal regard that we 

cannot limit this to undergrad loans only. So if you go 

to (d) (2). I think again. Not that I can speak for all 

of our all of my peer negotiators, but I think all of us 

are really struggling with this limitation. I would 

really encourage the Department not just to think of 

graduate loans, but also Plus borrowers both Grad Plus 

and Parent Plus. And I imagine that we'll see a flurry 

of plus ones. Or at least I would encourage my 

negotiators to add a flurry of plus ones so that we're 

clear that we all sort of sit in this space. I think 

this is going to be a major block to, thank you the

flurry is coming, a major block to consensus on the 

entire plan at this point.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Daniel. 

Persis, I see your hand.

MS. YU: Yes, just giving a verbal 

plus one and a suggestion for the actual reg text to 

just strike the second paragraph under (d) and renumber 

the third paragraphnumber two, I think that there's just 

no reason to I think that the ICR is as inclusive as we 

can be in terms of the IDR plans, and I think we should 

mirror that.

MR. ROBERTS: Gotcha. And Vanessa, I 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

appreciate you capturing that. Persis just so we're 

capturing that as a distinct idea is how it's currently 

in the document. In terms in terms of the suggestion, 

right?

MS. YU: So remove two, yeah, so I 

would remove two and add EICR or whatever the term is to 

paragraph three.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Can I just raise one 

question, though, Persis paragraph three requires direct 

plus loans to be consolidated if they're made to 

parents. So and actually consolidated, I believe, along 

with student debt. So that would exclude Parent Plus 

borrowers who solely have Parent Plus loans from 

consideration. Is that an intention on your behalf or is 

that an oversight?

MS. YU: It is not an oversight. It is 

I I 100 percent agree that I want to include Parent Plus 

borrowers to the fullest extent possible under the law. 

I recognize that the ICR that the ICR statute and the 

IBR statutes both do explicitly exclude Parent Plus 

borrowers without the consolidation. So I believe that 

consolidation is the way is the path forward for Parent 

Plus borrowers. And so that is not an oversight, but I 

do agree that it is one hundred percent unfortunate.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thanks. I just wanted 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

to get that on record. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Great, thank you for 

that exchange, is there anything else as it relates to 

loans eligible to be repaid under this new plan, whose 

name is TBD under this section or can we move down? I'm 

not seeing any hands, Vanessa, whenever you are ready. 

Feel free to scroll down the document. Joe, go ahead.

MR. SANDERS: Sorry, I was just going 

to point out that there was, Persis, I think, or someone 

had proposed adding EICR to paragraph three under D, 

loans eligible to be repaid,

MR. ROBERTS: I think I thought that 

was captured, but Vanessa, would you mind just pulling 

it up?

MR. SANDERS: Okay, I got it. Got it. 

Okay, thanks.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, not seeing any, 

oh never mind, Persis go ahead.

MS. YU: Sorry, I think so this is in 

this place just to conform with the marriage proposal 

under (e)(I) sorry (e) (1) (i) would be to add EICR to 

that to that section. And remove it from further down in 

little three, which I'm losing track of the formatting 

here, but basically, we want to conform this to the to 

ensure that married borrowers are able to file 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

separately and exclude their spouse.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Vanessa, for 

capturing and thank you for the folks in the comment 

boxthis morning. And then Persis, it looks like that 

captures everything that you were mentioning in your 

comments, but I was going to make sure before we move 

on.

MS. YU: I believe that is correct.

MR. ROBERTS: Great.

MS. YU: A little hard to see with the 

way that the screen is formatted, but yes, that seems 

to.

MR. ROBERTS: And, Vanessa, whenever 

you're finished with that comment, feel free to move 

down the document again. It doesn't look like there's 

any additional proposals here, so I think we can move to 

page five. Bethany, go ahead.

MS. LILLY: So on page five, if you 

scroll down to the large chunk of yellow highlighted at 

the bottom of the page, Vanessa. Yes. So as I think I 

explained earlier, I really think that the two hundred 

percent of the applicable federal poverty line should be 

raised to three hundred. And I think Daniel made a 

proposal to raise it to 250 and to change the other one 

to four hundred. I would be okay with both of those 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

changes, but I'd prefer to start this at three hundred. 

And then under (3) (i), Vanessa, where it says three 

hundred percent, if you could change that to four 

hundred percent. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Gotcha. I’m seeing some 

plus ones in the comments, so Daniel, I see your hand 

next.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Yeah, I I’m in favor 

of that as well, Bethany. My only reason in using the 

225, 400 was to conform to the Pell Grant structures 

under the new SEI, SAI Student Aid Index, and the 

ability to for the Department to use that as sort of a 

resting point in terms of why it's chosen those numbers. 

However, I would support the three hundred and four 

hundred too if possible. I'm open to either, but I think 

I think where we are is not acceptable to two hundred to 

three hundred.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, Vanessa, if you 

just wouldn't mind as a comment to the first. Exactly. 

Conform to. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Pell Grant SEI, Pell 

Grant SAI calculation.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, and Persis.

MS. YU: I just wanted to put in for 

the transcript, that I submitted last night some 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

research by a colleague of mine that showed that in 

several a couple of specific places in the country that 

the self-sufficiency standard was clearly at at least 

300. And so this provides evidence to support the use of 

raising it to to three hundred percent of federal 

poverty. And so I think that because we've provided 

evidence, I don't think there's good evidence for 200. I 

think there's great evidence for 300. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Vanessa, I do 

see some of the plus ones in the chat and there's enough 

that, yeah just want to mention several great. Alright, 

if the committee is ready, I think we can move to page 

six. And I welcome any comments on issues in page six. 

Daniel, go ahead. Thank you, so I would draw your 

attention to number four toward the bottom of the page. 

Vanessa. The almost there we go, so I would replace the 

the phrase “when a borrower has a zero payment” with 

“when a borrower has a payment that does not cover the 

interest assessed”. And then so it does not that does 

not cover the interest assessed. And then I would assess 

sorry to double Ss interest assessed. And then I would 

change on the next line, sorry, next line, go back up 

the very next line where it says “with an amount equal 

to the amount of accrued interest accrued interest” to 

“accrued but unpaid”. So we just need the addition of 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

the word “but” or the words “but unpaid”. So “accrued 

interest” becomes “accrued, but unpaid”.

MR. ROBERTS: I see Bethany and Persis 

in the chat box indicating support. While that's being 

noted, anyone else have anything on page six? I'll just 

note, for the record, there are a lot of plus ones on 

this issue.

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah, Vanessa, if you 

wouldn't mind noting that, great. I believe we are ready 

for page seven. And I would welcome any negotiator raise 

their hand on any topics covered on page seven of the 

(inaudible). Persis.

MS. YU: So I would like to cover the 

time to forgiveness being the big one. One, I've 

mentioned this before, but I really want to push hard on 

the idea that we can get cancelation faster for lower 

income borrowers. I don't have I don't actually have red 

line text handy, but but I wanted to share and I will 

email out momentarily the idea of having a multiplier 

where you can give borrowers credit for each payment can 

count as more qualifying payments based upon their 

income, and this could be counted annually mapped out a 

multiplier that would allow you to do that so that the 

lowest income borrowers, folks who basically are whose 

AGI as a function of the federal poverty level is, you 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

know, at 150 or below would get have a multiplier of 

four. So each payment would count as four for that year 

and that if it persists for you know five years that 

they would have cancelation after five years. I will 

send around the math on how that what that would look 

like and happy to also work on some language. But I 

think that is a way that we can achieve the Department's 

stated goal of getting low income borrowers cancelation 

faster. So if we can kind of conceptually put the idea 

of a a multiplier for credit towards months counting 

months of forgiveness in order to provide cancelation 

faster for lower income borrowers.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, so Vanessa 

under under Section (k) forgiveness. You just want to 

add a comment there. Adding a multiplier. What was it, 

Persis? Adding a multiplier to calculate months of 

forgiveness?

MS. YU: Right, so that a multiplier 

to count where each month where each monthly payment 

would count as multiple qualifying payments towards 

forgiveness, and that multiplier would be based upon the 

borrower's AGI relative to the federal poverty level for 

that annual calculation.

MR. ROBERTS: Would you mind just for 

Vanessa's benefit post popping that in the chat very 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

briefly? 

MS. YU: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. And I'm 

seeing some support of that in the chat. And then we'll 

come back to that while while that's just getting typed 

up Marjorie, do you want to do you want to add to that?

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: I do. So this 

suggestion is just that there's consistency between the 

plans for forgiveness. I know the Department doesn't 

feel they could go lower than 20. And so just in that 

last line, I would say that it shouldn't be dependent on 

what your degrees are from. That it should just be 20 

years if that's what the Department is proposing to do. 

So instead of 25 at the bottom of section one, 20.

MR. ROBERTS: Got it, andMS. HONG: I I just want toMR. ROBERTS: Sorry, go ahead, 

Jennifer. 

MS. HONG: Sorry. Remember that that's 

that's only talk. That's the existing point. That's ICR. 

So we're only making changes to the areas that you see 

EICR flagged.

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Okay.

MS. HONG: Yeah, I'm sorry to confuse 

you, Marjorie. Remember, I said that this is again the 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

rewrite where we're consolidating all the IDR plans into 

one section of the regulation, so that part is only 

applicable to ICR and REPAYE. 

MR. ROBERTS: So yeah, Vanessa, we 

could remove that comment then. And then I'm seeing 

Persis just with the proposed change to forgiveness in 

chat. If you just want to copy that right in with the 

mention of the several negotiators in support, and then 

once we handle that, Michaela, I'll ask you to, to 

comment.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, further down where 

it is, like the do we have-. 

MR. ROBERTS: I just want to make sure 

Vanessa has a chance to capture this.

MS. MARTIN: It's oh, I see, I see. 

Yeah.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, yeah. I'm going to 

start calling it the BEAR plan, that the BEAR plan, ten 

years to forgiveness, I think, is reasonable, I feel 

like that's. Or has some form of forgiveness after a 

certain amount of, a certain amount of zero dollar 

payments, right? I know that there's this big fear that 

lingers in the back of people's minds that like, oh, if 

we say, well, forgive if they don't pay, then they'll 

just not work a job. But like I like, can pretty 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

conclusively say that while there are some outliers that 

might do that, like most people are not just choosing to 

live in poverty. People are like, oh, you know what? I'm 

going to do? I'm going to live in a really crappy 

apartment for the next five years so that maybe I can 

get eight grand waivered off my student loans, you know, 

like, that's just not that's just not how people are 

going to operate. So I think that 10 years is reasonable 

if we can't do it a different way to get it lower for 

folks.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks. Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: I just I want to read 

into the record again what I typed in the chat and said 

earlier, which is I find it morally morally 

questionable, morally hazardous to use Joe’s term that 

we're requiring our low income, limited income borrowers 

a longer period of time to forgiveness than we allow for 

our Public Service Loan Forgiveness candidates who are 

employed and earning presumably a livable wage. I just I 

really struggle with the logic around a 20-year 

timeframe where we have a 10-year standard that is 

existent for Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Daniel. Is 

there is there any proposals people would like to make 

sure are entered into the record on page seven? Or are 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

we okay to move to page eight? Michaela, yeah.

MS. MARTIN: Sorry, I didn't catch. 

I'm not sure if Daniel also said this, but not it's not 

just PSLF, like the main plan, right? Like the main 

default plan is a 10-year standard, like it's a 10-year 

standard. PSLF was like, oh, I guess this doesn't work 

for poor people, huh? Well, we'll give it to good poor 

people. Right. We'll give it to people, poor people who 

are worthy of 10 years. But really, that 10-year 

standard should should apply to everyone.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, not seeing 

additional suggestions for our page seven. Vanessa, I 

think we are okay to move to page eight. Daniel, I see 

your hand. Yeah.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Yeah, sorry, this is 

just my technical amendment, so Vanessa if we move from 

(G) to (I), so I'm not sure I think we need to renumber 

there. I'm not sure if there was an omission or what 

happened there. And the other question is again. Oh, 

sorry, Bethany, I'm jumping. Is it okay if I? Okay, so 

the other question is, can can we discuss retroactivity 

for periods of deferment, forbearance that are being 

added? So I would strongly address or strongly suggest 

we address retroactivity by allowing and maybe the 

guiding language is actually on page seven, but I guess 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

this is a question of Jennifer. Is the intention, 

because the way it's written, I don't read this as 

necessarily prohibiting retroactivity. Was that the 

intention or what actually on the bottom of page seven 

for the inclusion of the satisfaction of a monthly 

payment? Is that from the date of enactment forward or 

going backwards as well?

MS. HONG: Remember, so this is a 

newly proposed plan, so these everything applicable 

under these regs would become effective you know, 

whenever we implement them.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Right, but the 

language on page seven says for all IDR plans, a 

borrower satisfies a monthly payment or the equivalent 

by, and then it gives a series of options, including a 

series of affirmative forbearances. So we have existing 

borrowers under existing plans. So for those borrowers 

under existing plans, are you looking backwards that 

their periods of forbearance and deferment? I don't see 

anything here that would prohibit you from looking 

backwards, in fact. I don't see any exceptions looking 

backwards. It's just reframes it. I'm just trying to 

make sure I understand the Department's intention.

MS. HONG: So these would apply 

prospectively once the regulations become effective.
33

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MR. BARKOWITZ: And is is that that 

doesn't seem to be regulatory. That's just an 

interpretation. Because again, what we've said is this 

is now how you satisfy a monthly payment, not how you 

satisfy a monthly payment from this point forward. This 

is how a monthly payment is satisfied.

MS. HONG: Right, but these won't. 

Applicable, applicable when these are effectuated, 

right? So you're I understand what you're saying, so 

would they, I mean, that's not unless we make that 

explicit. Yeah. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: And I would I would 

vote for making it explicit, I think it's important to 

allow. And this is my question, right? I think it's 

important then to say this will be a retroactive benefit 

for borrowers who were under these deferments or 

forbearances. Again, I just remind us much of the public 

comment and addressing this particular issue that people 

were misadvised, people were mischaracterized. And if we 

can't allow retroactivity, I understand the Hold 

Harmless position allows a way to resolve it. But that 

way to resolve it requires payment. So this would allow 

for for folks to also be held (inaudible).

MS. HONG: So. I I don't know that, 

well, we wouldn't be able to do that under that 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

assumption, but I think that the the concern that you 

have will be addressed through our Hold Harmless 

procedures as proposed. Because they are retroactively 

going back and looking at those periods of deferment or 

forbearance where the borrower was placed and counting 

those as payments. Does that address your concern?

MR. BARKOWITZ: Yeah, except it will 

for ones that are things like post active duty or 

unemployment or rehab, where I'm struggling is is the 

sort of generalized administrative forbearance. They're 

in a sense, how are you, how is the borrower supposed to 

document the calculation of what was required under an 

Income Based Repayment Plan? It just adds so many 

hurdles to try to establish that unless we're assuming a 

zero dollar value. And I just I'm struggling with how 

how you would even document that maybe I don't know, 

Persis, do you have something to add on this issue or is 

yours something else?

MS. YU: Yeah, I mean, I think I think 

I might be just confused. And so maybe if I articulate 

my confusion, it will see if it jogs your, settles, your 

confusion. But the way that I the way that I'm reading 

this is that so there is a enumerated deferments and 

forbearances and those even if that even if a borrower, 

let's say, five years ago had a, you know economic, 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

unemployment deferment, right? That borrower is not 

going to have to go through the Hold Harmless period 

that that that five years ago, that deferment will count 

currently when this is implemented, whenever that 

whatever that date may be and they reach the other 

criteria that would get them to whatever months of 

qualifying payments and so that the Hold Harmless period 

is only for the deferments and forbearances that are not 

enumerated in this list. Is that correct?

MS. HONG: Yes, that's correct.

MS. YU: Okay, that that's helpful to 

me. I will also add that I would like to add a a big L 

under little 4 little that we also retroactively count 

any periods of forbearance that began before November 1, 

2022. I share the concern that's been enumerated a 

number of times that going looking backwards at 

forbearance times and the amount that borrowers would 

have paid is just going to be frankly impossible. I 

heard the Department's concern about moral hazard and 

that if we were to do this, that people would then just 

place their loans in forbearances for the entire period. 

I'm not (inaudible) that concern, but I think certainly 

going, you know, if we choose a date to look 

retroactively and I chose November 1, 2022 because 

presumably that's the date in which the Department will 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

publish final regs, a borrower is not going to gainMS. HONG: 2023.

MS. YU: Well, you would publish the 

final regs on November 1, 2022 in order to be 

implemented in 2023. If I understand the the 

(inaudible).

MS. HONG: I'm sorry, I'm getting my 

years mixed up, you're correct.

MS. YU: So presumably somebodyMS. HONG: Effective by July 1, 2023.

MS. YU: Right. And so presumably 

someone would not try to gain the system based upon regs 

that do not yet exist, was my was my thinking in 

choosing that as the date and so I think that the Hold 

Harmless period, at least if it's only going forward, 

you know, we're not talking about decades potentially of 

forbearances, but we may be talking more prospectively 

one at a time seems more reasonable to me. So that's I 

would add that I would I have I have other comments as 

well, but I think other folks might just have comments 

on the forbearances period.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, go ahead, 

Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: What I'll say is that, 

thank you, Persis, for that clarity. That addresses my 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

concern about the retroactivity, so I don't need any 

further piece if that carries.

MS. HONG: So just to be sure that 

proposals to go retroactive indefinitely so apply it to 

all borrowers regardless of when their loans were taken 

out.

MS. YU: That's correct, I would apply 

it, yes, any forbearance period that was taken out 

before the public, basically before the publications of 

these final regs. And that would address the steering 

issues that that Joe has mentioned a number of times.

MR. ROBERTS: Anything additional on 

this page, or are we okay to move to. Persis.

MS. YU: Okay, I have more. So under 

paragraph five of the income, for an IBR plan and the 

defaulted borrowers. I would like to include language to 

make sure that payments which the borrower made while 

they wereMR. ROBERTS: Wait, Persis, if you 

wouldn't mind, just interrupt, could you could you 

briefly guide Vanessa where you're directing your 

comments?

MS. YU: Okay, so it's the bottom of 

the so it's the paragraph right below the Hold Harmless. 

So, sorry maybe, maybe I'm, there's two paragraphs on 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

Hold Harmless, so go.

MR. ROBERTS: Are you on page eight 

right now?

MS. YU: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, is it okay if I 

just, is there anything else on page seven from anybody?

MS. YU: Oh, sorry, your pages just 

are numbered different than mine. That's why. Okay, go 

ahead.

MR. ROBERTS: I think. I think you're 

okay. I think we're good to go to page eight and and 

feel free to direct Vanessa now.

MS. YU: Okay, so it's paragraph five 

for for the IBR plan, is that. I would just like to add 

language that would make sure that these that payments 

that borrowers make while in default also count. And, 

you know, if they are in an amount that would be would 

be as much or if not more than their IBR payment would 

be. And so that's either voluntary or involuntary. And 

I'm happy to, well, I'm trying to. So I'm trying to copy 

and paste language into the chat right now 

unsuccessfully.

MR. ROBERTS: And we'll wait for that, 

and I do see some some plus ones for that. So while 

we're waiting for that, anything else that anyone would 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

like to add for page number eight? Oh, there it is. 

Bethany.

MS. LILLY: So I think Joe mentioned 

that he had some thoughts on the Hold Harmless 

provisions here, and I'd be very open to hearing them 

because I don't have a concrete suggestion, but I do 

think that specifically subsection sorry, Vanessa. I 

think that is. I have heard from several disability work 

community folks that this will be very hard to work 

through, that it is going to be very complicated for 

legal services folks to help them process these 

applications that this is just going to be very 

burdensome on beneficiaries. Sorry. Excuse me. You used 

to calling folks beneficiaries, not borrowers, but 

borrowers. And so I think we need to think if there is a 

way to simplify this and I'm sorry, I don't have 

concrete language. This is not something that I 

particularly specialize in, but I wanted to express the 

concern there.

MR. ROBERTS: And before Joe, Persis, 

before we go to you, I just want to make sure that, 

Vanessa, you're caught up, sorry, are you, are you good 

to entertain additional suggestions?

Vanessa: Bethany was yours just 

simplify paragraph six? Is that what I heard?
40

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MS. LILLY: If you would add a comment 

to paragraph six, yes, and it is, simplify the 

procedures for benefits for borrowers.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Persis, can I comment 

on paragraph six, if that's alright, do you mind? Okay, 

thank you. So I think if we are able to add the language 

that Persis added above as big letter L, then paragraph 

six becomes prospective rather than retrospective. And I 

think that's really important, right? So. So under 

paragraph L, the letter L, if we're if we're allowing 

any period prior to November 1, 2022 that was deferment 

forbearance to count then the Hold Harmless position 

becomes a move forward, and it gives students the opp, 

borrowers the opportunity to hold themselves harmless 

moving forward, which I think Bethany might address some 

of the maybe of Joe's concern and others because going 

backwards and trying to make repayment of periods that 

were years and years ago is going to be awfully 

difficult to administer. So just to just to add that and 

thank you Persis for letting me step in.

MS. YU: Of course, Daniel. I also 

wanted to add one other thing to paragraph six. A and 

and also, you know, again, I think the administrability 

is is a real concern on the Hold Harmless. But if we are 

going to have a Hold Harmless, I would like to also, I 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

think there's no good reason to only use forbearances. 

We have a lot of borrowers who also get steered into 

other payment plans that don't count towards 

cancelation, such as a graduated repayment plan. The 

extended plan. They get into the consolidated standard 

plan, thinking that it's the regular plan. And so I 

think if we're going to have a Hold Harmless and the 

borrowers are going to have to prove that the payments 

were equivalent to the IDR payment or make it up, we 

should extend that to to any of the plans. So I'm just 

going to. I would suggest putting after the second line, 

after the words section comma in the second line of para 

of six, this language to just include all the other 

plans as well.

MR. ROBERTS: And then I'm seeing the 

language for that in chat as well, Vanessa, if you just 

want to copy it from there. And then, Joe, go ahead.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, just very briefly, 

since Bethany mentioned it. I do have concerns about the 

administrability of the Hold Harmless section. In an

effort at good faith negotiation, I think if the 

Department is willing to consider some kind of 

retroactive consideration of forbearances, whether the 

one that I sent to the Department or the one that we've 

heard here today, I think that goes a long way towards 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

assuaging my concerns, in part because borrowers who 

were steered into forbearance should not be made to jump 

through another administrative hoop. And I just don't 

think that's going to happen. I don't think people are 

going to be able to do that, particularly for those, as 

Daniel pointed out, those long past forbearances. I hear 

the Department's concerns on moral hazard, and so I 

would be okay with Hold Harmless going forward. I do 

think that the Department's earlier representations that 

they intend to police servicer conduct much more 

aggressively through FSA are very important here. I 

understand the Department's position that that those 

can't necessarily be addressed in the regulations, but 

would urge, again, whether my plan, whether what was put 

forward here today, whether what Daniel has talked about 

some kind of retroactive consideration of forbearances, 

guardrails, further guardrails can be put around those 

to indicate where we're getting at the borrowers that 

the Department wants to address. So that's you know, I 

don't have any more concrete ideas on administrability, 

it sounds like the Department wants to address that 

through FSA and you know, I think that the Department 

should be given a chance to to do that on a going 

forward basis.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks, Joe. Michaela.
43

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MS. MARTIN: I don't know if I just 

missed something, but where did the term moral hazard 

come from? And what does that mean? Like what is this?

MR. SANDERS: I'm the one that used 

it. You know, the Department has expressed concerns in 

the past that people will just go into forbearance and 

then get their loans forgiven if all forbearance is open 

to consideration, so, trying to address that, that 

concern, I don't necessarily share it, but for the 

reasons that you stated Michaela, But, that's, when I'm 

using it, that's that's what I'm referring to. 

MS. MARTIN: So you are saying is the 

idea that someone, forbearance is generally limited to 

people who are, like to be in a forbearance, you have to 

prove some type of like hardship or like reason you're 

in forbearance, right?

MR. SANDERS: No, you can just go into 

a forbearance. And that's the problem. It's quick for 

servicers to just say yes, you can't make your payment? 

Okay, boom, you're in forbearance. 

MS. MARTIN: Even when you make more 

money, you can call and be like, forbear me and they'll 

be like, cool, you don't have to pay?

MR. SANDERS: I believe that's the 

case, yes, and that's because that's so easy to 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

administer, servicers in the past would just, you know, 

we've alleged in lawsuits that they just as a policy 

said, you know, you've got to keep your calls quick. 

Somebody calls in the quickest thing you can do is shove 

them into a forbearance. And this is the problem. That's 

what forbearance steering fundamentally is. 

MS. MARTIN: I thought forbearance 

steering was particularly among lower income folks and I 

see now Brian is off mute so maybe you can clarify like 

but that it had to do with because you qualified for 

financial hardship, you could go into forbearance. And 

so it's easier for low income folks to go into that 

versus income driven and that there had to be something 

there to qualify you for a forbearance. (Inaudible)

MR. SIEGEL: Forbearance is available

if a borrower calls and says they're having trouble 

making payments, so it can be for any reason. That's the 

the discretionary forbearance it's supposed to be for up 

to a year. There are other reasons in which forbearance 

is required. For example, while you're while a borrower 

is submitting documentation for some other benefit under 

the program they're required to put, the servicer puts 

the borrower in forbearance during that time. But 

general forbearance, yes, a borrower can get it just by 

saying, I'm having trouble making a payment or I can't 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

make a payment this month. So the concern from the 

Department, yeah, so the concern from the Department is 

that because of that, there is a possibility and we have 

seen it in the past that borrowers simply, you know, I 

don't know the extent, but we have seen it in the past. 

Borrowers have simply gone into repayment forbearance at 

their own choice for long periods of time. You know, Joe 

has and the AGs have shown, that there are certainly 

circumstances in which servicers have encouraged that or 

pushed people into it, but in some cases the borrower 

themselves chooses it.

MS. MARTIN: But that's also so when 

you're saying a long time, do you mean a year like 

that's like it could be a long time or do I mean like 

ten years? Like how long are you considering, like a 

long time?

MR. SIEGEL: A borrower can go 

voluntarily, go into forbearance for get it approved for 

up to a year, then they have to come back and say, I 

still can't make payments or, you know, I run into 

another problem the servicer is supposed to require more 

at that point, but not all servicers have in the past.

MS. MARTIN: Is there any way to know 

how many people have done that for a prolonged period of 

time?
46

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MR. SIEGEL: I don't know about our 

you know how our I don't know about the statistics on 

that.

MS. MARTIN: Okay, I just I just think 

with any system, there's always going to be somebody 

that gets around it right. You can make all the 

regulations in the world. Somebody is going to mess with 

it, like there will always be someone to hustle the 

system. That's just how the universe works, right? I 

just I really dislike to term moral hazard because I 

think it's a moral hazard to make policies that assume 

that poor people are bad people. And I'm just really 

frustrated that we consider that like, oh, we have to 

make this policy based off of the moral hazard that 

someone could lie for 10 years and be in forbearance. 

Like, Yeah, that's a possibility, but like. And maybe, 

you know, then maybe I'll concede that maybe we don't 

include all of the forbearances, right, but I don't see 

why we wouldn't expand expand some of this because it 

just we just can't make policies just assuming that 

people are bad people, because I just don't think that's 

the case. And I know some folks might find that highly 

optimistic, and that's fine. But I think there are ways 

in which we could create policy that finds balance.

MR. ROBERTS: Persis.
47

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MS. YU: Yeah, I mean, I'm I'm I think 

I put a 10 million plus ones for Michaela there that the 

evidence that we have the client that we've seen that 

the attorneys in my community have seen is that 

borrowers who are who have who would qualify for a zero 

dollar payment if someone had taken the time to properly 

advise them get steered into forbearance. So I have seen 

borrowers in forbearance for 20 years when they would 

have qualified for a zero dollar payment that entire 

time. I think there is plenty of evidence, Joe and and 

the other attorneys general have lawsuits with plenty of 

evidence to show that it is not borrowers intentionally 

taking forbearances. And so I mean, I think frankly, the 

moral to Michaela's point, the moral hazard is on the 

Department not providing relief to people who have been 

harmed because they want to avoid one or two people 

gaming the system. And so I think that there is not 

credible evidence to say that there is has been 

widespread use of forbearances to avoid making payments. 

But there is credible, widespread evidence that 

servicers have utilized forbearance in order to shorten 

their call times, improve their bottom lines, and it has 

resulted in borrowers missing out on payments towards 

Income Driven Repayment. And so I think we really do 

need to focus on making sure that we get those reliefs. 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

I think doing it retroactively avoids any future 

problems so long as the Department actually follows 

through on on its, you know, holding servicers 

accountable, which it doesn't have a great history of 

doing. But you know, we can at least in good faith, you 

know, believe that the Department is taking steps to do 

so. But I don't believe that the evidence really 

suggests that borrowers are trying to game the system. 

But we do know that the Department has has failed to 

take steps to stop servicers from engaging in this 

behavior.

MR. ROBERTS: I think, Michaela see 

your hand, but I do want to just really encourage 

committee members to to try to direct comments towards 

these new proposals. So with that Michaela, please go 

ahead.

MS. MARTIN: Yes, super quick, and I 

promise not to (inaudible) trying to make a joke again, 

but like, I mean, this issue with forbearance is is so 

bad that again, there's been comedy segments on it. 

Hasan Minhaj has like, if you guys haven't watched it, 

it's on Netflix has a whole thing on forbearance 

steering on Navient and it's not,It wasn't just Navient, 

right, that these are this is a loan servicer issue. And 

so if we're not fixing that systematically, which we 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

can't do with this, then we have to look at at least 

providing relief from the symptoms and consequences of a 

broken system.

MR. ROBERTS: Bethany.

MS. LILLY: I just want to clarify, 

I'm mostly certain that Michaela's concerns and 

Persis's concerns are addressed by the Big L provisions 

that we added, Joe and Persis are nodding. I just want 

to explicitly say that is what everybody is worked up 

about and what we would like to see the Department 

consider adding just to be very explicit about that.

MR. ROBERTS: Sure, thank you. Is 

there anything else on page eight that you'd like the 

Department to consider on the topic of IDR? If not, I 

think we can move to page nine. Daniel, yeah, please.

MR. BARKOWITZ: So I just have a 

process question which might inform my comment. The 12, 

the 12-month period that's referred to in number five. 

So is that a rolling 12-month period, regardless of when 

the borrower applies so that if I apply in January, I 

have till next December and next January. If I apply in 

May, I have until next May. How does that? How does that 

process actually work? Does anyone on the call have an 

understanding of that?

MS. HONG: I'm sorry, Daniel. Where 
50

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

are you looking? Oh, number five.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Number five. So 12 

month period, the reason I ask Jennifer is if I apply in 

January. Presumably you're using the income from the 

year before because it won't have been calculated at 

that point what my my new income is. So I'm just trying 

to get an understanding of and maybe this is too much 

the weeds and I've been accused of being too much in the 

weeds before it, but trying to get a better 

understanding of what the timeframe is for when you know 

and what period income is being considered for this 

establishment of an income based repayment.

MS. YU: I'm happy to try to say how 

how that works in practice now if that's helpful. I 

mean, so right now it is. It's an anniversary. Yeah, I

think you're right. Like right now, if a borrower 

applies for an Income Driven Repayment Plan in May, they 

utilize their most recent tax return that they have 

available. And then they have to reapply again the 

following May. Same thing, or October. It'd be October. 

They create this anniversary date, so that's how it's 

it's working in practice. And so it does create this, 

this situation where sometimes there's a significant lag 

between. But borrowers do. Also, I don't think we've 

really talked much about the alternative documentation 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

process, but they can if their income is significantly 

different, utilize pay stubs or something else.

MR. BARKOWITZ: And is there is there? 

I mean, again, I understand the concept of income based 

the 12-month period, but I wonder about and I'll have a 

comment when we get to page 10 about what happens if a 

borrower doesn't apply for recert. But I'm curious about 

12 months. I can't imagine there's huge income 

variability year by year. And what's been the 

Department's experience? And maybe this is too late to 

ask this question given that we're in week three. But 

what's the what's been the Department's experience in 

terms of variability for those who provide annual 

certification? And could we in fact do a 24-month period 

as opposed to a 12-month period? I understand, again, 

this may be too late now, but it just, you know, 12 

months every 12 months becomes a real hard lever to 

pull. And the the stakes are so high that if you miss 

that 12-month certification, you know, it's very 

difficult for a borrower at that point. 

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not seeing an 

immediate response, Vanessa, would you mind just 

capturing that question and then I believe Daniel the 

24-month proposal in a comment. Under number five, 

exactly. Oh, Brian, I see your hand go. Go ahead.
52

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MR. SIEGEL: Yeah, I was just checking 

the statute, the statute and the ICR program does talk 

about the Department establishing an annual repayment 

obligation of the borrower. So we've consistently 

interpreted that as requiring year by year. I understand 

your point about whether that's the most efficient way, 

but that we've been pretty consistent on that and I'm 

not sure I see a basis for changing it at this point.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks, Brian, so, 

Vanessa, I guess if you wouldn't mind removing that 

comment and then Bethany, go ahead.

MS. LILLY: So I just want to echo 

Daniel on that point, because this is like all of the 

automation things we have discussed before. The reason 

to get rid of this or to think about changing it would 

be to simplify the process for borrowers. And we have 

talked extensively ad nauseum during these negotiations 

about how hard these programs are for people to 

navigate. And I cannot begin to tell you how difficult 

they are for me to navigate, let alone people who have 

other limitations. And so if there is any way to 

simplify or reduce the paperwork burden that we're 

placing on people, I think it's something that the 

Department should be thinking about. As in every single 

aspect of not just these, these these particular 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

proposals that we're discussing right now, but all of 

the proposals. Sorry, I know that I say this every time 

this comes up, but just to reiterate it yet again.

MR. ROBERTS: Any final modifications 

the committee would like to capture on this and the 

remaining page, page 10? I know, Daniel you mentioned, 

you have something additional to add, but I just want to 

make sure. Page nine, any final proposals for 

consideration? Okay, we can go to page 10 and then 

Daniel, if you still have that, we can do that.

MR. BARKOWITZ: I do so for little 

three (iii) given and it may need to be called out as a 

separate piece because right now EICR is is placed with 

REPAYE. But I would like to see a six-month grace 

period. So if someone does not certify that they're 

allowed six months under the existing payment plan 

before they're moved into a recalculation. So during 

that six months, they have a chance to catch up if the 

certification was impossible. I get and appreciate to 

Bethany's point and thank you for making it that the 

FUTURE Act and FAFSA Simplification should make this 

process much easier for borrowers because you should be 

able to pull the information directly from the IRS. But 

again, if possible, until that time, for someone who's 

not qualified, the ability for them to have a six month 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

grace under the existing payment plan previously an 

existing payment amount previously calculated before 

they're moved into their new payment.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Daniel, are 

there are there any final proposals that we'd like to 

make sure are captured in the comment section? Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: Alright, I just want to 

like check my understanding on this one, so what it's 

stating here. Right. It's about how long they're staying 

there, so if they have signed the waiver saying you can 

look into the IRS data and you all get the whole FUTURE 

Act thing handled, then that person will just be like 

auto stay on that plan so long as their tax returns say 

that they can? That is correct? No?

MR. ROBERTS: Any immediate response 

from anyone who can clarify?

MS. MARTIN: Okay, and then so then 

this part that Daniel is talking about is saying that if 

they haven't given that permission right, then they have 

to do it twelve months and proposed twenty four months, 

and he's saying that he would like a grace period where 

if they don't do the paperwork within the twenty four 

months, then they'd have an additional six months before 

they're moved, so it would be a total of 30 months?

MR. BARKOWITZ: No, my point is if we 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

can't change to twenty four because that's statutory, 

the 12 month period, there's a very it's if you miss it 

by a day or a week, you're highly penalized. I'd like to 

give borrowers a period of time to be able to catch up. 

And that would that would be encompassed by giving them 

six months to to catch up or get submitted if they're if 

they're responsible for submitting paperwork.

MS. MARTIN: Okay. And while the regs 

don't, I know this is a subregulatory question, but like 

there are then going to be the processes of how that 

notification is going, right? Like aren't there usually 

built in kind of grace periods? At least there is. I've 

got to stop comparing everything to like state like 

benefits. But like for housing, there is right. Like 

when you're late, like you have a little bit of time, 

then you have to do more paperwork and it's like a whole 

thing. But like there would be subregulatory provisions 

surrounding that kind of grace period too, right, or is 

it like without the six months, it's like a hard stop 12 

months. It's a hard stop?

MR. BARKOWITZ: I believe so, right? 

MS. YU: It will it will recalculate 

after I think it's a 10 day window at which right now we 

have a 10-day grace period, after which the payments 

will reset to the 10-year standard amount or under 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

REPAYE, a very complicatedMS. JEFFRIES: There's 30 seconds left 

on Michaela's time.

MS. YU: I don't want to take your 

time, Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: No, that was all that I 

had. I appreciate you taking the time, Persis. But that 

all sounds really kind of gross. So it's all I got.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks, Michaela. 

Persis, go ahead.

MS. YU: So, I don't want to cut off 

the conversation about the recertification process if 

other folks have more, but I did. If we have, if we're 

able to go back, I I wanted to make sure that we caught 

one particular point on page six with the interest.

MR. SANDERS: If it's okay with you, 

is it okay if we if we can go back to page six, I just 

want to make sure just for the purposes of note taking. 

Does anyone have anything else on recert or if it's okay 

with you, Persis anything on page 10, just so that can 

sort of, we can do it in just two scrolls, but then I'll 

definitely sure capture that. Anything else on 

recertification or page 10? Alright, so, Vanessa, if you 

wouldn't mind, was it page six, Persis you said?

MS. YU: I believe it's on page six, 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

the treatment of the interest subsidy. And so I wanted 

to just verify I know Daniel had made several 

suggestions beforehand. And yeah, so we scroll down just 

a little bit that bottom of that page during the 

periods, you know? So Daniel has suggested that it's not 

just zero dollar payments, which I completely agree 

with. And so the other piece that I want to make sure we 

capture that it's not just subsidized loans, that it is 

all loans in which interest is accruing. So that's just 

a technical piece that it occurred to me that I think we 

didn't discuss as we were on this page before.

MR. ROBERTS: Great, I'm seeing a few 

plus ones in the chat. Okay. So thank you, everyone for 

that. We have walked through the document and I 

appreciate all the suggested revisions. I think we want 

to give the Department some time to to thoroughly 

consider this. So what we would suggest is possibly 

returning to this tomorrow morning. So there is response 

time, but we're not putting it off to the end of the 

week. And then I think probably taking a 10-minute break 

and then picking back up with issue number four, which 

would be PSLF, but before we do that, Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: I have another question. 

You all should be lucky you're not in my class for 

school because the questions are incessant. But in 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

regards to a statutory question for I had heard that 

there had to be like, I can't remember the exact frame, 

but like conforming FFEL language, not within this, but 

like if we didn't have a program that was similar to 

that, then like we couldn't do it, is that maybe that's 

not like a now question, but I'm wondering if that's 

true. Like if it is the case that the Department would 

have to have something for FFEL too outside of this, or 

if we can't go above and beyond what is in FFEL.

MS. HONG: I'll let Brian answer that. 

MR. SIEGEL: Yeah, generally the 

terms, conditions, and benefits under FFEL and Direct 

Loan are the same, except where Congress has 

specifically provided something different in Direct 

Loans than in FFEL. So Income Contingent Repayment, 

which is the basis for this new program, is only in 

Direct Loans. So we don't have to make changes in FFEL 

program regulations for this. 

MS. MARTIN: Well, so there's not a 

direct statutory issue regarding FFEL by not including 

them.

MR. SIEGEL: That's right.

MS. MARTIN: Thank you. I just wanted 

to confirm that.

MR. SIEGEL: Okay.
59

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you again. 

Let's get back, let's say, about 12 minutes, because 

again, my clock says 2:28 right now. So let's get back 

at 2:40 and pick up with the Department outlining issue 

paper number four, the PSLF application process. 

Alright, welcome back, everyone, I hope you enjoyed that 

short break. We are about 45 minutes from our public 

comment session for today, so I'm going to ask anyone 

who has received confirmation to speak today to please 

log in a little bit early just so we can make sure 

everything works and we can get you in for three minutes 

of public comment. And thank you again to the committee 

for the discussion on IDR, which we will return to after 

the Department's had a chance to look at the 

suggestions. With that Jennifer, I think I can turn it 

over to you and Vanessa to walk us through issue paper 

number four on PSLF, which the fourth one would be 

improving the self application process.

MS. HONG: Okay, thank you, Brady. We 

can cue the right text for us actually issues four and 

five Public Service Loan Forgiveness. We, as FCMS has 

mentioned before, we're going to take consensus check on 

each issue as we presented it in the issue paper, 

although you want to consider the regulations in their 

entirety. So as I walk through, I'll just the way we 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

split it up. As a reminder, issue four was the PSLF 

application process, which actually comes in later in 

the regulations. And I'll point all this out as I go, 

I'll walk through the entirety of the regulations and 

issue number five, you'll recall, was a discussion 

regarding full time employment and employer eligibility. 

So as we start off here under A, General and B, 

Definitions, we are actually starting with the full time 

employment issue number five, just just as clear your 

head what we do consensus check later on. Issue number 

five is all inclusive from the beginning through all the 

definitions to the top of page four, all the way up to 

qualifying repayment plan. And I'm just flagging that 

for everybody now and then we'll go back up to page one. 

So all the definitions. Yeah. Yeah, until right here, so 

qualifying repayment plan, so everything has to qualify 

repayment repayment plan when we take the consensus 

check on issue five. You know, everything from page four 

up and above will be that issue and then everything 

process oriented will be qualifying repayment plans and 

everything thereafter, so we can go back to page one,

Vanessa, then we'll just start with the highlighted 

changes, which are the changes between sessions two and 

three. A lot of minor technical changes to include this 

wordsmithing around AmeriCorps or AmeriCorps Service 
61

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

means Service in a position approved by the Corporation 

for National Community Service and then the statutory 

reference. So that's technical in nature. If we go down 

to employ or employed means an individual to whom an 

organization issues an IRS form, W2 is number one, 

that's existing. We had that before in session one, I'm 

sorry, session two. And then we did some wordsmithing 

clarifications in session two for paragraph two, which 

says an employee or employee meets an individual who 

receives an IRS Form W-2 from an organization that has 

contracted with a qualifying employer to provide payroll 

or similar services for the qualifying employer and 

which provides the form W-2 under that contract, again 

to capture those contractual employees. Scroll down. 

You'll notice at the top of page two in the definition 

of full time from the bottom of page one, top of page 

two full time means working in qualifying employment in 

one or more jobs at least 30 hours per week, or at least 

30 hours per week throughout a contractual employment 

period of at least eight months in a 12 month period, 

such as teachers, in which case the borrower is deemed

to have worked full time, or the equivalent of 30 hours 

per week, as determined by multiplying each credit or 

contact hour per week by at least 3.35 in nontenure 

track employment at an institution of higher education. 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

And we did. We added that clause at an institution of 

higher education for clarity. And we did accept the 

conversion factor as proposed by you all the negotiators 

and clarified that this can apply to non-contact hours 

as well. The middle of the page, Justin had some 

questions regarding how we define military service and 

who that applies to. So we just we wanted to clarify 

that when we say military service that's already 

encompassed under federal employment. So this this 

definition matters for employers that are not part of 

the armed forces or National Guard. And later on, we add 

that clarification under federal employees as well. So 

military service means providing service to or on behalf 

of members, veterans, or the families or survivors of 

members, or veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces, or the 

National Guard that is provided to a person because of 

the person's status in one of those groups. Hopefully, 

that satisfies Justin, I believe Emily's concerns from 

session two. Nontenure track, we want to make sure that 

we cover all facets of that definition, so we just added 

so we had adjunct contingent part time faculty, teachers 

or lecturers who are paid solely for the credit hours 

they teach at institutions of higher education. Other 

school based services means a provision of services to 

schools or students in a school or school like setting 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

that are not public education services. And just to 

provide some examples, we've added school health 

services and school nurse services, social work services 

in schools, and parent counseling and training. Okay. On 

top of page three Public Health, we added physicians to 

that list to include nurses, nurse practitioners, nurses 

in a clinical setting, those engaged in public service. 

I'm sorry, health care practitioner occupations, health 

care support occupations, counselors, social workers and 

other social workers and other community and social 

service specialist occupations as those terms are 

defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So making 

sure that we capture public health practitioners. Under 

the definition for public service, we just this this is 

existing language in the highlight, we just moved it 

under here to clarify that service as a member of the 

U.S. Congress is not qualifying public service 

employment for purposes of this section. That's just 

existing language that we just moved under here. Public 

service for individuals with disabilities means 

services, that was just a technical correction,

performed to assist individuals with disabilities. That 

is provided to a person because of the person's status 

as an individual with a disability. We changed from 65 

to 62. Public service for the elderly, the elderly, 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

again, same thing regarding the person's status as an 

individual of that age. Public education, we included 

the clause, including teaching to the provision of 

educational enrichment and or support just to make that 

explicit, and I see a typo. An errant zero in front of 

student. That's not intentional. Yes. And then here, 

qualifying, now we're getting into qualifying employer. 

And this is where by adding the clause, including the 

U.S. Armed Forces and National Guard, just to make that 

explicit regarding federal, state, local, tribal 

government employment. Okay. Top of page four. That's 

our definition for qualifying employer. So we have one 

which I just talked about, which is government 

employment to the nonprofit, and so for three, we went 

back and forth and what we have is an organization that 

one, provides a public service as defined in this 

section attested to by the employer on a form approved 

by the Secretary. And two, is not a business organized 

for profit, a labor union, or a partisan political 

organization. So we talked about this in session two. We 

went back and forth with this several times internally 

prior to our initial proposal. We discussed this. We're 

we have landed here because I and I know Michaela, you 

talked about this earlier, but in terms of administering 

this program and drawing lines, I think it gets very. As 
65

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

we've noted in our discussions in this negotiation, it's 

very difficult to draw lines in terms of, you know, 

businesses organized for profit and including them in 

this in this program and identifying those that are 

providing a public service. So we landed with the 

attestation by the employer on a form provided by the 

Secretary to the exclusion of a business organized forprofit, a labor union, or partisan Political 

Organization. Heather, I see your hand, did you, do you 

want to bear bear with me, I think I can get through 

this whole proposed language and then we'll go to 

questions because I think that-. 

MR. ROBERTS: I was going to suggest, 

yeah, if you wouldn't mind running through and then 

Heather, I think you're off camera right now. So you 

just want to come on camera with the preparation that 

I'll call on you once once we're through the document.

MS. HONG: Okay, I'll keep going here. 

Qualifying Repayment Plan, that's just a typical change 

to the new proposed IDR plan or proposed IDR rewritten 

section 209. That's all there is on this page, page 

five. Monthly payments. So this is just clarification, 

there's nothing really new substantively here, we just 

added paying at least the full schedule amount due for a 

monthly payment under the qualifying repayment plan 
66

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

under one. Under three, we wanted to clarify for a 

borrower on an IDR plan under the new proposed section 

because someone on the 10-year standard does not have a 

recertification date. So just making that explicit. 

Under four is the 10-year standard repayment plan under 

208 B and clarifying the lump sum or monthly payments 

that are qualifying payments, under Standard Repayment 

Plan. Moving on to page six. Again, this we can, we are 

conforming this with our proposed language under the IDR 

plan, we just went over and this is to include 

forbearances, the rehab training program, deferment, 

post active duty student deferment, AmeriCorps, National 

Guard Duty, DOD, and administrative forbearance or 

mandatory administrative forbearances. We will count all 

of those deferments and forbearances enumerated here as 

monthly payments in alignment with our proposed language 

on IDR. And just of note, these also include national 

emergency and also while processing paperwork such as 

servicing transfers. So all those will count now where 

they didn't count before. So that is included here. Page 

seven. Okay. six, Okay. And this is following on from. 

Again, the same stem about monthly payments be 

considered to have made monthly payments, you have to 

six, be employed full time with a qualifying employer as 

defined in this section at any point during the month 
67

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

for which the payment is credited, and this was meant to 

be responsive to the public comment that we heard about 

tying the date of payment too closely to the date of 

employment. So we just wanted to ensure that it's at any 

point during the month for which the payment is 

credited. Also under three, if a borrower consolidates 

one or more Direct Loan into a Direct Consolidation

Loan, the payments the borrower made on the Direct Loan 

prior to consolidating, and that met the criteria in 

subsection C20 romanette one through three will count as 

qualifying payments on the direct consolidation loan. 

Okay, so that's that is another, you know, we're we're 

counting payments prior to consolidation. And. So I just 

want to I just want to flag that, because that's, I know 

we talked a lot about it, and so we are counting those 

as qualifying payments on the Direct Consolidation Loan. 

Those are payments made prior to consolidating. Okay. 

You can scroll down to the bottom to bottom of page 

seven, subsection (e) application process. So after 

after 120 payments are made for the eligible loan for 

which loan forgiveness is requested, a borrower can 

request forgiveness on a form provided by the Secretary. 

If the Secretary has sufficient information determined 

by qualifying and length of employment, the Secretary 

informs the borrower when the borrower is eligible for 
68

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

forgiveness, that this is that automation piece. The 

Secretary does not have if the Secretary does not have 

sufficient information to make a determination about his 

eligibility for forgivenessthe borrower must provide 

information about the borrower's employment and employer 

and a formal proof by the Secretary. At the Secretary's, 

okay. That's two, three and then four, if the borrower 

is unable to secure a certification of employment from a 

qualifying employer, those are just clarifying changes, 

the Secretary may determine the borrower’s qualify 

employment repayments based on other documentation 

provided by the borrower at the Secretary's request. 

Five The Secretary Barry request of additional 

documentation pertains to the borrower's employer 

employment before providing determination. And then six, 

the Secretary may substantiate an employer's attestation 

of information provided on the form in clause romanette 

two based on a review of information about the 

employer's that's new as well. So again, that's taking 

the proactive stance on the side of the Department to be 

able to substantiate that attestation. And then under 

(8) regarding if if we find that the borrower does not 

meet eligibility requirements for loan forgiveness is 

the resumption of collections. Just clarifying that the 

Secretary rather does not capitalize any interest 
69

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

accrued and not paid during this period. Right, and I'm 

sorry (g) is a part of automation, I said earlier. (g)

subsection (g) application required again, this is the 

automated piece whenever the Secretary has information, 

for example, about military service, or from DOD, or 

federal employment. The Secretary will forgive the loan 

without an application and then we've kept that language 

open ended for any kind of future data that we're able 

to obtain going forward. Reconsideration. Okay, so 

within 90 days, we've gone over this before, just just 

kind of minor wordsmithing in the highlight 

clarification, receiving a notice of denial of 

forgiveness. The borrower may request a Secretary 

reconsider whether the borrower's employer or any 

payment qualifies for for for forgiveness. And then 

nothing changed in what the Secretary considers with 

regard to reconsideration and any relevant evidence that 

is obtained by the Secretary just stated more simply and 

to kind of remove all the language about reasonably 

obtainable or currently just obtained by the Secretary. 

Page nine. And this is in conformance with what we have 

under IDR talked a lot about forbearance steering. This 

is our proposed solution to that and that is for any 

period in which a borrower postpone monthly payments 

under deferment or forbearance and was employed full 
70

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

time at a qualifying employer as defined in this 

section. But was it a deferment or forbearance status 

besides, in subsection C2. Five, the borrower may obtain 

credit toward forgiveness as defined in paragraph D for 

any months in which the borrower makes an additional 

payment equal to or greater than the amount they would 

have paid at that time on a qualifying repayment plan 

and be otherwise qualified for a zero dollar payment on 

an Income Driven Repayment Plan under 34 CFR. And again, 

that's a proposed language that we just went over on the 

new IDR plan. So again, this provides a path for 

borrowers to get credit for past periods of deferment or 

forbearance, excuse me, by making necessary payments. 

And it also can include periods of time at zero dollar 

payment. And then that last section is the reporting 

piece from the guarantee agency, and just as a reminder 

on the very last page on page 10, we had inserted before 

section two language from the language to amend the 

report to the Secretary regarding the borrower's 

enrollment and loan status information to include 

details related to the loans or borrower’s deferments, 

forbearances, repayment plans, delinquency, and contact 

information. So that is my review of the changes we made 

between sessions two and three just to review. We landed 

on clarifying a lot of these definitions for public 
71

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

service, clarifying the exclusion regarding for-profit 

organizations, labor unions, partisan political 

organizations. Again, monthly payments, opening up 

monthly payments to include periods of deferment and 

forbearance, those are all included here, including 

payments that happened prior to consolidation of the 

loan if one or more of the loans is a Direct 

Consolidation Loan. Making some tweaks in terms of 

application process. Putting conforming language 

regarding Hold Harmless procedures for to address the 

issue of forbearance steering. That's what I have, and 

I'll let Heather speak.

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah, Heather, please.

MS. JARVIS: Thank you so much. 

Thanks, Jennifer. Thanks, Brady. I'd like to say a 

couple of things here. I'd like to thank the Department 

for their hard work on this issue and particularly to 

acknowledge that you have proposed a formal process to 

request reconsideration of decisions for Public Service 

Loan Forgiveness. I think that's significant and of use 

to borrowers. I think that you have removed some of the 

unnecessary application requirements in a way that is 

significant and important. I recognize also that you 

have expressed that you're limited by the statute and 

too forgiving Direct Loans. I acknowledge that that's 
72

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

the case after this limited waiver period. Also 

acknowledge that it's statutorily preempted that you not 

be able to forgive loans that are in a default status. I 

do want to note that in in my view, although the 

Department has expressed disagreement with this, there 

is in fact statutory authority to count payments made on 

default loan defaulted loans. In my view, it is. It is 

true that you cannot forgive loans that are in a default 

status. But in my view, again, you could count payments 

on loans in a default status, certainly at least those 

that were made voluntarily under a rehabilitation 

agreement. But I acknowledge that you have declined to 

agree with my position on that. I appreciate that this 

proposal includes counting payments on Direct Loans even 

after consolidation into Direct. I was prepared to 

recognize that you that you thought that the HEROES

Authority was required in order to allow counting on 

FFEL loans after those FFEL loans are consolidated and 

Direct. But I now see, based on the earlier conversation 

about Income Driven Repayment, that perhaps the 

Department is willing to consider whether you do in fact 

have authority. And I certainly agree with Persis's 

analysis in that respect. So to the extent that you'll 

be counting payments on FFEL loans after consolidation 

towards income driven forgiveness, I would assert you 
73

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

should also do so on Public Service Loan Forgiveness. 

And then just, you know, before I would talk about 

employment, just want to reiterate that Income Driven 

Repayment is the is the path to forgiveness under Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness. And so it's the rules 

surrounding Income Driven Repayment that are the most 

important thing in this instance, and they are much of 

what the administrative problems have been. I would say 

that the Department has many times said you were 

interested in simplification. Your current proposal, in 

fact, makes things more complicated rather than more 

simple. But I do acknowledge that in order to administer 

things, sometimes you need some amount of detail in 

order for it to be precise. I would urge you to 

specifically acknowledge that payment counting should 

not be any more strict under PSLF than it is under IDR. 

And I would want you to clarify specifically that you 

intend for payments made under the new income contingent 

plan to count towards PSLF, and that, in my view, is 

required by the PSLF statute that in fact, for

specifically to Income Contingent Repayment. The major 

issues I think that I'm very disappointed that the 

Department has has so far declined to adopt are the 

definitions of employee or employee, the definition of 

public service and the definition of qualifying 
74

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

employer, because those in fact narrow the eligible 

employment under this program from where it was before 

we considered these regulations. It has always 

previously been the case that people have to work for 

nonprofits. They have to be hired and paid directly by 

the organizations, and that the Department has always 

looked at the organizations. And so to be clear, even 

though there is this very, very long and now much better 

fleshed out definition section of public services, 

people doing those public services will not qualify for 

forgiveness under this provision unless they are 

directly employed by a nonprofit organization. So it 

seems to me that what the Department has instead done is 

create a much more complicated way of excluding 

nonprofit organizations from participation in this 

program. And I think that there there is a way to draw a 

line and you've done it already and that only borrowers 

who complete 10 years of public service will ever 

qualify for PSLF. They must make 120 payments driven by 

their income. And so that narrows the class of eligible 

borrowers very significantly to begin with. And so I 

would encourage the Department to consider this 

committee's feedback with regard to the definitions that 

are outstanding for employee employed public service and 

qualifying employer.
75

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Heather. 

Anyone else?

MS. HONG: Brady, I just want to make 

a clarifying point regarding the counting the payments, 

for PSLF, it's it doesn't apply to FFEL loans, so just 

to be very clear that this this benefit that we're 

providing under the PSLF waiver is a HEROE’s benefit 

that we're providing. We're waiving we're waiving that 

statutory requirement. So if you have underlying FFEL 

FFEL loans and you've made payments on them, they will 

only count under the temporary waiver. This that 

provision that I just reviewed, it has to be an

outstanding Direct Loans, Direct Consolidation Loans, at 

least one of those loans are Direct Consolidation Loans. 

And then you've made payments on Direct Loans prior to 

that. Prior to consolidating, they will count if so long 

as the payments were made toward Direct Loans previous 

to the consolidation. So that is a finer but important 

point. If you if you have underlying FFEL loans, you 

please avail yourself of the PSLF waiver. And again, I I 

really appreciate we really appreciated this committee's 

ideas and particularly Heather's guidance on a lot of 

these issues. We couldn't find a a way to draw the lines 

as cleanly in terms of employer eligibility to be able 

to administer the program without having to go on a 
76

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

borrower by borrower basis. And that is why we've 

elected this attestation and landed where we are for 

PSLF. However it is, it is an expansion. It's an 

expansion in terms of what can be counted in terms of 

monthly payments. An expansion to be ensure that we 

include contractual employees. It's changing the full 

time employment definition to ensure that it's more 

encompassing of the work that public service employees 

actually do. So we we certainly view it as an expansion 

and improvement of the existing regulatory language.

MR. ROBERTS: Justin, go ahead.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thanks, Brady and I'll 

probably circle back here, but I just want to ask a 

quick follow up question to a point that that Heather 

made, and it's something that I was actually curious 

about, too when it comes to FFEL, because it seems there 

might very well be a basis for this, it might be a 

statutory restriction or they're dealt with differently 

in statute and that somehow constrains the Department. 

But and my read might be wrong, too. So all those things 

laid out, I'm curious. It seems like the Department's 

considering payments made on FFEL loans, previous 

payments made on those loans before consolidation in the 

context of the most recent IDR language we have. And I'm 

wondering, you know, is that is that different here when 
77

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

we're looking at PSLF or is my read wrong? Maybe I have 

misinterpreted Heather's point altogether, but that's 

what came to my mind when you're looking at IDR text 

today and saw that revision. And then when Heather made 

the point here, so is there a reason IDR and PSLF are 

treating FFEL consolidation different?

MR. ROBERTS: Brian, I see your hand, 

go ahead.

MR. SIEGEL: Yes, the PSLF statute is 

quite specific that says the borrower must have made 120 

monthly payments on the eligible federal Direct Loan 

after October 1, 2017, 2007. So that's why it's limited 

to the Direct Loans. The Department did use its waiver 

authority under the HEROES Act earlier this year to 

allow a special period in which we will count certain 

payments made on FFEL loans if borrowers consolidate 

into Direct Loan. But that's under our waiver authority, 

under the HEROES Act, and we can't make permanent 

changes to the program based on it.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Understood, thanks.

MR. ROBERTS: Persis, go ahead.

MS. YU: Yeah, I wanted to talk about 

the issue of excluding employers that are organized forprofit. This is something that I is not required by the 

statute as I understand it. And and I think that it 
78

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

impacts in particular on public service workers who are

low income and low income borrowers of color in 

particular. And so keeping this exclusion that's not 

required by the statute, I think harms some of the most 

vulnerable public service workers who are not choosing 

employers based upon whether or not they are nonprofit 

or their, you know, their companies, you know, they're 

just trying to do their work and they're trying to 

trying to survive. And so and I think this points out 

especially why it's important to go back to Income 

Driven Repayment that if you're not going to include 

these, you know, folks in PSLF, that's why we need to 

have a more generous cancelation period under Income 

Driven Repayment because there are lots of people who we 

know need to get cancelation sooner and should under 

general public policy. And so I think that they should 

be included here and also that, you know, this points to 

why Income Driven Repayment needs to be more generous.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks, Persis. Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: So I have a technical 

question, and it may be a correction. Can I ask 

Jennifer, is it possible for Vanessa to put the document 

back up and for us to look at page seven? Thank you, 

Vanessa. So on page seven, you're right, you're perfect, 

you are right there under section three, the the call-
79

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

out is to subsection C2 one to three, but subsection C2 

continues through the new bullet X, sorry new Bullet VI, 

six, which you listed right above this. So I'm wondering 

why the Department's ignoring four, five, and six so 

four is under standard repayment that that those 

periods. Five is deferment forbearance and six would be 

where your payment comes in at a time where you're not 

employed necessarily, but you are within the month. So 

Jennifer, I'm just I'm wondering if that was an 

oversight or if there's an intention intentionality 

behind leaving only one through three there.

MS. HONG: So, Daniel, I don't know 

what we would have done without your eagle eyes 

throughout this rulemaking, but we do appreciate it. I 

mean, we have it's very, as you know, condensed time 

timeframe and we're making changes and we're trying to 

control the versions. And I think that is an oversight 

that's not only supposed to apply to, you know, through 

through five.

MR. BARKOWITZ: That would be bullet 

six, I would suggest.

MS. HONG: I'm sorry, six. And that 

might be because if you look at the highlight, those are 

those are new. And so it just got left off. Thank you. 

Thank you.
80

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MR. BARKOWITZ: Yeah, thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Vanessa, for 

capturing that I just want to recognize that Suzanne is 

at the table on behalf of state regulators. So with 

that, Bethany, please go ahead.

MS. LILLY: I so I want to go back to 

a public comment we received very, very, very early on 

in the negotiation, I think during the first week by a 

young man who provides services to people with 

disabilities, and he says he works for a private 

employer and he can't get counted. This is the case with 

many folks who work for staffing agencies. This is also 

the case for folks who work for on a contract basis. I 

know that the implication for the Department is that 

this will capture them. I have to share Heather’s

concerns that I don't think it does. And it certainly 

doesn't capture folks who work for a staffing agency. 

And again, this was something I raised repeatedly as 

something that we really should be including here. So 

I'm going to raise it again because I think that these 

are, I mean, by definition, the entire regs the statute 

look to provide services to people with disabilities. 

We're trying to capture that population as broadly as we 

can. I'd love to hear why the Department thinks staffing 

agencies shouldn't be counting. And again, I really want 
81

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

to go back to, as we discussed in the second session and 

the first session, I understand it's an extra burden on 

the Department, but allowing for employees to selfcertify gives much more control over this process to 

employees rather than to employers. And I think just 

given many of the challenges that folks may have with 

getting employers to sign off on these forms, I do think 

we're going to face a lot of challenges there. And so I 

think the Department in many ways would be better served 

to allow employees to certify. But I will pause at this 

point and see if you have any thoughts on the staffing 

agency issue.

MR. ROBERTS: Any immediate response 

from the Department?

MS. HONG: No, I mean, nothing new 

other than, I mean, yes, we share. We share those 

concerns going into this, and this was an issue that 

Brian can attest to that they that the Department 

explored ad nauseum during when we first rolled out 

PSLF` and we shared those concerns. You're right, the 

statute doesn't require that restriction and we try to 

explore a way that we could administer this program 

responsibly. And we we landed where we landed with 

employer attestation rather than the certification by 

the borrower. That was this is just where we landed and 
82

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

and it it's. It's I guess it's safe to characterize it 

as not just an additional burden, but it's just it's not 

we haven't found a way to implement it in a way if if we 

were to privilege the employee and we just we're not 

comfortable with relying on the borrower attestation.

MS. LILLY: Can I ask what makes you 

comfortable with relying on the employer attestation 

rather than the borrower? Is there a particular way you 

guys can verify with employers rather than employees? 

Because to my mind, it's kind of a crapshoot between 

both, as Michaela said earlier, you know, you're going 

to have fraud one way or the other in the system, and I 

can guarantee you you're going to have bad actor 

employers who are going to be certifying for folks. I 

mean, I'm sure Joe is going to start seeing those cases. 

We certainly see it in I think every sector that I've 

seen, so I'm I tend to default to wanting to support the 

borrowers as much as we can, and I think that that will 

make it a lot easier for them. So if there's a reason to 

default to one or the other, to my mind, the default 

should be going always borrower. But that may just be a 

philosophical difference with the Department.

MS. HONG: And I think you're right, I 

think that there are, you know, risks and drawbacks and 

benefits of doing it one way or another. However, I 
83

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

mean, the employer has to attest to the we know that the 

employer has to attest to the number of hours anyway and 

the fact that the individual is employed. So just having 

that extra verification, two entities, the individual 

borrower and the employer we feel like is a responsible 

stewardship of the program, we can't just leave it up to 

the individual borrower.

MR. ROBERTS: Jeri. Go ahead.

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: Okay, thanks. I 

just want to go back to the importance of a good IDR for 

just a second. We've heard from people who are in 

spousal spousal situations and we've heard from people 

who would have both qualified for PSLF or one had 

qualified for PSLF if they were able to get out of that 

situation of the spousal loan. So I just want to make 

sure that, you know, either back, add it as a note back 

on the IDR side of things, but I think that there's a 

really big missed opportunity to correct to correct that 

burden. And thank you so much for the change in the 

adjunct language. I just have to say that for much of my 

constituency who are teaching one class at five 

different institutions, there will be appreciation for 

that, that new language.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks, Jeri. Marjorie, 

also Jaye, I see your hand. Is it okay just because 
84

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

we're running up on that 3:30 mark, we'll just pick up 

with you tomorrow. So Marjorie, I think you're going to 

be our last comment before public comment. Well, you're 

muted right now, Marjorie, sorry.

DR. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Sorry. So just 

really quickly and again, this is another question about 

qualifying employers, so we also heard from several 

folks from Texas and California and knowing that that's 

not simply an individual issue, right? We're basically 

eliminating public health professionals from the entire 

state. Is there is it not possible to include specific 

language with regard to those two states in this 

regulatory language? And I'm not an expert in the area, 

but I think that sort of struck me as a significant 

issue that needs addressing. And because we put public 

health right work in here, I think it really would be 

beneficial to to have some language in there, if you 

can. But again, I'm not familiar with sort of statute 

and law around, you know why those two places are 

different and why they're treated differently by the 

Department.

MS. HONG: Marjorie, thank you for 

raising that. That issue has come up frequently. We 

talked about it in session two, we took that under a lot

of consideration. We were you know, we we thought that 
85

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

was an important issue, that's not something that we're 

treating those populations separate differently. It's a 

function of their state and their state law that have 

that exclusion for those employees. So ultimately, that 

language is not in the draft before you. We had gone 

back and forth with it, and ultimately it's it's it's 

not included here. So. We hope that a statutory remedy 

will address that issue going forward.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, so we're just 

about at 3:30. A few minor announcements just running 

into tomorrow, so we're going to pick up as we always do 

at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. We're going to proceed with this 

topic and hope to stick to the proposed agenda as much 

as we can, but noting that there might be a modification 

to that just due to the outstanding IDR issue paper that 

we need to return to. And then, of course, the Prison 

Education Subcommittee will be presenting their work and 

recommendations to the full committee at 11:00 a.m. 

tomorrow. So with that, I think we can begin public 

comment. Just a quick note for those who are going to be 

joining us for public comment. If you are joining us on 

the live stream, try to turn that off as you're 

admitted. Otherwise we do get a bit of a feedback when 

you're admitted. So just if you're if you're signed up 

for public comment, just exit out of that live stream. 
86

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

So we don't get that echo and we can you can get to your 

comment right away. So with that Kayla or Cindy, I'm 

sorry, who are we admitting first?

MS. JEFFRIES: We are admitting 

Samantha Norris. And she is from the return Returned

Peace Corps Volunteer. 

MR. ROBERTS: Ms. Norris, can you hear 

us?

MS. NORRIS: Yes. Can you all hear me?

MR. ROBERTS: We can. You have three 

minutes for public comment, beginning when you start 

speaking.

MS. NORRIS: Okay. Good afternoon. My 

name is Samantha Norris, and I am a returned Peace Corps 

volunteer. In 2011, two years after completing my 

master's degree in social work, I chose to join the 

Peace Corps. I had no idea how much that decision would 

change my life and transform the lens through which I 

viewed the world. I was sent to the Dominican Republic, 

where I worked alongside youth and community leaders, 

learned Spanish, danced bachata, and developed lifelong 

friendships with the folks in my community. Like so many 

other Peace Corps volunteers, the research I had done 

and the advice I had received through my federal loan 

servicer and the Peace Corps itself led me to believe 
87

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

that deferment of my student loans was my only option. I 

figured there was no way I'd be able to make any monthly 

payments as a volunteer. It was not until after I 

completed my service, when I was made aware that I could 

have been counting my months of Peace Corps service 

towards Public Service Loan Forgiveness had I been 

enrolled in an income based plan while overseas. I felt 

angry, deceived and disappointed. Upon finishing my 

Peace Corps service, I hopped onto a plane to another 

unfamiliar place New York City, where I've called home 

for the past eight years. If it wasn't for the Dominican 

community here, I probably wouldn't have made it. I was 

immediately welcomed into the home of a family 

connection from my community in the Dominican Republic, 

where I stayed until I was able to stand on my own two 

feet. I started to work as a social worker with New 

York's immigrant youth and families and continue to do 

so. My work has been greatly informed by my time in the 

Dominican Republic. Like the thousands of returned Peace 

Corps volunteers who dedicate their lives to working 

with marginalized communities across various sectors, 

and like so many other nations, so many others across 

the nation, my student loan debt only continues to grow. 

I've been enrolled in Public Service Loan Forgiveness 

since I began work in the nonprofit sector. It was 
88

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

incredibly disappointing to learn that among the many 

positive changes that the waiver program would be 

implementing, recognition of Peace Corps service was not 

one of them. The reality is that most Peace Corps 

volunteers since 2007 were never properly counseled on 

their Public Service Loan Forgiveness options prior to 

their service. In fact, many like myself were misled to 

believe that loan deferment was their only option. I ask 

that the Department of Education provide returned Peace 

Corps volunteers with immediate retroactive relief. This 

would include returned volunteers in the temporary 

waiver period and credit all volunteers with qualifying 

months of Public Service Loan Forgiveness for any months 

of service in which federal student loans were placed 

into deferment or forbearance status like that provided 

to active military members with deferred loans. Thank 

you for your time.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms. Norris, 

for your comment.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Brady next, we 

have Heather Martin again from the Returned Peace Corps 

volunteer.

MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Ms. 

Martin, can you hear us?

MS. HEATHER MARTIN: Hi, yes, can you 
89

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

hear me?

MR. ROBERTS: We can hear you just 

fine. You have three minutes for public comment, 

beginning whenever you begin speaking.

MS. HEATHER MARTIN: Thank you. I 

haven't been involved in the rest of the meeting, but I 

just wanted to share my personal experience with the 

Public Student Loan Forgiveness Program and my Peace 

Corps service. So I served in Peace Corps 2010 to 2012, 

and since 2013 I've made payments to my federal Direct, 

subsidized and unsubsidized loans in the amounts of $430 

to $693 each month, not including my public, my private 

loans as well. So since 2013, despite paying nearly 

$40,000 into my federal loans, my loan balance has 

increased nearly $20,000. So I'm really frustrated with 

the high interest rates that are allowed on on federal 

subsidized and unsubsidized loans. And it's just been 

impossible to pay them off and catch up with it. I'm 

also frustrated that my Peace Corps service was not 

included in the Public Student Loan Forgiveness program.

When I served I think I did know about the program and 

it very much influenced my decision to go into Peace 

Corps and then get a position in Federal Service as 

well. But during service, I knew there was no way that I 

can make a payment. I was making around $250 a month 
90

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

that went completely toward my expenses in the country. 

At the time, I talked with Peace Corps staff, and all of 

the guidance that they gave us was to defer the loans. 

So I had no idea that there is an option to pay zero 

dollars at all at the time, even when I came back, I 

didn't find out until later, despite research and 

speaking with the Peace Corps at the time. Then when I 

started full time with the federal government in 2013, I 

was able to buy back my Peace Corps service towards 

retirement, but wasn't able to do anything with the 

Public Student Loan Forgiveness program. I did reach out 

to the program. I reached out to my loan servicers and 

there was really nothing I can do and I didn't even 

know. I know that changed the rules for previous 

consolidation. Like for about two or three years, I was 

making payments on 

MR.ROBERTS: thirty seconds. 

MS. HEATHER MARTIN: a a loan that was 

not part of the program. So, yeah, I'm just sharing my 

experience. And even though I make a really good salary, 

it's a struggle to make ends meet because of all of 

these loan payments. And if my Peace Corps service were 

counted into the Public Student Loan Forgiveness program 

while I was on deferment, I would be eligible for 

forgiveness right now, so it would make a huge impact 
91

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

for so many people including myself, who who currently 

serve our country and have served in Peace Corps. Thank 

you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you for your 

comment.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Brady. Next, I am 

admitting Megan Gokey representing themselves.

MR. ROBERTS: Ms. Gokey. Can you hear 

us? Not sure if they're connected, but do you want to 

admit theMS. JEFFRIES: Yes, she's joining, so 

there she is.

MR. ROBERTS: Hi, Ms. Gokey, can you 

hear us? Oh, you're muted right now. There you go.

MS. GOKEY: Can you hear me? Thank you 

very much.

MR. ROBERTS: You have three minutes 

for public comment.

MS. GOKEY: Thank you. I'll try to 

make this brief. My name is Megan Gokey. I served as a 

Peace Corps volunteer in Guatemala from 2010 to 2012. I 

lived in an indigenous village in the mountains, which 

was a six hour bus ride from the in-country Peace Corps 

office. Starting my service in 2010, I had less than 

$30,000 in educational debt. Starting my service, I knew 
92

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

that if I served, it would count as two years of service 

towards the ultimate goal of loan forgiveness after 10 

years. Peace Corps advised us volunteers to defer 

payments. Peace Corps went so far as to include in our 

Guatemala welcome book that we obtain and submit loan 

deferment paperwork before our arrival in the country. I 

trusted that advice. I trusted that the same government 

I was serving would be the same government that 

ultimately forgave my loans. Because I trusted the 

government's advice, my two years in Peace Corps does 

not count towards any time of the 10 year loan 

forgiveness. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness 

announced in October of this year that military members 

could count their service into their calculation of 

their 10 years, regardless of whether their loans were 

deferred or not. I wholeheartedly support that waiver. 

Women and men of the armed services support a necessary 

and strenuous service, and so do Peace Corps volunteers. 

During my service alone, I helped educate indigenous 

Guatemalans on important topics like water purification. 

I personally, with no help from the government, raised 

$10,000 in order to build 64 infrastructure projects in 

the villages I worked where there were none. Beyond what 

Peace Corps volunteers provide as a service to our host 

countries, we provide a public service to the United 
93

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

States. We are invaluable diplomatic arm for the U.S. We 

foster relationships in areas of the world that the 

United States would never reach without us. We come back 

to the U.S. sharing culture of our host countries. We 

literally promote world peace. I acted diplomatically. I 

worked hard. I followed the rules. I did what Peace 

Corps told me to do. Yet here I am, begging, not to be 

compensated, but begging that my two years I volunteered 

for our country counts towards my loan forgiveness. 

Following the same advice from Peace Corps continuing 

into my career, I worked for two years at the 

Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem as a caseworker 

before going to law school to become a public defender. 

Knowing my loans would be high and knowing my passion to 

do public service work does does not pay accordingly, I 

worked three part time jobs during law school. I Worked 

for six years in public interest, but because of the 

faulty advice from Peace Corps itself, I only have two 

years counted towards my forgiveness. I live in a large 

city in New York as a public defender, make $65,000 a 

year and have over a quarter million dollars in debt. 

I'm asking that my public service be counted as such. 

Thank you very much.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you so much for 

your comment.
94

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Brady, next, we 

are admitting Jesus Abarca, I believe, who is a veteran.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Abarca, can you hear 

us? You're muted right now, by the way.

MS. ABARCA: Yeah, I can hear you. I'm 

sorry.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. No, it's no 

problem. You have three minutes for public comment when 

you start speaking.

MS. ABARCA: Okay. Good afternoon, 

everybody. I'm Jesus Abarca. I am a veteran currently 

trying to attend Lincoln Tech in New Jersey Mahwah. My 

classmate and myself, we've both been enrolled under a 

false pretense that the school accepts the GI Bill under 

that program. When we first signed up, obviously, you 

know, the main question we all ask is, do they accept 

the GI Bill? Because for obvious reasons that's our 

financial support for school. So the school was quick to 

enroll us. They heard veteran and they were very ready 

to start paperwork with us. They took our DD214 and they 

had told us that they did not need our certificate of 

eligibility because they called the VA and said that we 

were good, that they just called to find out how many 

days we have left or months we have remaining on our GI 

Bill, see if we were eligible for the program. And that 
95

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

was it. That's that's all they needed. They didn't need 

the actual certificate of eligibility. So moving forward 

from there, you know, prior to school, usually the VA 

gives us a stipend for books. It's usually between $100 

or $500. The school told us to not worry about that, 

that we would receive that when classes start. So that 

alone was like two major red flags for me. And then just 

it just keeps going and piling on. Come a whole month 

into school, we still haven't started receiving our 

benefits. We received no BAH, no word from the VA. 

Nothing. And the school told us that it was delayed, 

that they're being audited, to just patiently wait. So 

they ended up cutting us a stipend check around like two 

and a half months just to kind of keep us afloat from me 

telling them how much I've been financially struggling. 

And it just kept it went on and on and ended up leading 

up to five months, currently where we're at now five six 

months, but after that we had they had brought us in to

write out a loan to basically because at this point I 

was very behind on my bills. I was behind on everything. 

I was wasting a lot of money, just trying to get to the 

school. And it was money I couldn't. I'm sorry, what was 

that?

MR. ROBERTS: You have 30 seconds 

remaining, I'm sorry.
96

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MS. ABARCA: Oh, sorry. Yeah. So the 

school made us take out a loan. I only saw four thousand 

seven hundred dollars of that loan, but obviously 

surprise surprise, they had taken out a subsidized loan 

of $3,500 and a $6,000 loan in unsubsidized loans. So 

the total was $9,500 that I didn't even know of. I only 

saw $4,701. You know, andMR. ROBERTS: That's that's three 

minutes, I'm sorry.

MS. ABARCA: That's okay.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you for your 

comment.

MS. JEFFRIES: Brady, next we have 

Isaiah Seabourne representing themselves.

MR. ROBERTS: Isaiah, can you hear us? 

Hi, Mr. Seabourne, you just have to come off of mute and 

then you have three minutes for public comment. Are you 

able to hear us? You have to come off mute and then you 

have three minutes.

MR. SEABORN: Yes, hello.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Go right ahead 

with your public comment.

MR. SEABORN: Hello, my name is Isaiah 

Seaborn (inaudible) assess my dreams against me by the 

Art Instituteof Colorado to ruin future dreams. In 2005, 
97

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

I pursued a degree at the Art Institute of Colorado to 

make video games. I was targeted after researching on 

Google. I was targeted by the Art Institute of Colorado 

to come and check out how I could create video games 

easily. My parents and I visited the Art Institute in 

hopes of finding out if my talents could pursue a 

bachelor's degree of media, media, arts and. I was told, 

hey, you can do this, the degree itself would be 

$80,000. And both my parents and I specifically ask 

questions of the recruiter. You know, since I didn't 

have an art background, could I be successful in this 

degree? And they promised me, oh yeah, you'll do great. 

You need to go ahead and get locked in. Hurry up and 

sign in now. So tuition doesn't go up and get locked in, 

and we'll talk about getting you an internship early. 

This is just merely a ploy that the Art Institute used 

to inflate their numbers. $40,000 in to the degree I was 

pulled out of a class and told directly that I would 

never, ever work in the video game industry. So I had 

two options quit and spend the $40,000 that I had 

already, you know, had and waste that. And I could not 

transfer my credits because the Art Institute had now 

become nontransferable. They're accredited (inaudible) 

or I could fall back into something else, such as video 

production. I did that and now I'm over $200,000 in 
98

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

student loan debt. Two days before I graduated, I got so 

sick from trying to pass these classes, I passed out and 

they wanted to fail me because I was not able to attend 

a class. After appealing, they told me that I was not 

not worthy of graduating from the Art Institute and that 

I should enjoy my bill. Later, after appealing and 

appealing, I was able to resubmit the same work and 

finally graduate. But again, $200,000 and I've not been 

able to purchase a home. I have two children and my 

wife. Our credit is ruined and my life has all been 

ruined, basically because I went to the Art Institute of 

Colorado. I share this story with you all because 

student loans and the way that I was tricked into 

believing that I was going to get a good job. I. It's 

ruined my life. It really has ruined my life. And really 

changed the destination for my kids.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you for your 

comment.

MS. JEFFRIES: Brady, I am admitting 

Carol Hix to the meeting.

MR. ROBERTS: Ms. Hix, are you able to 

hear us?

MS. JEFFRIES: Oops, I went to. Never 

mind. Carissa Massengill, while I try to get Carolyn 

connected.
99

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MR. ROBERTS: I apologize, Carissa, if 

you want to come up with me, you have three minutes for 

public comment.

MS. MASSENGILL: Okay, thank you 

everybody for this time. My name is Carissa Massengill, 

and I do apologize ahead of time. I attended Brooks 

Institute of Photography back from 2004 to 2007. I 

attended that school because I had a passion for 

photography. I was encouraged. In hindsight, it turns 

out it was more of they just wanted to get enrollment 

and they wanted to get numbers. Again, apologies. 

Without getting into too much detail because I'm still 

kind of working through everything, I've been paying off 

these loans since 2000, even before then. I don't see 

any end in sight. I just finished my my personal loan or 

not personal loan. But it was my unsubsidized loan in 

October of last year. We still have the Parent Plus Loan 

that is my mom's, which we celebrated that we had it 

under a thousand, a hundred thousand dollars before my 

son was born last year. We put off a lot of life events 

because of stuff like that. At one point we just 

decided, you know what? We need to live our lives. Since 

we've had the loans are under federal forbearance, it 

has relieved so much stress off of me I've had. I never 

had the chance to, like, go to a therapist or talk to 
100

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

anybody about anxiety, but it's something that I've 

lived with and just kind of coped with because I have 

these these loans. For a long time, I worked three jobs. 

I made sure that I never missed a loan. I did what I had 

to do to make payments, not just on mine, but on my my 

Parent Plus Loan for my mom. That's something that I've 

worked hard for, and it wasn't until we actually had the 

forbearance that I had a chance to breathe. And that 

sigh, like that little breath that I've had and still 

have right now has given me the chance to actually focus 

on what's important in life, which is my son who we 

finally had last year during the pandemic of all times. 

So we've had a lot of life events, a lot of positive 

stuff. But what I'm getting at is that a lot of us still 

have these loans that just do not go away. It infringes 

on our lives. It causes stress and it causes anxiety. 

And I'm one person that cannot control my emotions. 

Unfortunately, when it comes to this because it has been 

a part of my life for so long and I don't see it ever 

going away. I really, really hope that anybody that was 

a part of the Brooks Institute, the Sweet vs. Cardona, 

previously Sweet vs. DeVos, does get their student loans 

forgiven because we ended up with a degree that has 

served us for no reason. We've all are in debt for for a 

degree that has zero purpose and we still have to pay 
101

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

this back is what I'm thinking very pessimistically 

because that's the only way to go. There is no 

positivity out of this tunnel, although I really hope 

that I'm wrong because I don't want this to be a part of 

my life for the rest of my life. And I'm sorry. That's 

it. Thank you for your time and thank you for everybody 

who served.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you for your 

comment. We appreciate it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Brady, I am now 

admitting Carolyn Hix, and they are. She's a veteran.

MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Ms. Hix, 

can you hear us?

MS. JEFFRIES: It says she's still 

joining.

MS. MARTIN: While she's joining can I 

make just a quick comment just because I just want to 

recognize how much emotional labor goes into all of the 

folks that testify. And I know sometimes because it's on

a three minute timeline, which is like blustery then, 

but I think someone just needed to acknowledge and 

really give that. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Thank you, 

Michaela. While she tries to join, we are going to move 

on to Adrian Figueroa representing themselves. 
102

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

MR. ROBERTS: So if it's okay, Mr. 

Figueroa, I see you're in the meeting, but you'll just 

be right after Ms. Hix. So Ms. Hix, if you can hear me.

MS. JEFFRIES: I'm not showing that 

she has any audio.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, so here, why don't 

we do this? So, Adrian, if you're ready to go, you have 

three minutes for public comment while we work on Ms. 

Hix's audio.

MR. FIGUEROA: Okay, thank you. My 

name is Adrian Figueroa and I applied to the Borrower 

Defense in August on August 12, 2016 at 11:30 a.m. 

because I'm approximately $25,000 in debt with school 

loans that were accrued while attending Le Cordon Bleu 

Institution. It's in my opinion that at the time I 

enrolled at Le Cordon Bleu, I was coerced in you know, 

excuse me, I was coerced in this predicament with a 

promise of becoming a chef, which in reality I have been 

unable to obtain a position as a chef upon graduation, 

each class is only six weeks long, and that really 

doesn't give you any time to retain any type of 

information at all. Excuse me. Any student could just 

pass simply by showing up and, you know. I was promised 

a chef's average of $50,000 to $80,000 as soon as I 

graduated, and that was false information because the 
103

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

only job I was ever able to obtain was a line cook or a 

prep cook, which beginning salary was at the time, I 

believe, $9 an hour. And anybody who walked off the 

street can get that type of job. So was it was unfair 

that anybody who walked off the street can get that type 

of job, but at the same time, I have a certificate. I 

graduated because of the unfair practices by Le Cordon 

Bleu, which which they admitted to in a class action 

lawsuit against career education. Basically, they had to 

pay back all the students. I would have never involved 

otherwise or committed to the program, and that if I'm 

unable to repay or get this discharged, you know, in 

2015 Le Cordon Bleu announced it was closing all 16 of 

its culinary schools across the country and would no 

longer enroll any new students. I strongly believe that 

we see in Le Cordon Bleu by closing all of the schools 

confirmed the deceptive practices that were in play at 

the time of, at the time I enrolled in the school. 

Because of these loans, I had been denied employment 

opportunities at several banks, including Metro Credit 

Union, where I was the number one candidate for a brand 

new position they created. And due to not being able to 

pay my loans, I can consistently because I was trying to 

survive, they denied me the position at that job. This 

has impacted my credit. This is I've been denied for 
104

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

renting apartments. I've been denied several things 

because of this loan. I heard somebody say something, 

I'm not sure.

MR. ROBERTS: I was just letting you, 

you have about 20 seconds left for your public comment.

MR. FIGUEROA: Oh, okay. You know, 

that's an impacting my credit. I've been denied several 

things, even even furniture. When I did decide to get 

it, when I was able to get an apartment, I've been 

denied furniture, so I've been left to sleep on floors 

with blankets. So, you know, I really appreciate you 

guys taking the time to listen to my story today.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, we appreciate 

your public comment.

MR. FIGUEROA: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Brady, I show 

that Carolyn is there and she's unmuted herself. I think 

she's ready to go, but she is off camera.

MR. ROBERTS: Great Ms. Hix, you have 

three minutes for public comment. Still not getting 

anything, if we want to admit the next speaker.

MS. JEFFRIES: I'm going to go ahead 

and admit Cynthia Johnson, representing themselves.

MR. ROBERTS: Ms. Johnson, are you 

able to hear us? Do you want to try with the next one, 
105

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

Cindy?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah, I'm going to go 

ahead and admit Alicia Col, Colbot and we have confirmed 

that she has logged in under Bret. So that what her the 

name will show, and they are representing themselves.

MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, can you 

hear us? Hi, can you hear us?

MS. COLBOT: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Great, you have three 

minutes for public comment.

MS. COLBOT: Okay. It's a little past. 

It's two minutes past my start time. Is that still okay? 

I still get. Okay, thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is 

Alicia Pardate Colbot. I'm a student debtor seeking 

forgiveness, student loan forgiveness. I graduated with 

a BA from Brooks Institute of Photography in September 

of 2007. Myself and over nine hundred former students 

have been victimized by this school's misconduct, 

deceitful recruiting tactics and fraudulent practices. I 

was a young, naive student who entrusted that the school 

would look out for my best interest. They vastly 

inflated the amount of loans they said I needed to 

borrow to cover school and living costs. They falsely 

promised me a high paying job upon completion, state of 

the art, vocational training, and a fulfilling career. 
106

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

In actuality, upon completion, I was left with over 

three times the amount of debt they claimed I would 

accumulate, totaling over $300,000 dollars. The reality 

is my life has been worse than before I attended Brooks. 

I would never have attended if I was aware of such 

appalling effects on my life. My student debt was so 

great. The financial difficulty was a primary reason for 

my divorce in 2017. Between my husband, who was also a 

Brooks graduate and myself, over 70 percent of our 

monthly income went to student loan payments. When times 

were really tough, I had to put my loans on deferment. 

After paying down my loans on time for over seven years, 

they exceeded the initial amount that I borrowed due to 

forbearance and deferment. My income as a professional 

photographer photographer averaged $30,000, putting my 

me below poverty level. I sometimes balance three jobs 

as a single mother because I couldn't make it just as a 

photographer. I have submitted a Borrower Defense to 

Repayment application after 14 years of hardships due to 

high student debt. I am hoping to get my life back 

through student loan forgiveness.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you very much for 

your comment.

MS. COLBOT: Thank you for hearing me 

out. Okay. Are you wanting me to just log out 
107

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

immediately or?

MR. ROBERTS: Sure, sure. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Is Carolyn 

dialing in? Let me try her one more time.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't see her in the 

meeting.

MS. JEFFRIES: I just readmitted her. 

We're still having difficulty, I'm going to go ahead and 

admit the last person who has logged in and that is 

Kaitlin Jackson Role, criminal defense practice at Bronx 

Defenders.

MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon. Can you 

hear us? If want to turn off the live stream so you 

don't get that feedback, but otherwise you have three 

minutes for our final comment of the day.

MS. JACKSON: Yes, thank you, I'm 

muting the live stream right now. I'm currently a 

supervising attorney at Bronx Defenders. I'm a public 

defender. I've been doing that for about 11 years. I am 

hoping to encourage the committee to consider allowing 

borrowers like myself to either pay retroactively for 

periods of either administrative or hardship forbearance 

and alternatively to cut to allow borrowers like myself 

to receive credit for forbearances when our payments 

would have been either zero or close to zero. My loans 
108

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

are incredibly high as our nearly every attorney I know 

who went into public interest. Unfortunately, there is 

no if what you want to do is work defending people who 

are very low income, who the government has charged with 

crimes like I do, there's no way to do that without a 

law degree. I went to state schools and my loans at this 

point are still close to $300,000. They are so much more 

than what I borrowed and when I was early in my career 

and making less money a year than what my one year of 

law school cost, I was put into a hardship deferment 

when my loans would have been zero dollars a month. 

There is no reason that anyone would make that choice. 

But for being misled, nobody would choose to go into 

forbearance when the payments would have been zero 

dollars. But my servicer misled me and I spent 12 months 

making, you know, 12 months doing incredibly hard work 

for very little money in a very expensive place. And I 

won't get credit for any of that when I wouldn't have 

had to pay a dime. I just was misled. Additionally. I've 

had other periods, I've worked at a couple of different 

public defenders, and every time I've changed, every 

time I have shifted jobs, it would take three, four 

months of administrative forbearance for my loans to be 

shifted. And each time I was told, if you don't take 

this forbearance, then you have to pay the full amount 
109

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

that's not income adjusted. At one point, I believe that 

was a little over two hundred thousand to two thousand a 

month, which was essentially my entire monthly. So 

basically, I very much hope that the committee will 

consider changing those rules, it's critical that people 

are able to go into immigration law, housing law, public 

defense, areas of law that require very, very high loans 

but pay very, very little. And I hope you'll consider 

letting us have some of those months back.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you for your 

public comment and thank you to all of the public 

commenters, we really, really do appreciate everyone 

taking the time to share their story with the committee. 

We are a few minutes over, but we will pick up at 10 

a.m. tomorrow and thank you so much for all your hard 

work today.
110

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

Appendix

Department of Education

Office of Postsecondary Education

Zoom Chat Transcript

Affordability and Student Loans Committee

Session 3, Day 2, Afternoon, December 7, 2021

DISCLAIMER:

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a 

recording. Although the transcription is largely accurate; 

in some cases, it is incomplete or inaccurate due to 

inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as 

an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but 

should not be treated as an authoritative record.

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

Hello all, here is redlined and proposed language that 

some of us have previously worked on.

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 to Joe

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 w/ Joe

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1

From Noelia (A), Minority Serving Inst. to Everyone:

I agree
111

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone:

+1 to stay on IDR

From Alyssa Dobson to Everyone:

+1

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 Joe

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 joe, real time edits have happened in past neg-regs

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

I'm happy to work from the Department's proposal--I 

think we could propose our changes there

From Rajeev Darolia - Advisor Econ & Data to Everyone:

One follow up on an earlier request: I spoke to Judy 

Scott-Clayton during the break (at David's suggestion) 

and she said she is not aware of much work on the 

default rate of black graduate borrowers. She did 

point us to a little bit of evidence from one of her 

reports on pp. 5-6: https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/es_20161020_scottclayton_evidence_speaks.pdf. Data is a bit old in some 

cases, so keep that in mind.

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

Agree that renaming is a good idea - all kidding aside

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

Agree with renaming. I could support BEAR.

From Michaela Martin to Everyone:
112

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

BEAR - Borrowers Earned Income Repayment plan

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

Thanks Raj.

From Brady FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

Sorry been having some connectivity struggles- feel 

free to let me know if it happens again

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

BEST - Borrowers Establishing ...

From Michaela Martin to Everyone:

SLap- Student loan affordability plan

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

Affordable Budget Concious repayment ABC

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

(I can't spell)

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

Still working on the rest of the acronym...

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 on following PAYE+ICR+IBR

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

+1

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

Family size - paragraph 2, add EICR (BEAR) and remove 

it from paragraph 3
113

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

Could you also add to that comment that Marjorie and I 

registered our support for Persis' proposal?

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

Vanessa I support that proposal as well.

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

I support the family size proposal.

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students to Everyone:

+1 On the proposal from me too

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 to Persis' comment

From Jennifer - ED negotiator to Everyone:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitleB/chapter-VI/part-685/subpart-B/section-685.209

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 on the family size proposal

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 Daniel

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

Base of 8% addition and then addition of 

https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/perdiem/browse/

Allowances/COLA/CONUS/Locations/cclocs21.pdf

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:
114

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

Proposed language: (2) The following loans are 

eligible to be repaid under the ICR and EICR plans: 

Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, 

Direct PLUS Loans made to graduate or professional 

students, and all Direct Consolidation Loans 

(including Direct Consolidation Loans that repaid 

Direct PLUS Loans or Federal PLUS Loans made to parent 

borrowers), except for Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans 

made before July 1, 2006.

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 to Daniel

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 Daniel

From Justin (P) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

+1 Daniel

From Christina, she/her (A) 2-Year Public to Everyone:

+1

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone:

+1 to grad and PLUS

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

+1

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 to Daniel

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 to Daniel
115

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

From Heather-PSLF Advisor to Everyone:

+1 from PSLF Advisor

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

+1

From Bobby (P) - 2 Year Pubilc Colleges to Everyone:

+1 to Daniel

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

+1 Persis

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 on striking paragraph d2

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone:

+1 Persis removal of 2

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students to Everyone:

Having WiFi connectivity issues so I will have my 

camera off.

From Heather-PSLF Advisor to Everyone:

That's statutory

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

add EICR to paragraph 3

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

iii

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

+1 to Persis on this

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 
116

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

Everyone:

+ 1 to Persis on this

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

+1 Persis

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 conforming marriage changes

From Justin (P) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

+1 to Persis on this and to the corresponding 

provisions to conform

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

+1

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

+1 Bethany 300% & 400%

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone:

+1

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 300% & 400$

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 on raising 200%/300% structure on page 5

From Justin (P) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:
117

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

+1

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students to Everyone:

+1

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+ 1 to Daniel's proposal to cover interest assessed

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

+1

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 on Daniel’s changes to interest section

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 Daniel

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1, hugely important

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone:

+1 Daniel

From Michaela Martin to Everyone:

=1

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 Persis

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students to Everyone:
118

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

+1 Persis

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 on Persis

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone:

+1

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

I propose having a multiplier so that each month that 

a borrower makes a payment counts as a multiple number 

of qualifying payments. The multiplier would be based 

upon the borrower's AGI relative to the FPL and could 

be recalculated each year. (A spreadsheet w/ 

multiplier calculations will be spend via email)

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 10 years

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 on 10 years

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students to Everyone:

+1 on 10 years

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone:

+1 on 10 years

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

+1 to 10 year as well. We need to allow our limited 

income and low income borrowers the same benefit we 

allow to our PSLF borrowers.
119

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

+1 on 10 years

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

100% agree with Daniel

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 Daniel

From Justin (P) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

This is late, but i'd like to +1 Daniel's proposed 

changes to the interest section.

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

+1 Persis

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

+1 to Large L!

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 to Persis

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 to Persis comment - counting forbearances that 

occurred prior to Nov 1 2022

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:
120

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

+1 to Persis

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

Page 8

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

(ii ) Any months in which the borrower made a payment 

while in default, including voluntary payments as well 

as involuntary payments including those through 

benefit offsets and wage garnishment, in which the 

borrower makes a payment equal to or greater than the 

amount the borrower would have been required to pay 

during that period on any income-driven repayment plan 

under this section is also considered to satisfy a 

monthly repayment obligation for the purposes of 

forgiveness under paragraph (k). If a payment is 

collected via an annual tax refund offset that exceeds 

the amount the borrower would have been required to 

pay on any income-driven repayment plan under this 

section for the month in which the offset occurred, 

the excess amount shall be divided by the relevant 

monthly payment obligation under the income-driven 

repayment plan and considered to satisfy that many 

additional monthly payment obligations for the year to 

which the tax return applies, not to exceed 12, for 

the purposes of forgiveness under p

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

paragraph (k).

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 bethany, hold harmless procedure poses operational 

challenges
121

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

From Justin (P) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

Emily is taking the table.

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

if ED won't look all the way back in time to count 

forbearances, they could at least look back to the 

first availability of ICR (1995 I think?) or IBR 

(2009)

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

, or made payments under the Graduated repayment 

plan, Extended repayment plan, Consolidation Standard 

repayment plan, or Consolidated Graduated repayment 

plan,

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

+1 including other plans

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 to Persis on including other plans

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 inclusive

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 joe, the servicers are borrowers' main point of 

contact to access all of these options

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 echoing something!

From Heather-PSLF Advisor to Everyone:
122

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

renewal for up to 3 years, and sometimes not limited

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 Michaela!!

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students to Everyone:

+1 Michaela

From Persis (P) - Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

+100000000 Michaela

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 to Michaela

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 Micheala

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

public policy should not be based around extreme 

outliers

From Rajeev Darolia - Advisor Econ & Data to Everyone:

More generally: moral hazard is a term commonly used 

in the social sciences, rooted in economics. It 

typically refers to risk taking that is encouraged 

because the risk-taking party does not bear the full 

consequences of their actions. In social science 

contexts, it is not about "morality" in a right/wrong 

sense

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 Michaela
123

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Public Insts. (she/her) to 

Everyone:

+1 Micheala

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

Would +1 on that

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

under 5 - 24 month period if possible

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

I think it would dramatically simplify the paperwork 

burden on people

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 bethany

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+ Persis

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 to Persis

From Michaela Martin to Everyone:

+1

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 Persis
124

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

+1 Persis

From Emily (A) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

I didn’t want to disrupt the topic discussion but did 

want to quick flag using DoD COLA as any basis for 

determinations. It should be understood that the 

methodologies for military COLA include factors 

specific to military populations (such as access to 

installation services, on-base housing, etc.) and may 

not be appropriate here.

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

Thanks Emily. Do you have a different suggested tool?

From Emily (A) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

Unfortunately not that I can think of

From Emily (A) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

After returning from the break, Justin is back at the 

table

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students to Everyone:

Same!! I have a blanket with hedgehogs on it :D

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

I know this may be a difficult resource to use, but 

the College Board calculates regional and MSA 

variations for Cost of Living when determining student 

living expense budgets (reference is 

https://professionals.collegeboard.org/highered/financial-aid/living-expense/9-month).

From Heather-PSLF Advisor to Everyone:

In my view, the biggest remaining issues are the 

definitions of Employee or Employed, Qualifying 
125

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

Employer, and Public Service.

From Heather-PSLF Advisor to Everyone:

This still excludes 1099 employees.

From Heather-PSLF Advisor to Everyone:

Thank you, ED, for that adjustment.

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

Thank you for that!

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

Who would qualify for 3 but not for 1 or 2? What type 

of employer would this include? If an employer is not 

governmental or 501(c)3 and is not for-profit or labor 

union or political organization, what is left?

From Heather-PSLF Advisor to Everyone:

Sure of course

From Justin (P) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

non 501c3 VSOs

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

@Justin helpful. Anyone else?

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

Trade associations which are (c)(6)s

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

I think there are a set of 501(c) options there--some 

like (c)(4) are political, so excluded

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 
126

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

Everyone:

But maybe I'm misremembering?

From Justin (P) Servicemembers and Veterans to Everyone:

+1 Heather on FFEL and PSLF

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 Heather on FFEL and PSLF

From Misty (P) Priv. Non-Profit to Everyone:

+1

From Jaye (P) FFEL Agencies to Everyone:

Thank you for that clarification Jennifer. That is 

how I understood it.

From Heather-PSLF Advisor to Everyone:

But a Direct Consolidation Loan is a Direct Loan

From Heather-PSLF Advisor to Everyone:

You can count payments on FFEL loans towards a Direct 

COnsolidation loan

From Jeri (P) Student Borrowers (she her, they) to 

Everyone:

+1 Persis!

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 to Persis

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone:

+1 Persis

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:
127

Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/07/21

+1

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

Suzanne is coming to the table

From Michaela Martin to Everyone:

Quick q: It says qualified work and qualified employer 

(who can apply through form) This requires both or the 

other?

From Suzanne Martindale (A) state regulators to 

Everyone:

+1 Bethany - also servicers will have challenges 

advising borrowers on these eligibility requirements

From Joe (P) State AGs to Everyone:

+1 on borrower certification

From Bethany Lilly (P), Disability (she/hers) to 

Everyone:

+1 to Jeri re: adjuncts

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students to Everyone:

+1 Jeri on adjuncts

From Jessica Barry, Proprietary (P) to Everyone:

I will sub back in for the public comment.