Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING

STUDENT DEBT RELIEF COMMITTEE

SESSION 1, DAY 2, AFTERNOON

OCTOBER 11, 2023

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

meeting was held virtually, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 

p.m.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

2 

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. WEATHERS:

Hello everyone, and welcome back from lunch. My name is 

John Weathers. I will be facilitating the afternoon 

session here today. A couple quick housekeeping things. 

Please remember the comments kept to a three-minute 

period. There will be a 30-second warning when that time 

runs. Also, please keep in mind that we're endeavoring 

to have new conversation. If you want to reiterate 

something that someone else has said, please do so in 

the chat. Also, place questions in the chat and also if 

you are an alternate that's going to be coming to the 

table, please notify us and the primary, please turn 

your video off when we do that. Just real quick. Jalil 

Mustaffa Bishop will be sitting at the table in place of 

Richard Haase. So, I will hand it off to the Department.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Thank you, John, and welcome back everyone. I'd like to 

pose a question to the committee. Do we feel that we 

have heard from all of you on the comments that you have 

in reference to the GE question, or do we need to have 

continued conversation?

MR. WEATHERS:

Anyone?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

3 

MS. ABERNATHY: 

I suggest we go ahead and go on to question number five. 

Thank you, Rich, for sharing that question. The Higher 

Education Act, as amended, contains a number of programs 

designed to provide targeted relief to borrowers. For 

instance, we have forgiveness programs for borrowers who 

pursue public service, whose schools closed, whose 

schools engaged in misconduct, or borrowers who have a 

total and permanent disability. We also have forgiveness 

programs for borrowers after they've made payments for a 

certain period of time. But the student aid programs 

serve a large number of Americans. With 44 million 

student loan borrowers, it's helpful to receive input on 

additional situations where a borrower may be facing 

struggles that are not captured by an existing program, 

even if they would be deserving of relief under the 

broad structure of the Higher Education Act. Borrowers 

who experience hardship with respect to their student 

loans may have certain ways to reduce or delay loan 

payments or seek forgiveness on their loans. Yet,

borrowers may continue to experience hardship in ways 

that the current student loan system does not adequately 

address. The Department would like your feedback on the 

following question. What are potential types of 

hardships that borrowers continue to face, and how might 

we address those cases of hardship?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

4 

MR. WEATHERS:

Okay, let's open this up for discussion. I see Vincent 

Andrews. Please go ahead, sir. You're muted. Vincent, 

you're on mute.

MR. ANDREWS: 

Oh, there we go. Can you hear me? So, yeah, I had a few 

points that I jotted down earlier that I thought really 

applied to waiver distribution in general. One of the 

points John had brought up earlier related to how 

disabled, injured and incapacitated, even elderly 

individuals who face substantial hardship, there's 

really no streamlined way for family members to, I 

guess, do anything in the instance that somebody is 

really injured and they can't get online and apply for 

deferment or forbearance. And under some of these 

circumstances, people lose their ability to ever be 

fully employed again. So, there should be some 

consideration made regarding the waiver about what we 

can do for individuals who reasonably can't be expected 

to gain full working capacity in the future. Another one 

that I had was hardships that might be created due to 

waiver distribution. So, again kind of touched on it 

yesterday. Individuals struggling the most may have 

minimal benefit to a blanket waiver. In addition, 

blanket waiver may increase the payment of some 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

5 

borrowers so the equity between what they owe and what 

they make, a borrower who maybe owes 30 and has to make 

a payment of zero may end up, in fact, having to make a 

payment of a few hundred dollars if they were to get 

some of that waived. The next one was debt prevents 

individuals from pursuing professional training and 

education that they needed. Someone mentioned earlier 

related to small business owners. A lot of people don't 

go back to school and get the training and education 

they need to be successful in things that they actually 

want to do, because, I mean, they're really afraid to 

get more debt in most cases and I actually know people 

who have even had their transcripts or their degrees 

withheld because they have student balances that haven't 

been paid. And then the last one, there should be 

benchmark incentives or I think, some idea of benchmark 

incentives for high-stress, low-paying occupations like 

teachers, nurses who traditionally have high rates of 

turnover and are likely to leave their fields in the 

first 2 to 3 years if they aren't enjoying it. I think 

some sort of like benchmark waivers might be some good 

incentive for people to stay in positions that are well 

needed.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Vincent. Angelika, please.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

6 

MS. WILLIAMS: 

Okay. I recognize that the central theme of this query 

pertains to financial strain, but the misalignment 

between the previous question or question number three 

and this question, question number five, underscores the 

urgency of the Department's clarification regarding the 

definition of financial value. Because question number 

five, this question acknowledges there are higher 

education programs that provide quality education, yet 

external factors significantly affect borrowers. It is 

important to highlight the adverse influence that 

student loan debt has on credit ratings, which in turn 

impacts individual's ability to purchase homes, vehicles 

and, most crucially, their credit worthiness of 

employment. Student loans adversely affect credit 

scores, amplifying financial stress due to their 

influence on debt to income ratios. In light of this, I 

request that the Department review its procedures and 

policies related to the debt reporting to consumer 

reporting agencies and because of credit worthiness 

employment, I propose that the Department consider debt 

waivers based on job market dynamics as well as economic 

factors.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Ashley?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

7 

MS. PIZZUTI: 

I want to follow up on what she had said. From my 

personal experience with having these loans for 20 

years. I also run a small business. My husband and I run 

a photography studio. We have never been able to get a 

business loan because of the student loans on our credit 

report, because our income to debt ratio is too great. 

This also includes our private loans, which would not be 

considered under this. But it is one of the reasons why 

we've never been able to get a mortgage. We've never 

been able to get a small business loan. And it all comes 

down to the fact that we've had these student loans on 

our credit report for 20 years. I also know several 

teachers that have left teaching because they just 

accumulated so many student loans and they were paidyou know, there's a lot of other factors in there in the 

teaching and the red tape, but it really came down to 

the fact that they owed so much money on their student 

loans and were not making enough to make it worth it for 

them to stay in the profession.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Ashley. I would like to make a note that 

Jordan Nellums is going to be coming in at the table, 

and Jada Sanford will be sitting out with her video off 

for currently enrolled postsecondary education students. 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

8 

And next, I'd like to ask Lane Thompson to speak.

MS. THOMPSON: 

Thanks, John. In terms of hardship, I just want to talk 

about incarcerated borrowers. We incarcerate more people 

in this country than any other nation on earth, and a 

lot of those folks have student debt. I used to work as 

a student loan coach, and in that program, we had a 

small dollar lender who went into the prisons and did 

these credit building loans. It's a really cool product. 

But she found that a lot of folks that she worked with 

had student debt and didn't have any way to address it. 

They didn't have access to the internet. They couldn't 

stay on the phone long enough to talk to their servicer. 

There just wasn't any option for them. So, I really 

think that that's also a pretty discrete and 

identifiable group of folks who are currently 

incarcerated, or even folks who have been incarcerated 

in their lifetimes. Definitely a group that I want to 

make sure we consider.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you. Next, Ms. Taylor.

MS. TAYLOR: 

So, I'd like to call attention to some of the other 

forms of debt or hardship that are not currently 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

9 

recognized within the student loan system that often 

come up when low income people are talking to a legal 

aid attorney. Folks often cite the cost of medical care 

and mental health costs, even where they have 

potentially a low dollar IDR amount can still prevent 

them from being able to pay, from being in the position 

where they have to choose between paying for their 

medical debt or mental health costs and paying for their 

student loan debt. In addition, child care costs are 

extremely expensive in this country. They have risen at 

faster than the rate of inflation. But child care costs 

are not included. That includes the cost of day care, 

aftercare, summer care, holiday care, medical care for 

children, which is exacerbated if you have a child with 

special needs. And just by way of example, the US 

Department of Agriculture estimates that raising a child 

through the age of 17 costs 200, 333, and 610 dollars on 

average. In addition, we hear from borrowers who 

struggle with balancing the costs of caregiving for 

aging parents and other dependent adults. This also may 

impact their ability to maintain employment as well. So, 

they may have income, but that income is being drawn 

down by these other expenses. And in addition, and 

perhaps most significantly, there are significant 

regional differences in the cost of living that are not 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

10

taken fully into account by the IDR plans. This means 

that some borrowers who are low income borrowers are in 

the horrible position of having to choose between paying 

for their housing costs or paying for their student loan 

debt. And so, I think all of these factors should be 

considered when we're thinking about hardship. And I 

would just like to lift up what Lane said about 

incarcerated borrowers as well, that oftentimes they 

have no way of contacting their servicers. And the 

Department could find information and discharge the debt 

of folks who have been incarcerated for five years or 

more.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Next, Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: 

Thank you. I won't belabor repeating what Kyra and 

others have just said. I do also want to emphasize the 

importance of providing relief for people who are 

incarcerated, and also flag that family members of 

people who are incarcerated, particularly women of 

color, bear significant financial burden associated with 

having an incarcerated family members, and that should 

also be taken into consideration. One thing that I want 

to note as well as that, think here to the Department 

should be looking for indicia of hardships that can be 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

11

ascertained based on data that's available to the 

Federal Government, including other agencies, to 

minimize the burden of people, burden on people, you 

know, sort of proving this hardship. And to that end, I 

think that the Department should consider as a hardship 

when folks have had, you know, administrative 

garnishment and they're EITC withheld, which is, I 

realize, not a problem focus of this rulemaking. But 

it's a big problem. And I think it's something that the 

Department should consider in the context of identifying 

people who are facing hardships. And I'd like to add to 

the list as well, disproportionate private student loan 

debt, particularly student loan debt that's associated 

with institutional debt from for-profit schools and the 

like, that that's something the Department should be 

taking into consideration. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you. Quick note. Scott Waterman is going to be 

coming in for Kyra Taylor as- at the table in place of 

Kyra Taylor for legal assistant organizations that 

represent students or borrowers. Next up, Ed Boltz.

MR. BOLTZ: 

Thank you. I would like to reference that and again 

thank- the Department did a very good job. Not a great 

job, but it's within the limits of what can be done in 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

12

these sorts of things. With the student loan guidance 

that was issued with the- regarding bankruptcy 

discharges. I would hope that whatever rulemaking can 

come out of this would both reference- would look 

towards that perhaps but also reference that because 

thus far, in the almost one year that we've been working 

to get student loan discharges in bankruptcies, the 

Department's- attorneys at the Department of Justice and 

the assistant US attorneys have often stood athwart itsthe Department's own goals, despite being the actual 

client who directs this. So, the- to the extent that, 

you know, anything can be incorporated regarding that in 

these rulemaking, I think that would strengthen the hand 

of both the Department and consumer advocates in seeking 

student loan discharges for people who are in 

bankruptcy. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you very much. Next, Jordan.

MR. NELLUMS: 

Yes. Thank you. Well, I wanted to give you all my 

personal story. So, when I first decided to attend 

college, I realized that I would not- that I would have 

to rely on student loans to attain college, and I was 

adamant that I did not want my parents to be in a bad 

situation to support me in college. But ultimately 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

13

didn't care what I wanted, and they emphasized that they 

would support me and my twin at all cost. And due to 

their commitment, my father, who never went to college 

himself, took out Parent PLUS Loans for me and my twin. 

And as of today, my father has nearly $100,000 in Parent 

PLUS Loans and is not expected to finish paying off the 

loans until the age of 84, and recently commented how he 

thinks he'll end up having to work for the rest of his 

life. I think that should be considered a hardship. In 

its recent public statements regarding the introduction 

of the SAVE Plan and why Parent PLUS Loan borrowers were 

excluded from that plan, the Department makes the 

following assumptions. The Department states that many 

Parent PLUS Loan borrowers are more likely to have a 

clear picture of whether or not their loan is 

affordable, and I think this couldn't be further from 

the truth, as my dad never attended college and my dad 

was not familiar with the student loan process, which 

I'm sure is a similar experience that so many different 

first-generation college students and their families 

experience. Additionally, my father was never aware that 

his Social Security benefits could be at risk as well. 

The second assumption that the Department makes is 

because Parent PLUS Loan borrowers do not directly 

benefit from the educational attainment of the degree or 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

14

credential achieved, the Parent PLUS Loan will not 

facilitate investments that increase the parent's own 

earnings. This, I also agree, is flawed. I obtained a 

college education because of my dad's support in taking 

out a Parent PLUS Loan. The Department states that 

parents specifically do not benefit from their childtheir children getting a college degree. I argue they 

do. If they are a first-generation college student, you 

have opened your family to the ability to dream bigger 

and in some cases, break generational curses. As the 

Century Foundation noted in one of their most recent 

reports, Parent PLUS poses a dilemma for Black and 

Latino families in particular, who may view higher 

education as one of the only available opportunities to 

ensure that their children- that their child achieves 

upward mobility. Additionally, many Parent PLUS Loan 

borrowers assume that their kids will be able to help 

them pay for their Parent PLUS Loans.

MS. JEFFRIES:

30 seconds, Jordan.

MR. NELLUMS: 

I call on the Department to reconsider its previous 

statements regarding Parent PLUS Loans, and include them 

in the SAVE Plan and any plans that cancel student loan 

debt, such as canceling debt of Parent PLUS Loans after 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

15

parents make payments toward their loans for the amount 

of years that their students were enrolled in school, as 

any years beyond when their child was enrolled should be 

considered as creating hardships. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you. Jordan. Of note, David Ramirez is going to be 

coming in sitting at the table in place of primary 

Ashley Pizzuti for student loan borrowers who attend 

programs of two years or less. And next, Wisdom.

MR. COLE: 

Thank you. I just wanted to share some stories from 

members of the National Association for the Advancement 

of Colored People in terms of the hardships that are 

impacting them. Sheila S. writes, my debt to income 

ratio is so disproportionate that my risk for 

homeownership is not likely. Who will give a mortgage to 

somebody who is nearly 500K in student loan debt? Trina 

W, owing an amount of student debt is stressful. I'm 

fearful that my kids may be saddled with my debt when I 

die. I'm a disabled veteran and I have to keep a job 

just to pay student loan debt. It's hard. She's saddled 

with $81,000 in student debt. Valerie P., I'm currently 

the primary caregiver for my mother and husband, who are 

both disabled. My husband has been recently diagnosed 

with lung cancer. I've taken on two jobs in order to 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

16

make ends meet in the payment for my student loans, 

which has taken time away from me being able to care for 

my family. Valerie has 200K in student loans. Miriam B., 

who has 96K in student loans, I was provided for- I 

wanted to provide for my family, I did not make 

sufficient salary and worked two jobs. I was a mother of 

four children and a grandma. I've been paying my loans, 

but I was told that my last payment would be when I was 

95 years old. I'm 70 years old. Asia M., who has 300K in 

student loans, I'm unable to launch a real estate 

business. Although my job pays me a decent salary, I 

usually live paycheck to paycheck and unable to amass 

savings. I'm afraid to start trying to have a baby with 

my husband, because we are burdened by the huge debt and 

are not financially stable enough. There are a multitude 

of key issues that are here and hardships that people 

face, but identifying some of these issues, such as job 

loss and the reduction of income solutions that the 

Department can take in terms of cancellation, but also 

adjustments to IDR that folks have mentioned already. I 

want to also highlight the health issues that happen 

with student loans, health problems, medical emergencies 

can lead to high medical bills and reducing the ability 

to pay student loans. We know that 53 percent of high 

debt student loan borrowers have experienced depression 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

17

because of debt. Nine out of ten borrowers experienced 

significant anxiety due to their student loan debt. 1 in 

15 student loan borrowers surveyed have said they've 

considered suicide due to their student loan debt. The 

Department can take action to explore medical hardship 

deferment and specialized loan forgiveness programs for 

borrowers facing these health related financial 

difficulties. Also, identifying public service and 

nonprofit- Borrowers working in public service or 

nonprofit sectors may face lower salaries compared to 

their student loan debt. The Department can expand 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness programs by lowering the 

required number of quant- of qualifying payments and 

simplifying the forgiveness process, encouraging more 

borrowers to pursue careers in these sectors. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Wisdom. Next, Scott Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: 

Yes, we're talking about other sort of discrete 

populations that are experiencing hardship. And while 

this isn't a big population, it's one that we've talked 

with the Department with about for many years is for 

borrowers who are reported as missing persons. We don't 

have consistent guidance on how to treat these loans 

across loan programs, and the ongoing outreach to 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

18

service or recover on those loans creates a lot of pain 

for families who are already going through a terrible 

issue of having someone in their family who is a missing 

person, and I think it would be important for the 

Department to consider and regulation clarifying 

practices, and also to determine when we decide to 

cancel these loans so that we're no longer pursuing 

loans and creating that distress for families on an 

ongoing fashion.

MR. WEATHERS:

Thank you. Scott. Next, Scott Waterman.

MR. WATERMAN: 

Good afternoon. I wanted to provide a little context for 

discharging student loans, because we do it all the time 

in bankruptcy. And in the bankruptcy world, in order to 

discharge a student loan, the debtor needs to 

demonstrate three things. Number one, that they've acted 

in good faith. Number two, that they have a current 

hardship. And number three, that the hardship is going 

to continue through a substantial period of the 

repayment period for that loan. Now, recently, last 

year, November of 2022, the Department of Justice tried 

to standardize that attest. It's called the Bruner test 

and issued a new directive. And I think we can learn 

from that because that new directive establishes certain 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

19

standards and presumptions. And one presumption is if 

the debtor is having a hardship and is older than the 

age of 65, then there's a presumption that that hardship 

is going to continue so that that can be discharged. The 

second presumption is that the debtor has been 

unemployed for five of the last ten years. They meet 

that presumption. And so, I ask that perhaps the 

Department can look at its- the Department of Justice's 

guidelines and use them as a basis for their decision to 

make it easier for people to discharge loans short of 

having to go to bankruptcy. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Scott. Next, Jalil.

DR. BISHOP: 

Thank you. I want to underscore again thinking- having 

the expansive view and expansive definitions of 

hardship, I think many of my fellow negotiators have 

shared great categories for us to think about. I think 

that it's particularly important for us to return back 

to the conversation of Parent PLUS borrowers, because I 

think that there's a- I'll say, Parent PLUS borrowers 

and graduate school borrowers. I think there's an

argument that I can see continuously from the Department 

that there's a risk of a moral hazard if we offer 

benefits to these two groups, because there's a notion 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

20

that these two groups, knew the loans that they were 

taking out should have the means to handle the risk that 

by somehow offering them benefits that can handle the 

real hardship that they're experiencing, that that 

somehow would create a moral hazard where they would 

borrow more loans than they need and I would really 

encourage the Department as you're hearing these stories 

being shared here today, as you're looking at the data, 

to really consider some of the moral hazard arguments 

that have been used to exclude, particularly Parent PLUS 

borrowers from past beneficial plans as we look forward 

at additional regulation. I also think that data is 

important here, but it's hard to capture hardship 

stories if you're only looking at quantitative outcome 

data. So, I would encourage the Department to look at 

research such as mine, the National Black Student Loan 

Study, where we actually captured the experiences of 

2000 Black borrowers and will share the data report and 

the data hub where you can not only read the stories, 

you can listen to the audio, you can see the 

visualization of how these hardships are playing out 

when it comes to meeting people's basic needs. And then 

I will also put in a data request for the Department to 

please submit to us some themes that you're receiving in 

the 27,000 comments that you have received around 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

21

hardship that borrowers are experiencing. So, you're 

already receiving a lot of this qualitative data. If you 

could pull out some of those hardship themes, that would 

also help us as we're trying to define hardship 

categories.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you very much. Quick note, India Heckstall will be 

replacing Wisdom Cole at the table for the Civil Rights 

Organizations constituency. Next, Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Thank you. I won't belabor it, but I just want to repeat 

what people said about Parent PLUS borrowers. It's a 

real problem and people are really struggling. I was at 

a- recently at a training for a student loan advocate 

non-attorney advocates, financial counselors 

essentially. And the trainer said, look, if you can't 

afford your Parent PLUS Loans like the worst case is you 

try and pay them until you die. The best case is you try 

and pay until you get disabled enough to get a 

discharge, and I think that that really reflects how 

people are feeling about Parent PLUS Loans is that it's 

a hole that they just literally will never get out of. 

So, I think it's really important that those are 

included in any kind of relief. And then I just wanted 

to bring up a topic that I referred to, but think is 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

22

very important in terms of the hardship here. I think 

the Department is well aware of the student loan 

scammer- student loan document preparation companies, 

which are private companies that solicit payments from 

Federal Student Loan borrowers in exchange often for 

false promises about loan cancellation or loan 

forgiveness. In reality, they just do a simple IDR 

application or a simple consolidation, even often when 

consolidation or IDR consolidation really is against the 

borrower's best interest. There are thousands, probably 

in the hundreds of thousands, definitely in the tens of 

thousands of borrowers who've been enrolled in these 

companies. The FTC and many state attorneys general, 

including Yael's office, have taken action against them. 

But this is a widespread problem, and I think really a 

basis for hardship. If you think about the millions of 

dollars that have poured into this industry, that's 

really money that should have gone to pay borrowers' 

principal and interest. And I've had individual clients, 

for example, who believed that they were paying their 

Federal Student Loans, in fact, were paying, a private 

third-party company that was misrepresenting its role 

and in one circumstance even tried to do an objection to 

administrative wage garnishment. The borrower did not 

understand that they were in default because they 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

23

believed they had been paying their loans. So, I think 

this problem is really pervasive and a real hardship for 

many people that I hope the Department considers as a 

basis.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Jessica. Next, Amber.

MS. GALLUP: 

Hi. Yeah. You know, as a state official in New Mexico,

and, you know, we're talking about, you know, borrowers, 

special populations with special hardships, I want to 

make sure that we mention, you know, New Mexico is home 

to 23 tribes in pueblos. You know, loans in these vast 

rural areas of our state are, you know, among the only 

opportunities that native and rural students have to 

finance their education. I know from personal experience 

that, you know, that the private lenders that Jessica 

was just talking about also have a presence in the rural 

areas and in the tribes in pueblos in New Mexico. And, 

you know, borrowers from Native American communities. 

One thing that's special about them is that they often 

are committed to staying within their communities, to 

giving back, to serving their communities, and investing 

back in their communities. And I think that, you know, 

that benefits all of us. It benefits the state. It 

definitely benefits the tribes in pueblos. And I think, 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

24

you know, that really could absolutely be said of our 

large Hispanic population as well in New Mexico. Now, 

you know, I think it's easy to understand that the 

earning potential in our vast rural spaces and our 

tribes in pueblos in New Mexico, you know, is- can be 

low, and access to information because of the lack of 

resources in our state is a real issue, even coming from 

the state itself. So that- you know, that I think that 

this situation in a whole leads to a situation that 

really further compounds the historic harms that our 

Native American and Hispanic and really rural 

communities are already facing in New Mexico and really 

holds them back from investing in themselves and their 

children. So, I want to make sure that the needs of this 

particular group are also, you know, kept in the 

foreground of the Department’s understanding.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you. Amber. Next up, David Ramirez.

MR. RAMIREZ: 

Hi, everyone. I really want to concur all the statements 

about student- or Parent PLUS Loans and myself as a 

student, I recently had to take out loans, find myself 

very challenged in trying to understand the differences 

in benefits between unsubsidized Federal loans and 

Parent PLUS Loans, and had no real way to understand 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

25

those differences. And relying on financial aid offices, 

even at an institution like UCLA, is very unreliable and 

very difficult, especially for first-generation students 

of immigrants. I also really wanted to elevate for you 

all the second-generation immigrant students and those 

of children of undocumented immigrants, particularly 

since they don't even have access to Parent PLUS Loans. 

As a particular hardship that borrowers experience. You 

know, the immigrant experience in America is trauma 

itself. And the added trauma of trying to navigate 

higher education and trying to navigate how to finance 

your education, is disproportionate for those students. 

And so, I just wanted to offer that.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, David. A couple quick notes. Lane Thompson is 

coming back to the table in place of Amber Gallup. And 

Richard Haase is coming back to the table for Jalil 

Mustaffa Bishop. Next up, John Whitelaw.

MR. WHITELAW: 

Yes. Thank you. I want to make a couple of points. One 

is sort of technical, but I think important. Remember, 

the standard for bankruptcy is undue hardship. And the 

standard here is a significantly less stringent test of 

hardship. So it seems to me anything that qualifies in 

bankruptcy automatically covers- qualifies as hardship. 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

26

But it's a one-way ratchet in the sense that just 

because it doesn't qualify for bankruptcy does not mean 

it wouldn't be a hardship. I also want to take a little 

detour, I think not quite as important as the 

substantive standards for hardship, and I know I'm going 

to sound like a broken record on this, automation, 

automation, automation. It doesn't matter what the 

standards are if people have to suffer a difficult 

application process, they will not be able to navigate 

it. And that is particularly true for individuals with 

disabilities. I have spent much of my career doing aworking with individuals with disabilities who try to 

get waivers of Social Security overpayments, and one of 

the tests to get a waiver is to show financial hardship. 

And I cannot tell you the volumes of people who cannot 

navigate that process, regardless of their substantive 

eligibility. So it is just, if not more important, to 

make sure that the- that you look for markers of 

hardship. I can give you one example. On Medicare and 

not subject to the enhanced Medicare premium because you 

are subject to IRMAA. So everyone on Medicare is either 

going to be elderly or disabled. And I think that's athat is again, just I was thinking of things off the top 

of my head for what can we use for indicators of 

hardship. And then there are ways that at the quote top 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

27

end, if there are some people that we think, yeah, this 

person is on Medicare, but they but they've got millions 

of dollars, they shouldn't be subject to hardship. There 

are ways to tinker with that at the back end, but that 

is not a difficult way to use as a simple mechanism for 

identifying people who are absolutely going to be 

undergoing some hardship. And I think there are lots of 

creative markers that we can use, by no means 

exclusively, but many markers that we could use to 

indicate for hardship. Receipt- and these are not 

exclusive, but receipt of any type of public assistance; 

Medicaid, SNAP, food stamps, any of those should be 

automatic indicators of hardship. And that is 

information that can be readily obtained through data 

exchanges that exist.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

30 seconds, John.

MR. WHITELAW: 

And so I think we want a broad, expansive look. And then 

you really have to spend a lot of focus on looking for 

readily identifiable markers that people do not have to 

fill out applications for. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, John. Next is Richard.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

28

MR. HAASE: 

I'm glad John just brought up the importance of 

automation, which we hadn't really been talking about 

much today. It's actually what I wanted to chime in on 

also. I think it's important to remember that when it 

comes to hardship, it's often going to be people who are 

working multiple jobs who are- you know, we talk about 

discretionary income, but we don't always talk about 

discretionary time, discretionary faculties, language 

barriers. You know, having grown up in a single-parent 

home with a parent who worked three jobs and disabled 

brother, living in poverty, I can tell you that, you 

know, my home, you know, and my family were probably 

ones who would have missed opportunities that we weren't 

geared towards and supported through navigating. So I 

think it's sometimes mistakenly people blame others for 

which paths they don't pursue towards achieving 

forgiveness and support, and I think it's important that 

we remember that it's often that people who need our 

help the most, who we really have to make a conscious 

effort to reach out to and find. The more we can do to 

automate the process so families like those, you know, 

can get the support they need. I think that's going to 

go a real distance when it comes to addressing that 

hardship.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

29

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you. Lane, you're next.

MS. THOMPSON: 

Thanks. I have also been thinking about which kind of 

categories of borrowers are easily identifiable, and one 

that comes to mind for me is people without a permanent 

address. So people who are experiencing houselessness. 

In a lot of cases, these are also people who are 

defaulted, people who have not connected with their 

servicer in a long time. So I think there's a few 

different metrics there; address, most recent contact 

with servicer, and length of default that could all be 

pretty clear indications of hardship.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Lane. Jessica, you're next.

MS. RANUCCI: 

I just wanted to echo John and Richard that I think 

largely the negotiators I believe are on the same page 

here, that we think that the more that can be automated, 

the better, and that the Department should largely be 

focusing on areas in which it can use its understanding 

of hardships experienced by borrowers to enact waiver of 

debt automatically without an application. But I do 

think that this really should be two-track and encourage 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

30

the Department with that as the primary goal, to also, 

especially when we're thinking about the long-term 

effect of these regulations, have as a secondary measure 

in the long run, an ability for borrowers to 

affirmatively apply for hardship relief in circumstances 

that may not be captured by those automatic programs. 

And I just- I don't think that should be the major 

focus, but I don't want it to get lost. And I hope that 

the Department is able to come up with a proposal that 

has both.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Jessica. A couple quick notes. Ashley is 

coming back to the table, as is Jalil. Thank you. Next, 

Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR:

Thank you. I also want to flag another form of hardship. 

So oftentimes we- the clients of legal aid organizations 

have different family compositions. And so you may have 

multiple adults contributing income to the family. Even 

if the borrower doesn't lose their job, if a family 

member that is contributing family income loses their 

job, that can pose significant financial hardship on the 

borrower and complicate their ability to pay for their 

student loans. In addition, I wanted to raise up that 

military spouses often struggle with paying their 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

31

student loan debt. In a recent survey done by Blue Star 

Families, 34 percent of the active duty families 

reported that they had student loan debt, and of that 34 

percent, 80 percent owed $10,000 or more. Military 

spouses have higher rates of unemployment and may have 

more frequent periods of unemployment over a period of 

time just because they're moving as their duty station 

changes. And so I would ask the Department consider that 

population as well. Unlike active duty members, the 

military spouse may not be eligible for things like 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness. In addition, while some 

of the things I've suggested may not- may be very 

difficult to automate, there are ways of simplifying the 

form that borrowers need to use to be eligible- to 

demonstrate that they're eligible for hardship. I think 

a great example of this was President Biden's previous 

broad-based cancellation form. It was easy to 

understand, it was fast to use. And so, I would ask that 

the Department model, whatever it ultimately creates 

after a form like that. In addition, the form was easy 

to understand and employed plain language principles and 

I think that is especially important here for any 

application that the Department is creating.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you. Next, Sher.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

32

MS. GAMMAGE: 

I don't want to belabor any points that already have 

been made, especially concerning the buckets of 

borrowers or the groups who make- have undue hardship. 

But I'd like to go back to this issue of Parent PLUS and 

graduate workers, and also couch it within the mental 

health or the quality of life and the moral hardship 

argument that Jalil brought up. And I'm going to use 

myself as an example. And some people in my 

constituency, which are four-year borrowers. Many 

parents later in life have taken out loans to help their 

kids go back to school. One of the negotiators brought 

up the fact that his father won't pay off the loan, pay 

off- or pay off a loan until he's 84 years old. Amongst 

that group is an aging population. And we have tothough the Department considers permanent disability as 

a hardship, it doesn't count things like chronic 

illness. For myself, I went back to school- to graduate 

school in my 50s. Shortly after doing so, I came- I 

encountered a life threatening illness that threw me 

into deferment, though I still suffer with that illness. 

I have stage four nonalcoholic liver disease, and I also 

have chronic pancreatitis. I'm on- I'm not on a 

transplant list for my liver yet, but I do have a MELD 

score. I am now approaching 66 years of age, still 

paying loans, and it doesn't seem to me that the 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

33

Department will reasonably be able to collect my loan in 

my lifetime, however long or short that may be. And that 

for other parents who have taken out loans for their 

children, who have had kids later in life and are taking 

out loans, they're not going to reasonably connect. So,

I would like for us to consider not only permanent 

disability but chronic illness, because as people age, 

they do encounter chronic illnesses that not only 

preclude their ability to work fully pay off their 

loans, but in order even to support their families. And 

going into your senior years with this burden hanging 

over you, someone brought up suicide. I've heard people 

said, you know, it'd be better for me to be dead. You 

know, I'm never going to get this around my neck. So, we 

consider these things- Yeah, we consider chronic illness 

as one of those groups of borrowers who are experiencing 

hardship. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Sher. John, you're next.

MR. WHITELAW: 

Just two specific examples that I wanted to give. Well, 

one comment and one example. Ms. Gammage is an example 

for herself. For example, she's over 65. She's almost 

certainly on Medicare. That would be a- and she's almost 

certainly not paying the Medicare penalty- premium 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

34

penalty, just the regular amount. That would be an easy 

one. I also think it's important that people should not 

have to prostrate themselves before the Department to 

get hardship. But making people beg is unseemly and I 

think they should not have to give up. It should be easy 

and quick. And then let me just give one other example. 

I do a lot of healthcare work. People who receive 

Obamacare with a subsidy. The subsidy for Obamacare goes 

up to 400 percent of poverty, which again, this is not 

an exclusive list, but it then- you know, anyone who's 

getting Obamacare with a subsidy, that's an indication 

of economic hardship. I think that's a quick and easy 

one. Should be available through data sharing, does not 

require a lot of intrusive questions, does not require 

people to, you know, sort of, reveal lots of private 

information they may not want to reveal. I think we want 

lots of little- bigger and little examples that we- that 

can be automated. Again, I'm just going to say it again 

that the Department can find the data on without havingwithout people actually having to come forward with it. 

And I think part of it is creatively thinking about 

relevant databases that we can use as shorthand for 

hardship.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, John. Next, you're up, Jalil.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

35

DR. BISHOP: 

Thank you. I think that is important for us to also be 

clear that hardship shouldn't only be defined in really 

particular ways. If we're thinking about what are ways 

to deliver relief that's automatic, that's including as 

many- catching as many borrowers as possible who are 

experiencing hardship. I think that we also need to 

bring it back down to the basics and to the data that we 

know that Department has. So again, if we have borrowers 

who have been in repayment for ten years and they haveyou know, spent a large portion of those years in 

default with zero or no principal-bearing payments, then 

those are other indicators for us to say that we are 

dealing with a borrower who's in default- I mean who's 

in hardship, and those are simple, ready to go data 

points that can allow the Department to have a broad 

approach to hardship and again, not burden student loan 

borrowers with having to prove or just share the pain, 

rehearse that pain of not only the hardship of living 

with student debt, but also the hardship of dealing with 

the Department of ED and loan servicers who just simply, 

over decades now, have- haven't always delivered 

accurate information, has- have changed programs so many 

times, have presented confusing information, have made 

people go through multiyear processes only to be denied 

because of tiny mistakes in paperwork or sometimes 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

36

denials, without any indication why they were denied. I 

think that some of this hardship is also inflicted by 

just past servicing and past processes, and it's 

important to keep it simple, keep it broad and keep it 

automated. And again, if someone's been paying on debt 

or have been in repayment for again, I would say ten 

years or more, I think that's a hardship indicator that 

should make them eligible for relief.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, sir. Ashley, you are next.

MS. PIZZUTI: 

Through organized efforts, there have been over 30,000 

student debtors that have submitted a demand letter to 

the Department to use the compromise, settle, waive and 

release authority under the Higher Education Act. I am 

wondering if the Department is considering these under 

this regulation or under this neg reg and what exactly 

they are doing for these letters. I know that hearing 

some of the stories and, you know, undue hardship, with 

Biden's 1020 plan, there were a lot of people who made 

financial decisions based off the fact that they 

received a letter approving them for that forgiveness. I 

know we can't go back and change the Supreme Court's 

decision. But there is a considerable amount of people 

who switched jobs, who left abusive relationships, who 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

37

had medical procedures they had put off because they had 

the idea that they would have these loans forgiven. So,

I think that there are a group of people who have now 

kind of backed themselves into a corner, assuming that 

they would not have these loans hanging over them.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Ashley. As a quick point, Sarah Butts will be 

coming to the table in place of Sherrie Gammage. Ms. 

Taylor?

MS. TAYLOR: 

I'd also like to note that many of the things that we've 

talked about so far, medical debt, chronic illness, 

housing cost, differences in regional expenses, staying 

in repayment for longer than ten years, all of these 

things could be indicators of a borrower's inability to 

repay the debt in full, or that the fact that the 

Department is going to be unable to collect the debt in 

full within a reasonable timeframe, even by use of its 

collection powers. And so all of these things indicatemay indicate that the Department may struggle to collect 

this debt in the first place as well.

MR. WEATHERS: 

[Inaudible] other hands. Anything else to add to this 

discussion? Sarah, go ahead.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

38

MS. BUTTS:

This has been a really interesting discussion, and we 

appreciate you all asking us about what the hardships

that we're hearing about and that we've experienced are, 

so thank you. I think it would be great if the 

Department could really do an analysis of the data 

available to see, you know, what are the trends? Are 

there- are we looking at borrowers over the lifespan? 

What does that tell us? What different types of 

occupations are associated with hardship in terms of how 

long it takes to pay back some of these loans and use 

that information so that we're really being data driven 

in our in our way of trying to address some of the 

challenges that we're facing.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Sarah. Lane, you're next.

MS. THOMPSON: T

his is a little bit out there, but something I think 

about a lot is the difference between income and wealth. 

And there are Income Driven Repayment plans, but there 

are not wealth driven repayment plans. So I think, you 

know, another thing to think about is family net worth. 

You know, we look at that at the front end when we're 

looking for that expected family contribution. And so I 

think that might be another thing to kind of keep in 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

39

mind is that sometimes the- just the salary on paper 

isn't a good indication of what's being paid for with 

that salary. What other assets and debts are there? So 

just kind of throwing out that income and wealth are not 

the same thing. And that just because somebody has a 

pretty solid income doesn't mean that they're in the 

same position as anyone else with that same income.

MR. WEATHERS:

Thank you, Lane. Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Thanks. I- you know, I think you can hear from the table 

that this is something that we feel very strongly about 

and I think people have given lots of good examples. But 

I guess maybe I would ask the Department whether there's 

anything more specific that you would like to maybe ask 

the table with respect to the use of the waiver 

authority here. Is there any- is there anything else 

more concrete that we can provide you today during this 

session about this question?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

John, are you okay with me chiming in?

MR. WEATHERS: 

Please do, Tamy.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

40

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Thanks. Jessica, thank you for asking and for prompting 

us. This really is an informational session. We did not 

come to the table with proposed regulatory text, which 

is sometimes typical of a first negotiation. We come to 

the table with some ideas of things that we're going to 

do. We did not do that. What we tried to do was really 

engage in conversation with you guys and solicit your 

opinion and your insight from the constituents that you 

represent, for us to have a good faith negotiation and 

take what you are giving us now, circling back before 

the second session, providing proposed regulatory 

language for us to consider and continue our 

conversations. We're not purposely being vague or 

evasive. The- many of the things that you're asking us 

are things we cannot respond to immediately. We need to 

go back. We need to look at the data. We need to be able 

to analyze what you're asking and discuss it as a group. 

So we plan to do that. We plan to come back with more 

information for the second session. But this- these two 

days are about us listening to you. You represent a 

number of individuals in all of the different 

categories. And I'm listening. This conversation 

specifically about hardship, it is hard to hear what our 

borrowers are facing, and we are not unsensitive or 

insensitive to caring about all of the obstacles and 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

41

where we can find ways to streamline and automate and 

provide the Secretary of the authority to make great 

decisions for these borrowers in these respective 

categories, we want to do that, and we are looking to 

you to help us do that throughout the rest of this 

negotiated rulemaking, two months, two extra months. So 

no, we don't have a whole lot to say right now, but to 

encourage us to continue the conversation, because 

through this conversation, we learn and we're able to 

adapt and create something that we can present to the 

table during the second round of negotiations.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. Any other additional 

discussion on this issue question? Jalil, please.

DR. BISHOP: Can I just get clarification on- because I 

understand this is a listening- primarily the goal is to 

listen to us as negotiators, but I think as we're all 

preparing for the future sessions and trying to make 

sense of this session now, it will also help us just to 

get a little bit more framing, if that's, you know, 

framing around what are questions or still ideas out 

there that you would like to hear from us on. If 

they're- if it's framing around, you know, what arewhere are areas where we may need to spend some more 

time discussing today. But I think just to make sure 

that we're taking- making best use of this, the 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

42

Department doesn't need to share a proposal, but it 

would be helpful if the Department could share, where 

could be some more value at? Where could be some more 

clarification? Where could there be some more 

discussion? So, I do want to just push back a little bit 

that if this is just a listening session, then we're 

not, you know, getting the chance to hear from the 

Department on what you need so that you can prepare for 

the next session. So just want to nudge you there more 

for us to get a little bit more detailed clarification, 

framing, something if this indeed is supposed to be, you 

know, a conversation between a negotiation- negotiators 

and the Department.

MR. WEATHERS:

[Inaudible] Jalil.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

What we'd like to do is, we'd like to take a break and 

we'd like to circle back to answer that question after 

we've had a break.

MR. WEATHERS: 

And I was endeavoring to give us a break, probably in 

the next ten minutes or so. I see there's still some 

hands up. Why don't we go ahead and proceed with those?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

43

MS. JEFFRIES: 

John.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Yeah?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Let me interject. Let's take a listing of the people who 

have their hands up and go ahead and honor the 

Department's request for a break.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Okay. Yeah. Absolutely. Ashley and Sarah, I've got you.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

We would [inaudible] please.

MR. WEATHERS: 

30 minutes. Alright. So, let's call it 2:30. Hello, 

everyone. Thank you for coming back in a timely fashion. 

A couple quick things I wanted to cover. Just a 

reiteration that these first two days are for the 

purpose of the Department in taking information from the 

negotiators so that they can be responsive. And that's 

what we're here to do today. I also wanted to reiterate 

the idea that the comments that we're making are new, 

that we're trying to explore different and new space 

from what we've already covered. So, if we could keep 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

44

that in mind. A quick note before I move to Ashley and 

Sarah. Jada Sanford is coming back to the table in place 

of Jordan Nellums for currently enrolled postsecondary 

education students. Thank you. Alright, Ashley, take it 

away.

MS. PIZZUTI: 

I'm not sure if the Department could answer this right 

now, but do we have a timeframe for when these releases 

or waivers are going to be rolling out? We are going 

into a very contentious election year, which may not 

actually work in our- in a lot of ours favor, which kind 

of seems almost pointless if this is going to be pushedif this cancellation is going to be pushed into, you 

know, 2025. I know that there are a lot of people who 

are, very upset that they didn't get the Biden 

forgiveness. And it is very- it's turned them off to 

voting, which I'm, you know, terrified of. And so, I'm 

kind of wondering, you know, where the Department stands 

as far as timeline goes and how quickly they are willing 

to act on rolling some of these initiatives out.

MR. WEATHERS: [Inaudible] I see you've raised your hand. 

So go ahead.

MS. ABERNATHY: Did you say me, John?

MR. WEATHERS: Yes, I did.

MS. ABERNATHY: Oh, sorry. So typically, we're held to a 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

45

master calendar schedule, which means if we publish the 

notice of proposed rulemaking by November 1st, thatwhich will not be this year, so it'd be November 1st, 

2024, then we would have those rules implemented by July 

1, 2025, unless the Secretary exercised his authority 

for early implementation. And when we would craft the 

notice of final rule, we would include an implementation 

schedule at that time.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Tamy. Alright, Sarah, you're next.

MS. BUTTS: 

Thank you. This is a comment and follow-up from our last 

discussion regarding hardship. The Department might look 

at individual borrowers who have a history of having 

certified their employment for public service and now 

find themselves employed in a job where they no longer 

qualify. This is a story that we've heard repeatedly 

over the last couple of years, and that I wanted to lift 

up for consideration that maybe there would be a way to 

provide some student loan relief for that cohort of 

folks.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Sarah, appreciate that. Ms. Taylor, you're next.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

46

MS. TAYLOR: 

This is a follow up question for Tamy. So, the SAVE IDR 

rule was not subject to the master calendar. Why is thethis relief regulation, whatever shape it takes, subject 

to the master calendar?

MS. ABERNATHY: 

It was subject to the master calendar because we 

published before November 1st, and then we early 

implemented provisions. So, the full IDR, the way we're 

going to implement this, everything that we are working 

in, that was an early implemented- so there was a staged 

implementation, so to speak. We did early implementation 

on five components. Then we did- we're going to do 

another early implementation when the Department is 

ready to implement that provision. And then the rest of 

the rule must be implemented by July 1, 2024. So, we did 

adhere to the master calendar, it's just we exercised 

the authority on a number of provisions to early 

implement. Does that make sense?

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Tamy. Wisdom?

MR. COLE: 

I just wanted to bring up another point in relationship 

to the last question around hardship, particularly 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

47

around middle class borrowers, since we do not have a 

seat for middle class borrowers here in negotiations. 

Definitely want to bring up a point that middle class 

borrowers may face hardships even though they might have 

higher wages and face long-term harm because of their 

loans. We have reports that say that since 2005, 

homeownership among recent college graduates have 

declined by 1.8 percent for every $1,000 of student loan 

debt. 51 percent of renters say the student loans keep 

them from buying homes, 29 percent of student loan debt

holders say that debt has kept them from homeownership. 

And we know that homeownership in America is one of the 

best ways to enter into this economic system. And so 

that's a point that we need to make sure we also hone in 

on, in terms of how we are alleviating that burden for 

folks in the middle class.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Wisdom. I see that Sher is coming back at 

the- to the table for student loan borrowers who 

attended four-year programs. I see that we have run the 

allotted time that we had considered for this question. 

I handed off to the Department- I know that we were 

thinking about either circling back to consider 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

48

questions from yesterday in light of the comments that 

Mr. Miller made earlier today or any other possible 

avenue. So, I ask you, Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY:

Thank you, John.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Yeah.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

We would like to take a couple more minutes to go back 

to questions that we addressed yesterday to see if there 

was anything. Because we had some additional framing 

today, we wanted to make sure that we had all of your 

concerns and your observations addressed, or listened to 

them. We know that this type of session can be kind of 

frustrating, where we're sitting at the table and we're 

exchanging ideas and you're giving us input. It's 

necessary for us to get this right. So as frustrating as 

it is, this has been so super helpful for us. We are in 

a much better position going into our next steps. And 

I'll explain what those are a little bit later. And if 

we're lucky enough to be able to really narrow down some 

of the regulatory texts and be able to exercise early 

implementation, we're willing to do that as well. But 

I'd like for us to take a few minutes to go back to 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

49

those questions, and if there are any comments or 

concerns that you guys have in light of what we've heard 

from Ben earlier today, let's go ahead and talk those 

through. And then I can kind of prepare us for whatwhat's to come between now and the next session.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Just a reminder that any questions you may have will be 

viewed in the chat section. So, thank you very much. 

Lane, I see your hand. Please go ahead.

MS. THOMPSON:

Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to make a quick 

clarification about a point I made yesterday. So, I was 

talking about hanging loans and how those are often left 

after Public Service Loan Forgiveness or the IDR account 

adjustment. And I just want to clarify that I'm not 

suggesting changing PSLF in that case. What I'm 

suggesting is going to accounts that had already gotten 

PSLF and forgiving any remaining balance. So just to 

kind of make that clarification, thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Lane. Appreciate that. Scott Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: 

If I can get myself off mute. So, since it sounds like 

we're talking sort of holistically about things that 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

50

were talked about yesterday and today, I think, you 

know, the Department has heard a lot of the concerns 

about sort of borrower issues, sort of disparate impact 

on minorities and others. And, you know, perhaps, you 

know, topics like Parent PLUS Loans and over lending in 

that space. I think those are issues that hopefully, as 

you're looking through the rulemaking process, you'll 

find ways to address and find targeted solutions for 

those things. But I think it's also important, as we 

look at getting proposals from the Department, that the 

Department be really transparent as it drafts those 

things about the strength of the legal justification 

here. We can't go down the path again about making 

promises to borrowers that can't be kept, like in past 

debt relief proposals. We've heard from our end that 

anger and frustration very loudly. Courts have weighed 

in on waiver authority, and we have elected officials 

like Senator Grassley and Cornyn sending the Secretary 

letters on questioning this legal authority and the 

Department must really ensure that any regulation can 

withstand that legal scrutiny. If regs get produced that 

don't survive, then we're going to further erode the 

trust of borrowers in the system. And we're really 

focused, you know, since it's our world of operational 

issues on how to make these regs replicable, 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

51

sustainable, and consistent so they can be easily 

explained to borrowers, like we've had these one-time 

fixes and they can help, but they're not a real solution 

for future borrowers. And today's one-time relief 

programs have taken months, and some may take years to 

deliver on and are completely confusing, frankly. So, if 

we pass regulations and cannot get it to borrowers in a 

timely fashion because there are planning or resource 

constraints, we also need to be able to explain it, then 

we will continue to have the underlying problem of 

borrowers feeling like the system is failing. So, I hope 

the Department will take that into consideration as it 

drafts some proposals for this committee to review and 

provide detailed feedback on in the future.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Scott. [Inaudible]

MS. SHAVIT: 

Thank you. I also want to echo what Lane just said, and 

note in the context of the discussion that we had today 

that were raised yesterday, borrowers who had been 

steered into- or rather, borrowers who would have been 

eligible for forgiveness under the limited PSLF waiver 

and would have been eligible for forgiveness in light of 

the IDR adjustment, but were not able to take advantage 

of that because they got misinformation about 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

52

consolidation, misinformation that we're all very well 

aware of that is pervasive and well documented, that 

those are categories of individuals who've already been 

determined to be eligible, ultimately because of 

characteristics of their loans and of their 

circumstances for forgiveness and who need it. And that 

this is an opportunity to identify a discrete cohort of 

individuals that can be assisted fairly easily. And 

again, though, I've used the terms PSLF and IDR here, 

that we're not talking about making changes to the 

programs themselves, but rather identifying easily 

ascertainable cohorts that have demonstrated an 

entitlement to relief and a need for it, and whose 

circumstances have stopped them from accessing that 

relief through no fault of their own. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Wisdom.

MR. COLE: 

This is a quick process question. I know there have been 

multiple documents, research reports, links dropped in 

the chat here. If we are submitting that, I know that 

there was an ask to submit these via Word doc. Is that 

correct? And I would just send that to you, Cindy?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

53

MR. WEATHERS:

Please send that to anyone on the FMCS team or all of 

us, and we'll forward to the appropriate people. And we 

were asking that it be sent in Word form, yes.

MR. COLE: So, link that we have from Active site, having 

that in like Word format would be the best practice, 

correct?

MS. JEFFRIES: Let me just say this. If it is the intentif you're submitting something with the intent that it 

be posted on the Department's website, it does need to 

be in Word format, including source documents, because 

these documents have to be in compliance with many 

regulations prior to the ability to post them. And that 

is an easier lift for those who have to review them for 

compliance if they are in Word, including source 

documents. Excuse me. Then, prior to being posted, they 

would be re- they would be converted into a PDF for 

posting. So, if these links in the chat are just for 

anyone who wants to take a look at them for 

informational purposes and don't have the intent to have 

them posted, then that is fine, but you are 100 percent 

correct with anything that you submit for posting needs 

to come through the FMCS team in Word format.

MR. COLE: 

Thank you. 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

54

MR. WEATHERS: 

Any other questions as it relates to question one and 

two that we covered yesterday in light of Mr. Miller's 

comments earlier today? Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Would it be possible to do a very quick caucus?

MR. WEATHERS: 

Sure. Who are you looking to caucus with?

MS. RANUCCI: 

I think the Department servicers- the servicers seats, 

Civil rights state AGS states. And Cher in particular. I 

want to talk about FFEL. So, I think any of the borrower 

seats that particularly have to do with FFEL. And then I 

think that the people I named are the seats that have 

[inaudible]

MR. WEATHERS: 

Jessica, how long are you looking for?

MS. RANUCCI: 

Ten minutes.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Okay.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Is that alright?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

55

MS. JEFFRIES: 

John?

MR. WEATHERS: 

Yeah. Go ahead, Cindy. 

MS. JEFFRIES:

Let me help you with- help out here because this hasn't 

come up. Okay. Jessica, did you say you'd like to have 

the Department in there?

MS. RANUCCI: 

Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Is the Department willing to participate in that 

caucus?

MS. RANUCCI: 

I also realized I might have left out legal aids. If I 

didn't say that, I meant to.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

We are. However, there is a concern of having ten 

minutes for that caucus and us having the ability to 

wrap up our thoughts for the day before public comment. 

So, while we are certainly- we certainly want to 

definitely caucus with you, we do have some wrap-up 

comments, basically kind of a roadmap of what we're 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

56

going to be able to provide to you and what we're hoping 

that you'll give to us by the next meeting.

MS. RANUCCI:

[Inaudible] we just get any- if there are anyMS. ABERNATHY: 

I'm sorry.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Don't we have 45 minutes left? 

MS. ABERNATHY: 

We do. I don't know how to tell time apparently. You 

know, it's been a long day. I'm thinking 3:00 in my 

brain.

MS. JEFFRIES:

Okay. No worries. So, Jessica. And for the rest of you, 

this is how it needs to work as far as setting up these 

caucus rooms. Mike, can you give me a hand and pull up a 

breakout room? Jessica, I'm going to ask you to identify 

the persons by name that you would like to go into that 

caucus room, and then once that is completed, we will go 

off live stream and the discussion at the table will 

stop until the caucus is over. Okay, so Jessica help us 

out here and give us the names of the negotiators and 

Department that you want to participate.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

57

MS. RANUCCI: 

Sure. I'll do the best I can. Scott Buchanan and Ben Lee 

from servicers. Yael from state AGs. Kyra from legal 

assistance. Sher from the borrowers. Wisdom from civil 

rights. Lane from states. And the Department staff as 

you wish. If there's anyone else I've missed, please 

speak up.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Hey, Tamy, can you tell us who you intend to have in 

that caucus? Where'd Tamy go?

MR. LAGAARD: 

This is Soren. I'm not sure where she went, but for the 

Department, could you make- could you make sure you have 

Tamy, of course her, me, Ben Miller should be on here, 

and Toby Merrill.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. 

MS. BUTTS: 

Sarah Butts has asked, are the alternates joining as 

well?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Only the people whose names have been listed.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

58

MR. WHITELAW: 

Can you add me, Jessica?

MS. RANUCCI: 

Sure, John. I'm not meaning to be exclusive.

MR. WHITELAW: 

No, no, no, no, no.

MS. RANUCCI: 

[Inaudible] a memory test here.

MR. WEATHERS: 

I was not taking it that way. I just wanted to- since we 

have to- we have to. Yeah. Just add me too, please. 

Thank you.

MS. RANUCCI: 

Yeah. Again, the discussion is FFEL. But I don't 

necessarily think institutions make a ton of sense, but 

if you- ifMS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. So, Mike, did you capture those names?

MR. WEATHERS: 

I think so.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

I wrote them down.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

59

MR. WEATHERS: 

Yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

So now that we have that on the record of who will be 

caucusing, Patrick, we can stop the live stream, please.

MR. WEATHERS:

Welcome back. We've- we're back from our brief caucus. 

I- what we were doing previously was we were circling 

back on questions from yesterday in light of the 

comments that Mr. Miller made this morning. I do see 

that it is currently 3:03 Eastern Time, so we're 27 

minutes away from the beginning of our public comments. 

I do want to be as productive as possible. So, is that 

where we want to get back to? Okay. Alright. Does anyone 

have- again, keeping in mind what we're trying to do is 

we're trying to circle back on questions one and two

from yesterday. In light of the comments that were made 

earlier today, clarifications from Mr. Miller and adding 

new texture to the conversation. Alright, Ms. Sanford, 

go ahead.

MS. SANFORD: 

To add something new, I think, to the conversation, it's 

probably known, but as someone who's currently enrolled 

and has student loans, like many of my peers, I haven't 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

60

even begun to have to pay these loans back and to try 

and navigate these obviously flawed avenues to repayment 

and just being in school and knowing the anxieties and 

the impact it has on [inaudible] to see that still, as I 

go on to like 60, 70 years old, that's still what I have 

to look forward to. And that's just now having to- being 

in high school, to college, that's a complete turnoff. 

It's discouraging. People who want to pursue a degree in 

higher education, which of course isn't the goal. That's 

all I wanted to say about that.

MR. WEATHERS: 

I do want to make a note that Jalil is back at the table 

for the student loan borrowers who attended graduate 

programs. Melissa, you're next.

MS. KUNES: 

Thanks, John. I wanted to make a comment about the 

question yesterday about how we help our borrowers who 

are in repayment know about some of these loan programs 

or some of these repayment options that they have access 

to. And the one item I think that public schools that 

I'm representing, the two and the four years have 

struggled with as we have gone into the return to 

repayment cycle for borrowers who had not been in 

repayment for the last three years due to the COVID 

pandemic, is that once our students graduate or leave 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

61

school and go on to repayment, they sort of become thethey become owned by the servicers and the Department. 

And while we do have some connection with them through 

our Alumni Association, with our former students is a 

little bit different than our active relationship with 

them while they were enrolled. So, I would like to see a 

way for the Department to create more of a bridge with 

schools on how we can understand the communications 

going to our students post leaving our institutions, and 

how we can then support the messaging to those students 

because we want them to know about these provisions. 

They trust us, the schools, because they've had a 

relationship with us, and we think we can do more to 

support the messaging that is being sent to students 

when they go into the repayment stage of their lives to 

help them better navigate that path. So, I wanted to 

throw that out there as a comment and a suggestion to 

help create that bridge between us, so that we can 

better help support the communications and our students 

through a lifetime of being a good repair. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Melissa. Just a point real quick. Benjamin 

Lee is coming in to the table in replacement of Scott 

Buchanan. Alright. Any additional comments on questions 

one and two? Jalil, you're next.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

62

DR. BISHOP: 

Thank you. I think a group that we have talked about a 

little but I want to make sure to uplift and our framing 

of borrowers who may fit under questions one and two are

borrowers who have debt but no credential and I think 

it's important to expand that group not only for 

undergraduate borrowers, but also thinking about 

graduate borrowers who are often left out of that 

conversation of graduate borrowers who have debt but did 

not earn a graduate credential, and I think in the 

Department's own final rulemaking, they shared a table, 

it was table 2.1 that showed the uptake or the 

enrollment in IDR plans. And they said that 22 percent 

of borrowers who did not complete a credential are using 

IDR plans, which is at a much lower rate than borrowers 

who do have a credential and think that's something for 

us to think about and uplift, is the particular hardship 

experiences of borrowers who have some debt but no 

credential. And just thinking about even after many 

different strategies of reaching out to this group, that 

it still has been a group that the Department and 

servicers have struggled with servicing and reaching. 

But we know from data are experiencing often some of the 

worst outcomes around student loan debt and struggling 

to repay.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

63

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, sir. Okay. Next, I have Lane.

MS. THOMPSON:

I have just been thinking about data sources, and I 

think that the complaints that FSA Ombuds office 

receives and that the CFPB receives about student loans 

is a great place to kind of pick up on patterns around 

what kind of folks need relief. I have several of my 

complainants right now who don't agree with the 

assessment their servicer made, or that the Department 

made on a relief program application. They've been told 

to file a complaint with FSA. So, I just kind of think 

that it's important to remember that we do already have 

a lot of data around all of this kind of stuff, even 

almost real-time data, since I collect complaints as 

part of my job. It's just something I think of, is that 

there's a lot of really valuable quantitative and 

qualitative data to be found in that CFPB and FSA Ombuds 

portal.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Lane. Angelika, you're next.

MS. WILLIAMS: 

Thank you. I just want to- as this may lead to other 

topics and understanding the alignment with this topic 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

64

is that we're talking about the current population that 

is experiencing loan indebtedness, but also the- there's 

two other areas that should be in conversation as well. 

And it's also looking at the Federal Aid programs to 

prevent loan indebtedness. As I mentioned earlier and 

yesterday, is that, you know, the Pell Grant program has 

taken a significant decline of covering educational 

costs since its initial implementation, meaning that 

it's just going to- this conversation of loan 

indebtedness is just going to continue until we review 

the Federal Pell Grant program to see how it's 

preventing loan indebtedness. The other area I feel like 

we should be discussing as well is the borrowers who 

actually paid off their loans, who've already paid off 

their loans. So, the loans, the loan payments that they 

made should be reviewed as well as we're talking about 

relieving others from loan debt.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Angelika. Anyone else want to comment on our 

questions from yesterday in light of the clarification 

earlier this morning from Mr. Miller? Jalil.

DR. BISHOP: 

Thank you. Also want to uplift the comment around Pell 

Grant. So, though the Biden cancellation plan was struck 

down by the Supreme Court, there was a moment where the 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

65

Department really, for, I would argue, the first time 

used Pell Grant as a way to highlight both the 

experiences of students who had to take on a Pell, who 

received a Pell Grant and had to take on student debt, 

but also their parents. And that seems like that 

coupling of providing relief both to students and their 

parents through that, the Pell Grant as an indicator, as 

a way to do fast and broad cancellation, is a mechanism 

that would just encourage the Department to think about 

how to address some of these questions or create some of 

these buckets as we're moving through future rulemaking, 

because I think that was an opportunity that I'm 

assuming was both vetted by the White House and the 

Department where Pell Grant became a great indicator of 

how, in that case, to provide up to $20,000 of relief 

for borrowers and do it in a way that kind of took into 

account both the borrower and their parents. So just 

wanted to lift up Pell Grant as another strong indicator 

that, again, has already been vetted by the Department 

and the White House.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you. Ashley, what would you like to add to the 

conversation?

MS. PIZZUTI: 

I asked this yesterday, both in the chat and as a 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

66

question, and I'm just wondering if we could get 

possibly a list from the Department of Social Media 

avenues that they are using to try to reach some of 

their borrowers to get in touch with them about their 

options that are currently the Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness, Borrower Defense, and the SAVE Plan. I 

believe someone put in the chat just the generic 

Instagram account, but I was wondering if the Department 

had any other accounts that are specific to student 

borrowing or higher education, and if we could get a 

list of those and then possibly come up with some ad 

ideas or some resources that might help with outreach.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Ashley. If you have not already put that into 

the chat, I encourage you to do so now. Thank you. 

Anything else to add on the questions from yesterday? 

Any additional new comments to make? Anything at all? 

Alright. It is 3:14. But we want to utilize these 16 

minutes to their best use.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

John, if it's okay, I'd like to try to do some wrap-up 

and some framing for our next negotiated rulemaking 

session and kind of chat a little bit about all that has 

transpired between the last couple of days. We will give 

a proposed regulatory text to the negotiators a week 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

67

before the next rulemaking session. That will represent 

our position at the time that we give that to you. 

Taking, of course, into consideration all of our 

discussions from yesterday and today, it will reflect 

that position. What we are hoping that we get from you 

guys is kind of like a little takeaway, maybe a homework 

assignment. You know, we should all understand homework 

being that we're in some sort of- the education world. 

We would like for you to really look at the text; what's 

working with it, what's not working with it, what your 

preferences are, the rationale for which you think 

things need to be changed. Our goal here is for us to 

reach consensus, and we want to work alongside you and 

with you for that goal. We also know that there have 

been numerous data requests and numerous requests for 

information. The data that's available to us and the 

resources that are available to us and those that we can 

share and the questions that we can answer, we will do 

so to the best of our abilities. It may take us a little 

bit of time, and those things that we can provide to you 

will filter through FMCS and they'll circle that back to 

you guys. But what we really have learned so much from 

you during these past two days is framing for our 

thought processes and exploring the different ways that 

we intend to help borrowers in the circumstances that 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

68

we've already given you, such as interest, looking at 

that avenue, looking at the length of time borrowers 

have been in repayment, looking at gainful employment 

provisions, looking at hardship, and of course, looking 

at other ways when borrowers are eligible for things but 

they haven't quite applied for them. Automation. We 

heard you loud and clear about automation, and we too 

want to implement as many things as we possibly can that 

would allow us to do so and automatically provide 

benefits to those borrowers. So going forward, in case 

you have any questions, you know, I would hope that we 

can, you know, ask them now about what our expectations 

are for you as negotiators is we're going to provide you 

with reg text. We're going to provide you with a path of 

where we think we are based on these conversations and 

the position of the Department. And we hope that you 

guys will look through that and provide us with feedback 

for the next session.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you. Tamy. Appreciate that. I'm seeing our waiting 

room fill up with what I presume are public commenters. 

Do we want to move towards public comment now?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

We're about 15 minutes or about, well, about 23 minutes 

or 13 minutes ahead of schedule. The first speaker, 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

69

though, that has a time slot is with us.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Anything to add before we move in that direction.

MS. ABERNATHY:

It would be nice if we could just have a five minute 

break.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Sounds great.

MS. ABERNATHY: 

Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Alright. Why don't we go ahead and call it a sevenminute break to 3:25? See you all then. We are back and 

we are ready to begin with public comments. Cindy, who 

is the first public commenter?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Your first public commenter is Jim Blew of the policy. 

Jim, can you hear us?

MR. BLEW: 

I can, Cindy, how are you?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

70

MS. JEFFRIES:

Okay. Wonderful. I'd like to welcome you to the comment 

period, and we appreciate you taking the time to join 

the committee today and address them directly. You will 

have three minutes to make your comments to the 

committee. We will give you a 30-second notice of when 

your time is about to expire, and then we will let you 

know when your time has expired. So, with that, you are 

ready to go.

MR. BLEW:

Terrific. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jim 

Blew. I am the co-founder of the Defense of Freedom 

Institute. We're known by our acronym, DFI or simply 

DFI. As a few of you know, I served under Betsy DeVos as 

the assistant secretary for planning, evaluation and 

Policy Development, including policy for Federal Student 

Aid. These sessions seem to be leading inevitably to a 

rule that will expand the Secretary's power dramatically 

and perhaps dangerously. The one out of seven Americans 

who hold student debt seem to be quite well represented 

by this committee. I don't pretend to speak for the 

other six out of seven Americans. At this point, we 

really do not know how voters will react to the 

administration, adding hundreds of billions of dollars 

to the Federal debt through loan forgiveness during a 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

71

time of inflation when Congress is struggling to finance 

our responsibilities at home and overseas. What we do 

know is that the Biden administration's approach to 

student debt has successfully transformed Federal 

Student Loans into a highly Partisan issue. Perhaps that 

was inevitable when the government collects loan 

payments from its own citizens. I hope that the 

Department will share with the committee some of the 

letters and comments coming in from Congress. For now, 

let me specifically point to one addressed to Secretary 

Cardona from several US senators, led by Finance Chair 

Chuck Grassley. One passage captures the tone of the 

letter. We, senators, are gravely concerned that the 

Department is undertaking a blatant political process 

with a predetermined outcome. It is unfair to string 

student loan borrowers along for political purposes. As 

the undersecretary repeatedly noted in his opening 

comments, the student loan system is broken. To be 

clear, opponents to this process are concerned as well, 

that some borrowers have been harmed by the Federal 

Student Loan program. But we should be having a 

conversation about the source of this harm. That, is bad 

Federal policy and bad management by the US Department 

and its vendors. Both of these root causes can and 

should be addressed. This committee, unfortunately, 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

72

cannot effectively address either one. Congress is not 

without power in this situation, including its power 

over the Student Aid admin budget. In fact, the Grassley 

letter specifically asked the administration to engage 

in a serious and legal process to fix the law. As the 

letter concludes, our phones are ready and our doors are 

open. I hope the administration will embrace that offer. 

In the meantime, I encourage the committee and the 

DepartmentMS. JEFFRIES: 

30 seconds.

MR. BLEW: 

-grand gesture- to avoid grand gestures like those that 

led to a rebuke from the Supreme Court that would only 

make it harder than ever to genuinely fix our student 

loan programs. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Thank you, Mr. Blew. We appreciate your comments. Okay, 

John, next you have Kristy Smith from Global Education 

Consultants.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Kristy, can you hear us?
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

73

MS. SMITH: 

Yes, I can hear you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you for taking this opportunity to speak directly 

to the negotiators. You have three minutes and you'll 

have a 30-second warning. Go ahead.

MS. SMITH:

Thank you. My name is Kristy Smith. I am currently an 

organizational learning analyst at the US Department of 

State. I'm doing the exact same public service work as 

my colleagues. But because my status is as a contractor 

with a different EIN, my work is not being counted as 

public service. I ask the committee to consider the 

unfairness of this and to change this policy. But I'm 

here today to speak about hanging loans. I'm one of at 

least 79 known public service workers who have PSLF 

hanging loans. I have certified public service 

consecutively from 2007 to 2019, 12 years working as a 

public school teacher and for qualifying nonprofits. 

When the limited PSLF waiver was announced last year, 

since my current work didn't qualify, it was the one 

shot I had to get right. Despite dozens of hours 

diligently researching how to consolidate my older FFEL 

loans with my direct loans to maximize forgiveness, I 

found only conflicting information. It was clear I 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

74

needed to consolidate my FFEL loans, but information was 

not provided on how to deal with consolidation for older 

FFEL loans with direct loans. I called my servicer at 

the time, Navient, on the day consolidated, and I was 

misled, being told that there was no benefit, not needed 

to consolidate my direct loans. I now have the phone 

recording of this, thanks to working with an FSA 

ombudsman. Because I was misled, only 3 percent of my 

loans were discharged. I would have a zero balance today 

if I had only checked the boxes to consolidate my direct 

loans with the FFEL loans that day. Let that sink in. 

Three check boxes cost me nearly $50,000. You can 

imagine how much sleep I've lost, the huge financial 

loss for me this has created, and the emotional toll 

because my case has not been fixed. Under the limited 

PSLF waiver, it is clear that has not been equitably 

processed by leaving us with hanging loans, even though 

we all have at least 120 months of public service 

employment and student loan payments certified under the 

waiver. Furthermore, many of us, like myself, have 

submitted PSLF reconsideration requests which have been 

denied. And yet a majority of these denials do not 

address the details and nuances of our cases. FSA is 

under a legal decree to look carefully and fix PSLF 

cases like ours under the reconsideration process. The 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

75

fact FSA is not looking closely at the facts of our 

cases and fixing them means that FSA is in blatant 

violation under the law. The Department of Education has 

been aware of our hanging loans since at least 2022 but 

has ignored our plight. Now that Federal Student Loan 

payments are due this month on loans that should have 

been forgiven under the waiver, we are asking one more 

time. Please do the right thing and fix them. We are 

organizing and ready to escalate our cases if they are 

not fixed. Thank you very much for your time today.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Kristy. Cindy, who do we have next?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Next we have Kristen Folsom, who is representing 

herself.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Kirsten. Kristen, can you hear me?

MS. FOLSOM: 

I can hear you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you for taking the time to do this today. You have 

three minutes to make your statement. You'll be given a 

30-second warning. Go ahead. Thank you.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

76

MS. FOLSOM: 

Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Kristen Folsom. I'm a 

student loan borrower, and initially as an undergraduate 

borrower, which took me 20 years to pay that loan back. 

And now as a graduate borrower and also as a Parent PLUS 

for my daughter, who graduated from college in 2020, I'm 

currently employed with the Department of Health and 

Human Services, but I was a government contractor for 16 

years. And I'm here to bring attention to this cohort of 

borrowers who should also be entitled to Public Service 

Loan Forgiveness. Government contractors, whether at the 

federal, state or local level. Yes, I understand that 

the Department of Education cannot change the 

regulations set forth in CFR 685.219, but the Department 

should at least assess its interpretation of the 

regulation, especially the definition of non-government 

public service, which means services provided by 

employees of a non-governmental qualified employer where 

the employer has devoted a majority of its full-time 

employment- employees to working in at least one of the 

following areas. Emergency management. Civilian service 

to military personnel. Military service. Public safety. 

Law enforcement. Public interest law services. Early 

childhood education. Public service for individuals with 

disabilities or the elderly. Public health. Public 

education. Or public school and library or other school-
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

77

based services. To further strengthen the argument that 

the government contractor should be entitled to loan 

forgiveness, I point to a standard used by the Federal 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, wherein the 

EEOC considers that government contractors who want to 

bring a discrimination case against the government can 

be treated as actual government employees if the agency 

in question exercises sufficient control over the 

employee's work activity. There are many standards the 

EEOC uses engaging the exercise of sufficient control of 

the contractor's activity, but one of the most prominent 

is that the government agency in question has the right 

to control when, where, and how the worker performs the 

job and whether there is a continuing relationship 

between the worker and the employer. As government 

contractors, unfortunately, we are treated as actual 

employees of the Government, but do not receive the same 

perks as employees receive. Namely, in this case, the 

right to Student Loan Forgiveness after ten years of 

service and payment. In summary, I'm asking the 

Department of Education to consider government 

contractors in their assessment of Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness and to reinterpret - reevaluate its 

interpretation of the definitions related to nongovernment.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

78

MS. JEFFRIES: 

30 seconds, Kristen.

MS. FOLSOM: 

- qualifying employer or purpose, which says the Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness Program is intended to 

encourage individuals to enter the- and continue fulltime public service. With my last few seconds, I'd like 

to say that totally, in all my loans totaled $212,000, 

and even on an IDR, I owe $1,378, which is due right 

now. With the money that I saved during the pause, what 

did I do? I helped my daughter, who went to work and 

volunteered for two years for AmeriCorps and helped her 

get on her feet and get an apartment. What I did was 

give to my country a brand new, productive, caring and 

thinking citizen. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Kristen. Have a good day. Cindy, who do we 

have next?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay. Galaxy A20 is in the room. I'm going to go ahead 

and let them in again and try to get an identification 

from them to make sure they're a registered speaker. I 

would like to remind those who did sign up and 

registered to be a speaker, now is the time you need to 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

79

be logging in so that you don't miss your time slot. 

There are several that have not logged in yet, so I want 

to give you that reminder that please log in with the 

link that was provided to you to exercise your speaking 

slot. Okay. So, I'm going to go ahead and let Galaxy A20 

in and you can try to confirm again, John. [Inaudible] 

is always having difficulty with his internet connecting 

the audio, I believe. I can barely- I can barely see. 

Galaxy A20?

MR. WEATHERS:

Can you hear us? Hello. Galaxy A20.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

No. I think let's go ahead and remove him. I believe 

it's a he. I can't see the picture very well. Let's go 

ahead and remove Galaxy A20. Hopefully they'll log back 

into the session and it'll work better. We only have one 

remaining person in the waiting room. So again, if the 

public commenters that registered and were contacted by 

the Department please log in to the session. So, we're 

going to go to Lee Latham. And she's representing 

herself.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Okay. Thank you.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

80

MS. LATHAM: 

Hello?

MR. WEATHERS: 

Can you hear us?

MS. LATHAM: 

Yes I can.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Okay. Lee or Elizabeth Latham?

MS. LATHAM: 

Yes.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Great. Thank you. Thank you for being here and 

commenting to the negotiators. You have three minutes to 

make your comments and you will be given a 30-second 

warning. Your time is starting now.

MS. LATHAM: 

Alright. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Latham. I'm a 

type one diabetic and I live in the Mississippi Delta. 

Growing up, I was raised by a single mother, and we 

lived well below the poverty line. I got the chance to 

go to college. I was the first person in my family to go 

to college. And because of that- because of our 

financial situation, I had to take out student loans. My 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

81

husband is also a diabetic and believe it or not, our 

cat is a diabetic, so we are all dealing with a lot of 

health issues and a lot of medication costs. We both had 

to take out student loans, and we both went on to become 

teachers in the public school system. And knowing what 

you know about the public school system, we don't get 

paid a lot. Our student loans have not been forgiven 

through any kind of Public Service Loan Forgiveness, and 

we are both sitting at around 100,000 each. So we are 

really struggling to make these payments and we areyeah, we're just kind of tired and we don't know what to 

do. We have been in touch with our loan servicers, with 

government officials, local and federal, state and 

federal, and we are running out of options. Once 

payments start, we may not be able to afford the 

medication that keeps us alive. So that's my story. And 

I hope that it helps you make some decisions that will 

help us. And yeah, that's what I have to say. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Elizabeth. Cindy, who do we have next?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Next we have Jeffrey Briggs representing himself.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you. Jeffrey can you hear us? Jeffrey, can you 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

82

hear us? Jeffrey Briggs. Can you hear me? Looks like 

he's connecting to audio. Jeffrey Briggs, can you hear 

me? You are muted, if you're trying to talk. Jeffrey, 

can you hear me? Jeffrey, can you hear me?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

He's muted again, John.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Yep. Jeffrey Briggs, can you hear me? Can you hear me, 

Jeffrey Briggs? We cannot hear you.

MR. BRIGGS: 

How about now?

MR. WEATHERS: 

I can hear you now. Can you activate your video? Thank 

you. Are you capable of activating your video?

MR. BRIGGS: 

Yes. 

MR. WEATHERS: 

Okay. Welcome to public comment here today. I appreciate 

you taking the time to speak directly to our 

negotiators. You will have three minutes to make your 

comment. You will be given a 30-second warning.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

83

MR. BRIGGS: 

Sounds good.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Alright. Go ahead. Your time runs now.

MR. BRIGGS:

Okay. I just want to thank you all for doing what you're 

doing. For making life a little bit easier for us with 

student loans here. I'm a 65 plus year-old male that has 

been now collecting Social Security for a couple of 

years now. I also work a full-time job, and I have to 

work the full-time job because my wife's ten years 

younger than myself, and so our loan payments with her 

working and stuff are way too high. So we need the extra 

income. And I couldn't- I'm currently on extended pay 

program but I- that actually was my cheaper route to go 

next to the pay program, but it's still- you know, it's 

still a tough nut to crack every month here. My loans 

have also doubled from the interest over the years. I've 

been doing loans since 2007. So you can tell I've been 

doing this a long time here. I have both subsidized on 

subsidized loans. My main thing for calling and talking 

to you today is I believe that a student loan should 

stop once the student starts collecting either Social 

Security or that can even be an age limit, like 65, 66 

years old. And I think that, you know, getting the 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

84

relief of this loan would be giving seniors like myself 

almost, almost like a raise on our Social Security as 

well. You know, I'd like to be able to retire, spend 

time with my grandkids or I do volunteering, you know, 

at shelters and things like that. But I'm real limited 

because I'm stuck working that full-time job. And I've 

tried- I've reached out to the new- the loan servicer 

here about the new SAVE program. It seemed like they 

were kind of a little bit in flux here with the 5 and 10 

percent threshold here that doesn't kick in till next 

20, you know, 2024. I, I pretty much had to pull that 

information out to try to figure out where I sat with my 

loan payments. And so that's kind of the whole, the 

whole thing that I wanted to talk to you guys about and, 

and just if you can somehow make that easier if you can, 

you know, help us seniors with the Social Security, I 

think that would help us a lot as well. And- but wanted 

to say I truly appreciate everything that you guys are 

doing.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Jeffrey. Appreciate that. Have a good day.

MR. BRIGGS: 

Thank you. You too.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

85

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Okay, John.

MR. WEATHERS: 

So, who do we have up next?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Next we have Alice Smith representing herself.

MR. WEATHERS:

Fantastic. Thank you. Alice, can you hear me?

MS. SMITH: 

Hey. Yeah.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Welcome today. This is your opportunity to speak 

directly to the negotiators here. You will have three 

minutes and you will be given a 30-second warning. Go 

ahead.

MS. SMITH: 

Sure. So I'm a mom of four in Ohio. I have two kids who 

are college graduates. One almost paid off her loans, 

one is enrolled in SAVE, and that's awesome. I have two 

other kids. One is a sophomore and one is a freshman. I 

was looking at the five point priorities that this 

committee was contemplating, and I really didn't see 

anything that's being done for current or future 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

86

students to prevent them from getting into impossible 

debt at a young age, or to help make college affordable. 

As you know, Federal Subsidized Student Loans are, what, 

55 to $7,500 a year? You can maybe go to community 

college for that, you know, for, I guess, the first two 

years. But college costs $25,000 a year. That's an instate public school because it's not just tuition. 

You're mostly required to live on campus. That 

requirement is 15 grand. You know, how is a family 

supposed to do it? How is a family like me of four kids 

supposed to send four kids to college? How are these 

kids supposed to send themselves to college? It's just 

not a sustainable thing right now. And I'm- I guess I 

just want to share kind of a picture of what it is like 

for me and my kids. And to be frank, uh, making sure 

they go to college is a priority for me. It's very 

important that my kids go to college. Education is a 

doorway to opportunity. But so many kids, my kids 

friends can't go to college because they can't afford 

it. They can't go to their school of choice because it's 

out of reach. There's just not enough support. And, you 

know, to top it off, something that this Student Loan 

Forgiveness act, I don't know what it was called did was 

it messed up family contribution calculations so that if 

somehow my family was able to afford $20,000 to send my 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

87

child to college, when I get a second child in college 

at the same time, remember, I have a sophomore and a 

freshman, those kids now I suddenly maybe have 20,000 

for both of them at the same time. So now I magically 

manifested 40 grand a year, which is I mean, just do the 

math on that. And it becomes impossible for anyone who 

isn't [30 seconds] Yeah. Thank you, thank you. So, yeah, 

I mean, that's really what I want to share is, you know, 

the expected family contribution has done irreparable 

harm to families by changing and there's just a lot 

less- there's a lot less doorways open for kids now. 

Remember, they all got two years of high school or 

junior high or whatever stolen from them during COVID. 

Like, do we prioritize education or do we prioritize 

university profits?

MR. WEATHERS:

Thank you, Alice. Appreciate that. Have a good day. I 

see that we have Galaxy A20.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

Yeah, I justMR. WEATHERS: 

Five minutes left?

MS. JEFFRIES: 

We have five minutes left. This is final call for anyone 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

88

that had a scheduled time slot or on the waitlist today 

that was notified to please sign in. We will be ending 

this session promptly at 4:00 pm. In the meantime, I'm 

going to try Galaxy A20 one more time.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Alright.

MS. JEFFRIES: 

It looks like they're having trouble with their audio. 

That same audio.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Can you hear us, Galaxy A20? It's still trying to 

connect. Still not connected. Alright, we have two 

minutes left before ourMS. JEFFRIES: 

Yeah. Let's move on and wrap it up with any final 

comments for- from the negotiators or Department.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Okay. Alright, folks. We've got a minute or two before 

we are set to finish. I appreciate the conversation 

today. I don't know if there's anyone that would like to 

make a parting comment. If not, I know that we have 

dates on the book. I believe it's November 6 and 7. 

Sher, you're getting the last comment. Go ahead.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

89

MS. GAMMAGE: 

Yes. I'd just like to raise up and say that the public 

comment today reflects much of the conversation that 

we've been having over the- or themes that keep getting 

repeated and the conversations that we've had as a 

negotiating committee over the last two days. One, that 

there are problems with the PSLF program, Parent PLUS, 

and loans for parents are still an issue. There's an 

issue with seniors, and there's also issues for people 

with chronic health conditions, including those with

disabilities. So I want us to leave here today and as we 

go into our debrief, we're talking about buckets today 

of borrowers, you know, thinking about, you know, who 

has been consistently held up and brought to the 

forefront, as we consider in our deliberations and for 

the DOE to consider as they prepare the document for our 

review going forward.

MR. WEATHERS: 

Thank you, Sher. And with that, we have reached our end 

time for the day. Thank you very much everyone and I 

look forward to seeing you in November.

MR. LAGAARD:

Thanks, everybody.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

90

Zoom Chat Transcript

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

Afternoon, October 11, 2023

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

grammatical errors may be present.

From A-Carol Peterson HBCU Langston University to 

Everyone:

The freshstart, IDR, targeted loan forgiveness etc. needs 

to be automated for the incarcerated student 

population...this group does not understand and has 

communication access issues.

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions 

to Everyone:

It is John

From Jalil Mustaffa Bishop to Everyone:

I will be the primary Student Borrower Graduate

From Richard Haase to Everyone:

I’m here

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

I do not see Sher Gammage. Maybe she needs to be 

admitted?

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

Sher is waiting to be admitted.

From P-Vincent Andrews-Military & Veteran Groups to 

Everyone:

1. Injured, disabled, incapacitated, elderly (other 

individuals identified as possessing substantial 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

91

hardships regarding employment) - reasonably expected to 

not have the capacity to regain a full level of 

employment.

2. Hardships regarding waiver distribution – 

Consideration should be made regarding how the waiver is 

applied to loan balances.

From P-Vincent Andrews-Military & Veteran Groups to 

Everyone:

3. Debt prevents individuals from pursuing professional 

training or education – potential opportunity to use 

waivers for certain types of education, training, etc. 

Some individuals have transcripts and degrees held 

related to student loan balances.

4. Should there be benchmark incentives for certain high 

stress, low paying occupations – opportunity to engage 

with national problems of turnover.

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to 

Everyone:

Jordan is becoming primary.

From P- Jessica Ranucci (Consumer Advocates) to 

Everyone:

Ed is also coming in

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

Hardships include:

From A-Carol Peterson HBCU Langston University to 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

92

Everyone:

Yes. Thank you Lane

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

Hardships may include: low income, single parent 

household, serious health conditions, such as cancer, 

high cost of living, caregiving, daycare, etc.

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

Agree that IDR does not account for cost of living

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

+1 on regional cost of living differences factoring into 

hardship

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

Scott is becoming my primary

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

+1 for considering Private loans from for-profits.

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

+1 regarding considering private loan debt as well

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year to Everyone:

+1 for considering private loan debt

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

Amber is becoming my primary for this topic

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

93

Programs to Everyone:

+1 for tackling private loan debt

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

David coming in as the primary

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to 

Everyone:

+1 on Parent PLUS loans being a hardship

From P - Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights Organizations to 

Everyone:

+1 on Parent PLUS loans being a hardship

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

+1 on including Parent Plus in need for forgiveness...

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

Additional information about the cost of caregiving: More 

and more people are going into retirement with debt. Not 

only because of inflation and higher cost of living, but 

also due to student loan debt burdens, medical debt, and 

healthcare expenses that often become more costly as we 

age. Additionally, many retirees and families are also 

taking on the role of unpaid caregivers for their aging 

loved ones. Caregivers sacrifice a lot to provide 

support for loved ones—including their own financial 

well-being. According to a study by AARP, “78% of 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

94

caregivers have out-of-pocket expenses related to 

caregiving and spend, on average, a quarter of their 

income on caregiving activities. On top of that, 

caregivers often dip into their savings, take on debt and 

have to work fewer hours at their paying jobs.”

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

+1 on Parent Plus loans being a hardship.

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions 

to Everyone:

+1 that parents do not benefit from the degree attainment

From A- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 for Parent Plus and private loan amount being 

considered a hardship

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

And reiterating +1 for addressing borrowers above a 

certain age

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to 

Everyone:

+1 that parents do not benefit from the degree attainment

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

Agree with Richard.

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

It’s absurd for Jordan’s parents to be paying for sending 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

95

him and his twin to college into his mid 80s

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to 

Everyone:

+1 cancelling debt on Parent PLUS loans

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions 

to Everyone:

Thank you, Jordan!

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

+1 on Parent Plus loans posing heightened hardship to 

borrowers. We could also consider being over the age of 

65 as a hardship as well

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

Parents also have to figure out how to balance allocation 

of funds to support their children's higher ed access and 

funding their own retirement.

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

+1 on Parent Plus Cancelation

From A- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

Amber is now serving as primary for state officials - 

already put in chat but did not hear acknowledgement

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

to Everyone:

Any borrower over the age of 65 should be considered a 

hardship, regardless of the loan - student direct or 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

96

Parent PLUS.

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year to Everyone:

+1 Melissa

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

+1 Melissa

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

+1 Melissa

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions 

to Everyone:

Wisdom has a story that once again leads back to 

creditworthy employment is impacting repayment

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

+1 Wisdom

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions 

to Everyone:

+1 medical hardship deferment

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

100% agree on the psychological harm borrowers’ student 

loan debt causes them

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

97

Thanks Wisdom! And we’ve learned so much about the impact 

of trauma on young people AND that living in poverty is 

like being subjected to CONSTANT TRAUMA

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

Forces that keep families down financially don’t just 

impact the borrower

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone: But their children as well

From Sandra Boham TCU, HBCU, MSI to Everyone:

The public service loan forgiveness paperwork is 

incredibly burdensome. The process needs to be simplified 

so that is easier to complete the application.

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to 

Everyone:

coming in as primary for civil rights org

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

Hardship may be an unfortunate reality for certain 

professions/roles that require higher education and 

sometimes low pay. The Department might review borrower 

data to determine trends and develop plans for student 

debt relief for certain types of workers.

From (A) Ed Boltz (Consumer Advocate- NACBA/NASLL) to 

Everyone:

The Department of Education regulations should take less 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

98

stringent positions on hardship than the DOJ pushed for 

in bankruptcy, especially as ED argued (with its own 

lawyers at DOJ) for a less stringent standard.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

Data on borrowers’ hardships in their own voices: 

1. https://edtrust.org/blackstudentdebthub/

From Sandra Boham TCU, HBCU, MSI to Everyone:

Bankruptcy remains on your credit report for 10 years. 

That option does not improve the borrowers position

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

The Department could automate relief for Parent PLUS 

borrowers whose student had an EFC was $0, meaning that 

the borrower is low-income

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to 

Everyone:

+1 Kyra

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone: 

Data Request: Can the Dept of Edu provide themes that 

reflect the hardships borrowers are sharing with them in 

public comments or through other pathways?

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

99

+1 Kyra

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

Agree, Sandra. Also, there are public service and 

essential workers across the country who do not qualify 

for the PSLF program, despite their life long commitment 

to public service. If the Department published a list of 

jobs that qualify for PSLF, that would help borrowers.

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

+1 on providing relief to borrowers who are scammed by 

debt relief companies

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

“Parent PLUS loans, created by Congress to give middleclass parents flexibility in how they pay for college, 

out of necessity are increasingly used by low-income 

families. Among Black families who use Parent PLUS, the 

share with no expected family contribution now exceeds 40 

percent, and the share among Latino families is also 

high, above 25 percent” “These loans compound racial 

disparities across families’ financial lives. Half of 

white parent-borrowers have savings and investments 

exceeding $100,000, versus only a quarter of Black or 

Latino/a parent-borrowers. And more than half of Latino/a 

parent-borrowers have just a high school diploma or lower 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

100

level of education.” 

More context on Parent Plus loans: 

https://tcf.org/content/report/parent-plus-borrowers-thehidden-casualties-of-the-student-debt-crisis/

From P-Amber Gallup-State Officials to Everyone:

Changing back to Alternate for State Officials and Lane 

Thompson will return as Primary for STate Officials

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

Stepping back in as P for grad borrowers

From Sandra Boham TCU, HBCU, MSI to Everyone:

There is only 1 TCU that participates in the Student Loan 

Program. That is because of the place based students we 

serve and the wages paid in our communities. SKC provides 

loans, but we have one person whose total focus is loan 

repayment. We do not package loans because we know 

financial literacy is an issue. We see many students who 

come to us with large debt and no degree. We do what we 

can to get them back in good standing, but it is not a 

fix

From (A) Ed Boltz (Consumer Advocate- NACBA/NASLL) to 

Everyone:

These regulations can and should be used to unrachet the 

bankruptcy standard for undue discharge

From A-Sarah Butts, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

101

The Department might also consider limiting 

the fees that universities can charge borrowers related 

to federal loans. These fees create stress and hardship 

for borrowers, especially those who are first generation, 

low income, etc.

From (A) Ed Boltz (Consumer Advocate- NACBA/NASLL) to 

Everyone:

+1 for Jessica's concerns about student loan relief scams

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

+1 John’s point that we can use social welfare programs 

that already measure hardship to do auto relief for 

borrowers and this will capture many elderly/struggling 

borrowers

From A - Jordan Nellums - Currently Enrolled 

Postsecondary Education to Everyone:

+ 1 regarding John’s point of using social welfare 

programs as a determinant of hardship

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

Another hardship to consider is that Social Security 

survivor benefits are no longer available to 

undergraduate students in college.

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

Changing back to the primary spot.

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

102

Programs to Everyone:

Jalil back in seat for Graduate Borrowers

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

For Parent Plus borrowers, the student loan debt burden 

is not always shared by both parents. This can be a 

substantial hardship for some parents.

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to 

Everyone:

+1 Sarah

From A-Amber Gallup-State Officials to Everyone:

I'd like to do a data request for student loan default 

rates in Native American communities

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

Also, single parents may appear to have "sufficient 

income" but the costs as a head of household actually 

result in hardship and struggling to make ends meet.

From P-Vincent Andrews-Military & Veteran Groups to 

Everyone:

Some parents have to file their taxes separately to avoid 

higher payments of student loans

From P-Richard Haase-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

Aside from simplified forms, we should remove additional 

steps that complicate the process and contribute to 

distrust in the process... converting and consolidating 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

103

loans so they can be forgiven under a different name is a 

deterrent

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions 

to Everyone:

Another hardship to consider is the discrepancy between 

an individual's income growth and the rate at which their 

loan debt is increasing. In some cases, the increase in 

loan debt outpaces their income, creating a challenging 

financial situation.

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

+1 Sher re: acknowledging chronic illness

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to 

Everyone:

+1 chronic illness should be a category for student debt 

cancellation

From John S. Whitelaw, (he/him) Advocacy Director, 

CLASI (Delaware) to Everyone:

individuals with Obamacare and a subsidy

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

An indicator of hardship may be workers who are 

consistently working more than one job.

From A-Amber Gallup-State Officials to Everyone:

I keep reflecting on the growing income gap in the United 

States and the hardship that almost all Americans are 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

104

experiencing - economic, educational, health, and other 

disparities are only growing. At a certain point, the 

question becomes less Who has hardship? and more like 

"Who doesn't?" There's a futility to defining all the 

intersecting groups that are experiencing hardship.

From A-Amber Gallup-State Officials to Everyone:

Yes, what Mr. Whitelaw just said.

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

Regarding Parent Plus loans, some parents expect their 

children to be responsible for the payments. This is a 

complicated debt and hardship for some students.

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year to Everyone:

I think intersectionality is important and a useful frame 

through which to look at waivers based on hardship. Yes, 

in this economy we all have some form of hardship, yet 

certain groups bear a disparate amount and it is my hope 

the department consider their loans for waiver if we want 

to capture as many borrowers who can benefit from waivers 

which can be granted by the U.S. DOE

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year to Everyone:

Sarah Butts will take over as primary

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to 

Everyone:

+1 Sher, intersectionality is important to note. 

Typically if you have one hardship, you have another
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

105

From John S. Whitelaw, (he/him) Advocacy Director, 

CLASI (Delaware) to Everyone:

another one: recipient of subsidized housing/resident of 

public housing/usda/litc

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

+1 to John— can also look at the receipt of public 

benefits, food stamps, etc.

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

Question: is the department going to take the demand 

letters into consideration under this NegReg

From P-Vincent Andrews-Military & Veteran Groups to 

Everyone:

Hardship can also be easily identified through records 

of payments that servicers have had set at $0 for several 

years. These payments always result in ballooning 

balance, and there are several employment and family 

factors attributed to the status of these loans that can 

reasonably assumed to not substantially change over the 

next 5-10 years.

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

Our discussion illustrates the need for both immediate 

and also long term reforms to financing higher education. 

The Administration should consider support for scaling 

Child Development Accounts as a longer term strategy of 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

106

funding higher ed. CDAs have been implemented in multiple 

states and countries already.

From A-Amber Gallup-State Officials to Everyone:

Sher makes an excellent point above that supersedes my 

own. While from an economic and growing social disparity 

perspective, we have increasing numbers of Americans in 

hardship, there are groups that certainly bear a 

disproportionate amount of that hardship, and the Dept. 

is hearing about many of those now.

From (A) Ed Boltz (Consumer Advocate- NACBA/NASLL) to 

Everyone:

Bankruptcy is the exception to the lack of review of 

assets in determining student loan discharge, which 

argues in favor of it not having a more stringent 

standard for income than otherwise

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

+1 for Lane on income vs. wealth

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Student Loan Borrowers-Grad 

Programs to Everyone:

There is no program that considers wealth and that 

creates a massive hardship for many borrowers, especially 

borrowers of color. 

Student Debt should cancellation should consider wealth, 

not incomehttps://www.brookings.edu/articles/studentdebt-cancellation-should-consider-wealth-not-income/
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

107

From John S. Whitelaw, (he/him) Advocacy Director, 

CLASI (Delaware) to Everyone:

Receipt of Workers Comp

From A - Jordan Nellums - Currently Enrolled 

Postsecondary Education to Everyone:

Jada is back as primary

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

Sher Gammage is now primary for 4 year borrowers.

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

+1 Lane

From P-Sher Gammage-4 Year to Everyone:

+1 Yael!

From P - Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 to Yael - some borrowers who have already been 

approved for cancellation need additional relief

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

Are the alternates joining as well?

From P-Angelika Williams-Private, Nonprofit Institutions 

to Everyone:

I am not sure what areas of discussion but higher 

education administrators may have insight.

From Jalil Mustaffa Bishop to Everyone:

What do we do while they caucus?

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to 

Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

108

Jalil in seat for Graduate Borrowers

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

Everyone:

Ben Lee will come to the table

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

+1 re: relief for students that didn’t complete either 

grad and undergrad programs

From Jalil Mustaffa Bishop to Everyone:

From the Dept’s July 2023 final rule on REPAYE: “Among 

undergraduate only borrowers who recently entered 

repayment, 22 percent of borrowers who did not complete a 

credential are using an IDR plan, and IDR usage increases 

as educational attainment increases: 24 percent of those 

who completed a sub- baccalaureate credential and 25 

percent of those who completed a bachelor’s degree but 

not a graduate degree are on IDR plans. About half of 

borrowers who completed a graduate degree and recently 

entered repayment on are on IDR plan. These results are 

shown in Table 2.1 below.”

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

FTC complaints as well

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to 

Everyone:

Brief list of some of the groups identified to consider 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

109

targeting for relief: 

• Borrowers with loans that pre-date 2010.

• Borrowers whose primary source of income is Social 

Security.

• Borrowers paying for higher education for their 

children.

• Borrowers with broken or missing loan data.

• Borrowers who did not finish their programs/ earn 

degrees.

• Borrowers who have filed for bankruptcy.

• Borrowers identified as experiencing significant 

hardship (as identified by later defined measures).

• Borrowers whose incomes as defined by 

profession/established by a Financial Value Transparency 

Framework render them unable to pay in a reasonable 

amount of time. 

• Borrowers who attended closed schools.

• Borrowers in joint consolidation programs. 

• FFEL, Parent Plus and Perkins loans must be included 

under all the above targeted groups.

From P - Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 to Jalil - Pell Grant eligibility is a better metric 

for wealth than current borrower income, in many cases

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to 

Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

110

Also discussed importance of 

• Loans over a certain age 

• Borrowers over a certain age

• Interest: waiving application of; applying payments 

of interest toward principal

• Importance of Automation

From Sandra Boham TCU, HBCU, MSI to Everyone:

TCU's, HBCU's and MSI's have advocated for the PELL to be 

doubled. If we learned anything during the pandemic, we 

learned that students who have adequate resources have 

higher persistence and graduation rates. In low income 

communities. They access less total dollars in loans

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

Also to add to Rich’s list: - defaulted borrowers who 

will not repay their debt in full within a reasonable 

time

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to 

Everyone:

Thanks Kyra

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to 

Everyone:

*will not or have not repaid

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

I would like a list of social media outreach the 
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

111

Department already has already has in place. Along with 

if they have any advertising budget to use targeted 

algorithms on social media to get some of these programs 

to the right people.

From Jalil Mustaffa Bishop to Everyone:

Data Request: Parent Plus Loan repayment across age 

cohort, length of time in repayment, number who have $0 

EFC, number who have $0 monthly payment, and other data 

metrics to understand who Parent Plus borrowers are

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

Everyone: 

Per ED request for the chat record, just wanted to 

reiterate areas we think ED should be mindful of during 

drafting. It's important that ED be very diligent on its 

legal justification for any reg so that we don't 

potentially have proposed rules that would not withstand 

legal scrutiny, so that borrowers can be confident that 

promised options will actually stand as they make 

financial choices. Also, it's important to deeply 

consider practical operational plans or implementation in 

advance so that we can ensure there is time and resources 

to implement quickly, rather than taking months or years. 

Also, making the rules simple and clear so borrowers can 

understand and access any benefits - rather than being 

further confused - is essential.
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

112

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

Data request: I would like to see a list of BDTR 

applications currently by school. These should include 

those who have already received forgiveness due to 

litigation. Corinthian, ITT, Sweet v. Cardona Class 

members borrowers for example. The list should include 

any school with more than 100 BDTR applications and if 

that school is currently operating or if they have 

closed. I think this will give us a good baseline on 

those schools that don't meet the minimum level of 

financial value. It will also help create a cohort of 

borrowers who should be prioritized in relief.

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to 

Everyone:

I think Wisdom is in the waiting room

From Jalil Mustaffa Bishop to Everyone:

Wisdom Cole is in the waiting room. Fyi

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Organization to 

Everyone:

Wisdom is still in the waiting room

From John S. Whitelaw, (he/him) Advocacy Director, 

CLASI (Delaware) to Everyone:

powerful comments from PSLF borrower -- heartbreaking

From P-Vincent Andrews-Military & Veteran Groups to 

Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/11/23

113

Great comments...I too worked a substantial time period 

as a government contractor in the same duty location as 

when I was active duty

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

Everyone:

Ben Lee is coming to the table.