That has been longstanding policy that individuals can both have a faith and live their faith, especially for a student on a campus.

There are a tremendous number of people that are begging for that because it is incredibly difficult to both understand and implement in a lot of businesses because of the number of exceptions.

So, basically you are giving donors to non-for-profits 25 weeks to donate more so that they can stay open.

In fact, 85 Senators supported that, overwhelming supported in the House, affirmed by the President.

I think it would be safe to say that many school officials did not find the interpretation to be inherent in Title 9.

So we are back to my original question. If a university chooses to use clear and convincing standards versus preponderance of evidence, what does the Department of Education do with that school?

I can assure you, Americans are not excited about fighting their own government.

they just want their own government to be responsive.

I would say there are a lot of districts that disagree with that, and we can agree to disagree.

How many have you met with at this point, because there are hundreds of thousands.

It is a very serious problem.

Only on interpretive.

we are still a nation of the people, by the people, for the people.

These have very serious consequences both to businesses, individuals, taxpayers--lots of litigation both for the Federal Government and us.

It seems to be a pretty straightforward, plain reading that all of us supported, allowing more local control in some of the decisions.

And if there is the perception they have gone, it is the courts? Who do they respond back to----

I could introduce you to a lot of university presidents that do not agree with that statement and a tremendous number of law professors across the country that do not agree with that statement.

the IRS really does not document their analysis of their economic impact.