David Price: “as a Member whose career has been in higher education, I would like to offer some observations in support of the Roemer…”

“as a Member whose career has been in higher education, I would like to offer some observations in support of the Roemer amendment, which would strike the bill's provision requiring institutions to report annually and justify their reasons for any reduction in funding or in participation rates of any sports teams that might occur over the next 4 years. I understand the intent of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). We do need to use common sense in the implementation of Title IX, and the interests of all students in all sports need to be given consideration. But I think the Hastert provision is unwise policy for a couple of reasons. The provision does represent a micromanagement of the budgeting practices of colleges and universities. Colleges and universities must be able to manage their budgets, set their priorities, and make their plans with the maximum amount of flexibility and freedom. These are hard times at many colleges and universities. Managing these institutions is a difficult task. An unreasonable Federal burden such as this one strikes me as simply unwise. Simply put, universities do not and should not be required to initiate 4-year budgeting plans. They need far more flexibility than that would permit, which leads me to my second point. This provision might actually lead colleges to make hard and fast long-term decisions that would have the opposite effect of the intent of the bill.”