On the recordJuly 11, 1995
Since there is an ambiguity here at a minimum, I think a fair reading would be since the word is ``nonquantifiable'' and my hypothetical is very quantifiable, at least reasonably interpreted, although the Senator from Louisiana does not agree with the interpretation, surely I gave a very quantifiable hypothetical. My question is, why not eliminate that ambiguity by stating that if there is either a quantifiable or a nonquantifiable benefit which is cost-effective and permitted by statute that the administrator will be allowed to go to the most cost-effective rather than the least-cost conclusion? That is the question. Why not eliminate the ambiguity?
Source
govinfo.gov
