Except that is limited by the Senator's language in subsection (b). When it comes to the least costly alternative, the Senator does not say ``benefit'' which is, in fact, defined somewhere else. It is limited to nonquantifiable benefit. That is a question which has been raised for the last week, and for the life of me, I do not understand why the word ``benefit" means quantifiable or nonquantifiable for the purposes of the act generally, but when it comes to the least-cost requirement, it is only the nonquantifiable benefits which are going to be an exception. That is the answer to the Senator's question.
Mike Levin: “Except that is limited by the Senator's language in subsection (b). When it comes to the least costly alternative, the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the interpretation of benefits in relation to a legislative subsection.
Share
More from Mike Levin
This blatant weaponization of federal taxpayer dollars to punish states based on their political leanings is wholly inappropriate and in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
There is no other acceptable remedy for this corrupt abuse of power and weaponization of taxpayer dollars.
I am also concerned that, following staffing cuts in 2025, USDA has failed to fill critical positions that support coordination with the Department of Veterans Affairs on veteran hunger.
For more than a decade, Nick and Cheryl have used the power of film to bring the wonders of the ocean, and the dangers facing it, into homes around the world.





