We do not have to do that on a cost-benefit analysis on something that was very significant and it ends up being a very costly rule at the end of the day.
James Lankford: “We do not have to do that on a cost-benefit analysis on something that was very significant and it ends up being a very…”
Editor's note · Context
Lankford questions the necessity of cost-benefit analysis for significant rules.
Share
More from James Lankford
For 50 years, the Hyde Amendment has been an important protection for American taxpayers.
Hyde was a bipartisan agreement five decades ago, and it has been included in appropriations bills every year since. We should keep that commitment in place.
Congress has taken action to ensure taxpayer dollars are not funding organizations that perform abortions, but our work to protect taxpayers and ensure federal law is followed does not stop there," said Lankford.
A student who feels called to pastor a church or serve as a missionary should not lose access to student aid because Washington measures the value of that calling by a paycheck.





