Yes; that does not come into the equation now. We do not have any requirement under existing law to enter into--to have any consideration of the costs. I would stress this is not about the merits or demerits of any program that we are talking about. The programs that the gentleman is addressing on this matter are all meritorious programs. All we are saying is they should not be exempt from, or excluded from, a consideration of what the cost is, and that may well be that the benefits will be so persuasively presented by those that are promoting it that we would, in fact, pass the mandate through without the funding, but it would require us to be--in a judicious way to look at these proposals and make a determination up or down.
William Clinger: “Yes; that does not come into the equation now. We do not have any requirement under existing law to enter into--to have…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of considering costs in evaluating government programs.
Share
More from William Clinger
I would just question the appropriateness of the inspector general making policy in these kinds of areas. It seems to me it is the policymakers of the Department of Defense who really should be paid attention to in this area.
But it does not have to be Defense Department. Mandatory spending is all across the board.
Despite the fact the gentleman opposed my position on title I, I would say what I consider to be a very generous example of noblesse oblige, we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment, and I understand that any problems have been…
That is absolutely untrue. What we are saying is that the procurement officials, very front and center, they are very much on the front line of the decisions that they make, are going to be given a little more flexibility, a little more…





