On the recordJuly 30, 1997
It is disingenuous at best to suggest that a vote for this amendment is going to save one dime of taxpayer money. There is a big difference between subsidy and public guarantee. There are some things that are desirable that no individual company is going to take on themselves. Other countries have similar tools because they work. And in fact, there are a number of countries that invest far more proportionately than we do. Cutting this administrative program off could in fact have a perverse effect by putting more of this loan portfolio at risk. This amendment betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about how the program works. In terms of the notion of crippling our ability to oversee and manage this larger portfolio, it could have the perverse effect of losing taxpayer money and have these guarantees kick in. And last, but not least, it would make it impossible to enable this agency to move into some of the riskier markets where we need the power of the free market to help transform this society.
Source
govinfo.gov




