Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment that I called up earlier, the Coburn-Boxer amendment, banning the Export- Import Bank of the United States from funding construction of nuclear facilities in the People's Republic of China. I want the American people to know, and especially this body, that we are walking down a road using taxpayers' funds for low-interest loans to finance a British Government-owned company to sell U.S. nuclear technology to the Chinese Government, which has already said that after they get that technology, they are going to take it and then they are going to start utilizing it to resell the same nuclear technology around the world. To me, that seems insane, that we would give a subsidy to finance the export of technology--American technology owned by the British Government through the British Nuclear Fuels Corporation--to the Chinese, who will then take that technology, once they build nuclear plants, own it themselves, and then sell that product around the world. We are going to take the largest amount of money the Export-Import Bank has ever used, $3.2 billion, a sum bigger than the Export-Import Bank has ever loaned--$1.8 billion was the highest in the past--and we are going to subsidize a country that is holding $165 billion worth of our notes. We already owe them $165 billion. They have plenty of cash to finance this themselves. And the reason we are told we are going to do this is it is going to help hold on to 5,000 jobs. The fact is, if we take that same kind of subsidy, through our Export-Import Bank, and put it into venture capital, small business, research in this country, we would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. So the only rationale for doing this is to hang on to some jobs. And we are going to ask the American taxpayer to subsidize this. What happens if the Chinese do not pay back the loan? The American taxpayer has to pay $5 billion. That is what happens if they, in fact, do not pay it back. I do not know if that is realistic or not. I don't know what is going to happen over the next 10 years to a $5 billion loan to a country that already is attempting to buy, through their Government, assets of this country's oil infrastructure. I think it behooves us to have a vigorous debate on what our policy should be with the Export-Import Bank and whether it is a shortsighted policy to save 5,000 jobs. The actual logic behind that is that if we don't do it, France will do it; France will beat us on this contract because the French Government will do it. If we are going to invest $5 billion or put that on the line, let's loan it to small businesses across America. Let's invest in technology here rather than invest in a corporation that is owned by the British. Let's invest in American corporations. Let's give American companies this kind of benefit. But, in fact, we have chosen to go down this path for a very good reason. It is important to save jobs. I don't mean to demean that whatsoever. But it is a short-range answer to a very long-range problem. If, in fact, $5 billion will save 5,000 jobs in the United States, that is $100,000 a job. It is important for us to be clear about what the intent is. The Export-Import Bank was designed to help us enhance our exports. First of all, there are some jobs in California and Pennsylvania and Louisiana that are affected by this deal. It is not to say that those jobs will not be there if this deal doesn't go through. As a matter of fact, I would say, as we look at the need for nuclear energy in the future in this country, most probably we are going to see some greater demand from these companies. But I find it very ironic that a country that has a trade surplus with us approaching $200 billion, that has a significant growth factor that is greater than ours, that is ``cash rich'' at this time to the tune of $165 billion just in U.S. Treasury securities, that the taxpayer ought to be financing the sale of nuclear powerplants and nuclear technology to China. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. COBURN. How much time remains?

Mr. COBURN. I will yield such time as I may consume. I ask the Presiding Officer to notify me when I have 5 minutes remaining.

Mr. COBURN. A couple of points: No. 1, this is not just the British- owned corporation; this is a corporation owned by the British Government. There is a big difference. It is not a privately held corporation. The British Government owns British Nuclear Fuels, which owns Westinghouse. If there is a subsidized loan that ought to go anywhere, it ought to come from the British, not the American taxpayers. Second, I spoke in error. It is not $100,000 per job but $1 million per job; $5 billion for 5,000 jobs is $1 million a job. That is what we are putting at risk to save 5,000 jobs. The third point I make is we are not just offering a loan subsidy and guarantee to a Westinghouse power generation subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels owned by the British Government. We are also allowing a subsidy for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that also has a large portion of this deal. What we are doing is financing just as many jobs out of the country as we are in the country. So the claim that we want to do this to save 5,000 jobs means we are going to enhance the ability of the Japanese steel manufacturers to compete with our steel manufacturers because we are going to give them a guaranteed loan to supply the steel for this facility. It makes no sense. How do we best create more jobs in this country? We trim Government spending. We cut taxes. We allow the entrepreneurs of this country, the people who have paid 14 percent more taxes this year already, to have the money with which to invest. If we are not going to do that, then let's subsidize the small businessmen, the venture capitalists in this country. Let's put it into our own research and development, our own science and our own technology. If we are going to put the taxpayer on hold for $5 billion, I would much rather do that than trying to collect it, because I think we would have a tough time trying to collect it from the Japanese if they did default. I don't think that would happen. But we start putting American taxpayers', Americans' future at risk on something that does not make any sense. I have a difference of opinion with the Senator from California about the need for nuclear power. We differ on that. There is no question about that. I happen to believe this very deal will come back to haunt us. I believe 20 years from now we will be buying nuclear powerplants from the Chinese rather than them buying from ourselves or from the British, because if you look at every other major manufacturer that has a deal in China, one of the components to have the deal in China is to give up your technology at the specified period of time. There isn't one manufacturer over there today that has not agreed to license or give away their technology for the opportunity to enter that market. That is not free trade. That is extortion and that is what is going on in China today. To get into that big market and to have access to that labor market, what American companies are doing is giving up their future. They are giving away their technology. And this is more of the same. It is bad medicine for America. It is bad medicine for American workers. It is bad medicine for investment in our own future technology. And it is bad medicine for the American taxpayer. With that, I will reserve the remainder of my time. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we are about to have a vote on the Coburn- Boxer amendment. It is a very straightforward amendment that says the U.S. Export-Import Bank should not subsidize a $5 billion loan for the sale of nuclear powerplants to China. We are opposed to it. I am personally not opposed to nuclear power. I am not opposed to the Chinese having nuclear power. But I am opposed to financing a company owned by the British Government through the British Nuclear Fuels Company, which is wholly owned by the British Government, which wholly owns Westinghouse Nuclear Powerplant Division. This Export-Import Bank financing will also finance Mitsubishi Steel out of Japan. The question that has been raised in the debate is if we don't do it, the French or Russians will. The fact is, if we have the best technology and the best quality, then we ought to earn it on the merits. The American taxpayers should not be put on the hook for financing. The second issue is that when we buy business in this country--which is what we are doing; we are buying business by subsidizing and giving a deal to compete--what we are doing is taking away moneys and Export- Import financing that could be used elsewhere. This is by far the largest, by 250 percent, of any Export-Import Bank loan in the history of the Export-Import Bank. I don't believe our grandchildren should be on the hook for it, but I also don't believe this is the best use of that money. I am an advocate of nuclear power both in this country and around the world. I think it can be used safely. These are great companies, but it is time we get out of the idea of buying business and out of the idea of putting our kids and our grandkids at risk for something that fully should be subsidized by the governments that are going to benefit the most from it. I yield my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask our colleagues to look at this for what it is. In the long run, we don't win; we lose. Even if it costs us nothing in terms of finance charges, in the long run the technology goes to China. We need to be investing in real jobs, real science, real entrepreneurs, and small business. We can create high-paying jobs. We have done that. I hope the body will do that. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. COBURN. The fact is, there should be no risk to the American people on this deal, period. There is risk. There is a guarantee for the full faith and credit of the United States through the Export- Import Bank to finance the vast majority of a British-owned company--a British-Government-owned company, not by the taxpayer, but a British- owned company and a Japanese company and a smaller American company. So my basic position is we should not have that risk placed on our children or grandchildren. The other issue that is important is that they have already said they are going to take the technology at the end of 10 years. I cannot believe we are saying at the end of 10 years whatever advantage we have they are going to get. We agreed in this deal that they get it. They are going to be turning around and selling nuclear powerplants to us. We ought to be doing something different. If this is the only way we can put jobs out there, by competing on subsidies with the French and Russians, we have lost the innovative spirit of America. We need to get back to investing in hard reserve, entrepreneurship, and in small business. We will create more jobs and more industries. If we keep playing the game of government-run subsidies and guarantees to buy business--because that is what we are doing. Why did the Chinese choose this one over the others? Because it is the best economic deal. They are essentially equivalent as to what they can buy. We are buying business. When you start buying business, it marks the end of your ability to compete. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Would the Senator like to yield back to me?

Mr. COBURN. I understand we are competing in the global economy and the French or the Russians are going to subsidize it, but the fact is this is a very low interest rate. We are borrowing money from China today and paying over 4 percent and we are going to finance this at less than that, so the cost to the taxpayer is real. There is a real cost to the American taxpayer. It is the difference between at what rate they invest and the interest rate we pay to them and at what rate we are going to subsidize this loan. So there is a cost to the taxpayer. The other thought I hope the Senator would agree with is, this is not just to Westinghouse, which is owned by the British Government, not a British corporation. This is also to Mitsubishi Steel because we are now going to take American taxpayer dollars, the difference between what we are paying on their notes that they are investing, their cash investment here, and we are going to subsidize a Japanese company. I hope the Senator would agree we shouldn't be doing that.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. COBURN. The assumption is, if this becomes an Export-Import Bank loan, then it, in fact, will be at a rate less than what China could borrow in the international markets for the same thing. If you go out and check loans on nuclear powerplants, what you see is they are high- premium loans because there is a lot of risk. Whatever they do, if they, in fact, finance it, or if they, in fact, guarantee it and don't finance it, the rate is going to come down, so that builds the risk for the American people. I agree, they probably will pay it back. My argument is, whatever it is, if we are subsidizing it, either through the auspices of a guarantee or a loan through a reduced rate, what could we be using that same buying power for here? So there is an economic cost. If we put $5 billion over here, it is going to cost us by not putting it somewhere else in terms of loan guarantees. The question is not whether we ought to have a vibrant nuclear power industry in this country. The question in my mind is this. I understand the global economy. You are talking about the vast majority of the major players in this not being American companies--the vast majority. Although Westinghouse employs Americans, the profits that inure to Westinghouse through a loan guarantee for subsidy go to the British, not to Americans. That government owns it through the nuclear power unit, the research fuels unit of the British Government, British Nuclear Fuels. They own it 100 percent. We can muddy the water on who owns it. The fact is, American taxpayers should not be on the hook for subsidizing or guaranteeing what should be subsidized or guaranteed by the Japanese and British Governments. If they think this is a great deal--and I am all for reducing our deficit with China. I voted for looking at the floating of the currency, so I am with the Senator from Pennsylvania; but I don't believe we should put our grandchildren and our children at risk when we can use the money much more wisely and our credit rating more wisely.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. COBURN. Would the Senator agree that today this is a British- Government-owned company and that the profits from this will accrue to the benefit of the Mitsubishi Corporation and Shaw Corporation? Why in the world wouldn't those two governments be subsidizing the loan rather than this government?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I listened very intently to the words of the Senator from California. I am somewhat confused. If in fact the American contractor, i.e. Bechtel, working with the British-owned company, not an American company, gets this contract, it will have an effect on reducing coal utilization. But in her first statement, the Senator said if the American company consortium doesn't get it, the French or Russians will. So the argument about coal and greenhouse gases doesn't fly. They are going to go with nuclear, much like this country should be doing, except we don't have the wisdom to do that. The fact is, we will be subsidizing the difference in the rate. Loans for nuclear powerplants are high-risk loans. There are not many commercial lenders that will lend for that, and when they do lend for it, you pay a premium. This is going to be a subsidized loan that will cost somewhere between $50 million and $100 million per year to the American taxpayer. What could we do with another $50 million or $100 million to produce jobs? I am all for producing jobs. I want Westinghouse to produce lots of nuclear plants. I believe it is safe and smart for us to use nuclear power. Every time we have seen a problem in this country, the power systems and safety systems have worked. The debate is not whether I want nuclear power. I have been on record for nuclear power for a long time. I am not an advocate of us subsidizing the British Government, the Japanese Government, and their businesses, and having the American taxpayers pay for it.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I will be happy to yield time if the Senator comes up short.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will call up amendment 1086 and then I will withdraw it by unanimous consent. It is important that Members recognize what is written in the report language in this bill. I will read a portion of one sentence and talk about it: Congressionally directed projects. The committee recommends including the following congressionally directed projects. The committee has provided sufficient funding to cover the cost of these additions so as not to impact research. That is the key question. By the misstatement of the committee itself, these projects are not essential. Yet, there is $87 million in projects to 30 States averaging less than $1 million a project. These are for biomass, biodiesel, hydrogen, solar, and other forms of energy. It is going to pass, there is no question. I can't stop it, but I think the American people ought to go online and look at this. There are two problems. No. 1, it is not essential and we will spend $544 billion we do not have this year; No. 2, by having this many projects at such low value, we do not get our money's worth because we spend a ton of money in administrative and overhead costs for these small projects. If we are going to spend this money, it ought to be 3 or 6 projects, not the 30-some projects that are in there. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order.

Mr. COBURN. I would like to call the attention of the Members to page 8 of the report language on the Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 2006. No. 7 is entitled, ``Report Language.'' I think it is important that we understand what this says. It says: Any limitation, any directive or any earmarking contained in either the House or Senate report which is not contradicted by the other report, nor specifically denied in the conference report, shall be considered as having been approved by both Houses of Congress. Mr. President, I do not have objection to that other than the fact that the American people, when the report comes out of conference, will have no way to measure the earmarks, the directives, and other things in that bill without that inclusion. This amendment requires that any limitation, directive, or earmarking be included in the conference report. This amendment is about sunshine so that if you get the conference report you can actually tell what is earmarked, what is directed, what is limited by the language that individual Senators have placed in the bill. I do not expect this amendment to pass. I understand that. But I think in one of the steps of us ever getting to the point where we do not leave this heritage of tremendous debt to our children, sunshine has to come in. And when we pass a bill out of conference, the conference report ought to say what is in there, just like it does when we have a conference bill on the Senate side or a conference bill on the House side. The current report language actually abdicates our authority in looking at what the House earmarks or what the House limits as a body. We do not get a chance to look at that because it is not in the report language coming out of conference. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to vote on everything that is in that bill and have knowledge of everything that is in that bill. The only way a Senator will be able to know that is to take the House language in their report, filter through the Senate language, and figure out what is and what is not included. This amendment requires that all provisions must be included in the conference report. It allows both the Senate and the House the opportunity to vote on all provisions, as opposed to only those which happen to pass through their respective Chambers. I believe the American people expect us to do that. I believe this body was, in fact, intended to look at what the House does. I believe the conference report ought to share what the House has limited, directed or earmarked for the benefit of individual Members or individual States, cities or otherwise. So with that, I yield to the Senator from Montana and ask that he would support this amendment. It is a simple change. It is a change for open and more transparent Government. It is my belief that it is something we ought to consider.

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I think we are in a time when we can take the time to make sure the American public knows what is in the bills. As a matter of fact, I think it is wrong if we do not take the time. I read almost every bill. I am one of the few Senators who do. I can tell you that I will struggle through a House bill and then have to subtract out the conference bill to find out what was deleted from the House bill to be able to know what is and what is not there. That is not sunshine for the American people. It is barely any sunshine for a Senator. I restate, the fact is, we ought to make it easy for the American people to find out where we are spending the money. A conference report that does not make it easy, does not direct where the money is directed, where the earmarks are, where the limitations are, is less than what the American people deserve. This is a simple request. It will not add that much time. It is all printed out. In the conference, you all know what you are going to agree to and what you are not going to agree to. It is taking one computer screen: You punch ``copy,'' and it goes into the report. So I would beg to differ with the chairman. I love him dearly. I think he is a great man. But I think the American people deserve to know what is in every report that comes out of here in terms of spending so they can make an evaluation: Are we doing the right thing mortgaging the future of our kids? Is it legitimate? But to pass a conference report that does not give that pathway to them, for them to see and make that judgment, I think is wrong. I think it will help us as the Senate, as we look at what the other body does, to put that in that report. I believe anything less than that says we do have something to hide. We may not have anything to hide. But not being very transparent and very clear about what the limitations, earmarks, and directives are in a bill is something less than what the American people deserve. I ask the chairman again to reconsider his opposition to this amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COBURN. But the point is, don't the American people need to see that 20 percent? Shouldn't they be able to see that 20 percent?