A bill to prohibit the merger, acquisition, or takeover of Unocal Corporation by CNOOC Ltd. of China.

Mr. President, to follow up on one of the things we did accomplish in the Senate, passing last night the Department of Homeland Defense appropriations bill, I want to call to the attention of the Senate three amendments this Senator from Florida had attached to the bill which were passed. They regard FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This, of course, has been extremely important to the Nation, but particularly to my State of Florida, having gone through the experience of four hurricanes last year within a 6-week period.

Originally, FEMA did a very good job. A lot of that was as a result of the lessons we had learned from a decade previously from the monster hurricane of 1992, Hurricane Andrew, when one level of Government was not talking to another level. Those lessons learned were applied. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of those four hurricanes that hit Florida within that 6-week period, FEMA responded, and responded well, working with the State of Florida and the local governments, which in this case for those four hurricanes included most of the counties of Florida. Little did I know, going into August a year ago, I was going to end up visiting almost every emergency operations center in the State of Florida. But that is the fate that befell our State.

But then, in the long run, FEMA started dropping the ball. It was not because they did not have enough money. We appropriated $13.5 billion-- that is with a ``B''--for hurricane relief. Of that $13.5 billion, $8.5 billion went to FEMA. It was not that it did not have enough money. But they started sending it to the wrong places. They sent over $30 million to Miami-Dade County, when in fact the hurricane winds never blew in Miami-Dade County.

So one of the amendments has to do with them being required, under law, to report back to the committee in the Senate and the committee in the House on all of the changes they have made in response to the recent inspector general's report that named all of these deficiencies in FEMA. One of them was sending millions of dollars into a county where the hurricane winds did not blow.

Another example was they paid for over 300 funerals, but the number of deaths directly attributable or even indirectly attributable to the hurricane was about 125. Why are we paying for that?

Over and over--I cannot tell you how many county commissioners and mayors were calling us, pleading: Why won't FEMA reimburse us for the debris removal? Over and over we had people saying: FEMA is not sending us any relief.

What is the purpose of FEMA? It is to help people when they are in a time of need and it is authorized under law.

Well, lo and behold, do you know what the most recent one is? It is exactly the reverse. Just a month ago, FEMA sent out $27 million in payments to people; and now, as of 2 weeks ago, it is demanding the people send it back. They said they made a mistake, that they were not eligible for that--$27 million?

Well, thank goodness the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate, at my request, had an investigation and a hearing. They allowed the senior Senator from Florida to be the leadoff witness. Of course, I chronicled a number of these instances.

So we attached to the legislation that passed last night--the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill--amendments that will require FEMA to report back to these committees on the changes that have been made in response to these deficiencies that were noticed by the Inspector General's report.

But we also put on an amendment that will require FEMA to issue consistent and uniform guidelines for the local governments regarding their reimbursement for hurricane debris removal. This was what was so frustrating to our local governments because in one county FEMA would reimburse the local government for the debris removal and in another county it would not. You had this inconsistency. So in our oversight of the executive branch, it is our responsibility to make it. I am happy to say we passed this on this bill.

The third amendment was just a commonsense amendment. Do you know what happened? Last year, they were hiring inspectors to go into homes. The inspector general's report pointed out that those inspectors did not have very much training. Therefore, they were just writing checks left and right, not knowing what they were doing. They would write, for example, a reimbursement for a demolished house and all the accoutrements and complete furnishings, but, in fact, that house did not have any furnishings. If the inspector had asked, FEMA would have known. Well, that is going to be dealt with, with the amendment, with them coming back and reporting on the inspector general's report.

But do you know what else happened? FEMA allowed inspectors to go in, examine a house, and make a determination. But, lo and behold, they then came back, and those inspectors bought those houses at bargain basement prices, when the homeowner was desperate for cash, at below fair market value. The inspector was profiting as a result of the inspector having been hired, representing the U.S. Government, FEMA, to go in there and help the people, and then coming around and taking advantage of the people in their depleted condition.

So we added an amendment, last night, that is going to prohibit those inspectors from entering into contracts with people when they inspect their property. It is common sense.

There is one thing more I want to inform our colleagues in the Senate. When I arrived at the emergency operations center in the State of Florida Sunday afternoon, just before the hurricane hit--at the time when it was about 3 hours out from landfall, it was a category 4--we thought the poor people of Pensacola were going to be absolutely devastated again from the effects they had 10 months ago with Hurricane Ivan, when it hit with such ferociousness. Well, in those intervening hours, by landfall, it had come down from a category 4 to a category 2. By the way, the differential between 145 miles an hour and 125 miles an hour does not sound like much--that is 20 miles an hour--but the differential is exponential in its destructive force. When I arrived at the emergency operations center--and we were so apprehensive-- immediately, several people in the State of Florida EOC came up to me and said: Senator, we want to thank you for standing up and opposing legislation that has been filed in the Senate.

It is legislation that was referred to our Senate Commerce Committee, legislation that would require the National Weather Service to take their Web site off the Internet, under the legislation filed, if there is a competing weather service offered by a commercial entity.

In this particular legislation, it is a commercial entity in the State of the Senator who offered the legislation called AccuWeather. What those people in the Florida EOC wanted me to know was that AccuWeather, on Saturday before the hurricane hit on Sunday, had been predicting it was going in to New Orleans or Mississippi, whereas the National Weather Service, through the National Hurricane Center, had that track coming straight to an area between Pensacola and Ft. Walton Beach, exactly the track where the hurricane hit.

If we had not had the National Weather Service accuracy available to

the public of Florida--and they were getting their information from this other entity--the people of the gulf coast of Florida would have let down their guard and then, all of a sudden, they would have gotten hit. There was a lot less destruction this time and, thank the good Lord, no loss of life because people heeded the warnings: Get out. The day before the hurricane, there was a massive evacuation, very orderly. We did not lose one life.

Here again is another reason why we can be thankful we do have such experts. And never, under the guise of privatization, should we say a governmental service that often is the difference between life and death in my State of Florida should be knocked off the Internet. To the contrary, I can tell you last year, the National Weather Service Web site got 9 billion--that is with a ``b''--hits in that 6-week period. It is a governmental service I am proud of, and I am proud of all the people at the National Hurricane Center in Miami. I have called Max Mayfield, the director, to tell him how proud I am of all those people. They were right on. We never want to focus on that centerline of the track because Mother Nature has a mind of her own. We want to focus on that cone of possible landfall. But in this case, the National Hurricane Center was right on track. My congratulations to them.

I thank my colleagues for the passage of these amendments regarding FEMA last night on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from Maine and Chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Senator Olympia J. Snowe, in reintroducing the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act. This bill has a long history of bipartisan support in Congress because of the critical assistance it provides to small businesses.

Small businesses, particularly small businesses with very few employees, often are overwhelmed with the task of complying with Federal regulations, especially when implementation varies for different regions of the country, or from State to State. Many small businesses fail to comply with important and needed labor and environmental regulations not because they want to break the law, but because they are unaware of the actions they need to take to comply. In addition, small business owners are often afraid to seek guidance from Federal agencies for fear of exposing problems at their businesses.

One important way to help small businesses comply with Federal regulations is to provide them with free, confidential advice outside of the normal relationship between a small business and a regulatory agency. The Small Business Administration's Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, are in a unique position to provide this type of assistance, with some 1,000 centers around the country, well- established relationships and visibility within local communities, and the trust of area small businesses.

Our bill establishes a 4-year pilot program to award competitive matching grants to 20 selected SBDCs, two from each SBA region, which would allow these SBDCs to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses. The SBA would be authorized to award grants between $150,000 and $300,000, depending on the population of the SBDC's state.

Under our legislation, the SBDCs would need to form partnerships with Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training activities, offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small business owners, and consult with the SBA's independent Office of Advocacy. The legislation will complement, not duplicate, current small business development assistance and expand upon existing regulatory compliance help.

The legislation we are reintroducing today uses only SBA funds and will serve to complement current small-business development assistance as well as existing compliance assistance programs. Versions of this legislation introduced in previous Congresses had used Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, enforcement funds to pay for these grants.

The SBA's independent Office of Advocacy estimates that small businesses with fewer than 20 employees--which make up 89 percent of all U.S. businesses--pay nearly $7,000 per employee to comply with Federal regulations. This is nearly 60 percent higher than the cost to larger firms. While all small businesses should be complying with Federal regulations, the Federal Government should also do it's best to ensure that the burden on small businesses is minimized, that small businesses are taken into account when new regulations are drafted, and that unnecessarily burdensome regulations are eliminated. In addition, the government should make sure that small businesses understand the regulations. Often, noncompliance is due to confusion not ill intent. By providing free, private regulatory assistance, we can increase compliance while decreasing the burden on small businesses.

Small-business owners have enough on their plates without worrying about complying with confusing regulations. This legislation will decrease the burden on small businesses by helping them cut through government red tape. Small businesses can succeed when it comes to complying with Federal regulations, if provided with the necessary tools and information. The National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will go a long way toward assisting our Nation's small businesses that want to comply with Federal regulations.

The legislation we are introducing today is nearly identical to the Kerry-Ensign legislation introduced last Congress. On the House side, the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act, H.R. 230, has been introduced and passed by Congressman John Sweeney of New York in each of the past three Congresses and was just approved by the Small Business Committee yesterday. In 2002, our Senate version passed the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship but was not taken up by the full Senate.

I am pleased to say that we have the full support of the Association of Small Business Development Centers, which has been working closely with us to re-introduce the Senate version of this legislation, as well as support from the National Small Business Association, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and Congressman Sweeney.

I want to express my sincere thanks to Chair Snowe for her had work and support on this issue. I also want to thank our cosponsors, Senators Cantwell, Bond, Burns, Leahy, Jeffords, Carper, Bingaman, and Rockefeller for their ongoing efforts to pass this important assistance. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a piece of legislation that deals with the issue of a Chinese oil company called CNOOC, a state-owned corporation that has proposed to acquire a United States oil company called Unocal.

The purpose of my legislation--and I may well also offer it as an amendment to the Foreign Operations appropriations bill we will consider today and next week--is to prohibit the sale of Unocal Corporation to CNOOC. The legislation provides that notwithstanding any other provision in the law, the merger, acquisition, or takeover of Unocal Corporation by CNOOC is prohibited. Let me explain why I am introducing.

I bear no ill will toward the Chinese. China is an extraordinarily large country. The Chinese have an extraordinary rate of economic growth. They are very involved in the world economy. We have a large trade deficit, regrettably, with the Chinese. That has to do with a range of unfair trade practices and other things. We had a $162 billion trade deficit with the Chinese in the past year. This year it is on track to top $200 billion.

I understand what the Chinese are trying to do. They are trying to meet their future energy needs. They have four large state-owned energy companies. Their companies, including CNOOC, are attempting to acquire in many different ways opportunities to satisfy their energy needs. In attempting to acquire Unocal, they are attempting to acquire a U.S. corporation with substantial strategically important oil assets for our country.

The reason I believe we ought to prohibit the sale of an American oil company to a Chinese state-owned oil company is this: There is not and would not be reciprocal treatment. If a United States oil company or a United States company wanted to buy a Chinese oil company, it wouldn't happen. The Chinese Government wouldn't approve it. The four large oil companies in China are all state controlled, and as

a practical matter, the Chinese government is not about to approve that any of those companies be purchased by a foreign government or foreign company. There is no reciprocal opportunity for a United States corporation to acquire an oil company in China.

The Chinese Government is a Communist government. Its economy is emerging as market-driven economy under the umbrella of the Chinese Government. That causes a lot of tensions and interesting circumstances. The Chinese have joined the WTO. They have made all kinds of representations about opening their marketplace. But the fact is, once again, the largest oil companies, like most other major enterprises in China, are state controlled. It makes no sense that we would allow a Chinese state-controlled oil company to acquire, in this case Unocal, a United States oil company at a time when we would not be able to reciprocate and we would be prevented from acquiring a Chinese oil company if we wished to do so.

I don't know what the administration's position would be on this. They have a review process. To the extent that the review process takes place, I believe that review process ought to be expanded. But I hope we can avoid all of that by simply deciding as a Congress this is not something that meets our national interest. Our strategic, security, and economic national interest is not served by allowing this to happen.

I am introducing this legislation today, and I know that there are many Members of Congress who share my view that this is not a transaction that meets the strategic, security, and economic interests of this country. We must trade with China. China is an emerging nation with a very substantial imprint on the world economy. The free flow of commerce and market capital is important. I understand that. This legislation that I am offering is not in any way an attempt to send a message that we do not want good trade relations with China. But it is very much intended to send this message: reciprocal opportunities ought to exist in these transactions, and they would not and do not in this case involving CNOOC and Unocal.

It is also important to point out that the money with which CNOOC, a Chinese state-controlled oil company, would purchase a United States oil corporation would be in many ways attributable to deep subsidies by the Government of China for a state-owned enterprise in China that wishes to acquire a United States oil company.

For that reason I will introduce this bill today. I may well also offer it as an amendment to the appropriations bill on Monday.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a piece of legislation that deals with the issue of a Chinese oil company called CNOOC, a state-owned corporation that has proposed to acquire a United States oil company called Unocal.

The purpose of my legislation--and I may well also offer it as an amendment to the Foreign Operations appropriations bill we will consider today and next week--is to prohibit the sale of Unocal Corporation to CNOOC. The legislation provides that notwithstanding any other provision in the law, the merger, acquisition, or takeover of Unocal Corporation by CNOOC is prohibited. Let me explain why I am introducing.

I bear no ill will toward the Chinese. China is an extraordinarily large country. The Chinese have an extraordinary rate of economic growth. They are very involved in the world economy. We have a large trade deficit, regrettably, with the Chinese. That has to do with a range of unfair trade practices and other things. We had a $162 billion trade deficit with the Chinese in the past year. This year it is on track to top $200 billion.

I understand what the Chinese are trying to do. They are trying to meet their future energy needs. They have four large state-owned energy companies. Their companies, including CNOOC, are attempting to acquire in many different ways opportunities to satisfy their energy needs. In attempting to acquire Unocal, they are attempting to acquire a U.S. corporation with substantial strategically important oil assets for our country.

The reason I believe we ought to prohibit the sale of an American oil company to a Chinese state-owned oil company is this: There is not and would not be reciprocal treatment. If a United States oil company or a United States company wanted to buy a Chinese oil company, it wouldn't happen. The Chinese Government wouldn't approve it. The four large oil companies in China are all state controlled, and as

a practical matter, the Chinese government is not about to approve that any of those companies be purchased by a foreign government or foreign company. There is no reciprocal opportunity for a United States corporation to acquire an oil company in China.

The Chinese Government is a Communist government. Its economy is emerging as market-driven economy under the umbrella of the Chinese Government. That causes a lot of tensions and interesting circumstances. The Chinese have joined the WTO. They have made all kinds of representations about opening their marketplace. But the fact is, once again, the largest oil companies, like most other major enterprises in China, are state controlled. It makes no sense that we would allow a Chinese state-controlled oil company to acquire, in this case Unocal, a United States oil company at a time when we would not be able to reciprocate and we would be prevented from acquiring a Chinese oil company if we wished to do so.

I don't know what the administration's position would be on this. They have a review process. To the extent that the review process takes place, I believe that review process ought to be expanded. But I hope we can avoid all of that by simply deciding as a Congress this is not something that meets our national interest. Our strategic, security, and economic national interest is not served by allowing this to happen.

I am introducing this legislation today, and I know that there are many Members of Congress who share my view that this is not a transaction that meets the strategic, security, and economic interests of this country. We must trade with China. China is an emerging nation with a very substantial imprint on the world economy. The free flow of commerce and market capital is important. I understand that. This legislation that I am offering is not in any way an attempt to send a message that we do not want good trade relations with China. But it is very much intended to send this message: reciprocal opportunities ought to exist in these transactions, and they would not and do not in this case involving CNOOC and Unocal.

It is also important to point out that the money with which CNOOC, a Chinese state-controlled oil company, would purchase a United States oil corporation would be in many ways attributable to deep subsidies by the Government of China for a state-owned enterprise in China that wishes to acquire a United States oil company.

For that reason I will introduce this bill today. I may well also offer it as an amendment to the appropriations bill on Monday.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1414, a bill that authorizes a study necessary for establishing the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area in the Four Corners region of the States of Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona. I am joined by Senators Bennett, Bingaman, Domenici, and Allard as cosponsors of this bill.

The Four Corners region in the Southwestern United States contains many of the most stunning and well-preserved archaeological sites in our country. It also offers monuments, museums, and other attractions which draw visitors from all over the world. The rare archaeology of this part of the world combined with an awesome natural setting makes this a region like no other. With this bill we hope to lay the groundwork to give this region the attention that it so richly deserves.

Six years ago, Congress voted to support a partnership among these four States and the Federal Government in order to construct an Interpretive Center at the intersection of the Four Corners. This Center has recently opened and now provides a wonderful physical locus for travel in the region. Visitors to this spot can stop, rest, learn about the area, and purchase goods produced by the local Tribes.

The designation of the surrounding region as a National Heritage Area would complement this experience at the Center and is the logical next step. Designation as a National Heritage Area would provide geographic and interpretive coherence to the region's remarkable landscape and the amazing cultural sites dispersed within it. Designation as a National Heritage Area would give visitors to this area an experience that integrates land, people, and history in a meaningful way.

The Four Corners region is also home to the Navaho, Hopi, and Ute Indian Tribes, whose ancestors contributed to this remarkable heritage. Ancestral Puebloan Indians lived here from about A.D. 1 to 1300 and left many of the distinctive sites and structures that are visible today. The Navaho and Ute are descendants of these early peoples. The history of this area stretches even further back in time, to the Paleo- Indian era of at least 10,000 years ago. Remains from this era provide a glimpse into a way of life very different from today. The area also features sites that chronicle the more recent history of the region's native peoples, and of the immigrants who came to this area as our country expanded to the West.

This bill provides for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct the suitability and feasibility study in cooperation with the Four Corners Heritage Council. This Council is a critical partner in the study, and is prepared to take the lead in this task. The Council consists of members from all four States in the Four Corners area. These members are appointed by the governor of each State and include representatives from the private sector, local communities, and the Tribes. We are fortunate to have such a well-established entity with a good track record of accomplishments to take on the study task.

The bill follows the new guidelines for National Heritage Areas recently passed by this body and was crafted in consultation with the National Park Service and the Four Corners Heritage Council. Once passed, this bill should move easily through the process to completion. Final designation of this area as the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area would link many of the cultural and recreational sites in the region for the benefit of local communities and visitors to the area. Designation of the area would not impose restrictions on private property or require acquisition of additional land.

S. 1414 is the first step in the national heritage area designation process. Designation of this area as the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area would give these remarkable historic treasures the national prominence they deserve, and would provide a structure for the State and local communities to promote heritage tourism and economic development. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.