[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 97-103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. MURRAY:
  S. 2004. A bill to amend title 49 of the United States Code to expand 
State authority with respect to pipeline safety, to establish new 
Federal requirements to improve pipeline safety, to authorize 
appropriations under chapter 601 of that title for fiscal years 2001 
through 2005, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                      pipeline safety act of 2000

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, at the start of this session, I've come 
to the floor to introduce a bill that will improve the safety of all 
Americans by raising the safety standards on the oil and gas pipelines 
that run through our communities.
  Today, I'm introducing the Pipeline Safety Act of 2000.
  Until recently, like many Americans, I wasn't aware of the potential 
safety hazards that pipelines can pose. These pipelines stretch across 
America--running under our homes and near our schools and offices. 
Nationwide, the Office of Pipeline Safety oversees more than 157,000 
miles of underground pipeline which transport hazardous liquids and 
more than 2.2 million miles of pipeline which transport natural gas. 
They perform a vital service--bringing oil and essential products to 
our homes and businesses. I rarely heard about them, so I assumed they 
were safe.
  But last year, there was a deadly pipeline accident in my home state 
of Washington. And the more I learned about how pipelines are regulated 
in the United States--the more concerned I became.
  Today, seven months after that disaster in Bellingham, I am here on 
the Senate floor with a bill that takes the lessons of pipeline 
disasters and turns them into law--so that these tragedies won't happen 
again.
  Mr. President, on June 10th, in Bellingham, Washington, a gas 
pipeline ruptured--releasing more than a quarter of a million gallons 
of gasoline into Whatcom Creek. The gas ignited--sending a huge 
fireball racing down the creek--destroying everything in its path for 
more than a mile. The dramatic explosion killed three young people who 
happened to be playing by the creek. It created a plume of smoke which 
rose more than twenty-thousand

[[Page 98]]

feet into the air. This photo behind me was taken just moments after 
the explosion. One minute, a quiet residential area; the next moment, a 
disaster.
  Besides the tragic loss of these three young lives, this explosion 
caused horrendous environmental damage. In fact, I was scheduled to be 
at this exact site just a few weeks later to designate a newly restored 
salmon spawning ground. When I saw the damage a short time after the 
explosion, frankly, I was shocked.
  Take a look at these pictures. This was before the explosion where we 
were going to dedicate a salmon creek spawning ground. This is 
afterwards. As you can see, this explosion destroyed all of the plant 
and animal life in the creek, and it was once a lush and diverse 
habitat. In moments, it was destroyed and gone.
  The explosion also had an impact on the entire community. Neighbors 
could not sleep at night, and young children--still to this day--panic 
during lightning storms. And, of course, three families--who lost their 
children--will never be the same.
  Mr. President, as I researched this issue, I learned that what 
happened in my state was not unique--in fact--it wasn't even rare. 
According to the Office of Pipeline Safety, since 1986, there have been 
more than 5,500 incidents, resulting in 310 deaths and 1,500 injuries. 
Those 5,500 incidents also caused nearly a billion dollars in property 
damage. On average, our nation suffers one pipeline accident every day.
  Clearly, this is a national problem--requiring a national solution. 
This chart shows some of the major pipeline accidents since 1981. This 
chart only shows the accidents investigated by the National 
Transportation Safety Board--not all 5,500.
  As you can see, these disasters can occur anywhere--in anyone's 
neighborhood, in anyone's community, close to anybody's school, near 
anybody's place of work. And they have devastating results.
  While the pipeline industry--by and large--does a good job of safely 
delivering the fuel we need to heat our homes and drive our cars, there 
are some examples where they failed to protect the public.
  According to a New York Times article from January 14th of this year:

       One of the nation's largest pipeline operators quit 
     inspecting its lines for much of the 1990's and instead found 
     flaws by waiting for the pipes to break. Koch Industries 
     agreed to pay a fine of $30 million--the largest civil 
     environmental penalty to date.

  That company's behavior resulted in leaks of three million gallons of 
crude oil, gasoline, and other products in 300 separate incidents in 
the last nine years.
  We can't just rely on the industry to police itself. As this example 
showed, one company decided it was cheaper to wait for accidents to 
happen, than to take steps to prevent them. The time has come to raise 
the standards for pipeline safety.
  Too often the public is left in the dark. Neighbors don't know they 
live near pipelines. Schools and communities aren't told when there are 
problems with a pipeline. The time has come to expand the public's 
right to know about the pipelines that run near their homes.
  Too often pipeline operators don't have the training or experience 
they need to handle emergencies. Sometimes their actions cause 
accidents, and many times they make these disasters even worse. We 
should certify pipeline inspectors so we will know they have the 
training they need. In fact, in 1992 Congress passed a law requiring 
certification of pipeline operators. But a few years later, that 
requirement was repealed. That's a mistake we need to correct, and 
today, the need for qualified, certified operators is even greater.
  Too often there aren't enough resources to oversee the industry or to 
carry out vital safety programs. The time has come to put the resources 
behind these new standards.
  The time has come to reduce the risks pipelines pose. And the bill 
I'm introducing today does just that.
  Here are the key provisions of my bill:
  First, my bill will expand state authority to give states more 
control over pipeline safety standards. It's time to make states equal 
partners when it comes to pipeline safety. States should be able to use 
their knowledge of local conditions and circumstances to increase 
safety. States should be able to set up even more stringent standards 
than the federal government in areas like:
  Requiring additional training and education of inspectors and 
operators;
  Allowing states to require additional leak detection devices;
  Allowing states to certify procedures and responses to accidents; and
  Allowing states to enforce regulations.
  While some new state authority gives the Secretary of Transportation 
the discretion to allow states to regulate, it is my intent that the 
Secretary work aggressively at accomplishing these partnerships in the 
way I outline in my bill.
  I also strongly support efforts to better equip states as they 
respond to accidents. This involves better coordination between state 
and federal agencies so that police, fire, and emergency medical 
personnel will be better able to respond to pipeline disasters. The 
federal government should also encourage states to work more closely 
with pipeline companies on prevention.
  Second, my bill will improve inspection practices.
  We must develop guidelines and requirements for the internal and 
external inspection of pipelines. Current law only requires that 
pipelines be inspected internally when they are new and being used for 
the first time.
  My bill requires pipeline companies to periodically inspect their 
pipelines internally and externally and report their findings to 
federal and state authorities, as well as the public. My bill also 
requires pipeline companies to take action if those findings uncover 
problems.
  Third, my bill will strengthen the public's ``right to know.''
  Currently the public does not have the right to know about spills and 
problems with pipelines. My bill would require pipeline companies to 
disclose problems with the pipeline and what the company is doing to 
fix them. It will require pipeline companies to report to the public 
any spill and also to report the results of the periodic testing I am 
proposing.
  Fourth, my bill will improve the quality of pipeline operators.
  Current law allows companies to determine if their own operator is 
``qualified'' to work on a pipeline. My bill would place the government 
in the position of determining whether the companies' assessment is 
accurate. We wouldn't want an airline pilot flying a plane unless the 
FAA determined he was qualified. Similarly, we should require the 
Office of Pipeline Safety to review and certify the qualifications of 
pipeline operators.
  Finally, my bill will increase funding to improve safety.
  We should increase funding for research that will help improve the 
devices that inspect pipelines and detect leads. We should also 
increase grant programs to state agencies that regulate and monitor 
pipelines. This should be a partnership that recognizes both the state 
and federal responsibility in making pipelines safer.
  Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this bill today because I know 
it's the right thing to do. This has been a long process, and I've 
received a lot of cooperation. Specifically, I would like to thank U.S. 
Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, the Office of Pipeline 
Safety, the National Transportation Safety Board, the City of 
Bellingham, my colleagues in the Senate, Gov. Locke, other federal and 
state agencies, and industry representatives. Senator Gorton, my 
colleague from Washington State, is well aware of the importance of 
this issue and I look forward to his continued input.
  I'm also looking forward to working with my colleagues in the House--
specifically Representatives Inslee, Metcalf, and Baird--who have 
expressed interest in this issue.
  This bill will raise safety standards so that every family that lives 
near a pipeline can sleep soundly at night. This accident should not 
happen again. The time has come to take the lessons

[[Page 99]]

of this tragedy and put them into law--so we can reduce the odds of 
another disaster. We have a responsibility to do it, this bill gives us 
the tools to do it, and I hope you will support me in this effort.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be interested in the Senator's 
pipeline safety bill. That is a matter that is important. The pipelines 
are so much safer than trucks and other forms of distribution of fossil 
fuel. We are moving toward the use of natural gas, which burns so much 
cleaner than coal, fossil fuel, and other fuels. I think we will be 
having more pipelines around the country. I think it will be essential. 
It will be a positive environmental step to move forward with it.
  I have been somewhat discouraged that the Vice President has 
indicated he opposes drilling for natural gas off the gulf coast where 
it can be done so much more safely than drilling for liquid gas. We 
have had very few problems of any kind drilling off the coast. In fact, 
it produces the cleanest burning fuel we have. We have the Vice 
President opposing nuclear power, and now we are shutting off our 
capacity to reach natural gas which we are now using to generate 
electricity at a fraction of the environmental pollutants that other 
forms of energy generate. We are reaching a point of boxing ourselves 
in. We are supposed to reach cleaner air goals under the Kyoto 
agreement. The President and Vice President say we should go forward, 
but we are boxing ourselves in.
  We need to maintain an efficient gas pipeline system in America to 
generate the energy for the needs we have while continuing to reduce 
pollutants in the atmosphere. It has to be safe, too. I am willing to 
look at that. I certainly don't favor additional regulations, but if it 
promotes safety, I think it is something we ought to talk about.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Grams, 
        and Mr. Allard):
  S. 2005. A bill to repeal the modification of the installment method; 
to the Committee on Finance.


            repeal of a tax on the sale of small businesses

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that will repeal a 
little-noticed, yet extremely detrimental, installment tax provision on 
small businesses.
  This provisions, enacted at the end of last year's congressional 
session as part of the conference report of H.R. 1180, the Ticket to 
Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 was placed into effect 
on December 17 when President Clinton signed the bill.
  According to this provision, many small-business owners who sell 
their businesses will now have to immediately pay in one lump sum all 
capital gains taxes resulting from the sale, even if the sale's 
payments are spread out in installments over a period of several years. 
Under previous treatment, the capital gain tax payment could be spread 
over the life of the installment note.
  An unintended consequence of this provision has been to adversely 
affect the sale of small businesses. Most sales of these businesses use 
the installment sales method. Larger publicly traded corporations are 
not impacted as they tend to use other financing methods involving cash 
or stock transactions.
  According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), 
it is possible that most of the 200,000 small business sales which 
occur each year will be adversely affected by this provision. Some 
estimates show that, depending upon the circumstances, this provision 
could reduce the sale price of a business by 5, 10, 20 percent or more.
  My legislation will repeal the elimination of this provision giving 
small business owners the opportunity to defer over the period of 
payments the capital gains tax on the sale of their business.
  Mr. President, the American public is aware of this tax. I have seen 
press releases, newspaper articles and even a story on a national news 
network. This will effect not only the liquidity and price a seller is 
required to accept for a business.
  We're not talking about major corporations--rather, we are talking 
about small businesses--a local hamburger joint, a laundromat, a car 
wash, the businesses that support a community.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the small business owner by 
cosponsoring this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2006. A bill for the relief of Yongyi Song; read the first time.


                       Private Relief Legislation

  Mr. SPECTER. The thrust of the private relief bill and the concurrent 
resolution is that they seek relief for Mr. Yongyi Song, who is a 
librarian at Dickinson College of Carlisle, PA. Mr. Song was detained 
in Beijing, China, on August 7 of this year and on Christmas Eve was 
charged with ``the purchase and illegal provision of intelligence to 
foreign institutions.''
  Two days ago, the People's Republic of China announced that Yongyi 
Song had confessed, which I believe is a representation having 
absolutely no credibility because Mr. Song has been held in detention 
for months. Any statements made in that context are inherently 
coercive, intimidating, and really of no validity at all.
  The facts are that Yongyi Song is a distinguished and noted scholar 
who has published extensive works about the Cultural Revolution in 
China and that he had made a trip to the People's Republic of China 
earlier this year in order to further his academic research. Then he 
was taken into custody without cause.
  The resolution that has been filed calls for the People's Republic of 
China to release Yongyi Song promptly. It calls for the fair treatment 
of lawyers in the People's Republic of China so they may practice in a 
decent manner within their judicial system, and it calls for the 
People's Republic of China to put into practice the reforms in the 
judicial system which they have, in fact, adopted on paper but are not 
putting into effect as a matter of practice.
  The relationship between the United States Government and the 
People's Republic of China is a complex one. We have seen repeated 
incidents by China of flagrant disregard for human rights, and this is 
another instance. By taking Yongyi Song into custody and holding him in 
detention without charges, and months later--from August 7 until 
Christmas Eve--finally filing charges, and then the representation of a 
confession, which legal experts interpret to mean that they have no 
case and are doing their best to try to fashion some make-way situation 
is perhaps the lowest ebb of disregard for human rights and for 
academic freedom.
  The resolution will be taken up concurrently in the House of 
Representatives as well. The bill for naturalization will enable the 
Government of the United States to take stronger action on behalf of 
Mr. Song. It will enable our State Department officials, for example, 
to visit with Yongyi Song, may be instrumental in obtaining the right 
to counsel, and may be instrumental in obtaining the right to observe 
any trial which is in process.
  There has been a marked and serious determination in the activities 
of the People's Republic of China in their criminal justice system.
  I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks the full 
text of an article from the New York Times, dated January 6 of this 
year, be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. It concerns lawyer Liu Jian who represented the 
defendant in a criminal case. He found that none of the 37 witnesses he 
had lined up appeared to testify because of intimidation from the 
Government. He found himself, a lawyer, in police custody charged with 
``illegally obtaining evidence.'' While in custody, he was subjected to 
beatings and day-long interrogations without food or rest, and he later 
found his ability to practice law and his license to practice law in 
jeopardy.
  It is obviously impossible to have a judicial system that functions 
without lawyers. The activities of the People's Republic of China have 
been absolutely reprehensible in this regard. Our resolution calls for 
relief for Yongyi Song

[[Page 100]]

and also calls for an improvement in the judicial system and the 
treatment of lawyers by the People's Republic of China.
  Mr. President, this vital legislation would grant Mr. Yongyi Song 
U.S. citizenship. Mr. Song has been a resident of the United States for 
the past ten years, has passed his United States citizenship tests, and 
had been scheduled to be sworn in as a United States citizen in 
September 1999. However, Mr. Song, a respected researcher and librarian 
at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA, was detained on August 7, 1999, 
in Beijing, China while collecting historical documents on the Chinese 
cultural revolution of the 1960's. After 5 months of detention, Mr. 
Song was formally ``arrested'' on Christmas Eve in China, on charges of 
``the purchase and illegal provision of intelligence to foreign 
institutions.''
  The People's Republic of China claims Mr. Song violated Chinese 
criminal law by collecting historical documents. However, the documents 
in Mr. Song's possession have reportedly been previously published in 
newspapers, books, and other ``open'' sources. The historical material 
Mr. Song was gathering in no way threatens the security of the Chinese 
Government or people. The case of Yongyi Song is an affront to basic 
human rights, an affront to academic freedom and affront to people 
around the world.
  The bill that I am introducing today would waive the oath of 
allegiance and grant Mr. Song immediate citizenship, as Mr. Song passed 
the INS naturalization test on June 7, 1999. I believe it is vital that 
Congress become involved in this case: if Mr. Song were a U.S. citizen, 
the State Department would be in a stronger position to insist on being 
able to see him while he is being detained, insist on monitoring any 
trial that may occur, and insist on Mr. Song's right to counsel. 
Further, U.S. citizenship would afford Mr. Song a better chance of 
being expelled by the Chinese government after the trial, rather than 
being forced to serve a prison sentence should the Chinese Government 
convict him in Chinese court.
  Mr. Song was a young man in China during the Cultural Revolution and 
now, at age 50, he is languishing in a Chinese jail as a result of 
trying to study it. Considering the extremely high conviction rate in 
the Chinese judicial system, it is very probable that Mr. Song will be 
convicted despite my commitment to an all-out fight for his freedom and 
innocence.
  This case presents an international challenge to academic freedom and 
the pursuit of truth. While private relief legislation is a last resort 
that should be used sparingly by the Congress, the urgency and the 
compelling nature of this situation is one that demands immediate and 
definitive action. I urge my colleagues to support me in this fight for 
justice.


                       the yongyi song resolution

  Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce 
legislation that will bring attention to a situation which is occurring 
in the People's Republic of China. On August 7, 1999, Mr. Yongyi Song, 
a resident of Carlisle, PA, was detained in Beijing, China while 
collecting historical documents on the Chinese cultural revolution of 
the 1966-76.
  Mr. Song works as a researcher and librarian at Dickinson College in 
Carlisle, PA. He is a noted scholar of Chinese cultural history and has 
authored two books and several articles on the subject. On Christmas 
eve Mr. Song was formally arrested on charges of ``the purchase and 
illegal provision of intelligence to foreign institutions.'' Yet, the 
documents in Mr. Song's possession have reportedly been previously 
published in newspapers, books and other ``open'' sources.
  His case is complicated because although Mr. Song has lived in the 
United States for the past ten years and has passed his citizenship 
tests, he has not been sworn in as a U.S. citizen. He was scheduled to 
take the oath of allegiance on September 23, 1999, but was detained by 
the PRC before he could return home.
  The case of Yongyi Song is an affront to basic human rights, an 
affront to academic freedom and an affront to people around the world. 
The People's Republic of China claims that Mr. Song violated Chinese 
criminal law by collecting historical documents, yet the documents in 
Mr. Song's possession have reportedly been previously published in 
newspapers, books and other ``open'' sources. At a time when the 
Chinese Government is looking for legitimacy, trying to get into the 
World Trade Organization and talking about improving its criminal 
justice system, this is a sharp about face.
  This legislation I am about to introduce, a Concurrent Resolution, 
will express the Sense of the Congress that the Government of the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) should immediately release from prison 
and drop all criminal charges against Yongyi Song. Further, it will 
encourage the PRC to make reforms to their legal system so that 
criminal defense lawyers are guaranteed fair and professional treatment 
and encourage the PRC to conduct fair and open court proceedings.
  In working with Mr. Song's defense team, I have learned about several 
problems within the Chinese legal system. First, the difficulties 
criminal defense lawyers face in representing their clients in the 
People's Republic of China. Over the past several years China has 
attempted to reform its legal system yet it has not been successful. 
Police often refuse to let lawyers meet with their clients and lawyers 
are often not provided with legally guaranteed information they require 
to competently represent clients. Many times trials are not open to the 
public or defendants families so that fair treatment of both lawyer and 
client cannot be accurately ascertained or proven. Additionally, 
defense lawyers are subject to harassment and interference and at times 
even arrest and imprisonment by Chinese authorities while defending 
clients. For example, in July, 1998 Liu Jian, a criminal defense lawyer 
from Nanjing, China was imprisoned, subjected to beatings and 
``marathon'' interrogations after he represented a local official 
accused of taking bribes.
  I urge my colleagues to send a sharp message to the People's Republic 
of China that they immediately release Yongyi Song from prison and drop 
all charges against him. Further, we should encourage the PRC to 
provide fair and professional treatment to criminal defense lawyers and 
work to ensure that more court proceedings are open to the public.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 6, 2000]

         In China's Legal Evolution, the Lawyers Are Handcuffed

                        (By Elisabeth Rosenthal)

       Nanjing, China.--Liu Jian was an idealistic new lawyer when 
     his Nanjing firm sent him to a rural town 200 miles away to 
     represent a local official accused of taking bribes.
       Stationed in the town, Binhai, he worked round-the-clock 
     doing what defense lawyers do to prepare for trial: 
     interviewing witnesses, examining documents and--when the 
     police would allow--brainstorming with his client.
       But when the court convened on July 13, 1998, almost none 
     of the 37 witnesses he had lined up appeared to testify. The 
     prosecutor swore and ranted at Mr. Liu, calling him a 
     criminal. And at trial's end, outside Binhai's courthouse, 
     Mr. Liu found himself in police custody, charged with 
     ``illegally obtaining evidence.''
       Although legal experts around the country declared his 
     innocence, Mr. Liu spent a nightmarish five months in 
     detention, subjected at times to beatings and daylong 
     interrogations without food or rest.
       ``I was released on Dec. 11, and I've tried not to have any 
     contact with the criminal law since,'' said Mr. Liu, a thin, 
     serious man with a downtrodden air, whose son was born and 
     whose mother had a heart attack while he was in jail. ``I've 
     really lost confidence in the system.''
       Over the past decade, China has tried to overhaul its legal 
     system, training thousands of new lawyers and passing laws 
     that greatly expand their role in criminal cases--for 
     example, for the first time giving defendants in detention 
     the right to a lawyer and allowing lawyers to conduct 
     pretrial investigations.
       But results have been mixed, especially in the country's 
     vast rural areas, where the police, prosecutors and judges 
     often chafe under the new rules. And China's young lawyers 
     have been at once a tremendous force for change and also 
     frequent victims: byproducts of a new legal system that is 
     far better established on paper than in practice.

[[Page 101]]

       ``The law has made great advances, but sometimes thinking 
     has not,'' said Li Baoyue, a criminal lawyer who also teaches 
     at Beijing's University of Politics and Law. ``It is going to 
     be a very difficult road ahead to get these new regulations 
     implemented.''
       Although it is rare for criminal lawyers to end up in 
     prison, defense lawyers say, it is common for them to suffer 
     a barrage of problems, insults and lesser slights like these:
       The police often refuse to let lawyers meet their clients 
     in private or in a timely manner, despite a law giving them 
     access within 48 hours.
       Lawyers are often not provided with legally guaranteed 
     access to court material, like transcripts of confessions, 
     medical examinations and witness lists.
       Intimidation of witnesses by the local police and 
     prosecutors often leaves lawyers with few people willing to 
     testify.
       ``Because of these problems, it's sometimes hard to find a 
     lawyer for criminal cases,'' Professor Li said, adding that 
     the work can be dangerous. ``Many lawyers are scared they 
     could become implicated in the case and lose their 
     livelihood.'' Business law is much more lucrative, and safer
       Gu Yongzhong, a former criminal law specialist in Beijing 
     who now takes on criminal cases only occasionally said: ``For 
     the amount of time it takes to prepare the case, it doesn't 
     pay. And it's very hard to get a not-guilty verdict.''
       Lawyers agree that the obstacles are far greater in the 
     rural areas, where the legal training of judges and the 
     police is often poorest. But some problems are more wide-
     spread, like the difficulty in meeting defendants, lawyers 
     said.
       Defendants in cases that are politically sensitive are 
     rarely granted their legally guaranteed rights.
       One lawyer said that he had recently spent two weeks trying 
     to met a client detained by the Beijing Public Security 
     Bureau, which repeatedly deflected requests and turned him 
     away at the gates of the detention center before finally 
     allowing the meeting.
       ``It usually takes some time to get to see your clients,'' 
     Mr. Gu said. ``The law enforcement agencies are not willing 
     at the start because they are worried it will interfere with 
     their investigation. Although it seems to be getting somewhat 
     better lately.''
       Unfortunately, experts say, those first days of detention 
     are when some of the worst police abuses occur--when 
     defendants are subjected to aggressive and sometimes brutal 
     interrogation to obtain confessions. Although Chinese law 
     forbids torture, and confessions obtained by torture cannot 
     be used in court, Chinese officials acknowledge that the 
     practice is still relatively common.
       The use of ``confession by torture remains unchecked,'' 
     said a recent commentary in the official China Youth Daily. 
     ``It is commonplace for citizens to be arbitrarily summoned, 
     forcibly seized, detained and even detained beyond legal time 
     limits, and for citizens whose freedom has been restricted to 
     be treated inhumanely.''
       Transcripts of police interrogations with recalcitrant 
     suspects often show breaks in the questioning marked by the 
     words ``Education takes place,'' defense lawyers say. And 
     when the session resumes--voila!--a confession.
       ``The use of torture to obtain a confession is something 
     defendants often raise, but it puts us in a very delicate 
     situation since we need facts and evidence to back up these 
     claims,'' said Sun Guoxiang, a prominent defense lawyer in 
     Nanjing who helped defend Mr. Liu. ``But it is very hard to 
     gather evidence because it is almost impossible to get access 
     to clients at these times.''
       In Mr. Liu's case, the cultures of law and law enforcement 
     repeatedly clashed, as Mr. Liu reminded his captors of his 
     legal rights.
       Just a high school graduate, Mr. Liu became a lawyer 
     through an arduous self-study law program affiliated with 
     Nanjing University, while working full time designing 
     furniture. The first professional from a poor rural family, 
     Mr. Liu regarded the law with a touch of awe.
       ``I thought it was a career where I could help people, that 
     had meaning,'' he said.
       He was admitted to the bar in 1994, when officials in 
     Beijing were writing the new Criminal Procedure Code, which 
     took effect in October 1997. That code allows lawyers to 
     formulate a defense by conducting independent investigations 
     during what prosecutors call the ``investigative period,'' a 
     stage that can last weeks if not months, when a suspect is in 
     detention but has not yet been formally charged.
       But the police in Binhai had other ideas. On his first trip 
     to Binhai, Mr. Liu said, he and a colleague from his firm 
     were never allowed to see their client, whose wife had 
     retained the firm. When a meeting was finally permitted on a 
     subsequent visit, they were given time only to ``exchange a 
     few words''--and these with the head of the county 
     anticorruption bureau listening.
       But a week before the trial, a longer meeting took place--
     and Mr. Liu discovered huge discrepancies between the bribery 
     charges brought by the prosecutors and the story told by the 
     defendant, who said he had been tortured into confessing.
       For the next week, Mr. Liu frantically--and aggressively--
     sought out witnesses, many of whom contradicted the police 
     and some of whom said they had been threatened by local 
     officials.
       ``Our impression wasn't that our client was totally 
     innocent,'' Mr. Liu said, ``but we felt that the prosecution 
     needed to provide better evidence to make the charges 
     stand.''
                                  ____


                  It's the Lawyers Who Are Handcuffed

       Although the realist in him ``kind of expected'' a guilty 
     verdict because ``the prosecutor had a lot riding on the 
     corruption case,'' his lawyer side thought he might have a 
     chance.
       That hope quickly dissipated once his witnesses failed to 
     appear--except the defendant's wife and one nervous man who 
     repeatedly contradicted himself--and the court struck down 
     each point he raised.
       Still, during closing arguments, Mr. Liu was ``shocked'' to 
     hear the prosecutor attacking not the defendant, but the 
     defense team. The prosecutor charged that Mr. Liu had broken 
     the law: that he had ``deliberately induced witnesses to give 
     false evidence'' and then ``presented testimony that he knew 
     to be false to the court''--charges that Chinese legal 
     experts have loudly protested.
       Professor Li of the University of Politics and Law said, 
     ``In certain cases, when law enforcement bodies don't have a 
     highly developed legal mentality, they assume lawyers doing 
     their professional work are doing the bidding of villains.''
       He added that there was often tension between the rural 
     police, few of whom have gone beyond high school, and the 
     better-educated, relatively high-earning lawyers who enter 
     their turf.
       After Mr. Liu was detained, he refused to eat for a day, to 
     protest a jailing he regarded as illegal. He repeatedly 
     reminded the police about the legal time limit on detention 
     and his right to see a lawyer, with little effect.
       For the first 10 days he was not even allowed to contact 
     his own law firm, he said. For the entire five months in 
     custody he was not permitted to speak to his wife. He learned 
     about the birth of his son from a prosecutor.
       In marathon interrogations, the police first urged him to 
     confess, then, when he demurred, ``reminded'' him that he had 
     ``forced witnesses'' to change their testimony. Mr. Liu said 
     they made him stand for hours or beat him until his mouth 
     filled with blood when he refused to confirm their version of 
     events. He said they wrote out a confession for him, which he 
     eventually read to a camera.
       Legal experts from Nanjing and Beijing rallied to his 
     defense, sending lawyers to defend him at his trial, set for 
     October 1998, and preparing statements declaring his 
     innocence.
       He was grateful for their support, but ultimately dared not 
     test the system, deciding to plead guilty in exchange for a 
     light sentence, consisting of time served.
       ``Because of the mental pressure I was under, I was forced 
     to admit to their charges,'' he said. ``I thought, `I'm not 
     going to receive justice here.' I wanted to get out a soon as 
     possible and thought then I could set about clearing my 
     name.''
       Mr. Liu is now appealing the judgment, although lawyers say 
     that with a videotaped confession he will have a hard time 
     officially clearing his name. Meantime, his criminal record 
     bars him from working as a lawyer.
       It is a frustrating limbo for a man, now only 28, whom the 
     country's top defense lawyers have declared innocent. Late 
     last year, a panel of 12 legal experts concluded that while 
     Mr. Liu's actions were ``somewhat irregular'' they ``did not 
     possess the conditions for a crime.''
       Among Mr. Liu's ``minor breaches'' were posing questions in 
     a leading manner and interviewing witnesses alone, said Sun 
     Guoxiang, his principal defense lawyer, noting that these 
     were mostly a result of his inexperience. It is standard 
     practice in China for two lawyers to be present at 
     questioning, although Mr. Liu often worked solo because his 
     firm did not want to station two lawyers in such a remote 
     area.
       And though the case has been devastating for Liu Jian, Mr. 
     Sun says it demonstrates both the incipient power of the 
     legal profession and how far it has to go.
       ``On the one hand I think he was freed as early as he was 
     because lawyers are gaining more respect and playing a bigger 
     role,'' he said. ``On the other, lawyers continue to face 
     difficulties, which are closely related to the quality of the 
     law enforcement and judicial services.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD:
  S. 2007. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve 
procedures relating to the scheduling of appointments for certain non-
emergency medical services from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                 specialized medical care for veterans

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, during the recent congressional 
adjournment, I had many opportunities to meet with veterans across 
North Dakota and medical care professionals within the Department of 
Veterans' Affairs Medical

[[Page 102]]

Center in Fargo regarding issues relating to veterans medical care and 
the VA budget.
  One concern raised repeatedly by veterans and VA health care 
professionals related to the lengthy waiting periods for service-
connected, non-emergency speciality medical care. In many cases, the 
waiting period for a veteran between the initial consultation by a VA 
health care professional, and the scheduled appointment with a medical 
specialist was 6 to 10 months, and in some instances up to a year.
  Last year, Mr. President, the Independent Budget For Fiscal Year 2000 
prepared by the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign 
Wars and Paralyzed Veterans of America, called attention to the 
specialized care concerns, particularly the impact of funding 
shortfalls on staffing to provide specialized medical services. The 
Independent Budget emphasized the need to provide adequate resources 
for veterans with speciality needs. More recently, surveys of VA 
medical facilities by the Disabled Veterans of America confirmed no 
significant improvement in waiting periods for medical care at VA 
facilities.
  Mr. President, veterans requesting speciality care at a DVA medical 
facility are entitled to speciality care within a reasonable period of 
time. They should not be required to wait months and months for this 
essential medical care. In response to these speciality care concerns, 
and the recommendations in the Fiscal Year 2000 Independent Budget, I 
am introducing legislation to make certain that service-connected 
veterans requesting speciality care at VA facilities receive that care 
within a reasonable period of time.
  Under this legislation, the VA would be required to automatically 
review a service-connected veteran's request for non-emergency 
speciality care if scheduling the appointment exceeds a three week 
period beyond the initial VA consultation. If an appointment for 
specialty care could not be provided at a veteran's VA facility in the 
local area, the VA would be required to provide the service-connected 
veteran with an appointment for care at another VA facility, or offer 
the veteran the opportunity for speciality care through a private 
physician in the veteran's home community.
  Additionally, the VA would be required to report to Congress annually 
on the waiting periods for various types of non-emergency speciality 
medical care for service-connected veterans, especially on any critical 
problems and staffing shortages that contribute to these waiting 
periods. The report also requires the VA to include recommendations for 
addressing waiting periods, any staffing shortages, including special 
pay adjustments, or any other modifications in pay authority that might 
be necessary to retain and recruit speciality medical personnel.
  Mr. President, I know that DVA officials and medical center personnel 
are very concerned about the waiting periods that veterans experience 
for certain speciality medical care. D.A. personnel are also acutely 
aware of speciality care staffing shortages. As reported in the 
Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2000, it's critical that Congress 
provide the essential funding resources to ensure that these speciality 
care services are met promptly. I urge the Senate Committee on Veterans 
Affairs' to conduct hearings on VA speciality care and to incorporate 
the recommendations in my legislation in appropriate veterans medical 
care legislation that will be considered by the Senate in FY 2001.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2007

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENT OF PROCEDURES RELATING TO SCHEDULING 
                   OF APPOINTMENTS FOR CERTAIN NON-EMERGENCY 
                   MEDICAL SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--(1) Subchapter I of chapter 17 of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     1706 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1706A. Management of health care: appointments for 
       certain non-emergency medical services

       ``(a) The Secretary shall establish a priority in the 
     scheduling of appointments for non-emergency medical services 
     furnished by the Secretary through medical specialists for 
     veterans with service-connected disabilities.
       ``(b) If the scheduled date of an appointment of a veteran 
     with a service-connected disability for non-emergency medical 
     services to be furnished by the Secretary through a medical 
     specialist is more than three weeks later than the date the 
     appointment is made, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) provide for the immediate review of the appointment; 
     and
       ``(2) furnish the medical services covered by the 
     appointment to the veteran at an earlier date than the 
     scheduled date of the appointment--
       ``(A) through a Department medical specialist at another 
     Department facility; or
       ``(B) through a non-Department medical specialist located 
     in the area in which the veteran resides.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 17 of 
     that title is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 1706 the following new item:

``1706A. Management of health care: appointments for certain non-
              emergency medical services.''.
       (b) Annual Report on Shortages in Medical Specialty 
     Personnel.--(1) Not later than January 31 each year, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs' shall submit to Congress a 
     report on any shortages in medical specialty personnel in the 
     Veterans Health Administration during the preceding year.
       (2) The report under paragraph (1) for a year shall--
       (A) set forth the average waiting period during the year 
     for veterans with service-connected disabilities for various 
     types of non-emergency medical services furnished by medical 
     specialty personnel at each Department of Veterans Affairs 
     medical center;
       (B) set forth any shortages in medical specialty personnel 
     identified by the Secretary during the year; and
       (C) include the recommendations of the Secretary for means 
     of addressing such shortages, including recommendations, if 
     appropriate, for special pays, adjustments in pay, or other 
     modifications of pay authority necessary to recruit or retain 
     appropriate medical specialty personnel.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Breaux, and Mrs. 
        Lincoln):
  S. 2009. A bill to provide for a rural education development 
initiative, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


    rural education development initiative for the 21st century act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we spend less than a quarter of our 
nation's education dollars to educate approximately half of our 
nation's students. You don't have to be a math whiz to know that the 
numbers just don't add up.
  Thousands of rural and small schools across our nation face the 
daunting mission of educating almost half of America's children. 
Increasingly, these schools find that they are underfunded, 
overwhelmed, and overlooked. While half of the nation's students are 
educated in rural and small public schools, they only receive 23% of 
Federal education dollars; 25% of State education dollars; and 19% of 
Local education dollars.
  We all grew up thinking that the three R's were Reading, Writing, and 
Arithmetic. Unfortunately for our rural school children, the three R's 
are too often run-down classrooms, insufficient resources, and really 
over-worked teachers.
  Increasingly, Mr. President, rural and small schools are plagued by 
disparities connected to their geographic location and limited 
enrollment. To top it off, rural and small schools face shrinking local 
tax bases, higher transportation costs associated with the greater 
distance students must travel to school, and crumbling school buildings 
that may not have air conditioning, hot water, or roofs that do not 
leak.
  Rural school districts and schools also find it more difficult to 
attract and retain qualified administrators and certified teachers. 
Consequently, teachers in rural schools are almost twice as likely to 
provide instruction in two or more subjects than their urban 
counterparts. Rural teachers also tend to be younger, less experienced, 
and receive less pay than their

[[Page 103]]

urban and suburban counterparts. Worse yet, rural school teachers are 
less likely to have the high quality professional development 
opportunities that current research strongly suggests all teachers 
desperately need.
  Limited resources also mean fewer course offerings for students in 
rural and small schools. Consequently, courses are designed for the 
kids in the middle. So, students at either end of the academic spectrum 
miss out. Additionally, fewer rural students who dropout ever return to 
complete high school, and fewer rural high school graduates go on to 
college.
  On another note, recent research on brain development clearly shows 
the critical nature of early childhood education, yet rural schools are 
less likely to offer even kindergarten classes, let alone earlier 
educational opportunities. Limited resources also mean less support for 
teacher training, technical assistance, educational technologies, and 
school libraries.
  To make matters worse, many of our rural areas are also plagued by 
persistent poverty, and, as we know, high-poverty schools have a much 
tougher time preparing their students to reach high standards of 
performance on state and national assessments. Data from the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress consistently show large gaps between 
the achievement of students in high-poverty schools and students in 
low-poverty schools.
  Our bill would provide funding to approximately 3,400 rural and small 
school districts that serve 4.6 million students--a short-term infusion 
of funds that will allow these schools and their students to take 
substantial strides forward.
  Local education agencies would be eligible for REDI funding if they 
are either ``rural'' (serve a non-metropolitan area) and have a school-
age population (ages 5-17) with 20 percent or more of whom are from 
families with incomes below the poverty line; or ``small'' (student 
population of 800 or less) and a student population (ages 5-17) with 20 
percent or more of whom are from families with incomes below the 
poverty line.
  Like the Education Flexibility Act of 1999 (Ed-flex) I authored with 
Senator Bill Frist earlier this Congress, REDI is voluntary--states and 
school districts could choose to participate in the program. Both Ed-
flex and REDI are designed to provide states and districts with the 
flexibility they need in order to use funding to deal with their local 
priorities.
  I've heard it said that this would be the Education Congress, but we 
have much to do before we earn that title. Ed-flex was a good start, 
but it was a start, not a finish. It's time to show that we when it 
comes to education, we won't leave anyone behind, and REDI will give 
poor, rural children a real chance. We can't afford to stop now.

                          ____________________