[Pages S86-S92]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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 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

[[Page S87]]

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 pipelines 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 pipeline 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 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

[[Page S88]]

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 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

[[Page S89]]

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.
``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 meting 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

[[Page S90]]

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 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

[[Page S91]]

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 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 higher 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

[[Page S92]]

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.

____________________