[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 122 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9796-S9821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4578, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A conference report to accompany H.R. 4578, an act making 
     appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
     agencies for fiscal year sending September 30, 2001, and for 
     other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate 
the conference report on the Interior and Related Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2001. The conference report passed the House yesterday 
on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 348-69.
  The bill provides $18.94 billion in total budget authority, an amount 
significantly above both the FY 2000 level of $15 billion and the 
President's FY 2001 request of $16.5 billion. This increase is 
primarily attributable to two items that I know to be of great interest 
to my colleagues.
  The bulk of the increase over the budget request level is a direct 
result of the disastrous wildfires that plagued the West this summer. 
This bill includes the administration's $1.6 billion supplementary fire 
package, as well as $200 million in additional funds to address 
rehabilitation needs on the national forests, maintenance and upgrades 
to firefighting facilities, and for community and landowner assistance. 
The bill also includes the $240 million provided in the Domenici floor 
amendment for hazardous fuels reduction in the wildland/urban 
interface.
  Those areas which public lands abut upon communities, towns and 
cities, as well as language designed to expedite this work that so 
desperately needs to be done. This language does not, however, overturn 
or bypass the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered 
Species Act, or any other environmental statute. In total, the bill 
provides $2.9 billion for fire management.
  The other element of this legislation that has garnered the most 
attention is title VIII, the land conservation, preservation, and 
infrastructure improvement title. This title does two things: First, it 
provides an additional $686 million in fiscal year 2001 for a wide 
variety of conservation programs, including Federal land acquisition, 
the stateside grant program, forest legacy, and urban park recreation 
and recovery. These amounts are in addition to the amounts agreed to in 
conference in the base portion of the bill. In total, funding for these 
Interior programs is about $1.2 billion for next year.
  Second, title VIII establishes a new conservation spending category 
in the Budget Act for an array of conservation programs, for the 
maintenance of Federal land management facilities, most particularly, 
national parks, and for payments in lieu of taxes. Using the $1.2 
billion provided in the fiscal year 2001 Interior bill as a base 
amount, plus a notional $400 million for coastal programs that may or 
may not be provided in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations 
bill, this new spending category is established using a base of $1.6 
billion.
  For Interior and CJS programs combined, this new budgetary category 
will go by $160 billion per year through fiscal year 2006. This 
separate allocation may only be spent on qualifying programs, and any 
amounts not spent will roll over and be added to the following year's 
allocation.
  Title VIII also establishes several subcategories within the broader 
category conservation category. The allocation provided for each 
subcategory will only be available for programs within that subcategory 
and may not be used for other programs. And, like the structure of the 
broader category, any amounts not appropriated within a subcategory in 
a given year would be rolled over and added to the following year's 
suballocation.

  The suballocations and associated amounts are shown on the chart. The 
bottom line is ``payments in lieu of taxes'' for $50 million a year--
over and above the present payment in lieu of taxes. The next amount is 
``Federal

[[Page S9797]]

maintenance,'' an amount added specifically at my request. This was 
originally suggested by House conferees. It glaringly omitted the 
deferred maintenance in our national parks and our forests and our 
wildlife refuges, an amount that I think approaches $16 billion, and a 
modest start on that over and above the present bill is included in 
each one of these years.
  Next, the orange is ``urban and historic preservation programs,'' the 
purple is ``State and other conservation programs,'' wildlife grants, 
wetlands conservation, the Geological Survey, and the like. The red is 
``Federal and State Land and Water Conservation Fund programs.'' The 
green is ``coastal programs,'' basically under the jurisdiction of 
NOAA, and the ``other'' beginning in fiscal year 2002 is the $160 
million a year add-on which can be at the discretion of the Congress, 
devoted to any one of these other programs. That will be decided by 
future Congresses.
  As the allocation for the overall category grows in the outyears, 
that growth is not tied to any particular subcategory. The 
suballocations are not caps. There is nothing to prevent the 
Appropriations Committee from also using its regular allocation to fund 
any one of these programs that provide additional funding from the 
overall program growth, the blue part, lines I have just described on 
the graph.
  While this structure is somewhat confusing at first, its effect is to 
provide some certainty to several programs within the Interior 
subcommittee jurisdiction which will be likely to receive and maintain 
substantial increases over the current funding levels. At the same 
time, it preserves the availability of Congress to adjust specific 
amounts on a year-to-year basis in response to changing needs 
performance and other factors.
  Finally, of course, any money not spent, while it cannot be spent for 
any other spending category, obviously will go to pay down the national 
debt.
  The programs that comprise the new spending category are a mix of 
programs identified as priorities by the administration in its budget 
request, by supporters of CARA during their deliberations, and by 
Congress as a whole as represented in the thousands of individual 
requests that I receive each year as chairman of this subcommittee. I 
want to emphasize, once again, what I did several months ago when we 
debated this bill for the first time. I think this year we had 1,100 
requests from 100 Senators for programs within Interior--the great 
majority of which would fall into one of these categories.
  Vitally important is the fact that the bill does not create any new 
entitlements. At the same time, it is not an empty promise. For the 
same reasons-- we rarely see an appropriations bill go to the floor 
without spending every penny of its allocation--I think it likely that 
allocations provided in title VIII will be fully subscribed in each 
year's appropriations bill. The exact mix of funding will be up to 
future Congresses, but title VIII does prevent these funds from being 
taken from the target programs and used for other programs, even other 
programs within the Interior bills, such as Indian education, health 
services, Forest Service, the cleanup of abandoned mine lands.

  To be perfectly clear, the construct of title VIII is not what I 
would have dealt had I complete discretion. Nor do I believe it is what 
the Appropriations Committee would have written with complete 
discretion. Congress has always had the ability to provide increases to 
the programs through the regular appropriations process, but it has not 
necessarily done so due to the resulting impact on other programs and, 
of course, on the deficit or the surplus. Nevertheless, title VIII 
represents a fair compromise that reflects the general views of this 
Congress with respect to these programs, and it has the support of the 
administration.
  Now, the focus in recent weeks has been on wildfires and the 
conservation funding issues I have just addressed. There are other 
features of the bill to which I want to draw my colleagues' attention. 
The conference report provides an increase of $104 million for the 
operation of the National Park Service and the U.S. Park Police, 
including $40 million to increase the base-operating budgets of nearly 
100 parks and related sites. The bill also provides an increase of $66 
million for the management of Bureau of Land Management land and 
resources, a badly needed boost for an agency that has sometimes 
received less attention than the other land management agencies, but 
which has a demanding mission in terms of multiple uses.
  The operating budgets of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest 
Service also receive healthy increases, which I hope will enable these 
agencies to improve performance in areas such as the Endangered Species 
Act consultation and recreation management.
  In terms of programs designed primarily to benefit American Indians, 
this bill has a great deal to offer. From the very beginning of this 
process, I have made Indian education in school construction one of my 
highest funding priorities. Many colleagues on the committee--
particularly my friend, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, who 
is here on the floor--have for years stressed the need for increased 
investment in Indian schools. This year's budget request provided an 
opportunity to provide this investment. I am pleased the conference 
report provides $142 million for school replacement. This is $75 
million above this year's enacted level and will provide funds for the 
replacement of the next six schools on the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
priority list. It also provides funding for a cost-share program for 
eligible replacement schools, which is designed to provide funding so 
that construction of replacement schools can be fully completed in 
order to remove the school immediately from the BIA priority list. 
Indian school repairs also increases by $80.5 million above last year's 
level.
  The conference report also provides significant increases for health 
services for Indian people, including an increase of $167 million for 
health services and $47 million for construction and repair of health 
care facilities.
  The bill provides continued support for the Department of Interior's 
efforts to reform its trust management practices. This is a massive 
problem that has developed over decades, if not the entire 20th 
century, which will take time and resources to fix. This conference 
report provides the budget request for the Office of the Special 
Trustee, and also provides an emergency supplemental of $27.6 million 
for activities directly related to recent developments in the Cobell 
litigation. In addition, the bill provides an increase of $31.9 million 
above fiscal year 2000 for trust reform within the regular Bureau of 
Indian Affairs appropriations.
  Of the many cultural programs within this subcommittee's 
jurisdiction, the National Endowment for the Arts was again the focus 
of much discussion in the House-Senate conference. The conference 
agreement maintains the Senate funding level for the NEA--an increase 
of $7.4 million above the current year level. These additional funds 
will be targeted for arts education and outreach programs, and I think 
are a fitting response to the reforms that the NEA has instituted in 
recent years. This is the first increase of any significance for the 
NEA in more than a decade. I am also pleased that funding for the 
National Endowment for the Humanities is also increased by $5 million.
  For energy programs, this conference report includes funding for 
several programs that will help reduce our dependence on foreign energy 
sources, as well as reduce harmful emissions from stationary and mobile 
sources. The energy conservation account is increased by $95 million, 
including full funding for the Partnership for a New Generation of 
Vehicles--PNGV. This amount also includes increases of $18 million for 
the Weatherization program and $4 million for the State Energy 
Conservation Program. For fossil energy R&D, the bill provides $433 
million, and establishes a new powerplant improvement program to 
support demonstration of advanced coal power technologies. This is an 
initiative that I am sure Senator Byrd will wish to discuss further, 
because it is one of his favorite items.
  There are many other elements of this conference report that 
recommend its passage by the Senate, but I will only mention one more. 
Funding for payments in lieu of taxes is increased by $65 million, 
including $50 million provided in title VIII, outlined on this chart. 
This brings appropriations for

[[Page S9798]]

PILT to $200 million. This increase represents a significant step in 
raising appropriations for PILT toward the authorized funding level.
  I also wish to note two errors in the Statement of Managers. Page 177 
of the Statement of Managers indicates that an increase of $4 million 
above the House level is provided for ``Heavy Vehicle Propulsion within 
the hybrid systems activity.'' This is incorrect, and is a result of an 
error in the conference notes. The $4 million increase over the House 
level is for ``Advanced Power Electronics,'' reflecting the amount 
provided in the Senate-passed bill. On page 194 of the Statement of 
Managers, the paragraph that begins ``Consistent with paragraph (3) and 
accompanying Senate instruction . . .'' should have been deleted.
  In closing, I want to again urge my colleagues to support this 
conference report. It does a tremendous amount of good for the 
management of our Federal lands, as well as for the conservation of 
lands and waters whether Federal, state, municipal or private. It is a 
good bill that has the unanimous support of the conferees of both 
Houses, and I urge its adoption by the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I, first, congratulate Senator Gorton. 
Everything considered--the pressure of the closing, the politics of 
this season--I think he produced a very good bill and I compliment him. 
I would like to quickly talk with him about three issues because they 
have been very dear to me and we have finally come around to solving 
all three of them in this bill.
  First, the American Indian people will thank us because for the first 
time we are making the case for replacing Indian schools. They are so 
much in disrepair that nobody would send their kids to them, but there 
are no other schools to go to; they are out in Indian country, and we, 
the Government, happen to own them. There has been a dramatic increase 
this year. Thanks to this committee, we will add six new schools, and 
we will do a very large amount of maintenance on buildings that 
desperately need it. If Congress will heed what was discussed, they 
will do this for 5 or 6 years and get rid of the entire backlog.
  Senator, you have heard me for years ask the administration to give 
us a multiyear budget proposal to take care of Indian schools because 
if we don't pay for them nobody will. They are ours. This year the 
President put such language in his budget after consultation with a 
number of us. It is a little late, but nonetheless the Indian people 
can finally say, ``We see some daylight,'' with reference to adequate 
schools for our kids.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from New Mexico not only states the case 
correctly but understates his own participation. I am rather certain 
that the President would not have made the request without the constant 
advocacy on behalf of this program from the Senator from New Mexico. I 
think he can take great credit for this success.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator, my good friend, very much.
  Second, we debated on the floor of the Senate an interesting sounding 
amendment. We called it ``Happy Forests.'' It was a $240 million 
amendment on this bill on the floor. I thought I was going to get a lot 
of guff here on the floor because I asked for $240 million and divided 
it among the two agencies that control our property, the Forest Service 
and the BLM. What I wanted to do with the money was to push, with a 
great deal of vigor, for these two Departments to go out and inventory 
where the forests were close to our cities, where the forests have 
grown up, where cities have grown up and where there is a proximity of 
buildings and people to the forest because that is very risky.
  We did strike a positive tone with the administration when they 
admitted that there were many such cases and many examples. We have 
cited examples of a city such as Santa Fe in New Mexico where its water 
resource is right in the forest. If that forest happened to burn, they 
would lose their water supply. So we thought we ought to pursue this 
and start a list of those and make the Federal Government start to list 
the risky ones and then start to clean them up.
  We had to argue for 3 days. We got about 75 percent of what we 
wanted. We gave in to the administration on some in a very valid 
compromise. But I can say as to number, as many as a few hundred 
communities that are right in the forests, they should be seeing the 
Federal Government around coming up with some plans to try to alleviate 
this underbrush problem and growth that may, indeed, cause these 
communities to burn when we could prevent it with some maintenance and 
cleanup.

  We have not reached, to my satisfaction, language that will push this 
expeditiously because they are fearful in the White House that we are 
going to push some of the environmental laws. We made it clear the 
environmental laws apply. Nonetheless, there will be some difficulty on 
the part of the bureaus of the Federal Government because they have to 
move with some dispatch and they have to advise people a lot more than 
they ever did about the proximity of fire and the risk to them and 
where they are scheduled to do the cleanup--where is that? They are 
going to have to start advising communities.
  So I thank my good friend for that.
  Mr. GORTON. Again, this was the program of the Senator from New 
Mexico. I do not think there was any item in the conference committee 
that was discussed at more length with the administration and in more 
detail. I am gratified the Senator was able to make a reasonable 
compromise and I was delighted to support him.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I also say, overall, when we make requests of you and 
your people, and Senator Byrd and his people, I do not think in any 
case for me we could have been treated more fairly. Every request was 
looked at carefully. I thank my colleague so much for the many things 
he was able to do for my State. I will enumerate them and perhaps come 
to the floor before the Senator is finished and talk with a little more 
specificity. But I thought before he left his opening statement too far 
behind, I would like to add my words at the end of it as I have this 
morning.
  Mr. GORTON. I appreciate that. As the Senator knows, this is a 
reciprocal relationship. The people of the State of Washington can 
thank the Senator from the State of New Mexico for many vitally 
important programs that are in the bill for energy and water that he 
manages.
  Mr. DOMENICI. By the way, that is going down to the President soon--I 
don't know how long it will take--and it will come back here with a 
veto, and we do intend to work as expeditiously as we can to repass it 
with the many things that are in there for your sake.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. I note the presence on the floor of my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Byrd, my good friend, who also has a great deal of 
responsibility for this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. It goes without saying, Mr. President--I have said it many 
times already--that the chairman of this subcommittee is fully 
knowledgeable of the contents of the original bill, fully knowledgeable 
of what is in this conference report, and always--always considerate, 
always courteous, and is one of the finest chairmen I have ever served 
with on any subcommittee. And I served with a lot of chairmen of 
subcommittees. This one is almost without a flaw when it comes to being 
chairman of this subcommittee.
  It is a pleasure for me to serve with him. I would like to be 
chairman one day, but I am not the chairman, and I fully understand 
that. If somebody else other than I has to be chairman, I like Senator 
Gorton. We accomplish a lot for this Nation together. This is a great 
subcommittee.
  I have said many times it really is a western subcommittee, more so 
than it is eastern, as far as I am concerned. I have said that over the 
years. But we do our best because somebody has to do the work. I do 
enjoy it. I enjoy the collaboration we always have in connection with 
this bill. I do it understanding that the appropriations process is 
absolutely vital to the operation of Government and that we need to 
know about that process. We need to always understand the rules and the 
precedents of Government.
  If I had a larger vocabulary, I could say more about the chairmanship 
that

[[Page S9799]]

is rendered by Mr. Gorton. I will not speak further. I could say the 
same thing with regard to the chairman of the full committee, Ted 
Stevens. There could not be any finer man. He is always a gentleman. 
That goes a long way with me around the Senate. He is always a 
gentleman. He is always considerate of the needs and the problems of 
the constituents of other Senators. He listens courteously, and he is 
very straightforward. If he cannot do it, he will tell you so. He tells 
me that. If he cannot do it, he will tell me so. I like that kind of 
talk.
  Mr. President, I fully support the legislation. I urge my colleagues 
to support it as well.
  I will not reiterate the inventory of programs contained in the 
Interior conference report, nor their respective funding levels. The 
chairman has done an excellent job of providing Members with those 
details. I do, however, wish to point out a new program planned for the 
Department of Energy because of its significance to this nation's 
overall energy security.
  Within the Fossil Energy Research and Development account, funds have 
been provided to undertake a power plant improvement initiative. This 
new effort is vital to our Nation if we hope to continue our economic 
expansion. Upgrading and renewing our out-of-date and undersized 
electric power system cannot wait. We cannot sit back and wait for the 
development of new power sources which, to date, have not proved 
commercially viable.
  The fact is, more than half of this Nation's electricity is generated 
in coal-fired power plants, a situation that is not likely to change 
for the foreseeable future.
  We are working today by virtue of the lights that are in the ceiling 
of this Chamber. It used to be in this country that this Chamber was 
lighted by gas. It was only in this century, the 20th century--and we 
are not into the 21st yet--it was only in this century that we saw air-
conditioning come to this Chamber.
  From where does this energy come? What is the source? What is the 
source of the little light we see at night burning in the top of the 
Washington Monument?
  I made a trip around the world with a House committee in 1955, 45 
years ago. We went around the world in an old Constellation, four 
propellers. We visited many countries. Today it would be called a 
junket. But we were away 68 days. We visited many countries throughout 
the world. When I was in high school, I read a book by Jules Verne 
titled ``Around the World in 80 Days.'' We went around the world in 68 
days. Of course, John Glenn went around the world in, I believe it was 
81 minutes.
  The point I am making is I visited many countries, saw many things, 
met many high people--kings and princes and queens, shahs. We saw 
wonderful edifices, beautiful edifices, great edifices, such as the Taj 
Mahal. But the most enjoyable, pleasurable, satisfying, and comforting 
thing I saw on that whole trip was when we flew back into Washington 
and I saw those two or three little red lights in the top of the 
Washington Monument. There we were, home again, where we could go to 
the water faucet and drink without fear that we might succumb to some 
disease. Having been in Afghanistan on that trip and Jakarta and India, 
Pakistan, Korea, and Malaysia--all of these places where one certainly 
must not, at that time, drink the water without its being boiled--it 
brought to me in a very vivid way what a wonderful country we have and 
how great it is to be home, back in the good old United States of 
America, where we take so many things for granted.
  There were those lights in the top of the Washington Monument, and 
here are these lights. Take away coal; take away those lights. The 
great eastern cities of New York and Philadelphia and Boston, the great 
cities of the East--take away the coal, and it is going to shut down a 
lot of industries. People will then begin to appreciate that coal miner 
whose sweat, and sometimes tears, and sometimes blood afford this great 
country the leisure and the comfort that come from coal-fired plants.
  We are working to make this coal more environmentally feasible. We 
have gone a long way. I have supported appropriations and initiated 
appropriations for clean coal technology, and we have seen the results 
of this research that is being done by these funds that come out of the 
committee on which the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Reid, and I 
sit.
  There are people in this Government who, I imagine, would like to see 
the mines closed, coal mining done away with; shut them down. We know 
we are in transition, and we are preparing for that eventuality by the 
fact that we appropriate funds in this committee to produce energy in 
an environmentally feasible manner.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I do yield, with great pleasure, to my friend.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend from West Virginia this question. I can't 
pass up the opportunity; whenever I hear someone talking about miners, 
my mind is flooded with thoughts of my father. The Senator and I have 
discussed what a hard job a miner has. I can remember, as if it were 
yesterday, my father coming home, muddy and dirty, telling us he had 
another hard day at the office. The fact of the matter is, he worked 
very hard. Miners work very hard.
  The Senator from West Virginia has done such an outstanding job of 
protecting miners, and not only coal miners. You have helped us with 
our gold miners, people who go under the Earth for other types of 
product than coal.
  I also say this to my friend from West Virginia, my leader. This 
Government needs to do more with clean coal technology. We started a 
plant near Reno, NV, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars. But in 
the second phase of it, the Government did not come through in helping 
with that energy-efficient use of coal, and therefore they are going to 
have to switch and do something else.
  The Federal Government has the means now of clean coal technology. 
But we have been too cheap as a government. We need to spend more money 
on clean coal technology. If we spent more money on clean coal 
technology, we would be less dependent on oil. So I want to help the 
Senator from West Virginia any way I can to make sure we do more with 
developing clean coal technology. And with the technology we have, 
let's make sure the Federal Government helps implement this in places 
such as Reno, at the Tracy plant, so we can do a better job of cleaning 
the air.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I thank my friend for his excellent contribution to 
the colloquy.
  Many times, as he has said, we have discussed this matter. He 
understands the background from which I came--which is a similar 
background to that from which he came--the coal mining; in his case, 
gold mining; in my case, coal mining. Sometimes we refer to it as 
``black gold.''
  This coal has provided the livelihood for thousands of miners over 
the years, who have risked their lives to go into those coal mines. So 
research, I have believed during the years I have been on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee--42 years--is the answer to many of the 
things, research. And through research, mining has been made more safe. 
We have fewer and fewer miners being killed annually than we have had 
in the past.
  It has been a very bloody--a very bloody--employment and a very 
bloody industry, if you go back over the years. So we have improved the 
safety. We are helping to clean up the environment. We are 
understanding ways in which coal may be mined more cheaply. And that is 
the result of the moneys that have been appropriated through this 
Subcommittee on Interior.
  As I have already indicated, I have appropriated, I have been the 
source of the appropriations of millions of dollars for clean coal 
technology. And I have to say that my own administration has several 
times, in the budget that has been sent up here to the Congress, 
recommended deferring--deferring--some of these moneys, using these 
moneys that are there for clean coal technology, using them for 
something else, or even rescinding some of those moneys.
  Now I have fought--fought--these budget recommendations off several 
times. So I think we have reached the point where the Presidential 
candidates need to talk about this. And I hope they will.
  Given that reality, it makes good, common sense for the United States 
to

[[Page S9800]]

try to ease the demand on the existing fleet of electric plants. And, 
so, the conferees have included this new power plant improvement 
initiative in an effort to bring business and Government together in a 
productive partnership that will produce more energy, yet cleaner 
energy. I am pleased that this effort is being made, and I thank the 
distinguished chairman for his help in ensuring that our Nation's 
energy needs continue to be a top priority.
  I thank the other members of the Appropriations Committee. And I 
thank our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol on the 
Appropriations Committee there who have worked with us in this regard.
  Beyond this particular program, let me also say how much I appreciate 
the chairman's overall support for projects and programs of importance 
to the minority Members of this body. I have already referred to that, 
but I think it bears reflecting upon again. As always, his 
graciousness, his dedication to duty, and his steadfast commitment to 
working in a bipartisan manner have made this conference far less 
arduous than it might otherwise have been. Despite all the tangents 
that conferees are wont to go off on--if left to their own devices; and 
I understand how that is very easily done--Senator Gorton never lost 
sight of the ultimate task at hand.
  So in my opinion, based on my experience, he is the consummate 
professional. And he and his staff--we must not forget the staff. We 
often hear that the clothes make the man. Well, I must say, based on my 
experience here, that the staff, in large measure, make the Senator and 
help to turn the wheels of the Nation. So our staffs are to be 
commended for their efforts.
  I urge all my colleagues, Mr. President, to support this conference 
report so that we can send it to the White House for the President's 
signature.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the $120 million 
Abraham Lincoln Library, for which there is authorization language in 
the Interior Subcommittee appropriations bill.
  Last night, the Senate passed separate legislation authorizing $50 
million of Federal funds for the construction of the Abraham Lincoln 
Library in Springfield, IL. The library is intended to be built with a 
mixture of State and Federal funds. The total cost of the project would 
be about $120 million.
  The Senate, in adopting its authorizing language, attached an 
amendment, that I put on, that required this library, this monument for 
``Honest Abe'' Lincoln--that all the construction contracts on it be 
competitively bid in accordance with the Federal competitive bid 
guidelines.
  That language cleared the full Senate last night. The Senate went on 
record in favor of a requirement that this Abraham Lincoln $120 million 
library carry with it the requirements that all contracts be 
competitively bid in accordance with Federal procurement law, the 
purpose of which is to prevent political favoritism in the awarding of 
construction contracts and also to get the best value for the taxpayer.
  I rise to speak on the Subcommittee on Interior appropriations bill 
because there is language in the bill that authorizes $50 million in 
Federal funding over several years for construction of the Abraham 
Lincoln Library. However, the language requiring competitive bidding of 
the construction contract has been stripped out of the conference 
report.
  The Governor of Illinois is opposed to the attachment of Federal 
competitive bidding guidelines and apparently asked for House 
assistance to go around the Senate, which has spoken on this issue and 
gone on record in favor of the Federal competitive bid guidelines.
  I support construction of the Abraham Lincoln Library in Springfield, 
IL. If it is done properly, it could be a wonderful treasure, not only 
for the city of Springfield and for the State of Illinois but, indeed, 
for the entire Nation. Of course, Springfield, IL, is where ``Honest 
Abe Lincoln'' lived. He lived there for many years. He is responsible 
for making it the State capital of Illinois. When Abe Lincoln served in 
the State legislature in the early part of the 1800s, he was successful 
in leading a drive to move the State capital from Vandalia to 
Springfield, IL. For several years, he represented Sangamon County in 
both the Illinois Legislature and later for a period in the U.S. 
Congress. Of course, his debates for the Senate seat with Stephen 
Douglas of Illinois in 1858 are legendary.
  I am very proud to hold the seat in the Senate that Abraham Lincoln 
and Stephen Douglas vied for in 1858, before, of course, Abraham 
Lincoln went on, in 1860, to be elected the first Republican President 
of the United States and one of our greatest Presidents ever.
  There are several Lincoln attractions in Springfield, IL. I am sure 
many of my colleagues and many of the people in the gallery have 
visited Lincoln's home in Springfield, IL, which is run by the National 
Park Service. It is maintained with a great deal of care. It is a 
wonderful attraction. I went there as a boy, and I have returned there 
many times since. Senator Durbin and I both have our Springfield 
district offices in the Lincoln home neighborhood, which has been 
renovated and restored to the way it was when Abraham Lincoln and his 
family lived there prior to his becoming President.

  We also have in Springfield the Abraham Lincoln law office. One can 
actually go into the very same building in which Abraham Lincoln 
practiced law for many years in Springfield. He rode the circuit. He 
did not just practice law in Sangamon County but practiced law all over 
central Illinois.
  In recent years, we have turned up many original legal pleadings and 
filings drafted by Abraham Lincoln. Many of those documents are now 
scattered all over the State of Illinois. It would be a wonderful 
achievement if we could finally have one great Lincoln Library in 
Springfield to bring all the Lincoln artifacts in the possession of the 
State of Illinois, as well as whatever members of the public donate for 
this library, into one tasteful, well thought out monument to the man 
who is arguably the greatest President of the United States, the one 
who saved our Union at its hour of maximum peril.
  I am concerned that if we don't have tight controls over taxpayer 
money that is going to build this library, we run the risk of winding 
up not with a $120 million Abraham Lincoln Library but instead a $50 
million building that just happens to cost $120 million. I think there 
could be no worse or uglier irony than to have a monument for ``Honest 
Abe'' wind up being a gigantic public works project on which a bunch of 
political insiders wind up lining their pockets at taxpayer expense.
  Let me share some background on the Abraham Lincoln Library, where 
the idea first started, and how it has changed over the years. I think 
my colleagues will see that I have reason to be concerned about the 
growing cost of the project and certainly the magnitude of it within 
the city of Springfield.
  This is a time line: ``The Lincoln Library Project Time Line and 
Interesting Facts.''
  Back in February 1998, then-Governor Jim Edgar proposed construction 
of the Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield and committed $4.9 
million in State funds for initial planning and design. At that time, 
the projected cost of the project was not $120 million. The projected 
cost was $40 million. They said it was going to come from State, local, 
and private funds.
  Later on, in May of 1998, the project was no longer a $40 million 
project. It had grown 50 percent in those few months. It was now a $60 
million project. According to the Copely News Service, on May 13, 1998, 
the estimated cost of the Lincoln Library was raised to $60 million, an 
increase of 50 percent. Senator Durbin and my predecessor, Carol 
Moseley-Braun, and Sid Yates, who was at that time the ranking member 
on the House Interior Committee, were seeking $30 million in Federal 
commitment for the project. They wrote that the State and the city of 
Springfield were willing to commit up to $30 million in funds to match 
Federal support. That was May of 1998. We had gone from $40 million up 
to $60 million.
  By April 1999, less than a year later, the project price tag had gone 
up again, this time a little bit more significantly. ``Illinois 
Historic Preservation Association authority spokesman

[[Page S9801]]

says library may cost as much as $148 million.'' We have gone from $40 
to $60 million, and now we are at $148 million. I believe, now, today, 
since April 1999, they are talking about $115 or $120 million. 
Gratefully, the cost or the projected cost has gone down from April 
1999. We are talking today about a $115 or $120 million project. That 
is a big building for Springfield, IL.
  These are Illinois structures and cost comparisons. This is taken 
from a State Journal-Register article of May 1, 2000. The State 
Journal-Register is the newspaper in Springfield, IL. They apparently 
did some figuring and estimated the cost, adjusted for inflation, of 
many of the other prominent buildings in the city of Springfield, IL.
  Our State capitol in Illinois was built between 1868 and 1888. The 
estimated cost, adjusted for inflation, of constructing the State 
capitol in Springfield, IL, is $70 million. The State Historical 
Library, constructed from 1965 to 1968, would cost $13 million to build 
today. Keep in mind that with this project--the Lincoln Library--we are 
talking about a $120 million building. The State Library, redone in 
1990, was $6 million; Lincoln's Tomb, done in 1865, $6 million. The 
Dana-Thomas House, a Frank Lloyd Wright home, which I believe the State 
owns and manages, built between 1902 and 1904, would cost $9 million.
  Now, the State has a revenue department. It is one of the largest 
departments of the State, and it has a fairly new building that goes 
back to the early eighties, one of the very large State office 
buildings in Springfield that was built between 1981 and 1984. The 
estimated cost, adjusted for inflation, of building it today is $70 
million. They have a gigantic convention center in Springfield called 
the Prairie Capitol Convention Center, constructed between 1975 and 
1979. The estimated cost, adjusted for inflation, of building that 
giant Capitol Convention Center today would be $60 million.
  There are also some very notable private buildings in Springfield, 
IL, that are quite large and significant. One is the Franklin Life 
Insurance Company building, built between 1911 and 1913. The estimated 
cost, adjusted for inflation, of building it today is $44 million. The 
Horace Mann Insurance Company building, built from 1968 to 1972, would 
be $34.5 million.
  So, again, the Abraham Lincoln Library is going to be almost twice as 
costly as any of these other buildings--almost twice as costly as the 
State capitol, even though the capitol, I believe, is projected to be 
about two times the size of the projected Abraham Lincoln Library. We 
are talking about a very substantial building. It is interesting to 
note, as well, that the Ronald Reagan Library--a Presidential library 
which opened in 1991--cost $65 million.
  I have indicated to you the magnitude of this project as being 
something that caused me to really focus on the details of the taxpayer 
money involved. I noted the size and scope of the construction project, 
how it had grown from $40 million to $60 million to $120 million in 
projected costs over a very short period of time. But I also want to 
refer you to the language in the Interior conference report now on the 
floor of the Senate, which has come over to us from the House.
  The language in the conference report does not tell the people of 
this country to whom the $50 million is going to be paid. The language 
of the conference committee report says the $50 million will go to an 
entity that will be selected later. We are talking about $50 million. 
Everybody is acting under the assumption that this money is going to be 
given to the State of Illinois. I think it should be noted that there 
is no requirement in the conference committee report that is before the 
Senate that this money is required to go to a public source, such as 
the State of Illinois. It is required to go to ``an entity'' that will 
be selected later. Now, could that be a private entity? It appears to 
me it could because there is nothing in the conference committee report 
that would prevent it from being paid to a private entity. It says an 
entity that will be selected later by the Secretary of the Department 
of the Interior in consultation with the Governor of Illinois.

  Now, under the language as it is worded, they could possibly give 
that $50 million to an individual. I hope that will not happen. I hope 
the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of Illinois will not 
decide to take $50 million of taxpayer money and give it to an 
individual. But they could under the language before the Senate. There 
would be no violation of the law if they did. They could also give it 
to a private corporation. There would be no violation of this 
conference committee report if the Secretary of the Interior, in 
consultation with the Governor of Illinois, steered this money to a 
private corporation. If that were to happen, this money would just have 
gone out of the public's hands and out of the public control into an 
area where we could no longer really put much in the way of 
restrictions on what they did with it. Pretty much the only requirement 
in the conference report is that this entity, to be designated or 
selected later, will have to show its plans for the construction of the 
library.
  There is a private entity out there called the Abraham Lincoln 
Presidential Library Foundation. As far as I can tell, this is a 
private, not-for-profit corporation that has filed with the Illinois 
secretary of state's office on June 20, 1990. It has an address of 10 
South Dearborn Street, Suite 5100, Chicago, IL. The registered agent's 
name is J. Douglas Donafeld. I recall Mr. Donafeld as a lawyer in 
Chicago who does lobby work in Springfield. The corporation's name is 
the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation. This foundation, 
according to published reports that I have read, has three directors on 
its board--a Mrs. Julie Cellini, who is head of the Illinois Historic 
Preservation Agency; Lura Lynn Ryan, the First Lady of the State of 
Illinois; and Pam Daniels, the wife of Lee Daniels, the Republican 
leader in the Illinois State House of Representatives. I hope the 
Governor of Illinois and the Secretary of the Interior will not give 
these public funds to the private corporation called the Abraham 
Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation because, if that were to 
happen, then no one's competitive bid laws, no one's procurement laws 
would be attached and the money could really be out of the taxpayers' 
control.
  Assume, for the sake of argument, that this $50 million in Federal 
money would not be given to a private individual or a private 
corporation and that the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of 
Illinois would want it sent to the State of Illinois. I think it is a 
reasonable assumption that the State of Illinois would turn the money 
over to the State Capitol Development Board, which usually builds State 
buildings such as this--builds State prisons and has built the State of 
Illinois building in downtown Chicago. It is a reasonable assumption 
that if the entity selected to receive the $50 million is not a private 
entity, the money would go to the State and the State would turn it 
over to the Capitol Development Board, which is known as the CDB for 
short.
  The State contends that if the money is handled by the CDB, the 
State's procurement law for its competitive bidding laws that applies 
to the CDB and to other State agencies, such as Central Management 
Services, and apparently most of the rest of the State government, that 
its code would apply to the construction of this library and that its 
code would require competitive bidding of the project.
  The Governor of Illinois contends that there is no need for the 
Federal competitive bidding guidelines to be attached because in his 
judgment the State procurement code is sufficient.
  He also points out that I, Peter Fitzgerald, Senator from Illinois, 
when I was a State senator representing the northwest suburban Chicago 
area district in the Illinois State Senate, voted for that procurement 
code. Indeed, I did in 1997. I believed that code appeared to represent 
an improvement over the prior procurement code in the State of 
Illinois. But I regret that there was a loophole in that State's 
procurement code that I missed in 1997. I regret that I missed it, and 
I want to make doubly sure that we don't repeat another loophole in 
this particular project. I didn't recognize this loophole until I sat 
down and compared the State code side by side with the Federal code.
  In my judgment, there are two main problems with the State's 
competitive bid code.
  There are many instances in the State procurement code where there

[[Page S9802]]

are fairly narrow exceptions to the general requirement for purchases 
of goods and equipment, building construction contracts, and leases. 
There are some narrow exceptions sprinkled throughout the code to the 
general requirement that the project be competitively bid with an 
overall push towards trying to get the lowest cost bid built into the 
code. But most of the exceptions built into the code to the competitive 
bid requirements are fairly narrow.
  If the State does not use competitive bidding to buy something, they 
typically will have to give notice and file written reasons for not 
going forward with competitive bidding.
  But here is a loophole. And here is why this loophole is relevant to 
this major gigantic project.
  Within the part of the State procurement code that deals with the 
Illinois Capital Development Board, which, as I have explained, is the 
board or State agency that would be required to construct the Abraham 
Lincoln Library, provided the Governor of Illinois and the Secretary of 
Interior don't channel the $50 million in Federal money to a private 
entity outside the control of anybody but the board of directors of 
that corporation, the Capital Development Board has a special section 
in the procurement code. They have a special exemption.
  Let us read the Capital Development Board special exemption. You 
don't need to be a lawyer to understand that this is a rather broad 
loophole in the portion of the Illinois Capital Development Board's 
procurement code.
  This is from an Illinois statute. This is binding law in the State of 
Illinois, passed by the Illinois General Assembly, and signed into law 
by the Governor of Illinois.
  30 I.L.C.S. 500/30-15: (b) says:

       Other methods. The Capital Development Board shall 
     establish by rule construction purchases that may be made 
     without competitive sealed bidding and the most competitive 
     alternate method of source selection that shall be used.

  The code clearly contemplates that the Capital Development Board 
shall not have to use competitive bidding; that they can opt out of 
competitively bidding for this construction contract. That language is 
plain as day.
  The Capital Development Board, in seeking to oppose my amendment 
which requires the application of Federal competitive bid laws, has 
circulated a letter that says they have to competitively bid the 
project under State law. However, their letter makes no reference or 
attempts to abut this provision of State law.
  Here is what their letter says:

       Dear Senator Fitzgerald: Competitive bidding has long been 
     the requirement for State of Illinois construction contracts 
     and was most recently reaffirmed with the passage of the 
     stricter Illinois procurement code of 1998. Only six 
     exemptions to that provision, which are defined by rule and 
     must be approved by the director, exist.

  And then they name the exemptions: No. 1, emergency repairs; No. 2, 
construction projects of less than $30,000 total; No. 3, limited 
projects such as asbestos removal for which CDB may contract with 
correctional industries; No. 4, an architecture program which follows a 
separate procurement process; No. 5, construction management services 
which are competitively procured under a separate law; and, No. 6, sole 
source items.
  I am not sure what the sole source items are.
  But, in any case, they don't refer to this section of the law which 
seems to me is plain as day.
  I am a lawyer, so I didn't find it confusing. I have run it by 
nonlawyers, and none of them have been unable to understand this. It 
doesn't seem as if there is any ambiguity here.
  It says, ``The Capital Development Board shall establish by rule 
construction purchases that may be made without competitive sealed 
bidding.'' So they can establish a rule that they can do this without 
competitive bidding.
  What does it mean when they establish a rule, when they say ``rule"?
  The Capital Development Board can just write its own rule. It has 
that authority from the Illinois General Assembly to write its own 
rule. And in this authority to them to write its own rule, we have an 
unchecked level of discretion on the part of the State that, in my 
judgment, leaves too much room for abuse by political insiders in the 
State of Illinois.
  When I saw that was in the bill originally authorizing this 
appropriations, which as I said, the Senate passed last night with my 
amendment requiring Federal competitive bid guidelines, and my staff 
showed it to me, we said this is a giant loophole.
  As one paper in Illinois has editorialized it, it is a giant loophole 
for which you could drive a whole convoy of Illinois Department of 
Transportation trucks.
  I regret that I missed that when I voted for this procurement code of 
which I was a part back in 1997.
  I asked the Congressional Research Service if there was a comparable 
loophole in the Federal law.
  In a memorandum to me from an attorney in the Congressional Research 
Service at the Library of Congress, it says:

       The exception found in 30 I.L.C.S. 500/30-15, which permits 
     the Capital Development Board to establish by rule 
     construction purchases which may be made without competitive 
     sealed bidding, does not have a comparable provision in 
     Federal procurement law. On its face it appears to be a 
     rather broad exception to the requirement for competition in 
     awarding State construction contracts.

  I think it is very clear that is a giant loophole that should not be 
allowed in a project of this magnitude. Mr. President, $50 million of 
taxpayer money from the Federal Government is a lot of money. How many 
Americans are working day in and day out, some families with parents 
working 2, 2\1/2\, sometimes 3 jobs just to pay the taxes, just to pay 
the cut extracted by Uncle Sam. The American people are fundamentally 
very generous with their money. They will permit reasonable 
expenditures for their community, for their State, for worthy projects, 
but we owe it to all Americans--not just those Americans in my State of 
Illinois but Americans all over the country--to take great care with 
their money and to treat it no less carefully than we would treat our 
own money.
  I sometimes wonder whether those who oppose closing this loophole by 
substituting them with the Federal competitive bid guidelines--which 
are much more comprehensive, much more thoroughly defined, and which a 
lot of thought has gone into--if they were building a house, wouldn't 
they competitively bid or insist that their house be competitively bid 
if they had to pay for it out of their own pocket? I think they would. 
I think they would do what they could to secure the best possible value 
for themselves. And I think we in government ought to try and treat the 
taxpayers' money with the same respect we treat our own.
  As to another point on the State of Illinois code with respect to 
competitive bidding, this is a very subtle omission. This is a problem 
not just in the portion of that code which deals with the Illinois 
Capital Development Board; it is a problem that permeates the whole 
code. This is the one loophole that I didn't fully appreciate until I 
sat down and read the Federal procurement guidelines, side by side, 
with the State guidelines.
  The Illinois rules where sealed competitive bids are required--as we 
have shown, it is not required; the Capital Development Board can opt 
out of competitive sealed bidding, but where the code does require 
competitive sealed bidding--and maybe in this project the State would 
not opt out of competitive sealed bidding, but say it applied its own 
competitive sealed bidding guidelines. It is interesting there is a lot 
of language in the procurement code that gives the State the appearance 
of a regulator.
  On its face, there are a lot of fairly ordinary provisions one would 
expect in a State procurement code. One thing is interesting. The State 
code, when it requires the State to go out and solicit bids--say, for a 
construction contract--they are required under the State code to tell 
the bidders in advance what criteria the State is going to evaluate in 
selecting bids. In other words, the State would have to tell 
prospective bidders how they are going to select the contractor and 
presumably they would tell prospective construction contractors that 
they are going to look at cost, workmanship, experience, quality, 
management. There could be all sorts of factors at which they are going 
to look. And they have to tell the bidders, in advance, what factors 
they will look for.

  It is interesting; the State code doesn't require the State officials 
to

[[Page S9803]]

tell the bidders the relative weight or importance of each of those 
criteria. The Federal code does. Federal law requires that sealed bid 
solicitations disclose in advance all significant bid evaluation 
factors and the relative importance of each factor and whether nonprice 
factors when combined, will be accorded more, equal, or less weight 
than price.
  The citation for that Federal requirement is at 41 U.S.C. section 
253(a). The State code, by not requiring that the State tell you in 
advance what weight they are going to assign the different criteria, 
allows a purchasing officer for the State to pick any bid he or she 
wants and explain his decision by saying that the one factor for which 
that bid was better or the combination of factors for which that bid 
was better was the most important factor.
  That subtle omission in the State law allows practically any decision 
the State makes to be rationalized after the fact. So, conceivably, 
somebody could come in, and say we have a $1.5 million construction 
project. Somebody bids $1.4 million; the other bidder bids $1.6 
million. The State can give the award after the fact to the high 
bidder, the $1.6 million, and say they decided the management 
experience and the quality of the higher bidder was more important than 
the cost that you, the low bidder, offered. They could move the 
goalpost after the fact and there would be nothing the losing bidder 
could do. There would be no challenge. There is no State procurement 
law because no State procurement law was violated. In fact, it would be 
very difficult to violate the State rules.
  When I reflected on this, it occurred to me that after almost a 
lifetime of living in Illinois and reading about procurement scandals 
and reading investigative report after investigative report by the 
Chicago Sun Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, on leases 
that ripped off the State, on construction projects that ripped off the 
State, on contracts of many sorts on which the taxpayers appeared to 
not have made out well, we rarely, if ever, heard of any legal 
challenge or of any prosecution. It is very hard to violate the State 
code. It is that subtle omission. I believe that needs to be tightened 
up.
  The Federal code is much better at buttoning down the procurement 
officials, and under the Federal law we hear of challenges to Federal 
officials awarding bids to somebody. If there is a basis for 
challenging it because the bidder whose bid was rejected can say, hey, 
these procurement officers told me that cost was 75 percent of it and 
workmanship was the other portion, but they violated those guidelines. 
The Federal law does a better job of pinnning down the State officials 
so they cannot keep moving the goalposts and award the projects to 
their political friends.
  In my judgment, the Federal code does a much better job of lowering 
the potential for political favoritism in the award of contracts using 
taxpayer money.
  If I may, for a moment, I would like to now turn to the context, the 
overall general context in which I come to the Senate floor to argue 
against language in this conference committee report that comes to us 
from the House with the requirement of competitive Federal bidding of 
the $120 million Abraham Lincoln Federal Library in Springfield, IL--
the requirement of competitive bidding according to Federal laws--
stripped out of it.
  I reviewed early on in my discussion how the cost of this project had 
gone from $40 million to $60 million to $120 million; that we are 
talking about a lot of money. This would be a monstrous building within 
the city of Springfield, one of the biggest buildings, in fact, save 
for the Springfield Memorial Hospital. But I also want to give the rest 
of the picture, the other parts of the puzzle that cause me to have 
great concern and to feel as strongly as I do that there ought to be 
tighter controls on the spending.
  Illinois has a long history of having had problems in State 
procurement. There have been questions before about capital 
construction projects involving the Capital Development Board. In fact, 
I would like to read an editorial from the Peoria Journal Star, dated 
Wednesday, March 16, 1994:

       To the Illinois Capital Development Board for giving River 
     City's construction companies an unfair advantage--thumbs up.
       Giving an unfair advantage in bidding to manage 
     construction of a southern Illinois prison, River City 
     submitted the low bid and the board's staff recommended its 
     acceptance. But the board rebid the project and awarded it to 
     a Chicago firm, knowing what River City had bid, which, 
     knowing what River City had bid, lowered its own offer. The 
     process is doubly tainted because the Chicago firm, together 
     with its subcontractor, had donated $10,000 to a previous 
     Governor's campaign. The perception, rightly or wrongly, is 
     that River City lost the contract because it didn't ante up.

  There is another article about a more recent capital construction 
project. This is an article from the Chicago Tribune, dated January 6, 
2000. The headline is:

       New Prison Benefits Ryan Pal: $33,000 payday seen in land 
     deal.

  The article is by Ray Gibson, a Tribune staff writer. I would like to 
read this article because I think it shows the problems that can occur. 
I would like to set forth the context, why one could, on a large 
construction project in Illinois, reasonably be concerned about whether 
the money is all channeled into the project and that none of it is 
frittered away in rewarding political pals.

       When Gov. George Ryan announced last month that his home 
     county of Kankakee was the winner in the latest Illinois 
     prison derby, he talked about how the new $80 million women's 
     facility would create jobs and other opportunities for 
     economic development.
       What he didn't say was that one of the first to benefit 
     would be one of his top supporters and fundraisers, real 
     estate developer Tony Perry, who was among the dignitaries on 
     the date for Ryan's announcement.
       Perry, acting at Ryan's behest as the point man for Hopkins 
     Park and Pembroke Township's bid for the new prison, 
     personally acquired options on the 120 acres the state will 
     buy to construct the new women's facility.
       By Perry's own account, the current owners will pay him 
     about a 5 percent real estate commission, which would amount 
     to about $33,000, when he exercises his options to acquire 
     the land. Then he will sell the land to the state. Right now, 
     he says, he plans to sell the acreage for the same price he 
     will pay--about $5,500 an acre.
       But state officials say that price is still open to 
     negotiation and his profit could be higher. And Perry also 
     acquired options on two other tracts of land near the prison 
     site that are almost certain to be developed.
       A Tribune examination of how Perry, the governor's longtime 
     friend, came to act as the middleman for the proposed prison 
     construction illustrates anew the financial advantages 
     political insiders reap under Ryan, already under fire for 
     questionable leases of state facilities during his tenure as 
     secretary of state.
       Perry's role in the selection of Hopkins Park and Pembroke 
     Township for the prison site began last summer, as the 
     sweepstakes among Illinois communities vying for the new 
     penal facility got under way.
       At a luncheon, Perry said--he doesn't recall where--the 
     governor asked him to help the impoverished Kankakee County 
     communities complete the required paperwork to finalize their 
     bid for the new facility.
       Perry went to work, first meeting with local officials.
       ``Tony Perry told us the governor sent him. . . . The 
     governor sent him to make sure the paperwork got done 
     correctly,'' said Hopkins Park Village Clerk Pam Basu, who 
     opposes the prison project.
       Then Perry set about meeting with landowners to persuade 
     them to sell the farmland, and he personally obtained options 
     to acquire 480 acres, representing three proposed sites in 
     the area. Although the state now needs only 120 acres for the 
     site, Perry originally obtained options for three 160-acre 
     parcels of land.
       He researched the cost of supplying utilities to the site 
     and rounded up vital statistics about one of the state's 
     poorest communities.
       For all that work, Perry was not paid, according to local 
     officials.
       But now that the state is set to acquire 120 acres of land 
     where the new women's prison will be constructed, Perry says 
     he stands to make a 5 percent commission--or about $33,000--
     from the sale of the land to the state.
       Perry's role in the development now has touched off a local 
     controversy. According to Basu, the decision to allow Perry 
     to act as the communities' representative was never discussed 
     at any township or municipal board meeting. Nor was his 
     agreement with the sellers to act as a real estate agent and 
     collect a fee ever disclosed, she said.
       Nonetheless, other local officials said Perry's help was 
     vital to the communities securing the prison.
       ``He was the key component. He was very instrumental in 
     helping,'' said Hopkins Park Mayor David Legett.
       But others say Perry's commission, and Ryan's decision to 
     tap him for the job, is just another example of insider 
     politics.
       ``To me, it sounds like more ways to take care of his close 
     friends,'' said Jim Howard, executive director of Common 
     Cause, a taxpayers lobbying group. ``It just reinforces the 
     public attitude how bad and dirty politics is in Illinois.''

[[Page S9804]]

       Perry's role in the Hopkins Park prison is unusual on 
     several counts. This will be the first time in two decades 
     that the state will pay the entire cost to buy private 
     property to construct a new prison. During 26 previous 
     construction projects, the local communities vying for the 
     prison sites have either supplied the land free or paid a 
     portion of the state's purchase price. If the state only 
     reimburses Perry for his cost per acre, it stands to pay 
     $660,000 to acquire the land, the first time the state has 
     paid so much to acquire a prison site in at least 20 years.
       A spokesman for the governor would not comment on why Ryan 
     asked Perry to step in and help with the application other 
     than to say that Perry was a real estate professional who has 
     a long history in economic development in Kankakee County.
       While many of the communities participating in the prison 
     derby hired lobbyists, Perry's role was unique in that he, 
     and not local public officials, acted as the point man for 
     the project.
       ``He was pretty much spearheading the communities effort,'' 
     said Nic Howell, a spokesman for the Illinois Department of 
     Corrections. ``He was the contact.''
       Howell said the agency did not know if Perry was being 
     paid.
       ``I have no idea. None whatsoever. I don't know that he's 
     not doing this out of the goodness of his heart,'' said 
     Howell, adding that he was unaware that Perry would receive a 
     commission on the sale from the seller.
       Howell said the state wouldn't make any offer to buy the 
     property from Perry until after it does appraisals.
       Perry said that he is now trying to spur development around 
     the new prison, but he insisted he is not going to act as a 
     developer. He has been meeting with builders and developers 
     and trying to woo them to bring everything from housing to 
     industrial development to the area.
       ``I am not the developer. I am the orchestrator,'' he said.
       State officials will spend millions of dollars to bring 
     utilities such as sewers, gas, and water to the prison site 
     from as far as two miles away, improvements that will 
     increase the value of nearby properties as well.
       If the prison's construction fulfills the communities' 
     dream of development, the land near the prison could be 
     filled with gas stations, restaurants, housing and other 
     development.
       Perry also has options to purchase two adjoining 160-acre 
     parcels of land that were also proposed for the prison site. 
     He said in a recent interview that he will not execute the 
     options to buy those 320 acres, saying it would be improper 
     to benefit as a developer.
       ``I can't work on somebody's behalf'' and turn around and 
     develop the property, he said.
       Perry is a longtime friend of Ryan's and a fundraiser. Just 
     four weeks after Ryan announced in September 1997 his 
     intention to run for the governor's office, Perry chaired one 
     of the first major fundraisers for Ryan's campaign in 
     Chicago.
       Since 1994, Perry and the firms that he operates have 
     donated nearly $19,000 to Ryan's campaign fund. One of 
     Perry's ventures, a nonprofit corporation that was formed to 
     help economic development in Kankake County, donated $2,250 
     to Ryan's campaign, despite federal tax laws that prohibit it 
     from making political donations.
       State officials and Ryan have contended that there were 
     plenty of good reasons why the site was selected over bids 
     from the two other finalists, Freeport and Wenona.
       Pembroke Township is statistically one of the poorest areas 
     in the state and nation. Fifty-two percent of its 3,657 
     residents live below the poverty level, and its 
     unemployment rate is four times higher than the state's 
     rate. The site also is close to the Chicago area, where 
     many of the prisoners' families reside.
       Even Ryan joked at the Dec. 9 press conference when the 
     site selection was announced that his roots in the county may 
     have influenced the decision.
       ``This is one of the advantages in supporting a local guy 
     for public office,'' he said. ``I can't imagine this would've 
     happened if I hadn't been elected governor.''
       Despite the potential for enormous economic assistance from 
     the project, not all Pembroke Township residents are throwing 
     out the welcome mat for the prison.
       A group of about 200 residents called Pembroke Advocates 
     for Truth sprang up in the last several months to try to stop 
     construction, saying they don't believe the economic benefits 
     will trickle down to the community. They point to Perry, who 
     lives in nearby Bourbonnais, as an example of how outsiders 
     are more likely than locals to reap the benefits.
       ``There are a lot of angry people out here,'' said Beau, 
     who is a member of the group.
       Perry said Ryan approached him and asked him to help 
     because the two communities needed assistance with the 
     paperwork. Perry said he contacted local officials and 
     offered his services.
       A Ryan spokesman said the governor ``doesn't recall the 
     conversation quite that way,'' but he declined to elaborate.
       Records show that Perry paid little, if anything, for the 
     options on the property. Because no cash was needed for the 
     transactions, either Pembroke Township or Hopkins Park could 
     have entered into the option agreements with the local 
     landowners, as did another finalist, the City of Freeport, 
     records show.
       Perry told the state in September that it could expect to 
     pay $6,100 an acre for the 160 acres it would purchase. The 
     state recently has said it will purchase only about 120 
     acres.
       Now, Perry said he will sell the land to the state at 
     $5,500 an acre, the price he is paying the owners.
  (Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire assumed the chair.)
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, there have also been a number of 
problems involving Illinois leases that go back a number of years. I 
turn my attention to an examination of State leasing practices. We 
have, thus far, been dealing with the State procurement code, how it 
bids out projects for construction, but also part of that code governs 
how the State handles its leases and whether it competitively bids 
leases for office space or other space that the State of Illinois may 
give.
  In an examination of this overall context of insider deals that have 
happened and swirled around and been going on in Springfield for a very 
long time, I want to focus on a couple of articles that go back a 
little bit further to December 29, 1992.
  There was at that time a series that was run in the Chicago Tribune 
that was called ``Between Friends. In the new era of patronage, the 
politically connected get something better than jobs--lucrative 
government leases.''
  This article I am going to read is the third in a series. The 
headline is ``Helping Their Cronies Is The Lease Politicians Can Do.'' 
The byline is by Ray Gibson and Hanke Gratteau:

       Before Paul Butera decided to shut down and sell his 
     grocery at 3518 W. Division St., his telephone started 
     ringing.
       The interest in his property, an enormous parking lot 
     backstopped by a single-story brick structure of 30,000 
     square feet, astonished him.
       Located in a working-class area, the grocery had served 
     Butera's family well for four years. But business had waned 
     since a large grocery complex opened nearby. Although he had 
     yet to list the property with a real estate broker, Butera 
     began getting calls about whether the Humboldt Park property 
     was for sale.
       ``The property got very hot very fast,'' he recalled.
       Several weeks before Butera closed the deal in July 1991, 
     he learned the buyer planned to convert the grocery into 
     office space and rent it to the state for the Illinois 
     Department of Children and Family Services.
       Unbeknownst to Butera, the state and the buyer, Victor J. 
     Cacciatore, Sr., had hammered out the details of the lease 
     four months before Butera sold the property.
       The lease was signed in apparent violation of state 
     purchasing laws that require disclosure of building and land 
     owners. State officials signed the lease relying on 
     Cacciatori's representation that he was the owner of the 
     building, said Helen Adorjan, a spokeswoman for the state 
     Department of Central Management Service, or CMS.
       The state has done business with Cacciatore for decades, 
     and, for just as long, Cacciatore had been a faithful 
     campaign contributor.
       Patronage, the process of rewarding political cronies at 
     taxpayers' expense, has been big business in Illinois. Even 
     though court decisions and taxpayers' outrage largely have 
     stopped the practice of putting supporters on the public 
     payroll, elected officials still find ways to divide the 
     spoils.
       Contracts are the mother lode for a new age of patronage. 
     Deals to lease properties, perform services and produce goods 
     for the state are now a $4.6 billion-a-year industry, a 
     business that has more than doubled in the last decade.
       The state's need to house its burgeoning bureaucracy has 
     been a gold mine for those seeking to lease land and offices 
     to the state. From 1981 to 1991, the state's rental costs 
     climbed to $104 million annually, a 177 percent increase. 
     Those with connections, such as Cacciatore, are cashing in.
       The state's landlords include major donors to the 
     gubernatorial campaigns of James Thompson and Jim Edgar. In 
     the last four years, Edgar's campaign fund has received more 
     than $178,000 from people who lease offices to the state, 
     disclosure forms show.
       Those people include Cacciatore, who has contributed at 
     least $9,000 to Edgar's campaign fund and has received two 
     state leases since Edgar took office. During the final seven 
     years of the Thompson administration, Cacciatore donated more 
     than $27,000 to Thompson's campaign. During that time, he was 
     awarded five state leases.
       The DCFS deal marked the second time Cacciatore had offered 
     to rent to the state the building he did not own. Records 
     show he first proposed the Division Street grocery as an 
     office building in March 1990, more than 15 months before he 
     bought it.
       Other large states have specific procedures to secure 
     property, but Illinois' methods are much more fluid, said 
     Michael Bartletti, manager of the Bureau of Property 
     Management for CMS, the leasing agent for most state 
     departments. Requirements vary according to geographic and 
     agency needs, he said.

[[Page S9805]]

       For example, sometimes the state publishes an advertisement 
     seeking potential sites. Sometimes it does not. Sometimes 
     state leasing agents search specific communities for 
     appropriate buildings, Bartletti said. Sometimes they do not.
       Bartletti said CMS rules ``encourage'' the obtaining of 
     price quotes on ``two or three sites'' that would meet state 
     needs. The rule, he said, ``encourages competition. It 
     doesn't require it.''
       In the Cacciatore deal, the state did not advertise its 
     need for DCFS office space, records show.
       Instead, CMS officials relied on responses to a year-old 
     advertisement published when the Illinois Department of 
     Public Aid sought similar office space, Adorjan said.
       Cacciatore had proposed the Division Street grocery as a 
     potential public aid office, Adorjan said, so the site was 
     suggested to DCFS.
       CMS records on the DCFS office hunt reflect that the agency 
     obtained price quotes on two other locations. But an owner of 
     a building the state said it surveyed told the Tribune that 
     he never was contacted.
       Records state that officials with CMS contacted an 
     individual named ``Boris Amen,'' who was trying to sell a 
     28,000-square-foot building at 2950 N. Western Ave.
       But officials at Advanced Transformer, the owner of the 
     130,000-square-foot factory at that address, said that they 
     never offered their property to the state and that they did 
     not know Boris Amen.
       ``I have never had any discussions with the state,'' said 
     Sol Hassom, a vice president for the company.
       Records also state that CMS obtained a price quote on a 
     lease from owners of a building at 3011 N. Western Ave. No 
     such address or building exists. An owner of a nearby 9,000-
     square-foot building said he never has offered it for rent.
       Adorjan acknowledged the records were filled with 
     inaccuracies, but she maintained that the agency obtained 
     other competing prices that are not reflected in the records.
       ``It is obvious that they are just sloppy records,'' she 
     said. ``They obviously did a sloppy job.''
       Records show the state will pay $2.3 million over the next 
     five years to rent the grocery, which Cacciatore bought for 
     $775,000. With his partners, Cacciatore holds seven state 
     leases worth more than $1 million a year.
       The state is paying $17.05 a square foot for space, 
     utilities and janitorial service for the Humboldt Park 
     building. That rate, according to Realtors, is comparable 
     with rates in fancy Loop high-rise buildings.
       ``You can do better than that in the Loop,'' said George 
     Martin, a real estate broker. ``You can get $13 (a square 
     foot). What you are talking about out there doesn't even make 
     sense.''
       Adorjan said the rent the state is paying was fair and 
     comparable with others in the area.
       Cacciatore, in a written response to questions, argued that 
     the high rental rate partly reflects remodeling costs needed 
     to meet the state's requirements.
       Cook County records show Cacciatore's company spent 
     $450,000 on remodeling. According to the lease, Cacciatore 
     will recoup his initial investment and renovation costs 
     within the first three years.
       Cacciatore's company and appraisers successfully argued 
     earlier this year to lower the property's tax assessment. 
     Their plea was based partly on data showing that the state 
     was paying rent that was $5 a square foot to $6 a square foot 
     above market rates and that, therefore, the rent did not 
     accurately reflect the building's value, county records show.
       ``Confronted with the pressing need to service the area 
     with a field office and the lack of such appropriate office 
     space, (the state) was willing to pay a rental premium,'' the 
     company's written appeal stated.
       Cacciatore also has sold property to the state. The state's 
     1990 purchase of $1.9 million of Cacciatore's property in 
     Lake County for a proposed state highway provoked public 
     outcry there. At his request, the property was rezoned for 
     development, forcing the state to pay 20 times the price it 
     normally pays for vacant land.
       One south suburban landlord who leases property to the 
     state said renting office space to the state is an insider's 
     game fraught with politics.
       The landlord, who asked not to be identified, told the 
     Tribune that when he was notified that a state agency was 
     leaving his building in the midst of a long-term contract, 
     state officials told him to see William Cellini, a top 
     Republican fundraiser.
       ``I was told, `If you want to get a state lease, go see Mr. 
     Cellini,' '' he said. He did not, and the state canceled his 
     lease.
       Cellini headed the state Transportation Department under 
     Republican Gov. Richard Ogilvie. He has not been a state 
     official in nearly two decades but remains one of 
     Springfield's most influential insiders. His sister Janis is 
     Edgar's patronage chief, and the transportation agency still 
     seeks his counsel, according to former and current officials.
       ``I chuckle sometimes when I hear some of the stories in 
     Springfield about what all (Cellini) controls. That's not 
     true,'' Edgar said in an interview.
       Cellini and Cacciatore, along with another former state 
     official, Gayle Franzen, were business partners in 1991 on 
     the purchase of a 140-acre parcel in south suburban Hazel 
     Crest, records show.
       Franzen said Cacciatore invited him to become a partner on 
     the Division Street grocery, even though Cacciatore told the 
     state he was the sole owner. Franzen said that he declined. 
     Cellini, through an aide, said he had no current interests in 
     any state leases.
       In addition to holding leases with the state, Cacciatore is 
     a director of Elgin Sweeping Services Inc., which has reaped 
     nearly $40 million in contracts with the state's highway 
     department since 1970, when Cellini headed the department. 
     The contract is based on competitive bidding, but no company 
     has submitted a competing bid in 10 years, state records 
     show.
  Let me read that sentence again. The State, of course, on this $120 
million library, is assuring us that there will be the application of 
what they call their competitive bid rules. But in this article, it 
says:

       The contract is based on competitive bidding, but no 
     company has submitted a competing bid in 10 years, state 
     records show.
       Some state landlords scoff at the notion that political 
     favoritism influences the way the state shops for land and 
     space.
       Anthony Antoniou, a Du Page County real estate developer, 
     is among them. His firm holds a lease that is among the 
     state's most expensive, with $5.2 million in annual payments 
     for an unemployment office on Chicago's State Street.
       Antoniou, a contributor to Thompson and Edgar, said his 
     firm found that politics played virtually no role in the 
     decision to lease his building.
       Nevertheless, when Antoniou began discussions with the 
     state about possible purchase of the State Street building, 
     he turned to state Sen. Howard Carroll for help. Carroll, a 
     Chicago Democrat, heads the appropriations committee that 
     approves the budget for CMS, the agency trying to buy the 
     building.
       ``Harold Carroll is a friend,'' Antoniou said. ``He may 
     have given some peripheral help. I met with him through my 
     wife who lobbies (in Springfield).''
       Carroll said that Antoniou asked him to find out the status 
     of possible state funds to buy the building.
       ``We did some checking and we didn't see any funds in the 
     budget,'' Carroll said.
       Illinois' lease costs are comparable to what officials in 
     New York, Florida and Texas spend on land rights and office 
     space. California, which has nearly twice as many state 
     employees as Illinois and whose real estate costs are 
     notoriously exorbitant, spends more than $270 million a year 
     on leases.
       But the manner in which leases are let in Illinois differs 
     greatly from methods used in Florida, Texas and California. 
     In those states, landlords must submit sealed bids to state 
     officials who are required by law to award leases to the 
     lowest and best competitive bidder.
       Illinois officials reject the notion of competitive bidding 
     on leases.

  Let me read that line again:

       Illinois officials reject the notion of competitive bidding 
     on leases.

  Competitive bidding has never been popular in Illinois with public 
officials, and that is what is at stake here on this $120 million 
Lincoln Library, where objections were made to the U.S. Senate's 
requirement that Federal competitive bid guidelines be attached to this 
$50 million authorization for a $120 million building in Springfield, 
IL.
  Quoting again:

       The Tribune found that state rental procedures are so 
     casual that state files on negotiations for some properties 
     are little more than handwritten scrawls of price quotes from 
     building owners.
       Officials have maintained for more than a decade that state 
     law does not require competitive bidding on leases, despite 
     admonishments from the state auditor general. The absence of 
     competitive bidding, the auditor general has warned, has 
     deprived taxpayers of the ``assurance that its best interests 
     were served.''

  Let me interject at this point, since this article was written, the 
State's procurement law has been updated and presumably improved to 
some extent. But in our discussion and our examination today, we are 
trying to emphasize that not all loopholes have been closed and that 
the State rules still allow a high degree of discretion and leave a 
high amount of decisionmaking authority up to subjective preferences of 
State officials and that leaving that kind of unchecked discretion in 
State officials' hands opens the potential for insider abuse of 
Illinois procurement, whether it is leasing a building, building a 
building, or buying goods and services from the State.
  Continuing from the article:

       The Tribune investigation of state purchasing found that 
     CMS sometimes has disregarded its own internal rules 
     established to ensure fair pricing and competition.
       In some cases, state agencies seeking to lease space 
     compose written requirements that virtually rule out 
     competition. Specifications also have been tailored to steer 
     state agencies to sites owned by the connected, as in the 
     case of a $9.3 million deal in Peoria.

  Let's back up on that. In some cases, you have the State claiming it 
has

[[Page S9806]]

competitive bidding, but what they do is, State agencies seeking to 
lease space compose written requirements that virtually rule out 
competition. They put restrictions on who is eligible to apply. The 
State did that with how they awarded river boat licenses in Illinois, 
and we are going to get to that later this afternoon when we examine 
how the State awarded the phenomenally lucrative 10 river boat licenses 
that somehow just happened to--I guess it was coincidence--all wind up 
in the hands of long-time contributors, in many cases, for many of 
those river boat licenses.
  Continuing from the article:

       Twelve days after the Illinois Department of Transportation 
     informed CMS that it had outgrown its district headquarters 
     in Peoria, officials with CMS asked the governor's office if 
     G. Raymond Becker, a multimillionaire real estate developer, 
     was eligible to become a state landlord.
       The written query, dated March 19, 1990, was necessary 
     because Becker was a Thompson-appointed member of the 
     Illinois Capital Development Board, whose executive director 
     is required by state law to review all state leases.
       CMS officials wanted to know if Thompson would waive a 
     state conflict-of-interest law prohibiting state officials 
     such as Becker from doing business with the state.
       Such waivers are somewhat routine in Illinois, but the 
     request was unusual because CMS officials had not yet 
     advertised the state's desire to rent office space in Peoria, 
     records show.
       But Becker, a member of Thompson's Governor's Club, a 
     circle of campaign contributors whose donations totaled at 
     least $1,000, already was being considered for a state 
     contract for space in the 16-story office building he was 
     constructing in downtown Peoria.
       Months later, the state published an advertisement from new 
     Peoria space, specifying narrow geographic boundaries that 
     essentially reduced the competition to Becker's building. 
     Another developer, Dianne Cullinan, who had a downtown site 
     under construction next to the state's targeted area, 
     expressed interest but later halted talks after much of her 
     building was leased.
       Negotiations with Becker, the lone landlord under 
     consideration, lagged for several months. But in January 
     1991, the deal was completed within a week--the final one of 
     Thompson's tenure.
       Thompson waived the conflict of interest law for Becker, 
     noting that his proposal--the only one that had been on the 
     table for four months--was the best of two submitted. Yet, 
     records show that neither Cullinan nor anyone other than 
     Becker had submitted a formal proposal.
       The Becker deal stands to be worth more than $9.3 million 
     over the next 10 years if the state renews the lease after 
     the first five years. IDOT offices fill about one-third of 
     the building, which Becker built with a $3.2 million Peoria 
     city bond and private loans of $8 million.
       ``It was a very good deal because I am doing much better 
     with the rest of the leases,'' Becker said. The IDOT lease, 
     he said, helped him charge higher rates for the lower floors. 
     By August, shortly before IDOT moved in, two-thirds of the 
     complex had been rented, Becker said.
       The lease also carried the promise of revitalizing Becker's 
     adjacent properties: a twin-story condominium and a small 
     office complex that have been suffering from high vacancy 
     rates.
       Whether the deal was as good for taxpayers as it was for 
     Becker is another question.

  Of course, that line in this article--``Whether the deal was as good 
for taxpayers as it was for Becker is another question''--kind of goes 
to the heart of our debate today because we want construction of the 
Presidential library for Abraham Lincoln in Springfield, IL, to be as 
great a treasure for and as good a deal for the taxpayers of Illinois 
and this Nation as it is for everybody who winds up actually building 
the building or owning other buildings right next to it, which will 
benefit from the tourism that comes in.

       State officials maintain the Becker lease is less costly 
     than building a Peoria headquarters.
       They point to a January 1991 study conducted by an outside 
     consulting firm that concluded that over a 10-year period, 
     the state would pay about $11.4 million for construction, 
     operating costs and debt service on a new building, compared 
     with slightly less than $10 million in lease costs in the 
     same period.
       But the study was based in part on the consultants' 
     assumption that the state would have to acquire land for the 
     project, records indicate.
       ``We are not aware of other state-owned space in the Peoria 
     area that would be suitable for the (IDOT) space needs,'' the 
     study stated. ``Also, we did not examine the cost of buying 
     and renovating an existing facility. . . . Additionally, we 
     did not address the availability of bond funds to finance the 
     construction of a potential facility.''
       Three years earlier, IDOT had proposed building a Peoria 
     regional headquarters and materials-testing labs on a 34-acre 
     site owned by the state on the city's west side.
       The price tag at the time was $7.16 million, said Richard 
     Adorjan, an IDOT spokesman.
       The General Assembly refused to appropriate funds for the 
     project, so the state decided to lease. Adorjan said IDOT was 
     never told about the 1991 study comparing the costs of 
     leasing with the costs of a new building.
       CMS officials say they never considered the 34-acre site 
     for building because it was ``too rural,'' Bartletti said.
       The site is 9.3 miles from Peoria's downtown, said a CMS 
     spokesman. IDOT's main headquarters in Springfield is about 
     four miles from downtown.
       IDOT's former Peoria headquarters, a sprawling brick 
     structure with 36,000 square feet on the city's north end, 
     will continue to house materials-testing labs, but the site 
     soon will be largely abandoned.
       The IDOT lease was not Becker's only deal with the state.
       Soon after signing the IDOT lease in Peoria, Thompson aides 
     signed a $1.1 million lease for the Illinois Department of 
     Employment Security to move into a building owned by Becker's 
     business partner, Russell Waldschmidt. Less than a year 
     later, Waldschmidt sold the building to Becker's son, George 
     Raymond Becker, Jr.
       Later in 1991, the General Assembly restored funding for 
     leased office space for the Illinois Industrial Commission in 
     another Becker-owned building. The five-year lease is worth 
     about $41,000 annually.
       Becker's construction company also has been a successful 
     competitor for state road building jobs. In 1987 and 1989, 
     his company was the low bidder on two contracts worth nearly 
     $2 million for paving and resurfacing state highways near 
     Peoria, an IDOT spokesman said.
       Becker and his partner, Waldschmidt, said Becker's status 
     as a confidant to the Thompson administration played no role 
     in landing the leases.
       But administration sources said Thompson's aides demanded 
     that the transportation agency lease be signed before 
     Thompson left office. Some top administrators had favored 
     putting the lease on hold, a common practice during 
     transitions, since it would bind Edgar's administration to 
     the pact. Their concerns, however, were overruled by 
     Thompson's key aides, according to interviews.
       Even after Thompson left office, he continued to turn to 
     his old friend for favors. Several months after Thompson left 
     the Executive Mansion, the developer lent his private 
     airplane to the former Governor to fly to Jackson, Miss., for 
     a Republican Party function, according to a Thompson 
     spokeswoman.
       CMS officials have been at loggerheads with the state 
     Auditor General's office for more than a decade because of 
     their insistence that state law does not require leases to be 
     competitively bid.

  Again, what we are talking about here is competitively bidding a 
construction contract. The House has taken a position in opposition to 
the Senate's requirement on an appropriation of $50 million to the 
State of Illinois that that money be competitively bid, that the 
construction contracts be competitively bid in accordance with the 
Federal law. The House position on this, to date, is that the project 
not carry that restriction and that States' so-called competitive bid 
guidelines are adequate.

  We are here examining some of the problems that have occurred in 
recent memory in the State of Illinois regarding leases, construction 
projects, and the like, which really weren't what we would think should 
be a proper competitive bidding and where there has been some slippage.

       State purchasing laws, a hodgepodge of more than 100 
     provisions adopted over the years, make no mention of leases. 
     And a 1981 report by state auditors found that 96 percent of 
     the state's leases were awarded without bid.

  That is why there are so many articles inches thick and investigative 
reports, over many different administrations and many Governors in the 
State of Illinois, of deals that appeared to involve, or may have 
involved, or the writers thought involved, political favoritism.

       CMS has argued that because leases are not specifically 
     included among the goods and services required to be 
     competitively bid, they are exempt from bidding. State 
     auditors have argued that because leases are not listed among 
     the exemptions, they must be bid.
       There is no way to competitively bid real estate, said the 
     CMS' Bartletti.
       Simply put, there are no two real estate parcels in the 
     world that are alike. Real estate is exclusive by definition. 
     There is only one parcel at a certain intersection. Location 
     is everything in real estate, he said.
       Among the State purchasing reforms to be proposed in the 
     general assembly's spring session will be a requirement to 
     bid leases competitively, said State Senator Judy Barr 
     Topinka (R-Riverside).
       The proposed reform, Topinka said, is prompted largely by 
     ``the scandal'' created

[[Page S9807]]

     by a lease state officials signed in 1989 to rent the 
     shuttered St. Anne's Hospital on Chicago's West Side.
       State officials needed the building to house patients from 
     the Illinois State Psychiatric Hospital, which had to be 
     closed for extensive renovations.
       Taxpayers will end up paying $16.1 million for a four-year 
     lease of the hospital, including costs of transferring 
     patients, mainly because the lease failed to shield the state 
     from huge repair bills.
       The state could have bought the building for $3 million.

  Let's review that again.

       State officials needed the building to house patients from 
     the Illinois State Psychiatric Hospital, which had to be 
     closed for extensive renovations.
       Taxpayers will end up paying $16.1 million for a four-year 
     lease of the hospital, including costs of transferring 
     patients, mainly because the lease failed to shield the state 
     from huge repair bills.

  The State could have bought the building for $3 million.
  The State could have bought it for $3 million. But they will end up 
paying $16 million for a 4-year lease of the hospital.
  In that difference between $16.1 million and $3 million, look at the 
money that was lost for the taxpayers. How many taxpayers had to work 
how many hours? How many couples had to struggle working 2, or 2\1/2\, 
or 3 jobs to pay their taxes to the State of Illinois and to the 
Federal Government just to see that money go to State officials?
  Some might conclude from such articles that in many cases when there 
are not proper controls, what the State officials wind up doing with 
that taxpayer money is really tantamount to lighting a match to it.
  I now move on to another issue that has been talked about in Illinois 
for a very long time. It actually goes back to the early 1980s, and it 
is still a problem for the taxpayers in the State of Illinois. That is 
the subject of hotel loans given out by the State that were never fully 
repaid.
  There are some of these issues that we could highlight on which I am 
seeking to narrow the focus and ultimately tie all of this back into 
what is going on down in Springfield.
  I am going to turn to a discussion of State loans that were made back 
in the early 1980s for the construction of several buildings around the 
State, including two hotels: One in Springfield, IL, and the other, as 
I recall, at Collinsville, IL, which is down in the southern part of 
the State in the metro East St. Louis area. I am very familiar with 
both of these hotels. Of course, I see them often on my trips to 
Springfield and Collinsville. These hotels are actually pretty famous 
in the minds of many taxpayers because the taxpayers gave loans for the 
prominent people to develop these hotels and the loans were never fully 
paid.
  This article, which comes from the Chicago Sun Times, dated April 26, 
1995, is by Tim Novak, who at that time was in Springfield. He wrote 
this article. The headline is, ``Taxpayers Stuck With $30 Million Hotel 
Tab.''

       Illinois taxpayers will lose $30 million today when state 
     Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka closes the books on two hotel 
     loans that former Gov. Jim Thompson and former Treasurer 
     Jerry Cosentino made to political cronies.
       The hotels owe the state $40.3 million under low-interest 
     loans they got in 1982, but Topinka has agreed to settle 
     their debts for $10 million, the Sun-Times has learned. She 
     plans to announce the deal today.
       Under the deal, the Springfield Renaissance Hotel headed by 
     Republican power broker William F. Cellini will pay the state 
     $3.75 million of the $19.8 million it owes.
       The state will also collect $6.3 million from the 
     Collinsville Holiday Inn, partly owned by Gary Fears, who 
     raised money for Democrats and Republicans. The Collinsville 
     hotel owes the state $20.6 million.
       Topinka said it's the ``best deal'' she could get from the 
     hotels, which have often skipped loan payments while their 
     value has fallen. The deal will save the state at least 
     $6,000 a month it spends to manage the loans.
       ``The taxpayers are going to take a bath, no question,'' 
     Topinka said. ``But the property is so depressed, we will 
     never get back what we spent. Our little escapade into the 
     hotel business has not been remarkably fruitful.
       ``I may open myself up to criticism on one hand, but on the 
     other hand, I have got to settle this because the longer this 
     goes on, the more we lose because the property value (of the 
     hotels) keeps going down.''
       Former Treasurer Patrick Quinn, a Democrat, said Topinka is 
     giving another sweetheart deal to political insiders.
       ``These particular individuals . . . are getting off very 
     lightly,'' Quinn said of Cellini and Fears. ``The taxpayers 
     are being fleeced again. They were fleeced when the loans 
     were made. They were fleeced when the loans were refinanced.
       ``If you foreclosed, you would have assets that you can 
     sell for a greater price than they're getting now,'' Quinn 
     said. He claimed that the hotels are worth far more than the 
     $10 million the owners will pay under Topinka's deal.
       Local assessors say the hotels are worth a total of $13.2 
     million--$7.9 million for the Springfield hotel and $5.3 
     million for the one in Collinsville.
       Topinka said the hotels are worth only a total of $6.5 
     million, much less than the $10 million the state will 
     receive. Topinka said the Springfield hotel is worth $3 
     million and the one in Collinsville is worth $3.5 million.
       ``I didn't make the (original) deal,'' she said. ``I'm the 
     garbage man trying to clean up.''
       The loans were to expire in 2010. The state cannot 
     foreclose on the hotels until 1999, and then only if the 
     debts exceed $18 million on the Springfield hotel and $19.9 
     million on the Collinsville one.
       Quinn spent four years trying to get money out of the hotel 
     owners, particularly Cellini, who made millions as the lead 
     investor of the state's first riverboat casino, the Alton 
     Belle.
       Quinn urged the Illinois Gaming Board to revoke the casino 
     license last year unless Cellini pays off the hotel loan. The 
     board refused, saying the hotel and casino were separate, 
     state-sanctioned deals.
       Cellini is among 80 investors in the Springfield hotel. He 
     could not be reached for comment. B.C. Gitcho, managing 
     partner of the Collinsville hotel, referred questions to 
     attorney Dan K. Webb, a law partner of Thompson's.
       Webb, who represents both hotels, could not be reached for 
     comment.
       Thompson, a Republican, and Cosentino, a Democrat, made the 
     hotel loans in 1982 under the governor's Build Illinois 
     program, designed to create economic development and jobs.
       Cellini's group, President Lincoln Hotel Ventures, used the 
     money to build a luxurious hotel about six blocks from the 
     state Capitol. Fears' group, Collinsville Hotel. Venture, 
     built a hotel about 20 miles east of St. Louis.
       The loans originally had a 12.25 percent interest rate. The 
     owners were required to make mortgage payments only in those 
     quarters in which the hotels made profits. The owners often 
     skipped payments, claiming they made no money in those 
     quarters.
       Before Thompson and Cosentino left office in 1991, the 
     loans were restructured with a new interest rate of 6 
     percent. The interest was deferred until the principal was 
     paid off.
       Since 1982, the state has collected $1.3 million from the 
     Springfield hotel and $1.4 million from the Collinsville 
     hotel.

  Mr. President, there is another article on that hotel loan. I point 
out at this time the hotel for which that loan was given, that was 
built in Springfield, IL--one of them was for a hotel in Springfield, 
the other for a hotel in Collinsville, IL.
  This is a map of downtown Springfield. This is the State capitol 
where I used to go when I was a State senator in Springfield for 6 
years. This is the Abraham Lincoln neighborhood. Mr. Lincoln's 
neighborhood is run by the National Park Service. Abraham Lincoln's 
home is here. Senator Durbin and I have our Springfield district 
offices in that neighborhood. It is beautifully maintained to look as 
it did in Mr. Lincoln's era.
  Here is the Springfield Convention Center, and next to the 
Springfield Convention Center we see the Renaissance Springfield Hotel.
  As we saw that investor deal, headed by Mr. William Cellini from 
Springfield, they got that $15 million--I believe was the loan--back in 
the early 1980s. There was an attempt to settle the loan after not much 
of that money had been paid back. In fact, that settlement that was 
just described, to my knowledge, never went through.
  I will continue reading some articles and examining this hotel issue 
because since it is so close to where the proposed Lincoln Library site 
is, I think this will give a picture of how this connects together and 
why in my mind--being familiar with this whole history--red flags were 
raised. I believed we were on notice that we needed to do everything we 
could to protect taxpayers' money in the construction of that proposed 
Lincoln Library, which is a $120 million project.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I believe I will be recognized following the Senator's 
presentation, but for purposes of timing, how long does the Senator 
expect to continue speaking?
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I will speak as long as I need to make the point on 
this project. I imagine it will be for quite some time.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might, the Senator certainly has a right to speak 
for as

[[Page S9808]]

long as he chooses once he is recognized in the Senate, but for the 
purpose of others who desire to speak on the conference report, I am 
curious if we could get some time frame.
  I am willing to come back to the Chamber if the Senator will give me 
an idea of when he might complete his remarks.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. All I can say at this time--I hope the Senator will 
appreciate this--I will need an extended period of time, and I cannot 
give a good timeframe. You may want to go back to your office.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, that is a fair answer.
  I ask if, perhaps 10 minutes before the Senator finishes, he would 
say ``in conclusion,'' which would trigger me to come back to the 
floor.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I will do that.
  Turning to a June 5, 1995, Chicago Tribune article, by Rick Pearson, 
a Tribune staff writer, the headline is: ``Taxpayers Face a Big Loss on 
Hotel Loans; GOP Insider Denies Political Deal.''
       He has achieved a unique and almost mystical aura as a 
     clout-heavy Republican power broker, fundraiser and riverboat 
     gambling captain.
       But William Cellini says he doubts he will ever be a hotel 
     developer again.
       Cellini is at the center of a controversy involving a 
     proposal by state Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka to settle $40 
     million owed to taxpayers on two hotel loans for $10 million. 
     He said he and other investors in the Springfield Renaissance 
     never made a dime and will never see any return.
       Cellini also maintained that the state has probably 
     recouped the original $120 million lent to developers of the 
     Renaissance, the Collinsville Holiday Inn and 16 other 
     projects because the developers paid 17 percent interest 
     during the construction in the high-interest period of the 
     early 1980s.
       ``Would I do it again? Never,'' Cellini said in his first 
     public comments on the hotel deal. ``Well, never is a long 
     time. Let's put it this way: I'll never do another one with 
     the government. You're too high-profile, and then everybody 
     comes to these (political) conclusions.'
       Not that anyone is suggesting any tag days for the 60-year-
     old Cellini.
       He has parlayed his position during the 1960s as state 
     transportation secretary under Gov. Richard Ogilvie into 
     influential leases and contracts, a role as head of the road-
     building Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association, and 
     chairmanship of Argosy Gaming Co., which operates the Alton 
     Belle riverboat casino. Cellini's stake in the riverboat is 
     worth more than $20 million.
       Yet Cellini disputed the perception that the hotel 
     settlement reached in April with Topinka is a sweetheart deal 
     for himself, the Renaissance's 84 other investors, bipartisan 
     fundraiser Gary Fears and investors in the Collinsville 
     Holiday Inn.
       Instead, he said, taxpayers will get about $2 million more 
     than the highest bid offered to former state Treasurer 
     Patrick Quinn when he attempted to shop the two hotel loans 
     last year to other investors.
       In addition, Cellini said, investors in the Springfield 
     hotel put $10.1 million of their money into launching the 
     project, along with the state's $15.5 million loan and a $3.1 
     million federal urban-development grant.

  Boy, that is interesting. On that loan for that Springfield 
Renaissance Hotel, the investors put in $10 billion of their money, the 
State loaned $15 million of State taxpayers' money, and the Federal 
Government gave $3.1 million in an urban development grant for that 
hotel.

       ``People are saying, `This hotel was built with all state 
     money. Cellini didn't put in anything, and now he's walking 
     away with the marbles.' That isn't true. We put in almost as 
     much as the state, for sure $10 million in cash. And we will 
     never get it back,'' Cellini said.
       The proposed settlement with Topinka has been put on hold 
     pending review by Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan, another Republican. 
     But under the agreement, Cellini and Renaissance investors 
     would pay the state $3.75 million of the $19.8 million they 
     owe.
       Meanwhile, the Collinsville Holiday Inn would pay $6.3 
     million of $20.6 million owed to the state.
       Topinka, a Republican who took office in January, has said 
     the loans were a ``bad investment'' for the state. She also 
     said the settlement is the ``best deal'' she could get for 
     taxpayers because the properties' values are depressed.
       The loans, first made in 1982 by then-Gov. James Thompson, 
     a Republican, and then-Treasurer Jerome Cosentino, a 
     Democrat, originally carried a 12.25 percent interest rate. 
     But Thompson and Cosentino revised the loans in 1988 to 
     require mortgage payments only when the hotels were 
     profitable. Few payments were made.

  That is interesting. The loan was not being fully repaid. Yet in 1998 
they revised the loan documents so that mortgage payments only had to 
be made when the hotel was profitable. And then few payments were made.

       Shortly before Thompson and Cosentino left officein 1991, 
     the loans again were restructured to call for 6 percent 
     interest, with all payments first applied to principal on the 
     debt.
       Cellini, who is a general partner of the Renaissance and 
     owns 1.01 percent of the stock, said the original loan, the 
     subsequent restructuring and the settlement plan were normal 
     business deals and didn't involve politics.
       The projects initially were meant to improve economic 
     development, but they were written down because of market 
     conditions, he said.
       The lavish Renaissance, five blocks from the Capitol, pays 
     $100,000 a year to help retire bonds used to build an 
     adjacent city convention center. The hotel has a payroll of 
     $2.8 million and pays $1.3 million a year in taxes, he said.
       ``It isn't that this was different or it was something that 
     just because of political contact there was this 
     discounting,'' Cellini said. ``There isn't a first-class, 
     full-service hotel that was built in Chicago from '85 to 
     today that is not only not paying their mortgage loans but I 
     bet you some of them aren't paying for their operations.''
       Cellini also disputed reports from Topinka's office that 
     personal guarantees he signed on the loan were waived by 
     Thompson and Cosentino. Such a waiver would have helpted 
     Cellini when Argosy appeared before the Illinois Gaming Board 
     seeking a license for the Alton Belle casino.
       But aides to Topinka confirmed Friday that when the hotel 
     was opened, Cellini satisfied the terms of a construction 
     loan and was released from his personal guarantee.
       Cellini also said that while the hotel had an assessed 
     value of $7 million two years ago, the value of the real 
     estate now is only slightly more than the $3.7 million value 
     of the loan that investors have agreed to pay.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Louisiana be recognized at this time, and that I be rerecognized upon 
the completion of her remarks and that my rerecognition count as a 
continuation of my current speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Illinois has 
been on the floor for quite some time speaking on an issue about which 
he obviously feels very strongly and about which he is quite 
knowledgeable and on which he has been going into some detail. 
Hopefully, it can be worked out, or some accommodations can be made.
  I am here, actually, to speak about an issue that is related to this 
bill but is completely different from what my colleague from Illinois 
has been speaking about. This is about the underlying bill, the 
Interior appropriations bill, and about the CARA Coalition, the 
Conservation Reinvestment Act--which you yourself have been familiar 
with and were actually very helpful, Mr. President, and were supportive 
along the way. I thank you for that. I want to say a few words about 
the Interior appropriations bill and how it falls so short of what many 
of us were hoping.
  I realize this is a process; it is a democratic process. I realize we 
cannot always get what we want. But I do believe we should always try 
our very best to get what we believe is not only best for our State but 
best for our Nation. That is what the CARA Coalition represents, a 
group of Governors, almost every Governor in the Nation, mayors--almost 
all of the mayors in the Nation, Democrats and Republicans--over 5,000 
environmental and business organizations and recreational organizations 
throughout this Nation that have been trying to communicate to the 
White House and to the appropriators, both Democrats and Republicans, 
and to the President himself, how important it is to try to take this 
time, this year--not next year but this year--to lay down a real legacy 
for the environment, something that recognizes the importance of 
purchasing Federal lands when appropriate but also a legacy that 
realizes how important it is to give some money, not to Federal 
agencies but to State governments and to local officials, so Governors 
and mayors can make plans based on their local and State needs.
  I know that you agree with me, Mr. President--actually, many do in 
this Chamber--that Washington doesn't always know best. The CARA 
Coalition thinks sometimes Washington has good ideas, but we think 
sometimes States and Governors and mayors and county commissioners have 
good ideas. Sometimes parents who run Little League

[[Page S9809]]

Baseball leagues in their communities have good ideas. We think 
volunteers in communities have good ideas. But there are a handful of 
people who think--it is just disturbing to me, and I do not understand 
it--there are some people here, unfortunately on both sides of the 
aisle, who think the only decisions that are good come from Washington. 
So the CARA Coalition wants to say the Interior bill fails--fails to 
take advantage of the partnerships that are available at the State and 
at the local level.
  In addition, I have to say the Interior bill also fails to take into 
account the important contributions that are made by the coastal States 
to this endeavor.
  While the amount of money that the Interior bill has come up with is 
over $1 billion in the first year, a good portion of that money, about 
half of it, $500 million, actually does not come from the general fund. 
It comes from offshore oil and gas revenues. The moneys we use in this 
bill that were outlined earlier to fund the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, which was authorized and established over 30 years ago but never 
funded to its levels, either at the Federal or the State side--that 
money comes from offshore oil and gas revenues.
  Those revenues primarily come from the Gulf of Mexico and from 
Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and to some degree Alabama. The drilling 
for natural gas, which is an environmentally friendly fuel that helps 
us reduce the harmful elements in the air, takes place in the Gulf of 
Mexico, and the revenues generated from those oil and gas wells fund 
the land and water conservation bill.
  Another shortcoming of the Interior bill is that it fails to 
recognize the contributions that are made by Louisiana, Mississippi, 
and Texas. It does not provide a fair share of those revenues back to 
our States. It does not include coastal impact assistance. There is a 
possibility under the agreement with the chairmen of the committees 
that some of that can possibly be taken care of in the Commerce-
Justice-State bill. We are very hopeful some of that money might become 
available.
  This plan for an environmental legacy, despite the fact that this may 
be taken care of to a small degree in another bill, in the Interior 
bill, fails to recognize the contribution made by States that allow 
offshore oil and gas drilling.
  I have held up this plan many times on the floor. This is the ``Coast 
2050'' plan from Louisiana. This is a plan that says: ``Without bold 
action now, a national treasure will be lost forever.'' That treasure 
is the largest expanse of coastal wetlands in North America. The 
largest expanse of coastal wetlands in North America is at risk. The 
CARA Coalition came to Washington to say: We do not want all of the 
money for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. We do not even want 50 
percent of the money. We do not even expect 25 percent of the money. 
But we think we are in our right to ask for at least 10 percent of the 
money that is generated from offshore oil and gas revenues to come back 
to the coastal States, the great coastal areas of our Nation, for 
restoration.
  The coast of Louisiana is home to 2 million Americans, and the other 
statistics are awesome. The ecosystem contributes nearly 30 percent by 
weight of the total commercial fisheries harvested in the entire 
Nation. It provides wintering habitat for over 70 percent of migratory 
waterfowl for the whole Nation. And 18 percent of U.S. oil production, 
and 24 percent of gas production come from Louisiana primarily and the 
Gulf of Mexico. Our port system ranks first in the Nation, and we 
provide commercial outlets for the transportation of goods into this 
Nation and out of this Nation.
  As a Senator from Louisiana--and I know Senator Breaux joins me--I 
thought we could expect some recognition of what the coastal States 
mean to this Nation and some recognition of a coastal impact assistance 
piece or coastal stewardship piece, which CARA had in mind and which 
this Interior bill--although it is recognized, it has moved some of the 
money over to Commerce--does not recognize in its legacy.
  I say for the CARA Coalition that we have always believed the legacy 
that we are trying to leave is not just about interior States; it is 
about coastal States. It is not just about Federal spending and 
decisions made at the Federal level; it is about decisions made at the 
local level and at the State level.
  The underlying bill, while I know it took some work and it took some 
effort and there have been lots of negotiations at every level, fails 
in many aspects in terms of what we had hoped for this year. We will 
continue to hope for it if it is not done in this Congress.
  There is still time. It is unlikely that what we are asking for can 
be done in this bill. The conference is closed. We do not, under the 
rules, have an opportunity to amend this particular bill, but there are 
many other bills moving through. There is still action that can be 
taken on the part of the Democratic and Republican leadership. The 
President himself could weigh in more strongly and say: Yes, let's take 
what we can on lands legacy, but let's add in addition to it the CARA 
legislation.
  I will try to explain a few other things about the underlying bill 
and how it falls very short of where we want to be.
  Supporters of the underlying bill claim there is money in this bill 
for conservation programs, and they are correct. There is even more 
money than was originally budgeted for conservation programs. The 
problem is that each of the programs have to compete against each other 
for limited dollars. Unlike CARA, which had the programs pretty much 
clearly defined and moneys attached to each program so that Governors, 
mayors, and program administrators could count on that money, the 
underlying bill does not allow for that. It allows for competition, for 
an annual grab-bag approach every year. Let me give an example.
  In the first category, which is under the land conservation, 
preservation, infrastructure improvement trust fund, which is what this 
bill now calls it--it is not lands legacy, it is not CARA, it is called 
the land conservation, preservation, infrastructure improvement trust 
fund. There is $539 million in that fund, but out of that fund, the 
Federal side of land and water and the State side of land and water 
have to compete for that $539 million.
  We heard the distinguished chairman from Washington say he had over 
$1 billion in requests. He said he had over 1,000 requests totaling 
over $1 billion. That is just requests from the Federal side. If there 
are $1 billion in requests every year for the Federal side of land and 
water, and we only have in this bill $539 million to fund it, I argue 
there is not going to be anything left for the State side of land and 
water. They have been underfunded for 30 years. The Governors have been 
left holding an empty bag. When the mayors look in the bag, there is no 
money--promises, promises, but no money. While this trust fund attempts 
in a way to put this in categories, it fails to deliver the money 
necessary for the State side and the Federal side.
  Let me go into the next category which talks about State and other 
conservation programs. It talks about the cooperative endangered 
species fund, which is important; State wildlife grants, which 
basically, according to the Wildlife Coalition, will never get to the 
States because it will take 3 years to come up with a plan, and then 
when the States come up with a plan, it will take so much longer for it 
to be approved, so this $50 million is not really worth much at this 
point.
  The State wildlife grants, the North American wetlands conservation, 
science programs, forest legacy, and additional planning inventory and 
monitoring, all of those funds have to compete in this ``trust fund'' 
for limited resources.
  Instead of being able to count on money every year for the endangered 
species fund, instead of being able to count on a real State wildlife 
fund on which local officials can count and on which preservationists 
and conservationists can count, it is not there. Forest legacy cannot 
count on it. The chances of funding it are minimal.
  I will go to something Members can appreciate because they heard so 
much from their mayors. The next category is urban and historic 
preservation.
  It includes the program we know as UPARR. It includes a very popular 
and effective program called Historic Preservation. It includes Urban 
and Community Forestry and the Youth Conservation Corps.

[[Page S9810]]

  They are good programs. The problem is, they have to compete for the 
same pot of money, fighting among themselves. We had hoped, and we 
thought, it was time--and we still believe it is time, the CARA 
Coalition--to get the environmental community and the business 
community and the recreational activists and enthusiasts in this Nation 
working together. That is what the CARA Coalition represents. Instead 
of fighting over crumbs, instead of fighting over very limited amounts 
of money, we were hoping to build, first, on a relatively small amount 
of money but build together. And as the budget provided, as political 
opportunities provided, we were willing to come back and wait and be 
patient and get additional moneys for these programs.
  But to force these groups, which have had to live on so little for so 
long, to have to compete amongst each other every year, year in and 
year out, I think is far less than what we could have done and what we 
should have done.
  We do not probably have the support to defeat this Interior 
appropriations bill. I would have to say, there are some very good 
things in this bill. The appropriators worked very hard. I know it is 
very tough to try to put together a bill that can meet the approval of 
over 500 Members--both in the House and in the Senate--representing 
different parties and different interests.
  (Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire assumed the chair.)
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I want to just say how much I respect our leader, 
Senator Byrd, and the work that he and his staff have put in. But I 
believe it is important--and I feel compelled as the leader of the CARA 
Coalition in the Senate--to point out that there are real differences. 
And those differences really matter to environmental groups, to 
wildlife groups, to coastal impact assistance organizations that are 
fighting for coastal impact assistance and more acknowledgment of the 
needs of our coasts. And it matters to parents, to volunteers, and to 
community organizations.
  So I think that we should be truthful and honest--and I am not saying 
that people have not been truthful and honest, but I do think we have 
to be very clear that while this trust fund could potentially be a 
beginning, it is not nearly where we need to be in terms of delivering 
a real legacy for this Nation, a legacy of which Republicans can be 
proud, a legacy of which Democrats can be proud, a legacy of which this 
President can be proud.
  So I want to take a few minutes, if I could--and I know we have quite 
a bit of time and no time limit--so I would like to take a moment to go 
through this large binder here to talk about our coalition because 
there is still time remaining in this session. We do not know whether 
we are going to be in for this week, whether we may be here for another 
2 weeks, or another 3 weeks. There are still many serious negotiations 
going on between the House and the Senate, between congressional 
appropriators and the White House, on a variety of issues that are 
important to our Nation.
  Some of those issues have to do with health care; some of them have 
to do with education; some of them have to do with transportation. So 
we have time.
  I have come to the floor to try to explain, in my remarks, the 
differences between what the Interior bill has laid down and for what 
the CARA Coalition was hopeful.
  I also want to point out and add to the Record this extraordinary 
coalition that has been supporting this legislation, and to ask them to 
use the time remaining to call the leadership, Senator Lott, Senator 
Daschle, and the President himself, and say thank you for the work that 
we have done. But let's not miss this opportunity to do better. Let's 
not miss this opportunity to do better this year, and to hopefully 
build in the years to come on what the Conservation and Reinvestment 
Act really envisions for our Nation.
  Since I am a Senator from Louisiana, I want to thank this 
extraordinary list of supporters from Louisiana who are registered here 
in this book. This book is actually a book of all the States. There are 
5,000 organizations--an unprecedented coalition, of, as I said, 
Governors, mayors, county officials, conservation and wildlife 
organizations, sportsmen's groups, parks and recreation advocates, 
business and industry groups, historic preservationists, and soccer and 
youth sports organizations that have called on us to act.
  I want them to know that I have heard their message. I want them to 
know that 63 Senators have heard their message. I want them to know 
that Chairman Murkowski and the ranking member, Senator Bingaman, have 
heard their message. We want to work with them in the remaining weeks 
of this session, and for as long into the future as it takes to 
actually get an environmental legacy for this country of which we can 
all be proud.
  Let me just say, in this book is a letter to each of the Senators, 
signed by anywhere from 50 to literally hundreds of organizations in 
their States, urging them to adopt CARA, the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act, the principles outlined in CARA.
  I thank, particularly, from my State of Louisiana, for his 
extraordinary leadership, our Secretary of Natural Resources, Jack 
Caldwell, who works for a Republican Governor, Gov. Mike Foster. In our 
State this has truly been a bipartisan effort.
  I thank our Louisiana Wildlife Federation; the Coalition to Restore 
Coastal Louisiana, which produced this extraordinary document, for 
their work and help and advice through this process.
  I thank our Lieutenant Governor, who is a colleague of mine, and a 
good friend, Kathleen Blanco, and her Office of State Parks.
  I particularly thank the Louisiana Chapter of the Sierra Club that 
spoke out early in support of this effort.
  I thank the Louisiana Legislature that was the first legislative body 
in the Nation to adopt a resolution in favor of the Conservation 
Reinvestment Act. And many State legislatures around our Nation have 
followed that show of support.
  Almost every elected official in our State--particularly, I want to 
single out Mayor Marc Morial, the mayor of New Orleans, who will be 
leading the U.S. Conference of Mayors next year as chairman and a 
leading member of that organization, for his outstanding advocacy for 
UPARR and for other portions of the CARA legislation.
  I thank Jefferson Parish President Tim Coulon, who is a Republican. 
Again, our partnership has been quite bipartisan in Louisiana. I thank 
him.
  We have led this effort, but we have been joined by many States in 
the Union, by many officials from all parts of this Nation.
  Just for the record, I want to read a few of the groups from the 
State of Mississippi that have been extraordinary and helpful in this--
and to thank Senator Trent Lott for his support--and to continue to 
encourage him and our leader, Senator Daschle, to find whatever avenues 
are necessary to build on the good work that has been done this year in 
this regard. There are actually pages and pages of supporters from 
Mississippi.
  I will only read out the very top few, but there are literally--it 
looks to be over 200 supporters from Mississippi, the first being 
Mississippi Heritage Trust, Mississippi Department of Wildlife 
Fisheries and Parks, Mississippi Wildlife Federation, the Chapter of 
Wildlife Society, the Chapter of American Planning Association, the 
School of Architecture for Mississippi State--and I could go on through 
this--the city of Hattiesburg, the city of Laurel, the Keep Jackson 
Beautiful Coalition, literally hundreds of organizations in 
Mississippi.

  For the Record, I will recite some of the organizations from South 
Dakota because the leader has been on our side. Both Senator Daschle 
and Senator Tim Johnson were so helpful in this effort. We also have 
pages and pages of organizations: Governor Bill Janklow, the South 
Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, the South Dakota Parks and 
Recreation Association, the South Dakota Conservation Officers 
Association, Beadle County Master Gardeners, the Beadle County 
Sportsmen's Club, the Optimist Club of Huron. Throughout their entire 
State, from mayors to elected officials to conservation organizations, 
they have let their voice be heard. I want the South Dakota supporters 
to know that their leader has heard them, has

[[Page S9811]]

been supportive, and has been very helpful.
  I also thank our House colleagues: Chairman Young from Alaska; the 
ranking member, George Miller of California; John Dingell of Michigan, 
who has been an outstanding advocate for CARA; from my State 
particularly, Billy Tauzin, who represents south Louisiana and is an 
excellent supporter of CARA; and Chris John, who has been very helpful, 
a member of the committee in the House. We have had a coalition of 
Senators and House Members, of elected officials around the Nation.
  Since the session is not over yet, our fight is not over. We 
recognize that we can't have everything we have asked for, but we 
recognize that we would never get anywhere if we didn't ask. If we had 
not put this effort forward, we might never get to a real trust fund 
for the environment for our Nation. I think the effort has been worth 
pursuing and the effort is still worth pursuing.
  I am not going to ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. Some 
of them may do that for their own reasons. Senator Fitzgerald and 
others who don't think there are enough property rights protections 
may, for their own purposes, want to do that. I probably will cast a 
vote against the Interior bill because it falls short of what we want.
  But this is a democratic process. We believe what we are fighting for 
is in the right direction. We believe the CARA Coalition represents 
truly a bipartisan effort that can gather the support of not only 
Federal officials but State officials. And we believe that this is, in 
fact, a beginning. There is still time left to build on it. I am hoping 
leaders from other committees of the Senate can potentially give some 
support, as they have been from the beginning, and help as we try to 
put our best foot forward and move ahead on this legislation.
  I will go over some of the other numbers in which some of my 
colleagues may be interested on this particular bill. As I said 
earlier, the basis of CARA was to give guaranteed funding in certain 
categories for environmental programs. Although this trust fund lays 
down broad categories, they are not specific enough so that people can 
actually depend on them and States can depend on them.
  For instance, under the land acquisition part of this bill, let's say 
for Arizona, in this conference committee report there are about $15 
million for land acquisition. Under the CARA proposal, as compromised 
between the House and Senate, Arizona would have received and could 
have counted on approximately $47 million each year.
  Arkansas--and Senator Lincoln has been an outstanding supporter of 
CARA--under the land portion of this bill actually gets zero money. 
This is legislation for billions of dollars that are earmarked for 
other places, but under this trust fund concept, Arkansas gets actually 
zero. Under CARA, they would have a guarantee of $14.9 million.

  Colorado in this bill has $5.3 million. Under CARA, they would have 
$46 million each year for the State PILT, for payment in lieu of taxes, 
for land acquisition at the State level, not directed by Federal 
agencies but at the State level. They would have had money for historic 
preservation and for urban parks for cities such as Denver and others 
in Colorado.
  Connecticut has $1.6 million approximately. They would have had $17 
million of guaranteed funding.
  Delaware has $1.3 million; under CARA, $14 million.
  Georgia, which, according to our records, has about $650,000 for land 
acquisition projects, would have had $32 million under the Conservation 
and Reinvestment Act.
  Hawaii, which has $2 million in this bill, would have counted on 
about $29 million a year.
  Idaho, which has about $7.5 million, would have gotten $39 million a 
year, primarily in PILT payments, some on the State side of land and 
water, and some in other areas.
  Illinois, which is a large State, a very important State in our 
Nation, and one of the most populated States, under this trust fund has 
zero money allocated for this year but would have had $38 million every 
year under CARA.
  Indiana has $3.8 million, as opposed to our proposal for $25 million.
  As I read through some of these numbers--I would like to read through 
them all for all the States--let me say that the underlying bill on the 
trust fund has approximately the same amount of money the CARA 
Coalition desired.
  Our coalition wants to be respectful and appreciative of budget 
constraints. We recognize there are a great many needs in this Nation, 
from support for teachers and schools to support for health care, to 
the lockbox for Social Security and Medicare. We have examined the 
state of the budget. But we believe we could have spent and still 
believe that half of 1 percent of the surplus for an environmental 
trust fund that we could count on year in and year out was not too much 
to ask for. In fact, the appropriators have basically agreed with that 
concept because that is the amount of money they have actually put in 
this bill.
  The problem is, the framework they put in forces organizations to 
compete year in and year out, not being able to depend on money. It 
well underfunds PILT, payment in lieu of taxes, which is so important 
to our Western States. The underlying bill gives all of the money, or 
85 percent of it or more, to Federal agencies and shortchanges our 
Governors and our mayors and our local elected officials. And it does 
not fund, as clearly as it should, some of the other important programs 
we have outlined as authorizers in our compromise between the House and 
the Senate.
  (Mr. GREGG assumed the chair.)
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, if I may retain the floor.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend, we have Senator Dorgan, Senator Craig, and 
others wishing to speak. No one wants to take away the time the Senator 
deserves on this issue. Can she give us an idea of how much time she is 
going to take?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I will take probably another 10 minutes, and then I 
will yield back my time, if I am able to, to Senator Fitzgerald, who 
continues to want time on the floor. We can check with Senator 
Fitzgerald.
  Mr. President, I will continue to read some of this into the Record.
  Iowa, for instance, is the only State of the Union to date that has 
not received any money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 30 
years, as the records will reflect. This year, Iowa has $600,000. Under 
CARA, we could have made a commitment of approximately $11 million per 
year.
  Kansas--and Senator Roberts has been a terrific supporter of CARA, 
and I am appreciative of his support, particularly for the wildlife 
portion of our bill--gets zero in the trust fund for this year. Kansas 
would have gotten about $11.9 million under CARA.
  Kentucky, $2.5 million; $15 million under CARA.
  Maine, $1 million under this bill for this year; $31.9 million would 
have been directed to Maine under the CARA proposal.
  Maryland, which sits on the shores of the great Chesapeake Bay--an 
area that deserves, in my opinion, a great deal more attention, and the 
local officials in the various States around the Chesapeake have done a 
wonderful job, and there has been much help from the Federal level, but 
we can still do more to protect that important ecosystem in our 
Nation--Maryland gets $1.2 million. Under CARA, they would have gotten 
$28 million a year.
  Massachusetts, about $1.5 million; under CARA, $35 million.
  Michigan, $1.1 million; under CARA, $42 million.
  Minnesota, $2.8 million; under CARA, $29 million.
  Missouri, $3.5 million; under CARA, $26.2 million.
  Montana, $6.5 million; under CARA, $47.8 million.
  Nebraska--and Senator Kerrey has been a wonderful supporter and very 
helpful in terms of arguing that States and local governments should 
have a say as we divide this money annually and should be able to count 
on something and not have to wait until October, which costs the 
taxpayers more and which is difficult at the State level. Nebraska has 
a grand total of $400,000 for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
Under CARA, they would have gotten about $14.5 million.

[[Page S9812]]

  Nevada, which is the State of my good colleague, Senator Reid, got $2 
million. CARA would have brought them $37 million. A lot of that money 
would have been for PILT payments because the Senator represents a 
State where the Federal Government owns 92 percent of the land.
  So it is our obligation to provide money for those local units in 
Nevada which lose revenues when the Federal Government takes over land 
from the private sector. They would have benefited from the formula 
that would have acknowledged that and tried to, in some ways, make them 
whole by improving their PILT payments. They would get $38 million 
under CARA; instead, they get $2 million.
  New Hampshire, a small State but a very important State, under this 
bill gets $3.6 million; under CARA, the total it would have received is 
$17 million.
  New Jersey, the Garden State, with a Republican Governor whom I 
admire a good deal, Governor Whitman, just passed--and I am sure with 
Democratic help--a bond issue to provide over a billion dollars for 
Saving Open Spaces in New Jersey. They are one of the most populated 
States and are trying to preserve the farmland they have left and the 
green spaces. That is very important to many people along the east 
coast, the west coast, the interior, and the coastal communities. They 
passed a billion dollar, multiyear effort. I believe, and the CARA 
coalition believes, we should try to match that effort. Instead, under 
this bill, we have given New Jersey $2 million. CARA would have 
provided them a $40 million partnership every year.

  New Mexico--and Senator Bingaman has been an outspoken advocate and a 
ranking member on our side--gets $4.7 million. It would be $44.9 
million under CARA.
  I know my time is going to be running short. In a moment, I will be 
prepared to yield my time back to Senator Fitzgerald, who had the 
floor. I was taking some time from him. I say to our floor leader, I 
will yield back some time to Senator Fitzgerald.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that purpose?
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, for a question.
  Mr. REID. I just have a parliamentary inquiry. The Senator would not 
lose the floor. I have a question to ask the Chair.
  Is the parliamentary situation that the Senator from Illinois has the 
floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I am going to continue speaking about 
this $120 million proposed Abraham Lincoln Library in Illinois. I 
realize my colleague from Idaho wishes to be recognized. What I am 
going to ask is unanimous consent that the Senator from Idaho be 
recognized for 10 minutes at this time and that I then be re-
recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the reason I 
say that is, there is a unanimous consent agreement already in effect, 
and the Senator from North Dakota wishes to speak as well. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Continuing on, Mr. President, to bring the Senate 
back up to date, we are talking about a proposed Abraham Lincoln 
Library in downtown Springfield, IL, that would cost approximately $120 
million.
  The library would be one of the most expensive buildings in the city 
of Springfield. The estimated value of the State capitol in Springfield 
is, I believe, $78 million, in inflation-adjusted dollars. This library 
would be approximately half the size of the State capitol, but it is a 
substantial building. It is also going to be very close to the 
Renaissance Springfield Hotel, which we have been examining in detail 
this afternoon.
  The reason I am concerned or have an objection to the conference 
committee report now before the Senate is that the conference committee 
report authorizes $50 million in Federal funding for the Abraham 
Lincoln site but does not carry the requirement that passed out of the 
Senate that the project be competitively bid in accordance with Federal 
law. Instead, it would appear the money that is authorized in the 
conference committee report--instead of having a competitive bid 
requirement, it says that the $50 million is authorized to go to an 
entity that will be selected later which would design and construct the 
library.
  The language does not make clear that the entity would be a 
governmental entity. It is possible, based on reading the conference 
report, that the $50 million could be channeled to private sources. 
Presumably, that would not happen however. Presumably, the money would 
be given to the State of Illinois.
  We have reviewed what would happen if the money were given to the 
State of Illinois, how the State of Illinois would award construction 
contracts. Presumably, the State of Illinois would turn the project 
over to its Capital Development Board. We reviewed and examined earlier 
today a giant loophole in the Capital Development Board--the statute on 
procurement that governs the Capital Development Board. They have a 
right to opt out of competitive bidding. Apparently, in the statute, 
they can just decide they are not going to have competitive sealed bids 
on the project.
  That loophole gives me pause for the reason that I thought we ought 
to have a tighter set of restrictions. I proposed an amendment that 
would require that the Federal competitive bid guidelines be attached 
to the project. I think that would take care of the problem. We are 
examining in detail the concerns I have and some of the red flags that 
have occurred to me with this project.
  I spent 6 years in the Illinois State Senate in Springfield. I have a 
pretty good idea of how State government operates. I am familiar with 
many of the people who are involved with this project. After taking a 
very close look at the project, it originally started out as a $40 
million project, then went to a $60 million project. At one time they 
were talking about a $140-something million project; now it is back 
down to a $115 million or a $120 million project. They are seeking $50 
million from the State of Illinois, $50 million from the Federal 
Government, and $10 million in essentially tax breaks from the city of 
Springfield, and possibly the contribution of some land.
  They are, in addition, creating a not-for-profit corporation that was 
filed with the office of the Illinois secretary of state in June of 
this year. They have recently made, are making, or have made--it is not 
clear which--a request to become registered as an official charity. 
They could solicit and retain contributions for the Lincoln Library 
Foundation. They have set an ambitious goal for the foundation of 
raising somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 or $55 million.
  I received from published reports that the foundation's board of 
directors appear to be Mrs. Julie Cellini, who is the head of the 
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, and Mrs. Laura Ryan, the first 
lady of the State of Illinois.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will my friend from Illinois yield for a 
question without losing his right to the floor?
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Illinois has the floor. The Senator from 
North Dakota, under a unanimous consent agreement, has a right to speak 
when the Senator finishes. The Senator from Idaho wishes to speak for 
10 minutes. I am wondering if the Senator from Illinois would agree 
that Senator Craig could speak now for 10 minutes, with the Senator 
from Illinois retaining his right to the floor, and at such time as 
Senator Dorgan comes to the floor we allow him to speak for up to 20 
minutes.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I would go along with that as long as I could be 
recognized upon the completion of the remarks of the Senator from Idaho 
and upon the completion of the remarks of Senator Dorgan, and that my 
recognition would count as a continuation of the speech I am now 
delivering on the Senate floor.
  Mr. REID. That was the intent of the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9813]]

  Mr. REID. As I understand it, the Senator from Idaho is now going to 
be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank both Senators and the Senator from 
Illinois for yielding. It certainly was his prerogative not to yield 
because he controls the time, and I appreciate that, and the Senator 
from Nevada for accommodating me and working out the differences.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I had hoped that I would be able to respond 
in part while the Senator from Louisiana was on the floor speaking 
about her concerns about the CARA legislation. She certainly has made 
every effort to move that legislation, which is important to her State.
  Both the Senator from Louisiana and I serve on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee on which that legislation was formed. She has 
always been courteous. We have worked closely together on the issue.
  I could not and do not support CARA as it is currently crafted and as 
it was voted out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I said 
very early on to the citizens of my State and to my colleagues on that 
committee that I would strongly oppose any bill that created a Federal 
entitlement that allowed the Federal Government to own more of the 
State of Idaho. The Federal Government already owns nearly 64 percent 
of my State. And this year you watched Federal forests in my State 
burn, with tremendous fire and heat, causing the destruction of the 
environment and resources. My State forests did not burn. The private 
forests in Idaho did not burn because they were managed. They were 
thinned. They are healthy, growing, dynamic forests that provide 
marvelous habitat and quality water to our streams, to our fisheries, 
and to the life-style of my beautiful State.
  Two weeks ago, I was in a helicopter flying over the nearly 1.2 
million acres of charred national forests in my State--charred almost 
to a point of nonrecognition. It will take a decade or more for the 
natural environment to begin to return. That could have been avoided to 
some degree, if the Forest Service and its management had not become an 
agency of benign neglect, which had simply turned its back on these 
living environments, and had helped Mother Nature to improve them in a 
way that they would not have burned in such a catastrophic fashion.
  The reason I say that is because many want the Federal Government to 
own more land. Somehow the Federal Government's ownership has in some 
people's minds become synonymous with quality environment. That is 
simply not true today.
  Nearly 40 million acres of national forest land are in a dead or 
dying condition--bug-infested, overpopulated with trees, and as a 
result drought stricken, with the health of the trees declining and the 
health of the forests faltering.
  Is that a way to manage lands? No, it isn't. The Senator from 
Louisiana knows that. She knows my strong opposition to additional 
ownership of Federal property in my State. She worked with me. She 
worked with me very closely to try to change that equation, and we 
simply could not get that done.
  That is why we did something different in this Interior 
appropriations bill. It is not CARA and it is not land legacy, but it 
does recognize the importance of spending money for certain resource 
values, for certain wildlife habitat values, for certain coastal needs 
of the kind the Senator from Louisiana has for the general well-being 
of the environment with moneys coming from offshore oil royalties, many 
of them generated in the gulf south of her State and out into the ocean 
beyond Louisiana. On that, she and I do not disagree. But I will 
continue to be a strong opponent of an attitude or a philosophy and an 
effort to fund an attitude and a philosophy that somehow if the Federal 
Government owns the land, it is going to be better protected. In my 
State of Idaho, because nearly 64 percent is owned by the Federal 
Government, they also dictate the economy of my State.
  Today we had a hearing in the Small Business Committee about the 
impact of forest policies on all of the small communities of my State. 
I chair the Forestry Subcommittee of this Senate. We have held over 100 
hearings since 1996 examining the character of decision-making in the 
U.S. Forest Service and that they ignore small business today, and they 
turn their back on small communities that adjoin those forests.
  Is it any wonder why nearly all of those small communities in Idaho 
and across the Nation today associated with public forests have 14 and 
15 percent unemployment while the rest of our country flourishes 
because of the high-tech economy? No. It is quite obvious that is what 
is happening because this Government and this administration have 
locked the door on the U.S. forested land and turned their back and 
walked away. With that, thousands of jobs and 45,000 schoolchildren in 
rural schools across the Nation are deprived of the money that would 
have come to them by an active management plan of the U.S. Forest 
Service because of long-term policies that allowed counties and school 
districts to share in those revenues.
  I can't stand here as someone representing the State of Idaho and 
say: Give the Federal Government more money to buy more land in the 
State of Idaho to make it Federal. I can't do that in good conscience, 
and I won't.
  I am joined with my western colleagues to tell the Senator from 
Louisiana, somehow it has to be done differently. I am not going to 
suggest what we do in this bill is answer the problems or concerns of 
the Senator from Louisiana. I think it probably isn't.
  But I will say it is no longer an entitlement. It is not automatic 
for 15 years. We do not give this administration or any future 
administration half a billion worth of cash a year to go out and buy 
more and more land to turn into forest fires or dying habitat for 
wildlife because they won't actively manage it and care for it.
  There is a lot of money in here to help our national parks. There is 
money for urban parks. There is money for coastal acquisitions. There 
is a great deal of money--$1.8 billion, nearly $2 billion worth. A 
chart shows it ratchets it up over the next number of years to nearly 
$2.4 billion. It is not as originally envisioned by the CARA Coalition, 
but it is a great deal of what they asked for.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for clarification?
  Mr. CRAIG. I have very limited time. I apologize.
  I am not in any way--how do I say this--taking offense at what the 
Senator from Louisiana has said. We have worked very closely on this 
issue. She and I held fundamental disagreement on one portion of the 
bill. I made an effort to change that. I made an effort to have no net 
gain of Federal lands in the States. Willing seller, willing buyer--all 
of those kinds of things we worked to get. We couldn't get them.
  So I have fought, as other colleagues have fought, not to allow CARA 
to come to the floor this year for a vote.
  Let me talk more about something else before my time is up. I 
mentioned that nearly 1.2 million acres of Federal land burned in my 
State this year, beautiful forested land that was in trouble 
environmentally, and when Mother Nature came along and struck with her 
violence, it all went up in smoke.
  There is a lot of money in this bill to begin to deal with those 
problems, a great deal of money in this bill to pay off the fire 
expenditures that are natural to do so. A lot of this money is to pay 
back the expenses that were incurred this year, the millions and 
millions of dollars spent each day for nearly 60 days across this 
country during the peak of the fire season when the skies of Idaho were 
gray to black, as it was true in other States across this Nation. There 
is a lot of money in this bill for that purpose.
  There is also additional money in this bill, new language, and new 
policy, on which Senator Domenici of New Mexico and I worked with a lot 
of others, to try to create an active management scheme that will allow 
in areas where there are now urban dwellers--we call it the urban 
wildland interface--which I will come back to.
  I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding. This is an important 
bill. We have addressed a lot of the problems. I hope my colleagues 
will join in supporting the passage of the Interior appropriations 
conference report.

[[Page S9814]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, reviewing again the proposed Abraham 
Lincoln Library in Springfield, IL, I emphasize the magnitude of the 
project. It is a proposed $120 million project. It started as a $40 
million project, went up to $60 million, and now it is at $120 million. 
At one time, it was up to $140 million.
  Reviewing the cost of other important buildings in the city of 
Springfield, the estimated cost, adjusted for inflation:
  The State capitol building built in 1868 to 1888, $70 million.
  The Willard Ice Building, I believe for the State Department of 
Revenue, a very large State office building built in 1981 to 1984, took 
3 years to construct, $70 million;
  The Prairie Capitol Convention Center, a large convention center, 
built in 1975 to 1979, $60 million.
  This Abraham Lincoln Library will be one of the largest, most 
important buildings in the city of Springfield. I am supporting the 
project. However, I want the city of Springfield to get a $120 million 
library out of the project, not a $50 million library that just happens 
to cost $120 million.
  It is for that reason I have tried, and the Senate has tried, to 
insist that the project be competitively bid. The Senate has gone on 
record with the legislation that cleared the full Senate last night, 
unanimously requiring, with our authorization of $50 million for this 
project, that the Federal rules of competitive bidding, which are set 
forth in this volume and are very extensive, very well thought out, 
were worked on by then-Senator Bill Cohen from Maine, now the Secretary 
of Defense--a lot of thought has gone into these rules. A lot of 
refinements have been made over many years. They have had to correct 
problems, and they have gone back to them repeatedly.
  It has been a great focus of many Senators and Congresspeople in 
Washington. The intent of the Federal rules is to try to eliminate 
political favoritism in the awarding of construction contracts. The 
House has now in the conference committee, with provisions they have 
inserted into the conference committee, the same authorization that the 
Senate has backed. However, they struck the language requiring that 
Federal competitive bidding guidelines be followed.
  The money is supposed to go to an entity that will be selected later. 
It is not clear exactly to whom the $50 million taxpayer money will go. 
It is interesting that Washington passes legislation sending out the 
money without saying to whom it is going; that is what this provision 
does. One would think we would be more careful with the taxpayer money 
and we would know--at least for sure it would be nailed down in law--
who was getting the money. Presumably the money would wind up in the 
hands of the State of Illinois, and if it wound up in the State of 
Illinois, they would probably give it to their Illinois Capital 
Development Board for the Illinois Capital Development Board to 
construct the project in accordance with the Illinois procurement code.
  Reviewing for the Senators who have just arrived, the Illinois 
procurement code was at one time one of the weakest, perhaps, in the 
country. It was strengthened a few years ago, in late 1997. I think 
changes were made for the better. I supported legislation--I believe it 
was H.R. 1633--that strengthened those guidelines. When we started to 
look and study in a more detailed manner how the Federal money would 
go, and considered what would happen if it went to the State Capital 
Development Board, we looked carefully at the State's procurement code 
and a couple of glitches popped out at us.
  I want to review those glitches. The State's position on this is that 
if the money goes to the Capital Development Board and they build the 
library, they have to, under their law, use competitive bidding. It 
turns out, however, that contrary to the Capital Development Board's 
assertions, in fact, a contradiction appears in the statute governing 
the Capital Development Board. The portion of the procurement code that 
governs the Capital Board is 30.I.L.C.S.5500/30-a. It says:

       Other methods. The Capital Development Board shall 
     establish by rule construction purchases that may be made 
     without competitive sealed bidding and the most competitive 
     alternate method of source selection that shall be used.

  That is a great big loophole in the Capital Development Board 
procurement code. Thus, there is the possibility that if we give this 
money to the State and do not attach the Federal competitive bidding 
guidelines, the State could simply opt out of competitively bidding the 
project.
  That troubled me greatly, given the magnitude of the project and 
given a long history in Illinois of what I would say is a fairly acute 
problem with procurement contracts--in construction and in leasing, 
particularly. It occurred to me that we needed tighter safeguards.
  There is another general problem I addressed earlier with the State 
procurement code, and that is in advance of bidding, even when they do 
opt to competitively bid, they don't have to tell the bidders what 
weight and relative importance they are going to attach to the various 
criteria they must set forth. The State must tell the bidders by what 
criteria they are going to judge the bids and make awards, but they are 
not going to tell you what weight they assign to the various criteria.
  The problem with that is that it is like trying to pin keylime pie to 
the wall. You can come in with the low bid and the State can say we 
gave more weight, actually, to the experience of this other bid. It 
costs a little bit more, but we give more weight to their experience, 
or vice versa; they could almost always rationalize the acceptance of 
any bid after the fact and make it very hard to challenge a decision by 
the State to not accept your bid. Of course, in contrast, the Federal 
code in that regard is markedly superior. It does a much better job at 
limiting the discretion of the procurement officers and it does that by 
requiring that sealed bid solicitations disclose in advance all 
significant bid evaluation factors and the relative importance of each 
factor and whether nonprice factors, when combined, will be accorded 
more, equal, or less weight than price.
  Of course, the State rules, which do not require the relative 
importance for weight of the factors to be disclosed, would allow a 
purchasing officer to pick any bid he wants and explain his decision by 
saying the one factor for which that bid was better was the most 
important factor, and any decision could be rationalized after the 
fact. It would be very hard to challenge any award the State made.
  Perhaps that could be why, after there have been so many articles and 
investigative reports written about seemingly, on their face, 
exorbitant rents or prices on projects, that you don't actually have 
much of a challenge or any history of prosecutions on that. So I feel 
the State code really is deficient in those two key respects. I feel 
the Senate did the right thing by attaching a requirement that the 
Federal competitive bidding guidelines attach to the project. There is 
greater protection for the taxpayers if we do that.

  We have reviewed the history of projects in Springfield. We talked 
about a State loan given to a partnership that constructed the 
Springfield Renaissance Hotel. That hotel is located close to where the 
Abraham Lincoln Library is proposed to be. We talked about some of the 
problems that have arisen from time to time in the State of Illinois. 
My goal here is to try to tighten the law so we are not setting the 
table for another problem to occur with this project, which is, after 
all, being built as a monument to ``Honest Abe'' Lincoln, perhaps the 
greatest President in history. We want to make sure the taxpayers get 
the value of all the resources they are contributing.
  We have reviewed how the State previously gave out loans to build the 
hotels. Those loans were never fully repaid. I believe there is still a 
substantial outstanding balance. We have, thus, in that manner, begun 
laying before the Senate the context in which my deep concern arises by 
the lose authorizing language in the conference committee report before 
the Senate.
  Now, we read the article ``Taxpayers Stuck With $30 Million Hotel 
Tab.'' I want to turn to an article that appeared in the Chicago Sun 
Times on October 6, 1996. It is an article by Tim Novak, Chuck 
Neubauer, and Dave

[[Page S9815]]

McKinney. If I may read this article, the headline is:

       Cellini State Capitol's Quiet Captain of Clout; Dealmaker 
     Built Empire Working in Background.
       Outside the state Capitol, William Cellini is just another 
     businessman.
       Inside, Cellini is one of the most powerful people in state 
     government, a man who has built a personal empire worth at 
     least $50 million through his ties to the governor's office 
     dating back to 1968.
       This 62-year-old son of a Springfield policeman is perhaps 
     the most feared, respected and invisible man in those halls 
     of power.
       He's played the system brilliantly--and legally.
       Cellini has never run for state office, but he's helped run 
     state offices--reviewing choices for the governor's Cabinet, 
     getting scores of people state jobs and at one time even 
     approving all federal appointments in Illinois.
       His unique access has put him in position for a staggering 
     succession of state-financed deals.
       He is an owner of the state's first riverboat casino. He 
     got state money to build a money-losing luxury hotel where he 
     throws fund-raisers for Gov. Edgar. He got state funds to 
     build 1,791 apartments in Chicago, the suburbs and Downstate. 
     He manages offices that he developed for state agencies. He 
     invests pension funds for state teachers. And that is just 
     part of his empire.
       But most of all Cellini has had clout with Illinois 
     governors starting with Richard Ogilvie through James 
     Thompson and now Edgar.

  Keep in mind, this is an article from 1996. George Ryan is the 
current Governor of Illinois. Reading again from the article:

       And those relationships have been mutually profitable: the 
     Governors got cash for their campaigns and Cellini became a 
     multimillionaire.
       ``I can't recall someone similar to Bill Cellini having 
     that access. And for that long as well,'' said Donald Totten, 
     the Schaumburg Township Republican committeeman who was 
     President Reagan's Midwest coordinator.
       ``He seems to always have the ears of governors, which are 
     always the most powerful people in government,'' Totten said. 
     ``Thompson-Cellini, Ogilvie-Cellini. Edgar's got his sister 
     on in a major job, so he has influence there.''
       Cellini's sister Janis is Edgar's patronage director, in 
     charge of hiring people for the highest level jobs. Both 
     Cellinis accompanied Edgar on a two-week trade mission to 
     Asia last month.
       Cellini has clout. But money is the foundation of his far-
     reaching empire. Specifically, his ability to raise cash--
     primarily from road builders--while rarely giving any of his 
     own money. Cellini raises hundreds of thousands of dollars, 
     mainly for those Republicans, primarily candidates for 
     governor, but also for those seeking the White House like 
     Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bob Dole.
       Throughout it all, Cellini has been granted extraordinary 
     powers, clout that elected officials usually reserve for 
     themselves.
       When Edgar took office, Cellini interviewed candidates for 
     the Cabinet and made recommendations--particularly for state 
     departments that do business with Cellini's companies.
       ``The reason he's involved in Cabinet selections is Bill 
     Cellini has seen more Cabinet members come and go. He has 
     good instincts about what it takes to be a good Cabinet 
     member,'' said state Sen. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale), who 
     spent three years as Edgar's first chief of staff.
       Cellini has also spent nearly 30 years helping scores of 
     people get jobs in state agencies, creating what some call a 
     patronage army more loyal to Cellini than any governor.
       ``He probably knows more people in state government that I 
     do,'' Thompson told the Sun-Times in 1990 as he was winding 
     down his 14 years as governor.
       Cellini's clout has gone all the way to the White House 
     based on letters and memos from the Gerald R. Ford Library. 
     Under President Ford, Cellini was in charge of all federal 
     appointments in Illinois, according to a letter from Don 
     ``Doc'' Adams, a longtime Cellini friend who was chairman of 
     the Illinois Republican Party when Ford was president.
       ``As you know Bill Cellini is the man we've designated to 
     coordinate Federal and State appointments for the state of 
     Illinois,'' Adams wrote in 1976 to Ford's personnel director, 
     Douglas Bennett.
       ``If Doc Adams is telling the White House that Bill Cellini 
     is the guy to go to in Illinois . . . Bill is operating as a 
     political boss without having to be an elected official,'' 
     said a longtime Republican who requested anonymity.
       It's hard to find people, Republican or Democrat, willing 
     to talk about Cellini and Cellini adds to the intrigue by 
     shunning the spotlight.
       Cellini ignored numerous requests from the Chicago Sun-
     Times to discuss his empire and power. Over the past few 
     years, Cellini has placed many of his financial holdings in 
     trusts to benefit his son, William Jr., 27, and daughter, 
     Claudia, 22.

  Keep in mind this article is from 1996.

       Often referred to as a Downstate Republican powerbroker, 
     Cellini has numerous business deals in Chicago and the 
     suburbs, often working with businessmen allied with Democrats 
     such as Mayor Daley.
       Cellini spends so much time in Chicago that he bought a 
     $594,000 condo on Michigan Avenue in 1993 without a mortgage. 
     He also has a $325,000 home without a mortgage in an elite 
     Springfield neighborhood. It's a long way from the 
     Springfield duplex he and his wife, Julie, shared when he 
     went to work for Ogilvie in 1969.
       ``There's no doubt he's probably done pretty well,'' Edgar 
     said. ``But there are a lot of people who have made money off 
     state government who have never been involved in politics . . 
     . who have never worked a precinct or helped a candidate.
       ``I think there's a lot of folks who are envious of Bill 
     Cellini.''


                           The Ogilvie Years

       ``When I met Bill Cellini he was a local politician. That 
     was it,'' said John Henry Altorfer, a Peoria businessman who 
     hired Cellini to manage his campaign for governor in 1968.
       Cellini (pronounced, Suh-LEE-nee), a former high school 
     physics teacher, was in his early 30s and building a 
     reputation as a Downstate power while serving his second term 
     on Springfield's City Council. Altorfer said he thought 
     Cellini could deliver Downstate votes and help him win the 
     Republican nomination for governor in a four-way race that 
     included Cook County Board President Richard Ogilvie.
       Cellini ``was very energetic and had a lot of ideas,'' said 
     Altorfer, who now lives in Arizona. ``He worked very hard for 
     me until I lost.''
       Altorfer beat Ogilvie in the Downstate counties, but 
     Ogilvie carried Cook County and won the primary. Ogilvie 
     brought Cellini along to garner Downstate support, a move 
     that has left Altorfer with lingering suspicions.
       ``Some of my friends came to me and said, `Do you think 
     Bill was secretly working for Ogilvie?' '' Altorfer said. 
     ``Ogilvie had inside information about my campaign and I 
     wasn't sure where it came from.
       ``The only person who worked for me who received anything 
     was Bill Cellini,'' Altorfer said. ``I have to believe he was 
     being repaid. I thought he had loyalties to two people, me 
     and Ogilvie.''
       Altorfer ``didn't lose because of Cellini,'' said Thomas 
     Drennan, a political advisor to Ogilvie. ``Cellini beat our 
     brains out'' in the primary.
       ``He was just an excellent organizer,'' Drennan said. ``He 
     was like a good precinct captain, but countywide.''
       Ogilvie was elected governor and he picked Cellini to 
     become the state's public works director, overseeing 
     construction of the interstate highway system that had 
     started in the 1950s.
       Cellini, who was 34, had experience with road construction, 
     having served as Springfield's streets commissioner while on 
     the City Council and as a member of the Roads and Bridges 
     Committee when he was on the Sangamon County Board.
       Cellini rose quickly under Ogilvie. Cellini headed a task 
     force that created the Illinois Department of Transportation 
     and he became the first director, overseeing a $1.6 billion 
     budget and 10,000 employees. His $40,000 salary was second 
     only to Ogilvie's.
       Cellini was also chosen to head other committees. One 
     pushed for extending the rapid transit line to O'Hare 
     Airport. Another pushed for building the Deep Tunnel, the 
     ongoing public works project to relieve flooding in Cook 
     County.
       ``He expanded his influence when he was secretary of 
     transportation,'' said Totten, who was a transportation 
     deputy under Cellini. ``He was a very powerful, behind-the-
     scenes politician in Springfield. And he still is.''
       Road construction boomed under Cellini and Ogilvie, but so 
     did allegations of collusion among road builders seeking to 
     cash in on the work. A handful of road builders were 
     convicted in the federal probe and temporarily suspended from 
     getting any more federally funded highway projects.
       The probe included accusations that Cellini's top deputies 
     used IDOT helicopters to swoop down on construction sites to 
     pick up campaign donations for Ogilvie. No state officials 
     were ever charged in the probe that continued after Ogilvie 
     lost his re-election bid in 1972 to Dan Walker, the Democrat 
     who defied Mayor Daley's machine to become governor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Illinois will 
yield at this point.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding from the colloquy with 
the Senator from Nevada is that the Senator from Illinois indicated he 
would yield to me for 20 minutes without him losing the continuity of 
his presentation and with the stipulation he be recognized upon the 
completion of my remarks.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from North Dakota now be recognized for 20 minutes and that I 
be rerecognized upon the completion of his remarks and that my 
rerecognition

[[Page S9816]]

count as a further continuation of the speech I began earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the 
Interior conference report which is before the Senate, but first I want 
to make some brief comments on a bill called CARA, the Conversation and 
Reinvestment Act.
  My colleague from the State of Louisiana and other colleagues from 
the State of Florida and many other areas of the country feel, as I do, 
that it is very important for us to try to finish this important bill 
before we finish our work this year.
  CARA is a bill dealing with conservation, preservation, and 
reinvestment in our natural resources, wildlife, parks, and public 
lands. We struggled to bring that out of the Energy Committee under the 
leadership of Senator Murkowski. My hope is, before this Congress 
adjourns, we will have the opportunity to pass it through the Senate 
and find a way to have the House of Representatives work with us to 
accept it so it can become law. It is a very important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. President, let me say a kind word about my colleague from the 
State of Washington, Senator Gorton, and also my colleague from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd.
  I come to the floor to talk about this conference report. I am on the 
Interior Subcommittee. I have told my two colleagues before--the 
chairman and the ranking member--that I think they have done an awfully 
good job. This is not easy work. It is hard work, trying to fit 
unlimited wants into limited resources. How do you do all of that? You 
have to make choices. Sometimes the choices are hard and painful, but 
you have to make choices.
  While I would like to see more investment and more spending in some 
areas that I think are critical, I must say that this year, once again, 
Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd have taken another step--a significant 
step--in addressing some of these critical needs. And it has not always 
been done in the past. So I say to them, thank you. And good for you. I 
appreciate the work you have done.
  I especially wanted to come to the floor today to speak for a few 
minutes about the issues of Indian education. I have been such a strong 
advocate of Indian schools. These schools on Indian reservations--both 
the BIA schools and the public schools on or near reservations--that do 
not have much of a tax base to help them are in desperate need of 
repair. The legislation that was brought to the floor of the Senate 
does, this time, make some significant strides in providing investments 
for those areas.
  Let me use some charts that I have shown before to demonstrate why 
this is an important issue.
  This is the Marty Indian School in Marty, SD. This picture shows what 
happens to be some of their plumbing. Take a look at that and ask if 
that is where you would be proud to send your kids to school--to an old 
70- and 80-year-old building that is in desperate condition with, 
effectively, rubber Band-Aids around their water pipes and sewer pipes.
  This is another picture of the Marty Indian School; an old rusty 
radiator with crumbling walls. Would we be proud to send our children 
into those classrooms?
  I have been to the Ojibwa Indian School many times. This is a picture 
showing the plywood that separates this building from a caved in 
foundation, which separates children from danger. Of course, many of 
the children in Ojibwa go to a series of structures, modular 
structures, that are kind of like the double-wide mobile homes.
  This picture shows the fire escape. Note the fire escape is a wooden 
set of stairs. These little children at the Ojibwa school move back and 
forth between all these modular structures, in the middle of the 
winter, with wind and snow blowing. I have been there. I have seen the 
wiring and other things that lead you to question whether those 
children are safe in those schools. We have report after report after 
report saying this school needs to be rebuilt.
  Here is a fire escape made of wooden stairs in these modular 
classrooms. These modular classrooms go inside. Again, they are in 
desperate need of repair. My point is that we need to do better than 
this.
  My two colleagues, who have put this bill together, have made a step 
forward this year in construction money and repair and renovation money 
for these schools. I say to them, thank you. I hope we can do even more 
in the coming years. But I appreciate the effort we have made this 
year.
  I will make another point about Indian education. I want to read 
something to my colleagues. The other issue that is so important to me 
is the issue of the Indian tribal colleges around this country. They 
have been such a blessing to so many people who have been left behind.
  There are so many people in this country who have been left behind, 
especially on the Indian reservations, living in poverty, living in 
communities with substantial substance abuse, violence that is the kind 
of unspeakable violence that breaks your heart.

  I have talked about a young woman on the floor of the Senate before 
named Tamara Demarais. I met her one day. Young little Tamara was 3 
years old when she was put in foster care. One person was handling 150 
cases of these children. So that person, working these cases, put 
little Tamara, at age 3, in foster care and did not check closely 
enough the family she was putting this little 3-year-old with.
  This is what happened to Tamara. At a drunken party, this little 3-
year-old girl had her hair torn out by the roots, had her arm broken, 
and her nose broken in a severe beating.
  How did that happen? Why did that happen to this little girl? Because 
somebody did not care enough or did not have the time to check to see 
whether they were putting this little girl in a family who was going to 
be harmful to her. She went to a foster home and was beaten severely at 
age 3.
  I met that little girl about 2 years later. I wonder how long it will 
take her to get over the scars of what happened to her. But it happens 
too often--the struggle, the violence, amidst the poverty. How do we 
break out from that in these circumstances?
  I want to tell you a story about tribal colleges. As the Senator from 
Washington will remember, in the full Appropriations committee in the 
Senate, I offered an amendment to add a couple million dollars. I am 
pleased to say that this funding stayed in this legislation. These 
tribal colleges are the colleges where those who have kind of been left 
behind in many cases go back to school. Often the only way they can do 
that is to have an extended family right on the reservation for child 
care and for other assistance; and then they can go to school.
  I have talked before about the woman I met who was the oldest 
graduate at a tribal college when I gave the graduation speech one day. 
This is a woman who had been cleaning the toilets in the hallways of 
the college, a single mother with four children, and no hope and no 
opportunity.
  She said to herself: I would like to graduate from this college 
somehow. So as she toiled, cleaning the school at nights, she put 
together a plan to try to figure out a way to go to that college and 
graduate. The day I showed up, she had a cap and gown and a smile on, 
because this mother of four, with the help of Pell grants and student 
aid and other things, was a college graduate. Imagine, that is what it 
does to the lives of these people.

  I will read from a letter of someone who says it better than I could.

       I grew up poor and I was considered backward by non-
     Indians.
       My home was a two-room log house in a place called the 
     ``bush'' on North Dakota's Turtle Mountain Indian 
     Reservation.
       I stuttered. I was painfully shy. My clothes were hand-me-
     downs. I was like thousands of other Indian kids growing up 
     on reservations across America.
       When I went to elementary school I felt so alone and so 
     different. I couldn't speak up for myself. My teachers had no 
     appreciation for Indian culture.
       I'll never forget that it was the lighter-skinned children 
     who were treated better. They were usually from families that 
     were better off than mine.
       My teachers called me savage.
       Even as a young child I wondered . . . What does it take to 
     be noticed and looked upon the way these other children are?
       By the time I reached 7th grade, I realized that if my life 
     was going to change for the better, I was going to have to do 
     it. Nobody else could do it for me.
       That's when the dream began. I thought of ways to change 
     things for the better--not only for myself but for my people.

[[Page S9817]]

       I dreamed of growing up to be a teacher in a school where 
     every child was treated as sacred and viewed positively, even 
     if they were poor and dirty.
       I didn't want any child to be made to feel like I did. But 
     I didn't know how hard it would be to reach the realization 
     of my dream. I almost didn't make it.
       By the time I was 17, I had dropped out of school, moved to 
     California, and had a child.
       I thought my life was over.
       But when I moved back to the reservation I made a discovery 
     that literally put my life back together.
       My sisters were attending Turtle Mountain College, which 
     had just been started on my reservation. I thought that is 
     something I could do, too, so I enrolled.
       In those days, we didn't even have a campus. There was no 
     building. Some classes met at a local alcohol rehabilitation 
     center in an old hospital building that had been condemned.
       But to me, it didn't matter much. I was just amazed I could 
     go to college. It was life-changing.
       My college friends and professors were like family. For the 
     first time in my life I learned about the language, history 
     and culture of my people in a formal education setting. I 
     felt honor and pride begin to well up inside of me.
       This was so unlike my other school experience where I was 
     told my language and culture were shameful and that Indians 
     weren't equal to others.
       Attending a tribal college caused me to reach into my inner 
     self to become what I was meant to be--to fight for my rights 
     and not remain a victim of circumstances or of anybody.
       In fact, I loved college so much that I couldn't stop. I 
     had a dream to fulfill . . . or perhaps some would call it an 
     obsession.
       This pushed me on to complete my studies at Turtle Mountain 
     College and earn a Doctorate in Education Administration from 
     the University of North Dakota.
       I've worked in education ever since, from Head Start 
     teacher's aide to college professor.
       Now I'm realizing my dream of helping Indian children 
     succeed. I am the Office of Indian Education Programs' 
     superintendent working with nine schools, three reservations, 
     and I oversee two educational contracts for two tribal 
     colleges.
       My life would not have turned out this way were it not for 
     the tribal college on my reservation.

  This is Loretta De Long. Loretta is a good friend of mine, a 
remarkable woman, a remarkable educator. She writes a letter--I have 
not read all of it, there is another page--but she writes a letter that 
describes in such wonderful, vivid detail the struggle and the 
difficulty to overcome the obstacles early in her life and the role the 
tribal college played in her life.
  The Turtle Mountain Community College is a wonderful place. I have 
been there many times. I have spoken at their commencement. They now 
have a new campus. They have people going to college there who never 
would have had a chance to get a college education, but being able to 
access the extended family on the reservation for child care and a 
range of other things, there are people getting education at this 
tribal college who would not have had the opportunity before.
  It is not just this college. It is the Sitting Bull College at Fort 
Yates. I was down there recently and helped them dedicate a new 
cultural center. There are so many good tribal colleges that are 
providing opportunity for people such as Loretta.
  There are people like Loretta who are going to schools of the type I 
described earlier. They are going to schools with heating registers 
that look like this. They are going to schools with plumbing that looks 
like this. That ought not happen. We know better than that. We can do 
better than that for these kids. It doesn't matter where you are in 
this country, when you send a kid through a schoolroom door, you ought 
to believe, as an American, that we want that child to go through the 
best classroom door in the world; we want that classroom to be one we 
are proud of.
  I have mentioned before--and if it is repetitive, tough luck--I have 
mentioned before Rosie Two Bears, who, in the third grade at 
Cannonball, looked up at me and said: Mr. Senator, are you going to 
build us a new school? Boy, do they need it. Rosie Two Bears deserves, 
as every other young child in this country, the opportunity to go to a 
school we are proud of--we, as Americans, are proud of. She goes to a 
school right near an Indian reservation, just off the site of the 
reservation, with no tax base at all. It is a public school. We need to 
fix that.
  The point is, that is sort of a long way of describing almost an 
obsession of mine--that we can't leave people behind in this country. 
This country is doing well. I am proud of that. But we can't leave 
people behind. There are some young kids, especially in this country, 
who are being left behind, going to schools that are not adequate. 
There are others who will be left behind if we don't continue to 
strengthen these tribal colleges.
  A final comment: The amount of money we provide for tribal colleges 
with this legislation will provide $3,477 per pupil, and that is an 
improvement.
  Let me finish by saying I commend the Senator from Washington and the 
Senator from West Virginia and others with whom I have worked. But the 
authorization is at the $6,000 level. And, frankly, in community 
colleges around the country--community colleges, not tribal colleges--
the average support for students is over $6,000 per student. So we are 
still well short in tribal colleges of doing what we can to make these 
the kind of institutions we all know they can be.
  I conclude by asking unanimous consent that the entire letter of Dr. 
Loretta De Long, from which I quoted, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           Turtle Mountain Agency,


                                 Turtle Mountain, North Dakota

       Dear Friend of the College Fund, I grew up poor and 
     considered backward by non-Indians.
       My home was a two-room log house in a place called the 
     ``bush'' on North Dakota's Turtle Mountain Indian 
     Reservation.
       I stuttered. I was painfully shy. My clothes were hand-me-
     downs. I was like thousands of other Indian kids growing up 
     on reservations across America.
       When I want to elementary school I felt so alone and 
     different. I couldn't speak up for myself. My teachers had no 
     appreciation for Indian culture.
       I'll never forget that it was the lighter-skinned children 
     who were treated better. They were usually from families that 
     were better off than mine.
       My teachers called me savage.
       Even as a young child I wondered . . . What does it take to 
     be noticed and looked upon the way these other children are?
       By the time I reached 7th grade I realized that if my life 
     was going to change for the better, I was going to have to do 
     it. Nobody else could do it for me.
       That's when the dream began. I thought of ways to change 
     things for the better--not only for myself but for my people.
       I dreamed of growing up to be a teacher in a school where 
     every child was treated as sacred and viewed positively, 
     even if they were poor and dirty.
       I didn't want any child to be made to feel like I did. But 
     I didn't know how hard it would be to reach the realization 
     of my dream. I almost didn't make it.
       By the time I was 17 I had dropped out of school, moved to 
     California, and had a child.
       I thought my life was over.
       But when I moved back to the reservation I made a discovery 
     that literally put my life back together.
       My sisters were attending Turtle Mountain College, which 
     had just been started on my reservation. I thought that was 
     something I could do, too, so I enrolled.
       In those days, we didn't even have a campus. There was no 
     building. Some classes met at a local alcohol rehabilitation 
     center in an old hospital building that had been condemned.
       But to me, it didn't matter. I was just amazed I could go 
     to college. It was life-changing.
       My college friends and professors were like family. For the 
     first time in my life I learned about the language, history 
     and culture of my people in a formal education setting. I 
     felt honor and pride begin to well up inside me.
       This was so unlike my prior school experience where I was 
     told my language and culture were shameful and that Indians 
     weren't equal to others.
       Attending a tribal college caused me to reach into my inner 
     self to become what I was meant to be--to fight for my rights 
     and not remain a victim of circumstance or of anybody.
       In fact, I loved college so much that I couldn't stop! I 
     had a dream to fulfill . . . or perhaps some would call it 
     an obsession.
       This pushed me on to complete my studies at Turtle Mountain 
     College and to ultimately earn a Doctorate in Education 
     Administration from the University of North Dakota.
       I've worked in education ever since, from Head Start 
     teacher's aide to college professor.
       Now I'm realizing my dream of helping Indian children 
     succeed. I am the Office of Indian Education Programs' 
     superintendent working with nine schools, three reservations, 
     and I oversee two educational contracts with two tribal 
     colleges.
       My life would not have turned out this way were it not for 
     the tribal college on my reservation.
       My situation is not unique and others feel this way as 
     well. Since 1974, when Turtle Mountain College was chartered 
     by the Turtle Mountain tribe, around 300 students have

[[Page S9818]]

     gone on to earn higher degrees. We now have educators, 
     attorneys, doctors and others who have returned to the 
     reservation. They--I should say, we--are giving back to the 
     community.
       Instead of asking people to have pity on us because of what 
     happened in our past, we are taking our future into our own 
     hands.
       Instead of looking for someone else to solve our problems, 
     we are doing it.
       There's only one thing tribal colleges need.
       With more funding, the colleges can do even more than 
     they've already achieved. We will take people off the welfare 
     rolls and end the economic depression on reservations. Tribal 
     colleges have already been successful with much less than any 
     other institutions of higher education have received.
       That is why I hope you will continue to support the 
     American Indian College Fund.
       I'm an old timer. The College Fund didn't exist when I was 
     a student. I remember seeing ads for the United Negro College 
     Fund and wishing that such a fund existed for Indian people.
       We now have our own Fund that is spreading the message 
     about tribal colleges and providing scholarships. I'm so 
     pleased. I believe the Creator meant for this to be.
       But so much more must be done. There still isn't enough 
     scholarship money available to carry students full time.
       That is my new dream *-*-* to see the day when Indian 
     students can receive four-year scholarships so they don't 
     have to go through the extremely difficult struggle many now 
     experience to get their education.
       I hope you'll keep giving, keep supporting the College 
     Fund, so that some day this dream becomes reality.
       I know it can happen because if my dream for my future came 
     true, anything is possible.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,

                                       Loretta De Long, Ed.D.,

                                         Turtle Mountain Chippewa,
                                     Superintendent for Education.

  Mr. DORGAN. I have a number of other letters from people whose 
stories are just as inspiring, about their lives and the changes in 
their lives as a result of being able to access the education 
opportunities at tribal colleges.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield for a question. The Senator from 
Illinois will retain the floor following my presentation.
  Mr. GORTON. That is correct.
  I want to thank the Senator for his compliments and to say what is 
obvious--that his dedication and commitment to his constituents in this 
connection is both praiseworthy and effective.
  Earlier in the course of this debate, the Senator from New Mexico, 
Mr. Domenici, was here to speak to the same subject. He and the Senator 
from North Dakota made a very good team. Together they persuaded the 
President to include this very significant amount of money, both for 
the construction of new Indian schools and for the repair of those that 
can appropriately be repaired or remodeled. But as the Senator from New 
Mexico pointed out, this is the first major contribution to that. I can 
say that as long as I am in this position and as long as the Senator 
from North Dakota is in his, I know we will keep this in the forefront 
of our consideration. And I tell him that we are going to try to get to 
the bottom of that priority list as well as to the top of the priority 
list.
  The Senator from North Dakota has done a good job in a good cause, 
and this bill takes a major step forward in meeting those priorities.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, may I ask how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might just conclude, I thank the Senator from 
Washington. I should certainly have, at the start of my presentation--
and I did not--given credit to President Clinton. In his budget 
request, the Senator from Washington mentioned he did start a process 
this year to say we must do better.
  So also, it seems to me, this administration deserves significant 
credit for the first steps in what I am sure will be a long journey, 
but one that we must complete. I thank the Senator from Washington and 
also the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from North 
Dakota and Washington. I appreciate this opportunity to continue 
reading an article from the Chicago Sun-Times dated October 6, 1996. 
The article is by Tim Novak, Chuck Neubauer, and Dave McKinney, 
headlined ``Cellini: State Capitol's Quiet Captain of Clout; Dealmaker 
Built Empire Working in Background.''
  As you will understand, if you listen to the articles I am reading, 
we are ultimately leading up to a tie-in back to the Abraham Lincoln 
$120 million Presidential library in Springfield, IL. The article 
earlier discussed the Ogilvie years--Governor Ogilvie's administration 
in Illinois. And where we last left off was at the beginning of the 
Walker years. Walker was the Governor of Illinois who succeeded Ogilvie 
in the early 1970s.
  Continuing with the article:
       With Walker in the governor's office, Cellini was out of a 
     job, never to return to the state payroll. But his ties to 
     state government grew under the Democratic governor.
       ``He still had all his contacts with IDOT,'' said Joe 
     Falls, a former Downstate GOP leader who ran IDOT's safety 
     programs under Cellini.
       ``Walker and all his people still needed his help and Bill 
     cooperated,'' Falls said. ``He had friends on both sides, but 
     when it came down to an election, he was always a 
     Republican.''
       Cellini became executive director of the Illinois Asphalt 
     Pavement Association, representing virtually all state road 
     builders, many engineering firms and other companies that 
     build and repair state roads. And he still runs the 
     association, serving as executive vice president.
       It's an association that has been quite beneficial for the 
     road builders and Cellini, although his salary was a modest 
     $49,140, according to the group's 1990 income tax returns.
       Under Cellini's leadership, the association members have 
     donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to governors and 
     other state officials over the years. Edgar has received at 
     least $375,000 from the association's members over the past 
     30 months. And the association's political action committee, 
     the Good Government Council, has given more than $100,000 to 
     other state officials.
       ``He and the asphalt pavers continued to play the same 
     games as always but with a Democratic administration,'' a 
     longtime Republican official said.
       ``The key to the asphalt pavers is that they get contracts 
     for their work on a predictable basis,'' the official said. 
     ``The business continued to flow and the campaign 
     contributions flowed to the Democratic governor, just like 
     the Republican governor.''
       While heading the asphalt association, Cellini developed 
     his reputation as a national transportation authority while 
     expanding his political power.
       Soon after Cellini left the state payroll, President 
     Richard M. Nixon appointed him to the National Highway 
     Advisory Committee.
       Cellini found the federal post was advantageous, personally 
     and politically. When his four-year term was set to expire in 
     March, 1976, Cellini lobbied President Gerald Ford for an 
     appoint to the National Transportation Policy Study 
     Commission.
       ``The commission has been perfect for my simultaneously 
     covering political meetings in D.C. and around the country, 
     while keeping up with my profession in transportation and 
     public works,'' Cellini wrote in a letter to Ford's personnel 
     director Douglas Bennett on March 11, 1976.
       ``Of course, I'm counting that my serving as President Ford 
     Committee's Downstate Coordinator for Illinois won't be a 
     disadvantage,'' he added in the letter obtained from the Ford 
     Library.
       Cellini got the appointment. He also was chosen to give a 
     speech seconding Ford's renomination at the 1976 Republican 
     convention.
       ``They were looking for somebody with an ethnic connection, 
     and (Ogilvie) probably recommended him,'' said Falls, who ran 
     Ford's Illinois campaign.
       Cellini was widely hailed for helping Ford win Illinois, 
     although he lost the election to Jimmy Carter, one of the few 
     times a presidential candidate won Illinois, but lost the 
     White House.
       As Cellini was expanding his power, he got into real estate 
     development and management using the name New Frontier. The 
     company specialized in building and managing apartments, 
     usually with state financing, for senior citizens. The firm 
     later branched into office buildings that were leased to the 
     state.
       In the waning days of the Walker administration, New 
     Frontier got its first state deal when Cellini secured $5.4 
     million in state funds to build a 212-unit building near the 
     state Capitol. The building includes offices for the asphalt 
     pavement association and Cellini's companies, including New 
     Frontier.
       It was the first of several real estate deals New Frontier 
     would get from state government.


                           the thompson years

       Cellini turned state government into a cottage industry 
     after the Republicans regained the governor's office with the 
     election of James R. Thompson in 1976.
       Cellini averaged more than a deal a year with the state 
     before Thompson stepped down after 14 years in office. And 
     state officials say they were probably others that no one was 
     aware of.
       Cellini's personal income soared in the early Thompson 
     years. Cellini's taxable income was $185,558 in 1978, and it 
     nearly doubled to $368,100 in 1979, according to records

[[Page S9819]]

     he filed in federal tax court. He had no taxable income in 
     1980, $27,539 in 1981 and $252,349 in 1982.
       Cellini's use of tax shelters created problems with the 
     IRS, which ordered him to pay $78,120 in back taxes for some 
     of those years, according to tax court records filed in 1992.
       New Frontier--the company Cellini started shortly before 
     Thompson took office--and its owners were worth $30 million 
     when Thompson left office, according to a biography New 
     Frontier used to attract clients in 1990.
       Under Thompson, Cellini and New Frontier built nine 
     apartment buildings in Chicago, the suburbs and Downstate 
     with an additional $84.1 million in loans from the state 
     housing authority, whose chairman A.D. Van Meter is a close 
     friend of Cellini.
       New Frontier also became one of the state's biggest 
     landlords in Springfield, providing offices for several 
     agencies such as Corrections, Public Aid and IDOT, the agency 
     Cellini started.
       Sometimes the state agreed to move into the buildings 
     before New Frontier bought them. Sometimes the State hired 
     New Frontier to erect buildings and lease them to the state, 
     all without competitive bids, which Illinois does not require 
     for its real estate transactions.
       When New Frontier was chosen to build and lease a building 
     for IDOT, Cellini already had an option to purchase the land.
       Cellini has sold all of those buildings, but New Frontier 
     still manages them.
       And Cellini created new companies to get other deals under 
     Thompson.
       The President Lincoln Hotel Corp. got a $15 million loan 
     from Thompson and state treasurer Jerry Consentino, a 
     Democrat, so Cellini could build a luxury hotel in 
     Springfield, a long-time dream that no one else would 
     finance.
       Cellini's dream has turned into a nightmare. Before 
     Thompson and Cosentino left office, they renegotiated the 
     loan twice lowering the interest rate to 6 percent from 12.5 
     percent to keep Cellini from defaulting. The current 
     agreement prevents the state from foreclosing on the hotel 
     until 1999, while Cellini can skip quarterly mortgage 
     payments when the hotel operates at a loss.
       The deal has caused a political backlash for Cellini.
       State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka cut a deal last year to 
     let Cellini's hotel and another state-financed hotel in 
     Downstate Collinsville pay $10 million to settle their debts 
     which totaled $40.3 million. Attorney General Jim Ryan 
     squashed the deal, arguing the hotels were worth more than 
     $10 million.
       Cellini and the Collinsville hotel owners, who include 
     politically connected developer Gary Fears, sued, arguing 
     that Ryan had no authority to cancel their deal with Topinka. 
     The pending suit was brought by Winston & Strawn, the 
     powerful law firm where Thompson now works.
       Cellini's hotel plays a prominent role in his empire. When 
     road builders come to bid for state contracts, many of them 
     stay in the hotel resplendent with Italian marble, cherry 
     wood and special shower rods that were invented and patented 
     by Cellini--designed to keep the shower curtain from sticking 
     to the backside of his guests.
       The hotel is also the place where Cellini throws fund-
     raisers, like the bash he threw for Edgar the day after 
     Topinka agreed to settle the hotel loan.
       Cellini had made a lot of deals, but he hit the jackpot 
     when he and a new group of partners got a riverboat casino 
     license from the state two months before Thompson left 
     office. Cellini's Alton Belle was the state's first floating 
     casino when it opened a few months after Edgar took office in 
     1991.
       Within two years, Cellini's group issued public stock in 
     their casino company, Argosy Gaming, a deal that immediately 
     netted Cellini $4.9 million and left him as one of the 
     largest stockholders whose stock was worth $50 million. Since 
     then, the stock's value has fallen and Cellini has sold off 
     some shares. His family's remaining stock was worth $12 
     million last Wednesday.
       ``Right now the way Bill makes his money is by ownership of 
     that boat,'' said a former state official, who asked not to 
     be identified. ``It's questionable if . . . he needs to do 
     any of these other deals. It's thought that he's hooked on 
     deals. He just can't resist making deals.''
       And while most of those deals came under Thompson, the 
     former governor told the Sun-Times in 1990 that he had 
     nothing to do with Cellini's influence.
       ``He was on the political scene when I became governor,'' 
     Thompson said. ``He'll be on the political scene when I 
     leave.''


                            the edgar years

       Cellini has remained close to the governor's office, 
     although his deals have slowed since Edgar replaced Thompson 
     in 1991.
       Cellini has been an important source of campaign 
     contributions for Edgar, who spent $10.8 million to win re-
     election in 1994.
       Two of Cellini's family members have positions in the Edgar 
     administration: sister Janis as patronage director, and wife 
     Julie, who has continued as chairman of the Illinois Historic 
     Preservation Agency, an unpaid position she got from 
     Thompson.

  As we will recall, the Illinois historic preservation agency, which I 
believe Mrs. Cellini still runs or is in charge of, will probably be in 
charge of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield.

       New Frontier is constructing an addition to a building 
     occupied by the state Environmental Protection Agency. New 
     Frontier was hired to build the addition by the three 
     businessmen who own the Springfield building. New Frontier 
     has managed the building for the past 10 years. The state 
     will pay $75 million to rent the complex that it will own at 
     the end of the 20-year deal.
       Cellini lobbies for several major clients, including 
     Chicago HMO. The state paid Chicago HMO $155 million last 
     year to provide health care for 75 percent of the 180,000 
     welfare recipients who are in managed care programs. Those 
     numbers are likely to grow as Edgar pushes more welfare 
     recipients into managed care.
       With these vast business deals, Cellini's wealth has 
     soared. In addition to his Argosy Gaming stock, his family 
     has a stock portfolio worth at least $2.26 million. They own 
     108 stocks that are each worth at least $20,000 and 20 other 
     stocks each worth at least $5,000, according to an ethics 
     statement his wife filed earlier this year.
       And the family earned at least $165,000 in capital gains 
     last year from the sale of stocks they owned in 33 companies, 
     according to the ethics statement.
       Cellini remains in regular contact with Edgar's chiefs of 
     staff, said Dillard, who had the job for three years.
       ``When I was the governor's chief of staff, Bill and I 
     talked but it wasn't nearly as often as people imagined . . . 
     a couple times a month,'' Dillard said. ``It could be (about) 
     upcoming political races or just rumors he would pick up.
       ``One of the things that makes Bill Cellini a trusted 
     adviser is the longevity and breadth of his experience in 
     state government,'' Dillard said.
       ``Bill Cellini personally cares in a friendship type of 
     fashion . . . about governors Thompson and Edgar,'' Dillard 
     said. ``He's very different . . . from many of the other 
     individuals who tangentially profit from government.''
       Edgar's staff has consistently tried to downplay Cellini's 
     clout, but the governor admits he has a close relationship 
     with Cellini.
       ``Bill Cellini has been a friend of mine,'' Edgar said. 
     ``We were both here in the '60s. I was starting out in the 
     Legislature and he was in the Ogilvie administration. I've 
     known him a long time.
       ``We don't socialize much, but we have over the years done 
     things. . . . Our daughters were about the same age,'' Edgar 
     said. ``If there's some issue he's got or some political 
     thing coming up, we might talk about it. But we don't see 
     each other that much.''
       Cellini's clout is greatly exaggerated, Edgar insisted, the 
     product of stories such as this.
       ``It's something you in the media have kind of continued to 
     perpetuate that aura about Bill Cellini.''
  There is another article on this same issue that came out a few years 
earlier. I would like to share that with the Senators who are here and 
the people in the galleries.
  Continuing along on the history of what has transpired in State 
government in Springfield over the years, all leading up to why I am 
concerned that we have to make sure this $120 million building project 
in Springfield is competitively bid according to the strict guidelines 
so that no taxpayer money goes off on insider dealing in Springfield, 
this article appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times of Thursday October 11, 
1990. It is written by Mark Brown and Chuck Neubauer. The title of the 
article is ``Influence Peddler Turns Clout To Cash.''

       As lobbyist, landlord developer, hotel operator and all-
     purpose influence peddler, William F. Cellini has become a 
     legend in Springfield for his prolific ability to cash in on 
     State government. A budding political and business force when 
     Governor Thompson was elected in 1976, this son of a police 
     officer is now regarded by many as the State's most 
     influential Republican not holding elective office. Much of 
     that reputation is based on the goodies he has culled from 
     the Thompson administration--six major State office leases, 
     plus State financing for eight apartment projects, one office 
     building, and a luxury hotel.
       Like all legends, it often is difficult to sort fact from 
     fiction where Cellini is concerned. For every business deal 
     that can be traced to him, there are always two more in which 
     he was rumored to be involved but left no fingerprints.
       Cellini, 55, tends to add to the mystery, rarely talking to 
     reporters. He did not answer Chicago Sun-Times requests for 
     an interview for this story.
       Although he served as the state's first transportation 
     secretary, under Gov. Richard B. Ogilvie, his only official 
     positions these days are with the Sangamon County Republican 
     organization.
       While acknowledging Cellini's influence, Thompson denied 
     that it stems from him.
       ``He probably know more people in state government than I 
     do,'' Thompson said.'' . . . He was on the political scene 
     when I became governor. He'll be on the political scene when 
     I leave. He doesn't need me to front for him.
       Thompson said he speaks to Cellini no more than once a 
     year. But they have communicated in other ways.
       In one 12-month period encompassing his 1986 re-election 
     campaign, Thompson reported using $765 in campaign funds to 
     buy

[[Page S9820]]

     five antiques as gifts for Cellini and his wife. Thompson 
     sent gifts for Christmas and as thank-yous for fund-raisers 
     hosted by the Cellinis. The governor even remembered their 
     anniversary.
       Although Cellini's personal political donations to Thompson 
     are not especially large, he is known for his ability to 
     raise money from others.
       ``He's been very helpful,'' Thompson said.
       One source of Cellini's clout is his role as executive vice 
     president of the Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association, a 
     trade group of road builders who have fared well under 
     Thompson's policies. Their combined fund-raising prowess is 
     considerable.
       Cellini also gets paid to protect the interests of three 
     other groups, the Illinois Association of Sanitary Districts, 
     Illinois Concrete pipe Association and Prestressed Precast 
     Producers of Illinois.
       His primary business, however, is the New Frontier Group, a 
     diversified, Chicago-based real estate organization that was 
     less than two years old when Thompson was elected. It now 
     boasts that it has developed more than 1.3 million square 
     feet of office space and 2,550 housing units.
       Much of that growth is attributable to Cellini's adept use 
     of government programs.
       With $55 million in low-interest financing from the 
     Illinois Housing Development Authority, a quasi-state agency 
     under Thompson's control, New Frontier Developments Co. has 
     built eight government-subsidized apartment projects since 
     1976.
       Cellini's New Frontier Management Co. serves as the 
     management agent not only for his own properties but for many 
     other Chicago-area apartment buildings.
       Cellini and New Frontier also emerged under Thompson as the 
     state's favorite Springfield landlord.
       His first major office deal was in 1979, when Cellini 
     bought an abandoned seminary and leased it to the state for a 
     Corrections Department headquarters and training school.
       The controversial arrangement was typical of many of the 
     Cellini deals that followed because state officials strayed 
     from normal procedures to his apparent benefit.
       Corrections officials were in such a hurry to get the 
     seminary property that they passed up an opportunity to buy 
     it outright and instead entered into a lease-purchase 
     agreement with Cellini. They said it enabled them to move in 
     more quickly than if they had to go through the usual 
     purchase process.
       The lease-purchase would have allowed the state to buy the 
     facility any time over the term of the lease--at a generally 
     escalating price. Eleven years later, though, the state still 
     is renting.
       Cellini, who had paid $3.6 million for the property and 
     spent at least $4.2 million remodeling it, collected $9.5 
     million in rent from the state before selling to a Virginia 
     company in 1987 for $9.1 million.
       Cellini proved to be in the right place at the right time 
     for many similar opportunities, renting space to the Public 
     Aid, Transportation and Commerce and Community Affairs 
     departments.
       In the cases of Public Aid and Transportation, Cellini's 
     company was hired to construct buildings and lease them back 
     to the state, bypassing the state Capital Development Board, 
     which usually constructs state buildings on a competitively 
     bid basis.
       When Transportation Department officials got around to 
     announcing the site that they insisted on having for their 
     new building, it turned out that Cellini already had an 
     option on the land.
       Even when Cellini began selling his buildings, at a tidy 
     profit, his company was kept on by the new owner to manage 
     them. The 20-year management agreements have a special 
     termination clause that calls for a $1.1 million fee to be 
     paid to Cellini's company if the new owner replaces it.
       The most prominent symbol of Cellini's political influence 
     is the Springfield Ramada Renaissance, a luxury hotel that he 
     long had sought to build but couldn't get financed until 
     Thompson and state Treasurer Jerry Cosentino approved a $15 
     million state loan in 1982.
       The hotel has been a financial embarrassment for the state, 
     which has twice renegotiated the loan to avoid a default.
  That article ended by discussing a Renaissance Springfield Hotel 
which, and we have heard, Mr. Cellini was instrumental in getting a 
State loan to construct a hotel. We also reviewed earlier that Federal 
funds were involved in building that hotel, and we went through and 
realized that hotel has not paid back that $15 million loan--at least 
not as far as we know.
  The proposed Lincoln Library site is going to be right near that 
hotel.
  I turn from the hotel issue to discussing how the State awarded 
riverboat gaming licenses. The State, back in the beginning and the 
late 1980s, and I think finally in 1990, created 10 riverboat licenses. 
The State statute was fairly specific with respect to where many of 
these riverboat licenses had to be. It later turned out that in most 
cases, only a couple of people applied for the riverboat licenses and 
these licenses wound up being very lucrative. In fact, they ended up 
being phenomenally lucrative licenses. Again, on the riverboat 
licensing, as was mentioned in that article, Mr. Cellini was involved 
in the Alton Riverboat, the gaming company boat we have talked about.
  I will proceed to discuss how those licenses were handed out.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Illinois yield?
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I yield only for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I noticed the Senator earlier had yielded to Senators 
with an understanding, a unanimous consent agreement that he would not 
surrender the floor. I ask for the same opportunity to speak, with the 
unanimous consent request that the floor will be returned to my 
colleague from Illinois after the conclusion of my remarks.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I would be happy to accommodate my colleague. I am 
told that similar requests are pending from Senator Graham of Florida, 
Senator John McCain, and then you? If we could work out an agreement, I 
would not like to bypass those who have shown up earlier. Are either of 
those Senators on the floor or the Cloakroom?
  Mr. DURBIN. I do not believe either of those Senators are on the 
floor. I believe my statement will take no more than 10 minutes. With 
the forbearance of the Senator, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak for 10 minutes, and that at the conclusion of my remarks the 
floor be returned to my colleague from the State of Illinois.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I am going to object to that. I am told the leader is 
on his way and he is going to be making a statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Illinois 
has the floor.
  Mr. REID. The Senator has the floor, but I would like to propound a 
unanimous consent request that we go into a quorum call for the purpose 
of the leader coming to the floor, and when the majority leader 
completes his statement, the floor return to the Senator from Illinois 
and that he not be charged with a second speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, I agree to that. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Interior appropriations conference 
report obviously is a very important bill. There has been an awful lot 
of work that has gone into it. It does have bipartisan support. As I 
understand it, it is positioned to be signed into law. It passed the 
House 349-69, something of that nature.
  The Senator from Illinois has some difficulties with a provision in 
this legislation. Certainly, as any Senator, he is entitled to make his 
point, and to make his point at length within the provisions of our 
rules. It is important we move forward now. We are prepared to move 
forward on this legislation.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the 
pending Interior appropriations conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provision of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 4578, the Department of Interior 
     appropriations bill:
         Trent Lott; Ted Stevens; Larry Craig; Pat Roberts; Jim 
           Inhofe; Mike DeWine; John Warner; Pete Domenici; R.F. 
           Bennett; Richard Shelby; Kit Bond; Slade Gorton; Phil 
           Gramm; Conrad Burns; Chuck Hagel; and Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will continue to work with Senator 
Fitzgerald and others to try to resolve this issue as best we can and 
any other problems that may exist. I do believe it is necessary to 
prepare the Senate for a cloture vote if it should be necessary.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII 
be waived.

[[Page S9821]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________