THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

Mr. DORGAN. If I might, the Senator certainly has a right to speak for as

[Page: S9808]  GPO's PDF

   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]  GPO's PDF

   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]  GPO's PDF

   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.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents