NOW A LETTER FROM THE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD TO SENATOR
           DURBIN STATED THAT THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPETITIVELY
           BID BECAUSE THEY WOULD REQUIRE IT. THEY SAID THEY CAN'T DO
           THINGS THAT AREN'T COMPETITIVELY BID. WELL, THAT'S NICE THEY
           PUT THAT IN THEIR LETTER, BUT THEIR LETTER IS FLATLY
           CONTRADICTEDED BY THEIR STATUTE. THE STATUTE THAT GOVERNS THE
           CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD HAS A CLEAR -- CLEAR -- OPT OUT SO

           THAT THE STATE CAN JUST OPT OUT OF COMPETITIVELY BIDDING THIS
           PROJECT. $50 MILLION IN TAXPAYER MONEY. IT'S A LOT OF MONEY.
           NOW SENATOR DURBIN, THE ONE CONCERN HE MENTIONED WAS THAT IF WE
           WERE TO ATTACH THE FEDERAL COMPETITIVE BID GUIDELINES TO THIS
           PROJECT IN SPRINGFIELD TO MAKE SURE IT WAS PROPERLY APPLIED,
           THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN THE AWARDING OF THE
           MANY CONTRACTS THAT WOULD BE GIVEN OUT -- THERE'S, AFTER ALL,
           $120 MILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY WHEN YOU PUT THE STATE OF

           ILLINOIS MONEY AND THE FEDERAL MONEY AND THE CITY OF
           SPRINGFIELD MONEY IN ANY PRIVATE -- AND ANY PRIVATE MONEY THAT
           IS CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROJECT. THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY, $120
           MILLION. YOU'D THINK YOU'D WANT CAREFUL SAFEGUARDS IN THAT LAW.
           IT'S HARD FOR ME TO THINK OF ANY REASON WHY ANYBODY WOULD
           OPPOSE THE STRICTEST POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS ON HOW WE SPEND THE
           TAXPAYER MONEY TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS COMPETITIVE BIDDING.
           WHAT R BUT SENATOR DURBIN WONDERED HOW WOULD IT WORK?

           IF FEDERAL GUIDELINES WERE APPLIED THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
           WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE IT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
           INCH, AS I POINTED OUT TO SENATOR DURBIN, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT
           THE STATE CONTEMPLATES THAT FEDERAL GUIDELINES WILL FREQUENTLY
           BE ATTACHED WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GIVES MONEY TO THE
           STATE OF ILLINOIS. YOU GET FEDERAL MONEY FROM SOMEWHERE, OR YOU
           GET MONEY FROM SOMEBODY. IT'S NOT UNUSUAL THAT STRINGS ARE
           ATTACHED. AND I WOULD, MR. PRESIDENT, LIKE TO NOTE THAT ARTICLE

           20 OF THE ILLINOIS PROCUREMENT CODE, SOURCE, SELECTION AND
           CONTRACT FORMATION, AT 500/20-85, THEY HAVE A SECTION. THEY
           CONTEMPLATED THE ATTACHMENT OF FEDERAL SPRINGS. SECTION 20-85,
           FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. A STATE AGENCY RECEIVING FEDERAL AID
           FUNDS, GRANTS OR LOANS SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT ITS
           PROCEDURES, RULES, PROJECT STATEMENTS, DRAWINGS, MAPS, SURVEYS,

           PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACT TERMS, ESTIMATES, BID FORMS,
           BOND FORMS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS OR PRACTICES TO COMPLY WITH THE
           REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF THE DESIGNATED
           AUTHORITY, ADMINISTRATION OR DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN
           ORDER TO REMAIN ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH FEDERAL AID FUNDS, GRANTS OR
           LOAN. SO CLEARLY, MR. PRESIDENT, IF I COULD ASK LEAVE TO
           INTRODUCE THIS STATUTE INTO THE RECORD, I'D ASK FOR UNANIMOUS
           CONSENT TO INTRODUCE IT AT THIS POINT IN THE RECORD.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. FITZGERALD: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. CLEARLY THE STATE OF
           ILLINOIS CONTEMPLATES THAT FOR MANY GRANTS FROM THE FEDERAL
           GOVERNMENT, THEY WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL
           GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS. THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL. THE FEDERAL
           GOVERNMENT HAS REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATION MONEY, FOR MEDICAID
           MONEY AND THE LIKE. FOR THIS PROJECT, I THINK IT'S REASONABLE.
           WE DON'T WANT TO UNDULY HAMPER IT. BUT FEDERAL COMPETITIVE
           BIDDING. WHO WOULD OPPOSE THAT?
           I DON'T THINK DEMOCRATS WOULD OPPOSE IT. I DON'T THINK

           REPUBLICANS WOULD OPPOSE IT. CERTAINLY NO DEMOCRAT, NO
           REPUBLICAN IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE WISH TO GO ON RECORD
           OPPOSING IT. IT'S A SIMPLE, SAFE PRECAUTION FOR THE TAXPAYERS.
           AND AGAIN, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS STATUTE WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
           ON AND OFF ALL DAY REALLY CONCLUSIVELY DEMOL LISHS -- DEMONTHLY
           LISHS THE LETTERS BEING PUT OUT BY THE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT
           BOARD SAYING THEY MUST USE COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND THERE'S NO
           WAY COMPETITIVE BIDDING WON'T BE USED. BUT LET ME REFLECT ON
           THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN THAT THEY'RE SAYING THAT CLEARLY

           COMPETITIVE BIDDING WILL BE USED, AND THIS PROJECT NOW IS THE
           FOCUS OF A LOT OF TENSION AROUND THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND A
           LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID IT WILL DEFINITELY BE COMPETITIVELY
           BID. THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHY SUCH STIFF OPPOSITION TO
           ATTACHING THE FEDERAL COMPETITIVE BID GUIDELINES?
           IF THEY'RE GOING TO BID IT ACCORDING TO BOOK, AND THERE WON'T
           BE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE CONTRACTS, THEN WHY IS ANYBODY OPPOSED?
           WHY IS IT?

           I DON'T KNOW. CLEARLY THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS
           FELT STRONGLY ENOUGH THAT THESE GUIDELINES, THESE RESTRICTIONS
           NOT BE ATTACHED THAT THEY CHOSE TO GO AROUND THE UNITED STATES
           SENATE AND TRY AND GET THE LANGUAGE SNUCK INTO A CONFERENCE
           COMMITTEE REPORT, STRIPPED OF THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING LANGUAGE
           AND IN A WAY SO THAT IT WOULD BE ROLLED INTO AN $18 BILLION
           APPROPRIATIONS BILL THAT IS A MUST-PASS BILL. AND THAT

           CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT CAN'T BE AMENDED OR RECOMMITTED. SO
           THEY WENT TO A LOT OF TROUBLE. IN FACT, THEY WERE PRACTICALLY
           DOING ANYTHING AND STOPPING AT NOTHING TO AVOID THE COMPETITIVE
           BID GUIDELINES WHICH THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THEY'RE GOING
           TO DO ANYWAY. IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. WHY THE
           OBJECTION?
           WHY THE FIERCE FIGHT OVER REQUIRING FEDERAL PROCUREMENT LAWS BE FOLLOWED?
           NOW THROUGHOUT THE DAY I HAVE SET THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THIS

           DEBATE HAS BEEN OCCURRING. I FELT THAT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE
           FOR THOSE WHO AREN'T FROM THE WONDERFUL LAND OF LINCOLN, THE
           GREAT STATE OF ILLINOIS, THEY MAY NOT BE FULLY FAMILIAR WITH
           THE POLITICS. SOMETIMES OUR POLITICS HAVE BECOME FAMOUS.
           CHICAGO KIND OF HAS A FAMOUS POLITICAL TRADITIONS. STATE
           GOVERNMENT PROBABLY HASN'T BEEN AS WELL KNOWN AS THE CITY OF
           CHICAGO'S GOVERNMENT. BUT I FELT I NEEDED TO SET THE TABLE HERE
           TO LAY THE FOUNDATION AND GIVE THE SENATORS FROM OTHER STATES

           THE CONTEXT IN WHICH I WAS CONCERNED THAT THIS MONEY WOULD BE
           GOING REALLY IN A WAY THAT WOULD PERMIT UNFETTERED DISCRETION
           ON THE PART OF WHOMEVER MIGHT GET THIS -- MIGHT GET THIS $50
           MILLION AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATION. AND I TALKED ABOUT, I READ A
           NUMBER OF AFERLS INTO THE RECORD THIS MORNING -- NUMBER OF
           ARTICLES INTO THE RECORD THIS MORNING THAT TALKED ABOUT
           PROBLEMS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN STATE GOVERNMENT IN ILLINOIS NOT
           JUST UNDER REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS, BUT UNDER BOTH

           REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS, WHERE BECAUSE OF A
           LACK OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING, BECAUSE OF LAX, WEAK PROCUREMENT
           LAWS THAT LEFT TOO MUCH TO THE SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCES OF STATE
           OFFICIALS ON AWARDING CONTRACTS, THAT WE'VE HAD JUST A LONG,
           REALLY KIND OF SAD HISTORY OF PROCUREMENT PROBLEMS IN THE STATE
           OF ILLINOIS. HOPEFULLY THE STATE'S NEW PROCUREMENT LAW WILL CUT
           DOWN ON FUTURE PROBLEMS LIKE THAT. BUT AS I POINTED OUT, IT HAS

           A FEW LOOPHOLES THAT I HOPE WILL GET CLEANED UP. WE HAVE TALKED
           ABOUT LEASES OF BUILDINGS. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CONSTRUCTION
           PROJECTS. WE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED A NUMBER OF INSTANCES BY TALKING
           ABOUT THOSE LEASES THAT AT THAT TIME WERE NOT COMPETITIVELY
           BID, WHERE THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMOUNTS THAT
           THE TAXPAYERS WERE PAYING FOR THE STATE TO LEASE BUILDINGS, AND
           CERTAINLY THE PEOPLE INVOLVED LEASING THE PROPERTIES TO THE
           STATE SEEMED TO BE VERY INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS WHICH

           RAISES A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN ONE'S MIND. I ALSO TALKED ABOUT
           THE HOTEL LOAN WHICH INVOLVED A LOAN TO POLITICALLY CONNECTED
           DEVELOPER TO BUILD THE SPRINGFIELD RENAISSANCE HO TEM IN
           SPRINGFIELD. IT WAS A $15 MILLION LOAN FROM THE STATE OF
           ILLINOIS. IT APPEARED ALSO, AS WE READ SOME OF THOSE ARTICLES,
           THAT FEDERAL MONEY WAS INVOLVED IN THAT TOO. AND THAT THAT LOAN
           WAS NEVER REPAID TO THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. SOME PAYMENTS WERE

           MADE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE UNPAID BALANCE IS TODAY, BUT I
           THINK IT'S QUITE SUBSTANTIAL. AND SO THAT DEVELOPER STILL HAS
           THAT HOTEL TOO. AND THIS HOTEL IS VERY CLOSE, ABOUT A BLOCK AND
           A HALF, MAYBE TWO BLOCKS AWAY, AS WE SAW, FROM THE PROPOSED
           ABRAHAM LINCOLN PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY. I HOPE THAT IF THE
           LIBRARY IS BUILT AND IT BECOMES THE WONDERFUL ATTRACTION THAT
           WE HOPE IT WILL BE FOR CITIZENS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY TO

           COME AND ENJOY AND LEARN ABOUT ABRAHAM LINCOLN IN THE HOMETOWN
           OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, CERTAINLY IT WILL GENERATE A LOT OF TOURIST
           REVENUE FOR THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE
           SPRINGFIELD RENAISSANCE HOTEL WOULD BENEFIT FROM THAT, THE
           PROJECTIONS OF INCREASED TOURISM. I WOULD HOPE THAT WOULD BE
           THE CASE. I WOULD HOPE THAT PERHAPS AT THAT TIME THE HOTEL, THE
           PARTNERSHIP THAT RUNS IT WOULD THINK ABOUT WHETHER THEY COULD
           MAKE MORE PAYMENTS TO THE STATE ON THAT $15 MILLION TAXPAYER

           LOAN THAT GOES BACK TO THE EARLY 1980'S. NOW I KNOW THAT STATE
           FIRMS RELEASE PERSONAL GUARANTEES AND WAIVE THE STATE'S RIGHT
           TO FORECLOSE ON THAT HOTEL LOAN. SO IT'S CLEAR THERE PROBABLY
           ISN'T MUCH OF A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE NOTE ANYMORE. AND SO I
           GUESS YOU'D HAVE TO WONDER IF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD THINK ABOUT
           WHETHER IT WOULDN'T JUST BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THEM, THE RIGHT
           THING FOR THEM TO DO TO TRY AND MAKE PAYMENTS WHEN THEY COULD.
           THEY PROBABLY WOULD ARGUE THAT THE NOTES ARE WORTHLESS NOW THAT

           THE STATES, ALL THE STATES RIGHTS AS LENDER WERE WAIVED WHILE
           THE LOAN WAS IN DEFAULT. IT'S KIND OF UNUSUAL. IN FACT, I'VE
           NEVER REALLY HEARD OF IT FOR A LENDER WHEN THEY HAVE A BAD LOAN
           TO WAIVE ALL THEIR RIGHTS. IT SEEMED KIND OF ODD TO ME. BUT IN
           ANY CASE, THERE IS ANOTHER EPISODE IN OUR STATE'S RECENT
           HISTORY THAT I WAS VERY VOCAL ON WHEN I WAS IN THE STATE
           SENATE, AND THAT WAS ON HOW RIVERBOAT LICENSES WERE GIVEN OUT.

           BACK IN ABOUT 1990 THE STATE CREATED TEN RIVERBOAT LICENSES.
           THE FIRST SIX OF THEM, THEY WERE FAIRLY SITE SPECIFIC IN THEIR
           STATUTE ON WHERE THE RIVERBOAT LICENSES HAD TO GO. THAT ALWAYS
           RAISED QUESTION BECAUSE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF WHETHER IN
           DRAWING UP THE STATUTE THE STATE WAS ACTUALLY ATTEMPTING TO
           STEER THESE RIVERBOAT LICENSES TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. IT JUST
           SO HAPPENED THAT AN INVESTOR IN THE FIRST RIVERBOAT LICENSE
           AWARDED UNDER THE ILLINOIS GAMING LAW WAS THE VERY SAME

           INDIVIDUAL, MR. WILLIAM CELLINI, WHO WE HAVE READ SOME ARTICLES
           ABOUT, WHO GOT THE HOTEL LOAN, DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY BACK, HADED
           LEASES AT STATE BUILDINGS, HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN POLITICS IN
           ILLINOIS FOR A LONG TIME. I WOULD, IF I COULD, LIKE TO CONTINUE
           ON IN AN EXAMINATION OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE STATE DIDN'T
           COMPETITIVELY BID THE RIVERBOAT LICENSES, WHICH I ALWAYS
           THOUGHT THEY SHOULD BE COMPETITIVELY BID. YOU HAD LICENSES THAT

           TURNED OUT TO BE PHENOMENALLY LUCRATIVE. IN SOME CASES VERY
           SMALL INVESTMENTS MADE MANY PEOPLE VERY RICH VERY QUICKLY.
           THERE WAS ALWAYS QUESTION AS TO HOW THE STATE DETERMINED WHO
           GOT THE LICENSES. THE PEOPLE WHO WOUND UP GETTING THE FIRST SIX
           LICENSES WHICH WERE FAIRLY SITE SPECIFIC TENDED TO BE PEOPLE
           WHO WERE VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN STATE POLITICS IN ILLINOIS. THEY
           WOULD -- THEY WERE WHAT I WOULD CALL INSIDERS IN THE STATE

           CAPITAL. OF COURSE THEY ALWAYS ENCOURAGED THE PERCEPTION THAT
           IT WAS JUST A COINCIDENCE THAT THESE VERY LUCRATIVE LICENSES
           FELL INTO THEIR HANDS, AND THEY GOT REAL RICH REAL QUICK. IN
           FACT, A BOAT -- A RIVERBOAT THAT WAS PUT UP IN JOLLIETTE,
           ILLINOIS -- I REMEMBER I WAS IN THE STATE SENATE WHEN THAT BOAT
           THAT WAS CALLED THE JOLLIETTE EMPRESS, WE COULDN'T FIND OUT THE
           FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THESE BOATS. IT WAS AN COMBEPGS TO THE

           FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS IN SPRINGFIELD AS TO WHETHER, EVEN
           THOSE THESE BOATS GOT A LICENSE FROM THE STATE, THEY DIDN'T
           HAVE TO GIVE OUT FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC. BUT THE
           JOLIET EMPRESS DECIDEED TO DO A PUBLIC OFFERING OF ITS STOCK IN
           THEIR -- ACTUALLY NOT OF ITS STOCK. BOND OFFERING, AS I RECALL.
           AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT PUBLIC OFFERING OF ITS DEBT SECURITIES,
           IT HAD TO FILE A REGISTRATION STATEMENT WITH THE SECURITIES
           EXCHANGE COMMISSION. AND IN THE PROCESS OF FILING THAT
           STATEMENT, THEY DISCLOSED THEIR INVESTORS AND DISCLOSED SOME OF

           THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE RIVERBOAT. I REMEMBER THAT BEING
           STRUCK THAT ON THIS RELATIVELY SMALL INVESTMENT I'M GOING TO
           SUGGEST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ORIGINAL INVESTMENT WAS
           SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $20 MILLION. BUT IN THE FIRST
           18 MONTHS, AS I RECALL, THAT RIVERBOAT, THE NINE PEOPLE WHO
           OWNED IT, TOOK IN SOMETHING LIKE $87 MILLION IN CASH DIVIDENDS.
           KIND OF MAKES THE INTERNET FIRMS THAT WE'RE READING ABOUT AND

           THE SOARING NASDAQ INDEX SEEM LIKE NOTHING.
{END: 2000/10/04 TIME: 20-00 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}