[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
THE OLYMPICS SITE SELECTION PROCESS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
OCTOBER 14, 1999--THE NEED FOR REFORM
DECEMBER 15, 1999--REVIEW OF THE REFORM EFFORT
----------
Serial No. 106-88
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce
THE OLYMPICS SITE SELECTION PROCESS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60-363CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER COX, California HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART STUPAK, Michigan
Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
GREG GANSKE, Iowa DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROY BLUNT, Missouri JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ED BRYANT, Tennessee (Ex Officio)
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Hearings held:
October 14, 1999............................................. 1
December 15, 1999............................................ 451
Testimony of:
Baker, Hon. Howard H......................................... 506
Blair, Bonnie................................................ 533
Carrard, Francois, Director General, International Olympic
Committee.................................................. 134
Ctvrtlik, Robert............................................. 550
DeFrantz, Anita L., Vice President, International Olympic
Committee.................................................. 139
Duberstein, Kenneth M.:
October 14, 1999......................................... 176
December 15, 1999........................................ 513
Easton, James L., Member, International Olympic Committee.... 144
Helmick, Robert H., Former President, U.S. Olympic Committee. 33
Hybl, William J., President, U.S. Olympic Committee.......... 30
Kissinger, Henry:
October 14, 1999......................................... 175
December 15, 1999........................................ 511
Mills, Billy................................................. 554
Naber, John.................................................. 537
Payne, William P., Cochair, Atlanta Olympic Committee........ 20
Samaranch, Juan Antonio, President, International Olympic
Committee, accompanied by Francois Carrard, Director
General, International Olympic Committee, counsel to Mr.
Samaranch.................................................. 468
Stapleton, Bill, Chairman, USOC Athletes Advisory Council.... 545
Strug, Kerrie................................................ 556
Szott, Kevin................................................. 560
Westbrook, Peter............................................. 557
Young, Andrew, Good Works International, Cochair, Atlanta
Olympic Committee.......................................... 25
Material submitted for the record by:
Baker, Hon. Howard H., prepared statement of................. 191
Bell, Griffin B., King & Spalding, letter dated September 16,
1999, to Hon. Thomas Bliley and Hon. Fred Upton, enclosing
material for the record.................................... 316
Report of the Special Bid Oversight Commission............... 227
Report to the International Olympic Committee by the Toronto
Ontario Olympic Council.................................... 193
(iii)
THE OLYMPICS SITE SELECTION PROCESS: THE NEED FOR REFORM
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Upton, Barton, Burr,
Bilbray, Whitfield, Ganske, Bryant, Klink, Waxman, Stupak,
McCarthy, Strickland, and DeGette.
Also present: Representatives Hefley and Isakson.
Staff present: Jan Faiks, majority counsel; Eric Link,
majority counsel; Clay Alspach, legislative clerk; Chris
Knauer, minority investigator; and Brendan Kelsay, minority
investigator.
Mr. Upton. Good morning. Today the subcommittee is holding
its first hearing on the site selection process associated with
the awarding of the International Olympic Games. The purpose of
the hearing will be to review the conduct of the Atlanta
Organizing Committee, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and the
International Olympic Committee in connection with the bidding
for the 1996 Olympic Summer Games. We also are going to hear
about the reforms that these organizations are proposing that
hopefully will guarantee the end of this culture of corruption,
a culture leading to a system that appears to suggest the host
city is not judged on its merits, but rather on its gifts.
This committee started reviewing Atlanta's bid after we
learned about the outrageous vote buying that occurred in Salt
Lake City. We are hoping that Salt Lake City's actions were an
aberration, but sadly, as the Atlanta report so graphically
confirmed, Salt Lake City was not an aberration. True,
Atlanta's experience does not rise to the same level as Salt
Lake City, but it is also true that there is a system or, as I
have identified, a culture of corruption that exists within the
bidding for the Olympic Games that encourages the practice of
excessive lobbying of IOC members. This activity, this culture
must stop. It is tarnishing the pride and prestige of the
Olympic Games, and it is not fair to the athletes or the cities
all over the world who are bidding for the honor of hosting the
games.
We are going to hear from the cochairs of the Atlanta
games. They have been very open and frank in their amended
report to the committee, and I appreciate very much the effort
that Judge Griffin Bell has made to present the facts regarding
the Atlanta bid process to this committee.
The Atlanta report shows that Atlanta officials and
volunteers gave many excessive gifts that were expensive;
travel to OIC members as well; pages and pages of Cabbage Patch
dolls, shopping sprees, carburetor kits, brake pads, jewelry,
children's clothes, shoes, golf clubs, Spode china, computer
parts. The list goes on and on. IOC traveled on Atlanta's
expense account to Walt Disney World, Miami, Honolulu, New
York, Sea Island, Georgia, just to name a few of the locations,
but just as troubling the report shows that IOC members
themselves asked Atlanta organizers for health care services,
employment opportunities, athletic training, lavish hospitality
and first-class travel, political and scholastic assistance.
Atlanta was eager to accommodate these requests, and based on
the documents presented to this committee, Atlanta made every
effort to satisfy virtually every request.
Is this the price that we want to use to award the Olympic
Games? No. It's wrong. Integrity and ethics do matter. The end
does not justify the means.
Additionally it's disturbing to the committee as the many
gifts and favors that were offered, Atlanta engaged in a
comprehensive intelligence gathering to learn details about IOC
members' likes and dislikes. Consultants, officials from other
bid cities, members of the press, IOC members themselves, even
Atlanta hostesses and drivers gathered information on IOC
members for the Atlanta organizers. The smallest detail or
nuance was not too insignificant to record in an IOC's member
profile for later use in choosing a personal gift or arranging
travel for a member's child. The Atlanta documents list the
favorite foods and beverages, colors, hobbies, strengths and
weaknesses of every IOC member. Details as to whose wife needed
special treatment because she could influence her husband's
vote were carefully listed.
The IOC profiles struck me as going too far, too explicit,
and certainly an invasion of privacy. Is this what is necessary
to win a vote to be a host city? I certainly hope not.
Today the committee will hear from Francois Carrard,
Director General of the IOC; and Anita DeFrantz, one of four
Vice Presidents on the IOC Executive Committee; and Jim Easton,
an IOC member from the United States. Mr. Samaranch is
committed to appear before this committee on December 15, and
we look forward to his testimony at that time. Ms. DeFrantz was
personally involved in helping Atlanta win the Olympic Games,
and I'm anxious to hear her views on the bidding process.
I would hope that everyone here today knows that the
culture of corruption that has evolved in the bidding process
must stop. We have to find ways to reform how cities are
awarded the right and privilege to host the games.
Our last panel today is composed of distinguished Americans
who are working to change the bidding process. Senator Howard
Baker, Ken Duberstein, and Dr. Henry Kissinger will share with
the committee their reviews on how this system must be changed,
and we certainly welcome their testimony.
In my district I have had the pleasure to have two great
Olympic heroes live in my home county: Muhammad Ali and Jesse
Owens. We all remember that Ali lit the Olympic flame to open
the Atlanta Olympics. Ali represents all that is right with the
Olympics today. Unfortunately, this hearing represents all that
is wrong, the painful contrast.
The Olympics hold a special place on the world stage. They
are more than a sporting event. They are an exchange of ideas.
They are a celebration of global cultures. They are a time when
the world can come together, united in sports and certainly in
peace.
Sadly, the organizers of the Atlanta games admitted that
they had to play a bidding game to win the games. I believe
that they made a choice to play that game, and it was the wrong
choice. I am angry at the USOC for not conducting proper
oversight of both Atlanta and Salt Lake City's efforts. I'm
also deeply troubled that the IOC has allowed the Olympic rings
to become tarnished. This system is not fair to great athletes
like Ali and Owens and all the thousands of people in the world
who work and practice long hours to become Olympians.
I will do everything in my power to ensure that the culture
of corruption is destroyed. I will follow the reform movement
closely, and I will look forward very much to hearing from Mr.
Samaranch on the December 15.
There are those that have suggested that these hearings are
about trashing the Olympics. They could not be more wrong.
These hearings are about cleaning up the Olympics, removing the
stain created by the tawdry behavior of the Atlanta Olympic
Organizing Committee, the USOC and the IOC. We have a lot of
work to do. Let's let the process begin.
I yield to the vice chair, the ranking member of this
subcommittee, Mr. Klink.
Mr. Klink. I thank the chairman, and, Mr. Chairman, I would
tell you in actuality it is with great regret that I find
myself here today.
Like most members, I have tremendous respect for the
Olympic movement and for its athletes, but what has happened in
Salt Lake City and Atlanta deserves special attention if we're
really going to concern ourself with the future of the games.
We would be naive if we had not recognized that the Olympics
had become big business. For the cities that are lucky enough
to host the games, its many sponsors, and the IOC itself, the
Olympics can mean several billion dollars in local revenue and
infrastructure improvements for a host city. It can also mean
the city will become the focus of the world community for
weeks, months, even years, producing both immediate and long-
term benefits.
The IOC was awarded nearly $400 million in revenues from
the Atlanta games. NBC has paid almost $3.5 billion to the IOC
to broadcast the games until 2008. But it is the process used
by a host city to bid for those games and the methods used by
the IOC to award the games that are the focus of today's
hearing. Both are seriously flawed and in need of reform.
The countless documents examined by the subcommittee
suggest that the games aren't automatically awarded to a city
based on technical merit. Instead today's bid process has
encouraged a system where lavish gifts and other special favors
are heaped on IOC members in order to influence their vote.
This has resulted in a system where the ability to host the
games based on what's best for the athletes may take a back
seat to other considerations, such as how ingratiating a bid
city was to a particular IOC member. Perhaps the 1991 Toronto,
Ontario, Olympic Council report to the IOC described the bid
process the best. The council noted that one of the key factors
needed to win the right to host the Olympic Games was for a
city to, ``demonstrate why it is in each IOC member's personal
interest to vote for and to award the games to that city.'' Any
system where the bid city must prove that it is in the personal
interest of an IOC member to vote for any city is a system
that's gone astray.
Mr. Chairman, many would like to think that the giving of
lavish gifts and opulent travel and other special favors was
unknown until the tawdry events of Salt Lake City became
public, but I have to take exception to that notion. The
activities reported in the Salt Lake City bid revealed in the
King & Spalding report on the Atlanta bid appeared to have been
around for many years.
Let me quote from a Sports Illustrated article written 13
years ago back in 1986. This was about a bid for the 1992
Summer Olympics. This is a quote: ``The tactics of Olympic
bidders vary somewhat, but they're never very subtle. The most
popular strategy is simply to shower everyone on the IOC with
gifts, trips, and parties. No city did this better--did better
in this area than Paris. Whenever an IOC member felt the need
to vacation in Paris for a while, he was instantly sent airline
tickets and given a free room at the elegant Hotel de Crillon
as well as reserved tables at Maxim's or Tour d'Argent with the
bill paid in advance. Members traveled everywhere in
limousines, sometimes with a police escort, and they were given
perfume, raincoats, jogging suits and discounts at some of
Paris's finest shops.''
The 1991 report I cited earlier by the Toronto, Ontario,
Olympic Council, whose bid to host the Olympics, by the way,
was unsuccessful, also sounded several alarms. That's nearly a
decade ago. Some of them dealt with travel. Some dealt with
excessive gift-giving. Let me quote from what Toronto told the
IOC in 1991: ``No single issue is so open to abuse as gifts and
other material inducements to individual IOC members. Perhaps
no single issue has the power to undermine the integrity of the
IOC as this particular one. Unfortunately many IOC members
expect to receive gifts above and beyond what anyone would
judge to be courteous and gracious. Cash, jewelry or other
items easily converted to cash were hinted at on several
occasions. We were surprised to discover on more than one
shopping trip that the bid city host was expected to pay for
all purchases made by not only the member, but the guests as
well.''
Again, Mr. Chairman, these kinds of reports were not made
yesterday. They were made nearly a decade ago. Further, as you
review the various investigations that follow the Salt Lake
City revelations, it appears that many of those involved during
the host city bids knew this culture existed. Yet the IOC has
chosen not to reform and thus to allow a shameful system to
continue and, in fact, even worsen. It is for those reasons I
still remain somewhat skeptical that the IOC is serious at this
time.
Mr. Chairman, with us today are officials from Atlanta
responsible for both winning and hosting the 1996 Olympic
Summer Games. While I'm proud the United States won the right
to host those games, I'm disappointed with the process that
Atlanta chose to win that bid. While I agree with those that
say the Atlanta bid tactics weren't as unrestrained as Salt
Lake's, I still believe they went too far. Instances of lavish
travel, gifts and other special favors were given or were
attempted to be given to IOC members whose vote was critical to
Atlanta.
Do these attempts represent an effort to outright buy
votes? I can't say that. What the evidence does show, however,
is that numerous gifts and favors were given by Atlanta
officials that had little or nothing to do with demonstrating
that city's ability to host the game. What Atlanta officials
did to win the 1996 bid was at times borderline. Atlanta
officials claimed they played within the bid system's culture
as they found it, but one might argue that the Atlanta
officials did nothing to help stop or to reform an ethically
bankrupt process. Instead, Atlanta's actions served only to
reinforce if not to endorse an already tawdry system that
arguably made future bid efforts for other cities even more
polluted. One can only wonder if Atlanta or cities before
Atlanta had blown the whistle on this system, whether Salt Lake
City would be in the mess it's in today.
But I'm not here to cast aspersions on Atlanta or anyone
else. Instead I'm here because I want to work with you, Mr.
Chairman and the other members of this committee and the many
witnesses before us today to fix a system that we all agree is
broken. I'm looking forward to the testimony of the people
before us today because we need to know what went wrong in
order to support meaningful corrections to our own systems as
well as those in the IOC.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, while I'm saddened by the events
that took place in both Salt Lake City and Atlanta, I must
point out that it is because of the exposure of those events by
this country's governmental institutions, including the U.S.
Congress, the free press, and the public, that reforms are now
being contemplated by the IOC. I believe good has come out of
this process, and by throwing open all the files and the
records of how the bid process worked for two U.S. cities,
admittedly an often painful and embarrassing experience, we've
discovered some serious flaws in the IOC system and several of
our own. Our bid processes will be improved because of what
we've done over the past year, and hopefully so, too, will the
final reforms adopted by the IOC. I only wonder if certain
other former bid countries could also benefit by examining in
close detail their own bid experiences.
Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that while some in
the IOC may have strayed from what the Olympic movement have
been about and have sadly used the bid process to seek personal
reward, most have not and are extremely hard-working and are
very dedicated individuals. In fact, I believe that the vast
makeup of the IOC care very deeply about the health and the
integrity of the Olympic Games.
I look forward to working with all of our friends from
abroad as well as many outstanding witnesses who are before us
to build an Olympics that is transparent, accountable, and free
of the recent activities that have so jeopardized the Olympic
flame.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ron Klink follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Klink, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, in actuality, it is with great regret that I find
myself here today. Like most Members, I have tremendous respect for the
Olympic movement and its athletes. But what has happened in Salt Lake
City, and now Atlanta, deserves special attention if we really are to
concern ourselves with the games' future.
We'd be naive if we didn't recognize that the Olympics have become
big business for the cities lucky enough to host the games, its many
sponsors, and the IOC itself. The Olympics can mean several billion
dollars in local revenue and infrastructure improvement for a host
city. It can also mean that the city will become a focus of the world
community for weeks, months--even years, producing both immediate and
long-term benefits. The IOC was awarded nearly $400 million in revenues
from the Atlanta games. NBC has paid almost $3.5 billion to the IOC to
broadcast the games until 2008.
But it is the process used by a host city to bid for the games and
the methods used by the IOC to award the games that are the focus of
today's hearing. Both are seriously flawed and in need of reform. The
countless documents examined by this subcommittee suggest that the
games aren't automatically awarded to a city based on technical merit.
Instead, today's bid process has encouraged a system where lavish gifts
and other special favors are heaped on IOC members in order to
influence their vote. This has resulted in a system where the ability
to host the games (based on what's best for the athletes), may take a
back seat to other considerations, such as how ingratiating a bid city
was to a particular IOC member.
Perhaps the 1991 Toronto Ontario Olympic Council, report to the IOC
describes the bid process best. The council noted that one of the key
factors needed to win the right to host the Olympic games, was for a
bid city to ``demonstrate why it is in each IOC Member's personal
interest to vote for, and award the Games to that city [emphasis
added].'' Any system where the bidding city must prove that it is in
the ``personal interest'' of an IOC member to vote for any city is a
system that has gone astray.
Mr. Chairman, many would like to think that the giving of lavish
gifts, opulent travel, and other special favors was unknown until the
tawdry events of Salt Lake surfaced. But I might take exception to that
notion. The activities reported in the Salt Lake City bid, and revealed
in the King and Spalding report on the Atlanta bid, appear to have been
around for years. Let me quote from a Sports Illustrated article
written way back in 1986 about the bid for the 1992 summer Olympic
games:
``The tactics of Olympic bidders vary somewhat, but they are
never very subtle. The most popular strategy is simply to
shower everyone on the IOC with gifts, trips and parties . . .
No city did better in this area than Paris. Whenever an IOC
member felt the need to vacation in Paris for a while, he was
instantly sent, airline tickets and given a free room in the
elegant Hotel de Crilion, as well as reserved tables at Maxim's
or Tour D'Argent with the bill paid in advance. Members
traveled everywhere in limousines, sometimes with a police
escort, and they were given perfume, raincoats, jogging suits
and discounts at some of Paris's finest shops.''
The 1991 report I cited earlier by the Toronto Ontario Olympic
Council (who's bid to host the Olympics was unsuccessful) also sounded
several alarms, some dealing with travel, some dealing with excessive
gift giving. Let me quote from what Toronto told the IOC in 1991:
``No single issue is so open to abuse as gifts and other
material inducements to individual IOC members. Perhaps no
single issue has the power to undermine the integrity of the
IOC as this particular one. Unfortunately, many IOC members
expect to receive gifts above and beyond what anyone would
judge to be courteous and gracious. Cash, jewelry or other
items easily converted to cash, were hinted at on several
occasions. We were surprised to discover on more than one
shopping trip that the bid city host was expected to pay for
all the purchases made by not only the member, but the guest as
well.''
Again, Mr. Chairman, these kinds of reports weren't made yesterday,
but a decade or more ago. Further, as you review the various
investigations that followed the Salt Lake City revelations, it appears
that many of those involved during host-city bids knew this culture
existed. Yet the IOC chose not to reform, and thus allowed a shameful
system to continue and even worsen. It is for those reasons that I
still remain somewhat skeptical that the IOC is serious this time.
Mr. Chairman, with us today are officials from Atlanta responsible
for both winning and hosting the 1996 Olympic summer games. While I am
proud that the United States won the right to host those games, I am
disappointed with the process Atlanta chose to win that bid. And while
I'll agree with those that say that the Atlanta bid tactics weren't as
unrestrained as Salt Lake's, I still believe they went too far.
Instances of lavish travel, gifts, and other special favors were given
(or attempted to be given) to IOC members whose vote was critical to
Atlanta. Do these attempts represent an effort to outright buy votes? I
can't say. What the evidence does show, however, is that numerous gifts
and favors were given by Atlanta officials that had little or nothing
to do with demonstrating the city's ability to host the games.
Mr. Chairman, what Atlanta officials did to win the 1996 bid was,
at times, borderline. Atlanta officials claim they played within the
bid system's culture as they found it. But one might argue that Atlanta
officials did nothing to help stop or reform an ethically bankrupt
process. Instead, Atlanta's actions served only to reinforce (if not
endorse) an already tawdry system that arguably made future bid efforts
for other cities even more polluted. One can only wonder, if Atlanta,
or the cities before Atlanta, had blown the whistle on this system,
whether Salt Lake City would be in this mess today.
But I'm not here to cast aspersions on Atlanta or anybody else.
Instead, I'm here because I want to work, with you, Mr. Chairman, the
other Members of this Committee, and the many witnesses before us to
fix a system we all agree is broken. I'm looking forward to their
testimony because we need to know what went wrong in order to support
meaningful corrections to our own systems, as well as those of the IOC.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, while I am saddened by the events that took
place in both Salt Lake City and Atlanta, I must point out that it is
because of the exposure of those events by this country's governmental
institutions (including the Congress), free press, and the public, that
reforms are now being contemplated by the IOC.
I believe good has come out of this process. By throwing open all
the files and records of how the bid process worked for two U.S.
cities--admittedly an often painful and embarrassing experience--we've
discovered some serious flaws in the IOC's system, and in several of
our own. Our bid processes will improve because of what we've done over
the past year, and hopefully, so too will the final reforms adopted by
the IOC. I only wonder if certain other former bid countries could also
benefit by examining in closer detail their own bid experiences.
Let me conclude by saying that while some within the IOC have
strayed from what the Olympic movement should be about, and have sadly
used the bid process to seek personal reward, most have not and are
extremely hardworking and dedicated individuals. In fact, I believe
that the vast makeup of the IOC care very deeply about the health and
integrity of the games. I look forward to working with our friends from
abroad, as well as the many outstanding witnesses before us today to
build an Olympics that is transparent, accountable, and free of the
recent activities that have so jeopardized the Olympic flame.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Yield to the vice chairman on the subcommittee
Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Before we start, maybe we should ask how your
son did in football in North Carolina last night.
Mr. Burr. Twenty-seven to nothing, 5-0. Thank you for
asking.
Mr. Upton. The question of putting the real football an
Olympic team sport is, I know, before the committee. We'll
pursue that a little bit later.
Mr. Burr. Clearly you've hit on something of interest to
me, though, as this is.
I welcome all of our witnesses. For generations families
have together watched the majesty and the competition and
celebration of the Olympic Games. The games make heroes out of
athletes who have beaten the odds and who have performed
amazingly under intense pressure. Vivid pictures of triumph are
forever etched in our minds and in the minds of our children.
There's nothing more American than watching young children
being inspired by the stories of these amazing people. These
athletes represent all that is good in our world, love of a
skill, and talent, dedication to a goal, the fulfilling of a
potential destiny.
We have over the years protected the purity and the
integrity of the games. Drug testing, professional contract
arrangements and strict athletic rules are commonplace and
accepted, all implemented with the intention of keeping our
games pure.
Today we are here for no different cause, no lesser motive.
We're not here to find fault with Atlanta. The culture of the
International Olympic Committee in a sense left them with no
options if they wanted to host Olympic Games. Let me be very
clear. That culture, however pervasive, does not excuse
Atlanta's choices, and they have found fault themselves with
their actions. After extensive review, Atlanta has said rules,
procedures and guidelines in the bidding process did exist. Our
problem is this: No one abides by these rules. No one enforces
them. Play the game or lose the process.
In its response to the committee, Atlanta said of all
competing cities, it had the best technical bid. And it was
apparently ranked by the IOC evaluation committee as the best
bid among competing cities. On its merits alone, Atlanta should
have won, but that was not the system that votes of IOC members
were necessarily cast on merit.
So why are we here? We're here to find out on what basis
those votes are cast. We're here to find out how the flagrant
violations of the IOC rules went unnoticed and unquestioned by
so many. We're here to examine the responsibilities of the USOC
and whether they endorsed the practice of bidding cities or
whether they ever raised the questions of violations of IOC
rules. We're also here to look at the relationship between the
USOC and the IOC. Last, Mr. Chairman, we're here to look at the
culture of the governing body in Olympic sports and find the
answers to the question can they change voluntarily.
Many here today might ask why Congress doesn't address the
problem with U.S. cities and leave the IOC alone. It's a fair
statement. We're not here to dictate policies. Rather we're
here to question our future involvement and participation in
the Olympic movement if true reform of the bidding process does
not take place. Can the Congress continue to allow U.S.
corporate expenses related to participation in Olympic Games to
be deductible and supporting a process that allows cities and
countries to purchase the prestige of hosting an Olympic game?
We must answer that question.
Today's hearing is not about the past. It is about the
future. Because of this scandal, today's hearing is not about
athletes, it's about ethics. It's not about competition on the
field, it's about the character of those who write the rules. I
feel confident I speak for many members of this committee and
this Congress when I say we want the focus to get back on
athletes and competition. That's what the Olympics are really
all about. Until we get to the bottom of this and take steps to
fix what needs to be fixed, we won't be able to shift that
focus. In the end we owe it to the athletes, the companies that
choose to sponsor the games, and the hundreds of thousands of
Americans that support Olympics through their donations. They
deserve nothing less than the knowledge that the process they
are participating in is fair and the money being spent is done
appropriately.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to a very productive day.
Thank you for this hearing. I yield back my time.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Burr.
Mr. Waxman from California.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
commend you for holding this hearing today. This is an
important subject. Since last November, we've been reading
about how members of the International Olympic Committee
received cash and expensive gifts from cities that were
competing to host the Olympics. The individual IOC members who
solicited and received these gifts clearly deserve blame, but
so, too, does the system that allows such a culture to develop.
Sadly, the culture of greed and corruption that led to the
Salt Lake City scandal has been flourishing for years. This
scandal is now almost a year old, and yet the IOC has been
remarkably slow in taking the necessary steps to reform itself.
Back in March a commission led by Senator Mitchell
recommended a number of reforms, including the banning of
expensive gift-giving and the periodic reelection of the IOC
members. These reforms seemed entirely reasonable, but not
surprisingly, Mr. Samaranch and others at the IOC did not fully
embrace them.
Frustrated by the intransigence of the IOC, Congressman
Lazio and I introduced a bill in April that would strongly
encourage the IOC to adopt these reforms. Our bill, H.R. 1370,
would prohibit American corporations, including the television
networks, from providing any financial support to the IOC until
the IOC adopted the Mitchell Commission reforms. I believed
then, and I still believe now, that only the cutoff of American
corporate money will get the IOC's attention. Quite simply, the
IOC could not operate without the hundreds of millions of
dollars that it receives each year from American corporations.
Six months have passed since our bill was introduced, and
we are still waiting for the IOC to reform itself. I have been
told that Mr. Samaranch has been working hard on convincing
others at the IOC to approve a package of reforms, and that
these reforms should be in place by December. I really hope
this is the case, because if necessary steps are not taken to
restore the integrity of the Olympic Games, I believe that
there will be a strong bipartisan sentiment in Congress for
some time--some type of punitive action against the IOC. I
would remind the IOC that Congress has been quick to impose
sanctions in the past when it has disapproved of the activities
of foreign countries, international organizations, and
multinational corporations. We will be no less willing to act
when we feel the integrity of the Olympics is being
compromised.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses
today, and I eagerly await the announcement of the reforms by
the IOC. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Ganske--Dr. Ganske,
I'm sorry.
Mr. Ganske. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I will be brief because I know our guests want to get
to their testimony, and I want to take this opportunity to
welcome all of our distinguished guests, but in particular to
note the presence of a friend, a fellow Iowan, Mr. Bob Helmick,
who is a senior law partner at the law firm of Dorsey and
Whitney, specializing in municipal finance, graduated from
Drake University Law School with highest honors, and was
valedictorian. He's received a number of honorary humanitarian
and law doctorate degrees. He's been active nationally and
internationally in amateur sport, having served as president of
three of the largest sports organizations in the world: the
U.S. Olympic Committee, the International Amateur Swimming
Federation, and National Amateur Athletic Union. He is a well-
known civic leader in arts and education organizations. He's
been instrumental in building a nationally recognized public
finance practice and in drafting the majority of the laws in
the State of Iowa which relate to cities. He most recently was
counsel to the State of Iowa in the creation of its fiberoptic
network, which has received national recognition.
But in particular, I think in regards to this hearing, many
will recall that in 1991, Mr. Helmick was the subject of a lot
of media attention. What is generally not known is that the
subsequent facts and disclosures cleared Mr. Helmick of any
wrongdoing. He is the only IOC member in the history of the
organization to open up his personal records to public
scrutiny, and so I look forward to his testimony, as I'm sure
it will be informative, up-front, and full of good Iowa common
sense. Welcome. And I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Dr. Ganske.
Mr. Stupak from Michigan.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
these hearings.
Mr. Chairman, the Olympic movement was motivated by the
idea that Olympic competition between the best athletes from
around the world would be a unifying force to our globe. The
Olympics have become more than a mere sporting event. They are
a testament to the triumph of human spirit. While many of us
know of Michael Johnson or the Dream Team, there are thousands
of competitors we will never know who will never win
endorsement contracts. They compete to honor themselves and
their country.
The duty of the ideals underlying the Olympic movement and
the Olympic Games makes the behavior that is the subject of
this hearing all the more disappointing. I'm sure many of my
colleagues will describe the types of activities conducted by
the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games. These activities
violated the rules of International Olympic Committee, the U.S.
Olympic Committee and the Atlanta committee itself.
Some of the violations are particularly upsetting to me
because they involve the diversion of money for scholarships to
foreign athletes with the sole purpose of influencing the IOC
vote of that country. I've long sought the scholarship program
for athletes that attend United States Olympic education
training centers here in this country. Many of these Olympic
athletes give up the opportunity for an education to represent
their country. These athletes compete with athletic
scholarships in boxing, biathlons, ski jumping and many other
sports.
Since I have an Olympic education training center in
northern Michigan where many of these athletes train, I
personally have contacted sponsors of the USOC to urge them to
help provide scholarships to these athletes. Unfortunately,
they tell me while they give out scholarships in the name of
the player of a game such as the Big Ten basketball tournament
to the USOC, but they can't give a true scholarship for these
student athletes for education purposes. Instead, the money
goes to the USOC.
So if we can't use the money for true education
scholarships for our own athletes, what happens then? The USOC
uses the money that the college athletes generate for the
Olympics and not for educational scholarships, but then they
use that money to influence or to buy a vote by giving the
educational scholarships to foreign athletes while the USOC and
Olympic training centers struggle financially to remain viable.
Although Congress has passed legislation authorizing
Olympic education training scholarship programs, no money has
ever been appropriated. So to see the resources of a USOC not
being used for education purposes for our own athletes, but
instead is being used internally, and some of it even being
diverted to facilitate the purchase of an IOC member's vote is
very disturbing to me.
These hearings will accomplish two purposes: First, we need
to understand the facts involved with solicitations of the IOC
members' votes both in this country and abroad. While I can
understand the pressure put on the Atlanta committee due to
competition from other host cities, we cannot condone or
justify their behavior. We need to understand where the line
should have been drawn. Second, we need to examine the current
reform proposals pending before the IOC. I've read the Mitchell
report and wish to hear the views of the IOC on these
suggestions.
I believe it's important to work with the IOC to ensure
these reforms are met. I would say to the Director General of
the IOC and a witness before this subcommittee that we want to
compliment the IOC reform efforts. This hearing is neither an
indictment of the IOC or of many members of the IOC or their
host countries. As the King & Spalding report states, every
gift has a giver and a receiver. Certainly in the cases of
Atlanta and Salt Lake City and possibly others, representatives
of the United States to the Olympics were willing and active
participants in the culture of inappropriate gift-giving.
It's my understanding the IOC is meeting in December to
discuss these reform proposals. I urge the IOC to do more than
just adopt new rules or regulations. The IOC must change the
culture in which these bids are conducted through
accountability and enforcement; otherwise new rules and
regulations are worthless. I hope that this subcommittee can
complement those efforts and help ensure the actions taken by
members of the Atlanta committee will become a footnote to the
great and wonderful legacy of the Olympic movement.
Thank you for holding these hearings, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to working with you in the future on this issue.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Bryant from Tennessee.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me tell you before
I start my statement how much I appreciate your efforts and
your staff's extraordinary efforts, in preparing and holding
this hearing.
Like everyone in the room today, I regret that we have to
be here on this particular subject, as I would much rather be
talking about Atlanta's superb presentation of the Olympic
Games and the world-class athletes that participated in those
Olympics.
While I am disappointed to learn about the tainted
selection process where Atlanta was chosen as the host city, in
some ways I'm sympathetic to their dilemma. Atlanta did not set
out to buy or improperly influence the IOC committee that
selected them. Unfortunately, the, ``playing rules,'' of the
selection game were not up to the high standard of the Olympic
Games themselves. And just as unfortunate, Atlanta played by
these rules, which they felt were expected. As a result, the
Olympic rings had been decidedly tarnished. It will take a
concerted effort by all the world's nations to restore their
past luster.
I agree with the members of the Special Bid Oversight
Commission that the IOC must be reformed. I realize this cannot
be done easily given the power it has to literally direct
billions of dollars and international prestige to potential
host cities. But the IOC must change the culture of that
committee. However, for these reforms to succeed, to be
expected to succeed, it cannot be done without the cooperation
of other countries vying for the honor of hosting future
Olympic Games.
And I suppose as I sit here and listen to our opening
statements, I know you did not come up here expecting to hear
these statements. You came up here prepared to give your
testimony, and we do look forward to that, but I think about
the other countries out there that will be and have been in
competition to host the Olympics, and I wonder sometimes if
they're sitting there thinking, why is this--why are these
people in Washington telling us about morals and integrity and
honesty? And I have those thoughts too, sometimes, but we, I
think, must strive to set those standards, and I think today's
hearing will further that to some degree by bringing to light,
I think, of the American public more of--not necessarily
Atlanta, because, again, I am a friend of Atlanta. I'm from the
sister State of Tennessee and very much appreciated Tennessee's
participation in the siting for some of the actual events for
the Olympics. But, again, I think we all agree in this room
that the problem has to do with the International Olympic
Committee and the people who oversee and govern the activities,
particularly in the selection process.
But, again, with the moneys that are at stake here and the
prestige, I'm kind of dubious at this point that we'll see the
type of change that we need to see in this selection process
because I don't know that we can get every nation to agree to
these correct and right and appropriate playing rules. Again, a
lot of money is at stake, and a lot of prestige is at stake. I
simply want to be careful, too, today, that we don't exclude
the United States from further participation in this selection
process.
Again, none of this reform is going to be able to be
accomplished without the cooperation of the IOC, and, again,
while I don't condone what has happened in Atlanta, I'm
concerned that the United States at the same time not
unilaterally disarm ourselves and ensure that the games will
never be held in the United States again.
I look about the room and see so many distinguished people
from Georgia here today, including members of their delegation
in Congress, former Senator Nunn, former Judge and Attorney
General Bell, former mayor and U.N. Ambassador Young, and I
know I'm probably missing somebody here, but I think there is
concern. I appreciate very much Atlanta's role in this as some
of these things have come to surface, their willingness to come
out fully and participate and to disclose what has happened in
the interest of trying to improve the situation in the future.
I look forward to hearing from this very distinguished
panel. I want to especially, though, thank the oversight
commission that had Mr. Duberstein on it and others for their
very thoughtful report. I want to thank also Mr. Bell's law
firm, King & Spalding, which also included some very good
suggestions on reforms. I hope we can really learn from these
hearings as well as take to heart their suggestions on how we
can begin to influence in any way, as a Congress, the reform of
the IOC selection process. They've got some good ideas. They've
been there. I'm sure Mr. Payne will be able to contribute a
great deal as sort of the point man on the Atlanta effort as to
what can be done to affect this process, to make it better, and
to bring it up to the standards and ideals and the goals and
all those good things that we think of when we think about the
Olympics.
Again, I thank all of you for taking the time from your
extremely busy schedules to be here. I look forward to hearing
your testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Ms. McCarthy from Missouri.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank the witnesses appearing before us today. While I know
Senator Nunn won't be testifying, I want to acknowledge that
his integrity will lend a great deal to this effort.
The International Olympic Committee is charged with
monumental responsibility. Every 2 years the IOC brings peace,
hope, goodwill, sportsmanship, and culture exchange to the
entire world. And for the city that selects to host the games,
it brings more. The selection of a city means jobs, economic
expansion, unique opportunity to capture international
attention. Selection is a wonderful opportunity. It's an
awesome responsibility.
I very much hope that our panel members will speak to
several issues of grave concern. Current IOC rules regarding
limitation of candidate cities' financial commitments limit
gifts, ``to documents or other items intended for information
and/or souvenir articles. Gifts of a value exceeding U.S. $200
are not permitted.''
What kinds of reforms are being proposed that will include
consequences when rules are broken, consequences such as
sanctions, which were mentioned by Mr. Waxman? How will the IOC
implement these reforms, and what kind of oversight measures
can be taken to ensure the integrity of its process for the
future?
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing today,
and I hope that we are able to impress upon the IOC
representatives who are with us the unacceptability of past
behavior and the need to implement meaningful reforms for the
future immediately. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Barton from Texas.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I add my commendation
to you for holding this hearing. I'm going to be very brief. I
know we're here today to focus on Atlanta and its effort. I
want to say that I received a number of very positive character
references about one of our witnesses, Mr. Payne, from several
people around the country who have told me what an outstanding
individual he is.
The focus of my questions if I'm able to stay for the
hearing is going to be more on the international committee. I
think President Samaranch needs to be removed. I think he needs
to be removed sooner rather than later. I think he's created a
cesspool at the international level. Until that cyst is
removed, I see nothing but future trouble for all the other
cities that want to compete for the international Olympics.
We hold the Olympics out to be a bright shining star to our
young people, and it's supposed to be the best about what
competition and fair play is all about, but anybody who has
read the Sports Illustrated expose several months ago about the
way the international committee operates, it amazes me that any
city that attempts to obtain the games is able to do it in a
totally fair way.
So I appreciate your holding these hearings, and I hope
that we can through our pressure institute some needed reforms
at the international level.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette from Colorado.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I'd like to welcome an old friend of mine
here today, Bill Hybl, who will be testifying. Bill and I
served together for 6 years on the Colorado College Board of
Trustees, our Alma matter. Before Bill had to serve with me for
those 6 years, his hair used to be dark brown. Now you can see
it's gray. Hopefully it won't all fall out after the hearing
today.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the Atlanta and Salt Lake City
examples show that the bidding process that has developed
internationally in recent years has truly tarnished the Olympic
rings. The bribery that has been catalogued in the reports
which I have read which were provided to this committee, cast
dark clouds over the true spirit of the Olympic Games. The
International Olympic Committee members involved in these
scandals, frankly in an effort, I believe, to elevate
themselves to a pseudoroyal status, have forgotten that these
games are about elite athletes at the pinnacle of their ability
and about the true triumph of amateur athletics. In an attempt
to land mega advertising accounts and endorsements, the IOC and
host cities who fall into this bribery culture forget that
these games brought together black and white athletes to
compete for South Africa. They brought the USA and USSR
together in Seoul in 1988, a year before the Berlin Wall fell,
and it sees new countries join in the Olympic family every
year.
Frankly, we need to get to the bottom of this culture of
bribery that the IOC has created. While the organization has
rules, and they seem clear, they are not adhered to in any way.
In fact, Salt Lake City believed that it lost the 1992 games to
Nagano because it played by those rules. The culture that has
developed results in cities and volunteers shelling out
hundreds of thousands of dollars for IOC officials for shopping
sprees at Saks, medical treatments for IOC member relatives,
and college tuition.
As I said, I've reviewed both the Mitchell report and the
King & Spalding report. In my view, because of the relatively
limited scope of the investigation of Atlanta and the fact that
all witnesses and volunteers were not interviewed, all
documents were not reviewed, I believe the extent of the
problem we see in this report is the minimum, and I don't think
any of us can rule out the conclusion that there were many more
gifts, bribes, and abuses than have been documented. And
frankly, I don't think it's worthwhile undertaking a more
extensive investigation because what we've seen shows that what
happened was wrong, and we need to work at an international
level to stop it.
We're not going to solve this problem today by finger-
pointing and by raking over these old issues. Instead we need
to work collectively to decide how the United States is going
to take the leadership role in convincing the IOC to change its
rules and to make real reforms that we can stick with. I
applaud the Mitchell Commission for taking the initiative in
developing a comprehensive plan for reform. I applaud the USOC
for taking the lead in trying to implement these reforms. I
believe while we cannot act in a vacuum, we've got to take the
lead in insisting that the IOC clean up its act. That's the
thing I'm going to be most interested in hearing from the panel
today how they think this can happen.
Let me just conclude by saying a tennis camp in Florida for
two teenagers from the Republic of the Congo does not give an
IOC member the sense that a marathon course is going to be good
for a marathoner or that the food court layout of the city will
facilitate families' enjoyment of the games, nor does that type
of an attempt at direct bribery do anything to provide athletic
equipment for poor children in the country of the Congo. U.S.
cities, like cities worldwide, have had to perform like dancing
ponies, and the USOC has been a victim as much as anyone. On
the other hand, United States cities have participated in this
type of conduct, and, therefore, it is incumbent on the cities,
the USOC, and the U.S. Congress to take the lead in putting
international pressure in cleaning up these practices.
Mr. Chairman, I'm looking forward to the testimony today.
As you may know, several members of this subcommittee also sit
on the conference committee for the important H.R. 10 financial
modernization, so I would like to apologize if I have to leave
if they have recorded votes. I know several other members will
as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Diana DeGette follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Welcome Bill Hybl.
Mr. Chairman, I think we can all agree that the Olympic rings have
been tarnished. The bribery that has been catalogued in the reports
provided to this committee casts dark clouds over the true spirit of
the Olympic games. The International Olympic Committee members involved
in these scandals, in an effort to elevate themselves to a sudo-royal
status, have forgotten that these games are about elite athletes at the
pinnacle of their ability. In an attempt to land mega-advertising
accounts and endorsements, the IOC and the host cities who fall into
this bribery culture, forget that these games brought black and white
athletes together to compete for South Africa; the USA and the USSR
together in Seoul in 1988, a year before the Berlin Wall fell; and sees
new countries joining the Olympic family each year.
We need to get to the bottom of this culture of bribery that the
IOC has created. While the organization has rules, they are not adhered
to--in fact, Salt Lake City believed it lost the 1992 games to Nagano
because it played by those rules. This culture results in cities
shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars for IOC officials for
shopping sprees at Saks, medical treatments and college tuition.
It is time to stop making excuses and apologies--the US cities
involved and the USOC know what occurred was wrong. We do not solve
this problem, and insure that the next US bid city is not subject to
this culture of bribery, by rehashing past wrongs.
What we must do is stop the culture that requires cities to perform
these demeaning acts. I applaud the Mitchell Commission for taking the
initiative and developing a comprehensive plan of reform. I applaud the
USOC for taking the lead in implementing these reforms. While the US
and the USOC cannot act in a vacuum, we must take the lead in insisting
that the IOC clean up its act, reform its ways and cease to place
themselves, as IOC members, above common decency. Above all, the US and
the USOC can and must ensure that the athletes regain their proper
place as the central focus of the Olympic games.
By no means does a tennis camp in Florida for two teenagers from
the Republic of the Congo give any IOC member the sense that a marathon
course is good for a marathoner, that the food court layout will
facilitate families enjoyment of the games or that the downhill course
will facilitate a new world record for Picabo Street.
US cities, like cities worldwide, have had to perform like dancing
ponies and the USOC has been just as much a victim as anyone. We must
clean up our act, as the USOC has expressed it is willing to do, so
that we may lead by example.
The culture of bribery must stop. We can itemize all the wrongdoing
today but unless we act to ensure that this culture ends, those who do
adhere to the IOC rules and behave ethically will already have three
strikes against them.
I hope the IOC will begin to act in the spirit of the games it
represents and move to eliminate this culture.
Mr. Upton. I would note that a number of members of the
subcommittee serve on other subcommittees and conference
committees and will be coming in and out for most of the day.
Mr. Whitfield from Kentucky.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I'm
delighted that we're having this hearing today. Speaking for
myself, I must say that I do not pretend to be any sort of
expert or even understand very well the way the IOC works or
the U.S. part of that commission works, and I'm delighted that
we have a number of people here today who have personal
experience in dealing with this issue, and I'm sure all of them
are quite distinguished. And we're caught up in the culture,
but I'm hopeful that they can come forth with some
recommendations.
I personally think it will be difficult for the U.S. to
dictate probably to other countries on this issue, but
hopefully, as Ms. DeGette indicated, we can take the lead in
working with other countries and come up with a solution to
this problem. I think that's the spirit we enter these hearings
with today is to listen to people who have been involved,
listen to their suggestions, and from that hopefully come up
with some meaningful solutions and recommendations. So I look
forward to hearing from the panels.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
In May of 1999, when the Committee started its inquiry into the
Atlanta Organizing Committee's 1996 Olympic bid, we wanted to learn
whether the events surrounding Salt Lake City's Olympic bid were an
isolated incident, or part of a larger pattern of misconduct. As we
have learned, Atlanta actively gathered information about IOC members,
and armed with this information, broke gift and travel rules in order
to keep its host city bid competitive. And as Atlanta's organizers will
testify today, it is highly doubtful that Salt Lake City and Atlanta
were the only bidding cities engaged in improper gift giving to IOC
members.
The improper actions surrounding the Olympic bids of Atlanta and
Salt Lake City are an affront to the Olympic spirit. The IOC and its
member organizations must not tarnish the years of hard work and
training athletes spend in pursuit of the Olympic dream.
Unethical behavior points to a sad contradiction: Olympic athletes
must prove that they have not gained an unfair advantage, yet, based on
what we learned as part of our inquiry into Atlanta's Olympic bid, some
IOC members expected bidding cities to seek the very same unfair
advantage. The IOC and bidding cities should take a lesson from the
athletes who succeed or fail on their own merits in front of the entire
world.
Because of the events in Atlanta and Salt Lake City, as well as
questions about other bidding cities, I believe we all can agree that
there is a pattern of abuse in the Olympic site selection process.
Indeed, since December 1998 several groups have been formed to study
the process used to select Olympic host cities. Also, the Department of
Justice, has an ongoing investigation that has led to two indictments
to date. Clearly there is a need for reform in the site selection
process.
While all of this attention to new ethics standards and proposals
that aim to overhaul how Olympic host cities are selected is a good
start, it is not enough. This conduct did not spring up yesterday, and
it will not simply go away tomorrow.
This is why we need to ensure that the outcome of all this study
and work is actual change, and not window dressing. Verification of the
compliance with new policies will be critical to rebuilding the
credibility of the Olympics. I am looking forward to hearing from
today's witnesses about how they think real change can be introduced,
and--more importantly--maintained.
Thank you Mr. Upton for your work on this hearing. I want to thank
all the witnesses for their appearance here today. I look forward to
their testimony.
Mr. Upton. Our first panel today consists of the cochairs
of the Atlanta Olympic Committee, the Honorable Andrew Young as
well as Mr. Bill Payne. We also have the former president of
the USOC, Mr. Robert Helmick, and the current president of the
USOC, Mr. Bill Hybl.
If the four of you could take--could come to the witness
stand. I want to note as you may be aware, this subcommittee is
an investigative subcommittee, and as such we have always had
the practice of taking testimony under oath. Do any of you have
objection to that?
Seeing none, the Chair also advises you that under the
rules of the House and of this committee, you are entitled to
be advised by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel
this morning?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
Mr. Upton. If you could indicate who your counsel is so the
clerk can make sure she records it accurately.
Mr. Bell. Judge Bell and Ted Hester of the law firm of King
& Spalding, and we're representing Mr. Young and Mr. Payne.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Hybl and Mr. Helmick, do you have counsel as
well?
Mr. Helmick. No, sir.
Mr. Hybl. Mr. Chairman, the general counsel of the U.S.
Olympic Committee is with us for advice today.
Mr. Upton. If all of you can stand, counsels included, and
raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Upton. You're now under oath, and we have two members
asking to introduce a couple of you, and Mr. Hefley, a member
from Colorado; Mr. Isakson from Georgia. Mr. Hefley, you may
proceed.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't tell you what
a thrill it gives me to call you Mr. Chairman. When you and I
entered Congress here some years ago, we hardly dared to
imagine this day would come. So it's a great pleasure for that.
I appreciate your letting me have the honor of introducing
one of your panelists and also of sitting in on your hearings
here, which I think are very important.
I represent the U.S. Olympic Committee. Their headquarters
are in Colorado Springs. I can't tell you how thrilled I was
when the Olympic Committee made the decision to come to
Colorado Springs, because to me the Olympics had always
represented all that is best in athletics, all that is
untarnished, all that is good, all that is right. Everyone
wants to identify with the Olympics. It's a name brand that
carries a very positive connotation, whether you be Coca-Cola,
Pepsi, FedEx, the sponsors of the Olympics or whether you be
other sporting events like the Senior Olympics the Wheelchair
Olympics the Handicap Olympics, whatever it is you want to
identify--in fact, the Olympics have problems with that name
identification sometimes, I know, because everyone wants to get
in on that. And I was heartsick to learn of the corruption in
the selection process. At a time when so many institutions are
tarnished, we can't let that happen with the Olympics. So I am
delighted to introduce one of the leaders in rooting out that
corruption.
Bill Hybl, who in real life is an executive at the
Broadmoor Hotel and El Pomar Foundation, but his volunteer job
is as president of the U.S. Olympic Committee. Bill and I have
been friends for a long, long time. In spite of my indiscretion
early in our political lives when I supported--Diana, I
supported Bill's opponent in his race for the State
legislature. Unfortunately the good sense of the voters of that
district prevailed, and Bill was elected. They paid no
attention to me whatsoever.
Bill was elected to the State legislature, did a wonderful
job there, although brief, because he went with the Broadmoor
El Pomar Foundation, and he's doing a magnificent job in his
volunteer job at the Olympic Movement.
What you are doing today, Mr. Chairman, is important work,
and I know that Mr. Hybl stands ready to help you in your
efforts and, more importantly perhaps, to help in the important
task of reforming the Olympic movement. So it gives me great
pleasure this morning to introduce my friend, president of the
U.S. Olympic Committee, Bill Hybl.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Hefley. I would just note for the
record that a number of us were glad you stayed out of the race
when your wife ran for State legislature as well. She was able
to win despite your handicap.
Mr. Isakson.
Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to be
here today and delighted to be joined by Congressman Chambliss
and Congressman Bishop with the opportunity to introduce two
great Georgians, Billy Payne and Andy Young. While my remarks
today are my own, I am confident I speak for thousands, if not
millions, of Georgians who admire and respect these two fine
men. I know the purpose of this meeting is not to lavish praise
on these men, but neither should it be to condemn them out of
context or without perspective.
Billy Payne is my personal friend of more than 40 years. In
the late 1980's, Mr. Payne and a handful of citizens set out on
an impossible dream to bring the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games
to Atlanta, Georgia, and the South. First they had to convince
the USOC that Atlanta should be America's bid city, and then
they had to bring the International Olympic Committee and its
members to the American South to convince them that unpaid
volunteers could raise $1.5 billion, construct the venues, and
host over 3 million visitors from around the world.
The fact that Billy succeeded amazed many, but to those of
us who have watched him time and again, whether it's to lead a
successful campaign, to build a new sanctuary for his church,
or raise scholarships for his beloved University of Georgia, it
was no surprise at all.
Andy Young, a former Member of this Congress, former
Ambassador to the United Nations and former mayor of Atlanta,
needs no introduction. His ability and integrity are known
around the world. Andy is also my friend and a man I admire and
respect. The fact that Andy Young was the only elected official
to embrace Billy Payne's dream was no surprise, because like
Billy, Andy knows that dreams can come true if you're willing
to work and keep the faith.
The legacy these two men left goes far beyond the memories
of 16 magic days for the citizens of our city, our State, and
our country. Today the Olympic Village provides dormitories for
our students at universities and colleges, the Olympic stadium
is the home of the Atlanta Braves, and Centennial Olympic Park
is Atlanta's most significant urban renewal project since
Sherman's march to the sea. More importantly, the children of
our State saw firsthand that dreams can come true and that
regardless of the barriers of language, wealth, or race, the
world can come together and compete in an environment where
sportsmanship and mutual respect are the rule and not an
exception.
Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of the purpose of this hearing is
to evaluate Judge Bell's report and the fact that the Atlanta
committee violated the International Olympic Committee's $200
gift rule. I do not believe that the end justifies the means or
the fact that everybody else did it is an excuse or defense. On
the other hand, I do not believe these men deserve to be
questioned unless there's the clear understanding that they
operated in an environment governed and enforced by an
international committee made up of members who accepted the
gifts that violated the rules that those members themselves had
adopted.
I would hope we would look to the future to determine what,
if any, oversight this Congress should undertake in the
governance of future American bid cities rather than dwell on
what Congress would have done 10 years ago to oversee an
American bid city competing in an international environment and
governed by an international committee.
Mr. Chairman, I'm very grateful of the time you've allowed
me, and I am honored to introduce two of Georgia's finest
citizens and my friends, Billy Payne and Andy Young.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, your statements will be made part of the record
in its entirety. We would appreciate if you could limit your
opening remarks and summary of your testimony to about 5
minutes. We have a little light here that works, that turns red
at the appropriate time.
Mr. Payne, we'll begin with you. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM P. PAYNE, COCHAIR, ATLANTA OLYMPIC
COMMITTEE; ANDREW YOUNG, GOOD WORKS INTERNATIONAL, COCHAIR,
ATLANTA OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; WILLIAM J. HYBL, PRESIDENT, UNITED
STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; AND ROBERT H. HELMICK, FORMER
PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ladies and
gentlemen of the subcommittee. Judge Bell's report to which you
referred often already provides a detailed accounting of our
efforts in Atlanta to win the right to host the 1996 Centennial
Olympic Games, and I will not attempt to repeat the detail here
in my brief opening statement.
At the outset, ladies and gentlemen, let me say that I
completely agree that the international process for bidding for
the Olympic Games is dramatically in need of reform. We are
prepared to assist this subcommittee and the International
Olympic Committee in any way possible in making that reform a
reality.
In fact, as detailed in our written response, Atlanta's
bidding effort included excessive actions, even thought
processes, that today seem inappropriate, but at the time we
believed it represented the prevailing practice in the
selection process in an extremely competitive environment.
Those kinds of practices should not be permitted in future
Olympic bids. In hindsight, we recognize, I recognize, that
these excesses by those of us in Atlanta and other bidding
cities were a mistake, but I hope and believe that they should
not be allowed to overshadow all that is wonderful about the
Olympic movement and all that was wonderful about the Atlanta
games.
I have long believed and still believe passionately in the
power of the Olympic movement to bring people together in a
common sense of celebration of humanity as we all honor the
greatest athletes in the world. We must do everything possible
to eliminate these excesses, to reform these processes, but not
forget, please not forget, and certainly never destroy the
great promise of the Olympic legacy and America's preeminent
role. That being said, I would like to briefly comment on our
bidding activities.
As you have seen, and your staff as well, from reviewing
our many documents, we received input from virtually anybody
willing to talk to us about the process as we were learning
about it and about their assessment of the process. Those
assessments, those many assessments, painted a convincing
picture of a culture that existed within the bidding process
and, importantly, what we would need to do if we wanted to play
the game, if we wanted to bid and bring the Olympic Games to
our home city.
We learned the following about the selection process: The
IOC culture itself was a culture of some 70 different countries
that were the resident countries of the IOC members, and that
culture existed within a closed system that had been
historically insulated from many external oversight mechanisms.
It was, in effect, a world unto its own with no apparent
accountability. Each IOC member had a totally independent,
totally subjective voting power and a secret ballot system.
Lobbying the votes of these members throughout the 2\1/2\ years
of our efforts was intensely competitive and largely
uncontrolled among the bidding cities with no limits on overall
spending, no disclosure requirements, and little public
scrutiny. The process had proven to be a very expensive one for
cities aspiring to host the Olympic Games.
Bid cities routinely lobby each IOC member on a
personalized and targeted basis. Many, though not all, IOC
members were customarily given such special treatment. Prior
Olympic bid efforts were characterized by generous gifts,
frequent international travel, lavish hospitality, and numerous
favors and personal accommodations for IOC members. Among those
familiar with the international bidding process, the general
consensus honestly was the ritual of courting IOC members was
not only necessary, but an indispensable undertaking in order
to have a realistic chance of winning the Olympic Games.
At that time, going back to 1987, we neither defended nor
rebuked, as the chairman has pointed out, the site selection
process and dealt with it as we found it. Instead, we simply
accepted the reality in the process of bidding for the Olympic
Games. Our objective was to win for Atlanta and the United
States the right to host the 1996 games, not at that time to
reform the International Olympic Committee. But make no
mistake, and we are the first to admit, that the Olympic Games
are a huge financial undertaking. Our organizing committee
agreed to shoulder the responsibility, to raise $1.7 billion
just to put on the games in our city of Atlanta. And at the end
of the day, we were proud to say that we accomplished our goal
of breaking even.
The U.S. Olympic Committee, as Mr. Hybl will point out, and
the U.S. athletes benefit significantly when the Olympic Games
are hosted within our great country. The Atlanta Games provided
U.S. Olympic Committee and its athletes approximately $230
million from television, marketing, and sponsorship proceeds,
including their share of the National Olympic Committee
distributions from the International Olympic Committee. And as
we all know, the IOC also benefits from the staging of the
games by taking a share of virtually every dollar raised, some
of which is distributed back to the U.S. Olympic Committee
along with other National Olympic Committees. The IOC controls,
must approve, and shares in the television rights,
sponsorships, licensed merchandise, commemorative coins and
sale of memorabilia. For the Atlanta Games, the IOC retained 40
percent of the television rights, 5 percent of the fee on all
merchandise and goods sold, and 3 percent of the revenues from
the federally permitted Olympic coin. All totaled, the IOC
received approximately $400 million in cash and value from the
Atlanta Games.
Undeniably Atlanta and Georgia and, we hope you would
concur, America benefited enormously from hosting the 1996
games. The games stimulated hundreds of millions of dollars in
permanent capital improvement in Georgia.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that we did indeed
launch and conduct a very aggressive effort as we launched for
the first time ever really our city's competition in the
international arena. We generally felt that we had to be
aggressive in order to prevail. That aggressiveness and our
inherent enthusiasm contributed to the many excesses which are
detailed in our report, but we believe honestly that that same
enthusiasm also contributed to the incredible pulling together
of the people of Atlanta and America as we together embraced
the common purpose and shared vision of bringing the Olympic
Games to our great country.
I salute once again, Mr. Chairman, your reference to
safeguard the future of the Olympic movement and importantly
the opportunity for other American cities to fairly compete for
the honor of hosting future Olympic Games. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of William P. Payne follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Porter Payne
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
understand that the Subcommittee has reviewed and will include in
today's hearing record the Georgia Amateur Athletic Foundation's (GAAF)
September 16, 1999 response to Chairman Bliley and Chairman Upton. That
response provides a detailed accounting of our efforts to win for
Atlanta the right to host the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games and I will
not attempt to repeat that detail in my statement here this morning. I
would, however, like to briefly share with you my thoughts on some of
the broader questions and larger issues facing this Subcommittee as
well as the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
At the outset, let me say that I completely agree that the
international process of bidding for the Olympic Games is in need of
reform. I am prepared to assist this Subcommittee and the IOC in any
way possible in making that reform a reality.
It is a fact, as detailed in our written response, that Atlanta's
bidding effort included excessive actions, and even thought processes,
that today seem inappropriate but at the time, reflected the prevailing
practice in the selection process and an extremely competitive
environment. Those kinds of practices should not be permitted in the
competition for future Olympic bids.
In hindsight, I recognize that many of these excesses by those of
us in Atlanta and by other candidate cities in the bidding process were
a mistake, but they should not be allowed to erase or overshadow all
that is good about the Olympic Movement and the Atlanta Games. I have
long believed and still believe in the power and majesty of the
Olympics to bring people together in a common sense of celebration of
humanity as we honor the greatest athletes in the world. We must do
everything possible to preserve and safeguard that potential for future
generations. We must eliminate the excesses, reform the processes, but
not forget, and certainly never destroy, the great promise of the
Olympic legacy and America's prominent role.
That being said, let me briefly comment on the Atlanta bidding
effort. On February 8, 1987, I conceived the idea that Atlanta, Georgia
and the United States of America should be proposed as a candidate to
host the Olympic Games. For the next three years and seven months,
together with my friend and colleague Andy Young, I led the effort that
presented Atlanta's candidacy first to the U. S. Olympic Committee
(USOC) and then to the International Olympic Committee.
After our successful selection as the official U.S. candidate city,
hundreds, and ultimately thousands, of additional volunteers and
considerable corporate support began marshalling behind this
``impossible dream''. We were increasingly amazed at the intensity and
passion with which the people of Atlanta and Georgia began embracing
this quest. While no one was sure we could win, our community rallied
together behind the magnificence of the Olympic competition.
When I first proposed the idea of an Olympic bid, I had no idea
when the next Olympic Games would be available, had never heard of the
IOC, and was wholly unfamiliar with the Olympic site selection process.
Our first task was to learn as much as possible about the site
selection process at both the USOC and IOC levels.
From February 1987 until September 1990 when Atlanta was selected
by the IOC to host the 1996 Games, GAAF received input--both solicited
and unsolicited--from just about anybody willing to give their
assessment of the selection process. For example, we received advice
from USOC members; IOC members; sports federation members; national
Olympic committee members; journalists; corporate sponsors; and
individuals from other Olympic bid cities including Los Angeles,
Anchorage, Barcelona, Athens, Melbourne and Toronto. Taken together,
they painted a convincing picture of the culture that prevailed in the
bidding process and, most importantly, what Atlanta would need to do to
bring home the Olympic Games. We learned the following about the IOC
site selection process:
The IOC culture was the product of the more than 70 cultures
of the voting IOC members and existed within a closed system
that had historically been insulated from any external
oversight mechanism. It was, in effect, a world unto its own,
with no apparent accountability;
Each IOC member had independent, totally subjective voting
power in a secret ballot system;
Lobbying for the votes of these members was intensely
competitive and largely uncontrolled among the bidding cities.
With no limits on overall spending, no disclosure requirements,
and little public scrutiny, the process had proven to be an
extremely expensive one for the bid cities;
Bid cities routinely lobbied each IOC member on a
personalized, targeted basis. Many, though not all, IOC members
were customarily given such special treatment;
To the extent that the IOC had written rules, they were
customarily ignored by the bidding cities and were not enforced
by the IOC; and
Prior Olympic bid efforts were characterized by generous
gifts, frequent international travel, lavish hospitality and
numerous favors and personal accommodations for IOC members.
Among those familiar with the bidding process, the general
consensus was that this ritual of ``courting'' IOC members was
not only acceptable but also necessary for a city to have any
realistic chance of winning the Olympic bid.
At the time, GAAF neither defended nor rebuked the site selection
process as we found it. Instead, we simply accepted it as the reality
of bidding for the Olympics. Our objective was to win for Atlanta and
the United States the right to host the 1996 Games, not to reform the
IOC.
To accomplish that goal, we developed and implemented a strategy
that reflected much of what we had learned and continued to hear about
the site selection process. We set out to win a majority of the IOC
votes primarily by cultivating close relationships with IOC members. We
recognized early on not only that Atlanta was an underdog, but that we
would not be able to out-spend the other candidate cities. Instead, we
decided that we had to do better than the others at ``personalizing''
our approaches to IOC members, supported by gifts, travel, and other
favors tailored to the tastes of the individual IOC members. We
believed that by doing this, we could create relationships that would
allow us to gain insight from IOC members regarding our candidacy and
ultimately increase the level of support for Atlanta among IOC members.
This strategy, which we first published in our ``Strategic
Operating And Management Plan'' in December 1988, included plans to:
Develop an information file on IOC members;
Visit IOC members in their home country;
Arrange for IOC members to visit Atlanta;
Attend all meetings where three or more IOC members are
gathered;
Communicate with IOC members on a regular basis; and
Establish a personalized gift program to IOC members.
That strategy, along with the efforts of our many volunteers,
apparently worked. We will never know the relative importance to
Atlanta's victory of the technical merit of our bid, but it was ranked
as the best by the official IOC Evaluation Commission; of intangibles,
such as its civil rights leadership; of the dedication and tremendous
enthusiasm of our volunteers and our entire community; and of the
personal relationships we developed with IOC members, which were
supported by gifts, travel, entertainment, and other accommodations. We
do know that the amount of money that GAAF spent on IOC members and
throughout the selection process was not by itself the deciding factor.
GAAF spent approximately $7.8 million while it was reported that most
other cities spent considerably more: Athens, Greece--$25 million;
Melbourne, Australia--$20 million; and Toronto, Canada--$15 million.
Most of this money was spent after the fall of 1988, when Lillehammer
was selected to host the Winter Games.
Despite the difference in spending, GAAF was able to accomplish its
goal of winning the Olympic bid, and then successfully staged the 1996
Games through the tireless efforts of thousands of civic-minded
volunteers and tremendous community, corporate, and governmental
support. As a result, both Georgia and the IOC were able to reap the
benefits of the 1996 Games.
Make no mistake--the Olympic Games are a huge financial
undertaking. ACOG agreed to shoulder responsibility to raise and spend
over $1.7 billion dollars just to put on the Olympic Games in Atlanta.
At the end of the day, ACOG accomplished its goal of breaking even.
The United States Olympic Committee and U.S. athletes benefit
significantly when Olympic Games are hosted in the United States. The
Atlanta Games provided the USOC approximately $230 million from
television, marketing, and sponsorship proceeds, including moneys
received through the IOC. The IOC also benefits from staging the Games
by taking a share of virtually every dollar raised, some of which is
distributed back to the USOC along with other national organizing
committees. The IOC controls, must approve, and shares in all
television rights, sponsorships, licensed merchandise, commemorative
coins or memorabilia. For Atlanta, the IOC retained 40% of television
rights fees, 5% of all merchandise or goods sold, and 3% of the
revenues from the sale of Olympic coins. All totaled, the IOC received
approximately $400 million in cash and value from the Atlanta Games.
In our supplemental report, we indicated that the prize of the bid
competition ``was enormous: hosting the Olympics brought incalculable
prestige and potentially billions of dollars in economic impact to the
winning city.'' In fact, this was precisely the impact on Atlanta as
the result of the 1996 Games.
The 1996 Games stimulated hundreds of millions of dollars in
permanent capital investment in Georgia, with a total economic impact
for Georgia of more than $4 billion. The 1996 Games stimulated
approximately 2.5 million square feet of new construction and
installation of more than 2,000 miles of fiber optic cable. Some of
Georgia's most popular destinations include two primary Olympic
legacies--Centennial Olympic Park and Turner Field. Much of that
investment also brought major infrastructure and facility improvements
to several Georgia academic institutions. Citizens in other Georgia
cities still enjoy the Georgia International Park in Conyers, the Stone
Mountain tennis center, the Columbus softball complex and the Lake
Lanier rowing center. The 1996 Games helped define Atlanta as an
``international city'' and dramatically increased domestic and
international tourism in Atlanta.
The Olympics clearly have an extraordinary intangible impact as
well. The 1996 Games allowed Georgia and Americans to experience the
grandeur of the Olympics first hand. Athletes from all over the world
visited Atlanta and pushed the very edges of their personal envelopes
with the whole world watching. Relationships were formed that
transcended governments and ideologies. We watched Atlanta and Georgia
learn more about the world, and the world learn more about us. And,
although the media has recently focused on the negative aspects of the
Olympic bid process, the media archives are replete with stories
describing the magnificence of the Olympic spirit so overwhelmingly
demonstrated in Atlanta and America during the 1996 Games.
Despite all that is wonderful about the Olympic legacy, I do
believe that reform is needed in the bidding process, particularly in
the areas of gifts and travel.
In the intensely competitive site selection process, the temptation
is great for bidding cities to offer--and IOC members to accept--
generous gifts. To eliminate this temptation and potential for abuse, I
believe that all gifts of any value whatsoever should be prohibited in
the bidding process. Also, IOC members should be required to report any
offers of gifts from bid cities and the IOC should create and
vigorously implement some type of enforcement mechanism for these
rules.
Our report, and those reports which have detailed the activities
relating to recent Olympic bids in Toronto, Sydney, and Salt Lake City
have identified the entire travel and reimbursement area as one
particularly susceptible to excesses and abuses by bidding cities or
members of the international sporting family. This potential for excess
is increased by the significant international travel costs at issue and
the reluctance of bid cities to interrogate or challenge IOC members
about their itineraries or backup documentation. To avoid this problem,
I believe that all travel of IOC members should be paid for directly by
the IOC and no reimbursement for travel costs should be required of any
bidding cities in the competition.
In closing, let me say that we were indeed aggressive as we
launched our city's effort for the first time ever into the intensely
competitive international arena. We genuinely felt we had to be
aggressive in order to prevail in that arena. That aggressiveness and
our inherent enthusiasm obviously contributed to the excesses detailed
in our report. That same enthusiasm also contributed to an incredible
``pulling together'' of the people of Atlanta as we embraced this
common purpose and shared vision of bringing the Olympic Games to our
home city.
I salute your efforts to safeguard the future of the Olympic
movement and the opportunity for other American cities to compete for
the honor of hosting the Olympic Games.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Young.
TESTIMONY OF ANDREW YOUNG
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for
inviting us to testify before this committee.
I'd like to go back to the time when we first started this,
because when we went to Seoul in 1988, we were a small group of
volunteers operating almost totally on our own funds and
knowing that we were getting into a rough game, but we heard
the stories of diamonds and furs exchanged in Olympic
competitions amongst IOC members. We knew we couldn't play that
game. But knowing that it might be a dirty game like in a dirty
game of football, you figure you don't have to play dirty, but
when you get in it, you expect to win. So we got in the game,
and we were determined to win.
We learned two things in Seoul. The first was to our shame
and surprise, nobody really knew Atlanta. They kept getting us
confused with Atlantic City. And we had to define ourselves,
and one of the reasons we went out of our way to get people to
come to Atlanta was nobody knew Atlanta. People know
Washington. They know New York. They know California. The only
thing they knew about the South was civil rights, the Civil
War, and Disney World. One of the reasons why we openly agreed
to take people to Disney World was that's what they knew about
the South. That's what they wanted to see.
The other thing we learned about at Seoul was that this was
a very complex process. We watched the bidding for the Winter
Olympics, and all of the conventional wisdom was that the great
cities and the great nations would win. Anchorage was the U.S.
bid. Ostersund was Sweden's bid; Sofia was Bulgaria's bid; and
there were all kinds of theories. Nobody thought Lillehammer,
including Samaranch, and when Lillehammer won, nobody could
figure out why. As we went around to the IOC members to try to
figure out why, we kept hearing they were such nice people. We
determined that in five secret ballots, one, you can't buy an
election in five secret ballots. You have a ballot. People
don't talk to each other. The low person drops out. Then they
vote on the next one. The lowest vote drops out. Then they vote
on the next one. You've got to survive five secret ballots with
no communication. We decided that was, one, a pretty honest
process, one that, in order to win, you had to capture the
hearts of the IOC members. And that's why we set out to do such
detailed analysis of the personalities.
Most of the people on the IOC are enormously rich, and
money doesn't matter, but a lot of the subtleties of their egos
and ambitions and their interests were important in helping
them to understand Atlanta. It was also necessary for us to
demonstrate that we had the capacity to put on the games.
Now, in dealing with the poorer nations and the poorer
members, we had another problem, and that is we were known to
be a rich nation. There was a lot of resentment that our
athletes were well-trained and well-fed. Their athletes had no
training facilities. Their athletes had no equipment, and yet
we were expecting them to come and compete. We were constantly
challenged to show that we had an interest in the developing
world's athletes.
We were able to do that in part because we've always done
that in Atlanta. We had a training camp for athletes before
coming to Los Angeles when we had no ambitions for the games
and no interest for the games. Local businessmen put together
money, and we sponsored a training camp at Emory University,
and we allowed athletes to come there and train for 2 or 3
weeks, for a month, before going to Los Angeles. It was simply
goodwill. We hosted the Angolan team in Atlanta one summer.
Local citizens did this just to give Angolans a chance to play
basketball. We also ended up recruiting a couple of their
basketball players for our junior college, but it's been
something we've constantly done, and if there were excesses in
this direction, those excesses were consistent with our
practices even before we were involved in the Olympics.
My family has always been involved in helping people from
other countries get education. It's part of our church
tradition because our family was educated by missionaries. So
we feel a responsibility for several generations to make sure
that anybody who wants a good education in the United States of
America ought to be able to have it if they're willing to work
and study, and when we were involved in things like this, it
wasn't with the intent of bribing IOC members. It's because
that's the way we've always done business in Atlanta. If we
took people to Augusta, it's because that's the way we got
1,100 businesses into Georgia during the time I was mayor of
Atlanta, because we bring them on the red carpet tour, and we'd
show them the best that we had to offer, and we would try to
impress them with the quality of life that we had, because we
didn't have tax breaks. We couldn't compete with other States
in terms of the amenities. So we tried to put the emphasis on
honesty and efficiency and, yes, southern hospitality. We could
make you feel at home, and we could treat you better in Atlanta
than anywhere else in the world. That's the way we've done
business, and that's the way we've been a successful city.
We didn't want to lose this, and we probably did overextend
ourselves and our hospitality, but it wasn't with the intention
of corrupting the system. It was with the intention of
demonstrating that we with our diversity represented best what
the Olympic ideal stood for, and we bragged about our
affirmative action. We bragged that the Hispanic
representatives could come; and the president of Coca-Cola was
Robert Goizueta, a Hispanic; that the president of one of our
larger engineering firms was born in India; that we had a
Polish community and an Irish community that would entertain
people, and no matter what language you were or what your
cultural background was, we found a way to speak your language
and to introduce you to Atlanta and make you feel at home.
That's what we thought we were doing. We think we did it
successfully, and that's why it's been hard for us to think of
what we did in the context of a culture of corruption and us
having been co-opted by a culture of corruption. We have
problems with that, though we admit that in any international
ethical environment, whether it's the United Nations, the IOC,
the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, there are
competing standards of ethics. Ours, I think, are the highest.
We have a responsibility to uphold those and fight for them,
but in the meantime, we try to play the game as fairly as we
can on a level playing field and win, and that's what we think
we did.
[The prepared statement of Andrew Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew Young, Good Works International
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
delighted to be here with you to discuss our thoughts and your thoughts
about the Olympic Games.
Let me first say that I am enormously proud of Mr. Billy Payne and
the thousands of volunteers who first helped Atlanta to win, then
prepared Atlanta to host the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games. These past
few months of discussion and review of the Olympic bid process have in
no way diminished the pride that I feel for our efforts.
In my career, I have been involved with countless activities in
which people from all walks of life joined together for a brilliant
cause. During the 1960's, people joined together to fight racial and
economic oppression under the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
In the decades that followed, people joined together to fight social
and cultural oppression in Third World nations across the globe, often
under the leadership of President Jimmy Carter.
One common thread that has united and joined people together is the
Olympic Games. When Atlanta hosted the 1996 Games, nearly 200 countries
fielded teams, the most participating countries in the history of the
Games. For nearly three weeks during those Games, virtually every
country on the planet focused their attention on Atlanta--and on the
United States--because of one reason: the athletes.
It is the athletes that embody the deep spirit of the Olympic
Games. Not the corporate sponsors' Not the Olympic committees or
federations or the individuals who bid for the Games' Not the
television producers or commentators. What most excites the athletes
about competing in the Games? I think it is the chance to experience
the world, the chance to become friends with their peers from 200
different countries. And maybe, through their new friendships with
people who do not share the same language, these athletes can begin to
understand what they all share--and that is, the diversity of the human
race.
Atlanta won its Olympic bid on the strength of its diversity and
inclusiveness, thus 40 percent of the Olympic related construction
contracts were awarded to minority- and women-owned firms. Our good job
of promoting economic diversity led to greatly increased wealth. With
two billion dollars in spending on the Olympics, Atlanta led the region
in economic growth during the 1990s. The total economic impact from the
Olympic Games in 1996 for both Atlanta and Georgia is estimated at more
than $4 billion.
As I was about to conclude my second term as mayor of the city of
Atlanta, things had gone very well for seven years. I had inherited
from Maynard Jackson a sound base of urban development. We had just
completed a new terminal at Hartsfield International Airport, the mass
transit program--which I had helped to start while I served in
Congress--was moving steadily along and in general, things were in good
shape.
I began an effort with the Chamber of Commerce, the Convention and
Visitors Bureau and the State Commission of Trade and Industry to
attract new, private investment to the city. In my eight years as
Mayor, we attracted over seventy billion dollars in private investment.
This was a city generating wealth not just trying to redistribute
existing wealth through taxation.
On the heels of this success, two local attorneys, Horace Sibley
and Billy Payne, wanted to talk to me about hosting the Olympics in
1996. Most Atlantans laughed at the notion but I had a vision of the
Olympics in 1936 in Berlin. I was four years old and my father took me
to a local theatre to see a Movietone clip of Jesse Owens winning four
gold medals, defeating in our eyes Hitler's vision of a white master
race.
Even so, I hesitated. As Mayor, I was acutely aware of the
financial debacle inherited by the city of Montreal when it hosted the
1976 Summer Olympic Games. Jokes were still made about its Olympic
Stadium, where the Montreal Expos had since played baseball, and that
for every hot dog the fans bought, another penny went to reducing the
city's Olympic debt. Many pennies were required--the taxpayer burden
approached one billion dollars. The Atlanta Games would have to be
privately funded. I would not allow Atlanta's taxpayers to owe one
penny.
But Billy was persistent. Billy and I were both men with a
religious sense of service. Billy says that he first had the dream of
bringing the Olympics to Atlanta during dedication services for a $1
million addition to his church in Dunwoody. He and his wife, Martha,
spearheaded the capital improvement campaign and he liked the notion of
public service and wanted to do more on a bigger scale. Bringing the
Olympics to Atlanta was certainly that and more.
Atlanta had the airport, transit system, 6,000 hotel rooms, a
massive convention center, a new domed stadium, and the ideal site for
the Olympic Village--all needed to win the Olympic bid. However,
Atlanta's global contribution was--and remains--clearly in the area of
human rights and the ability of people from many divergent backgrounds
to live together in harmony.
More than 1,000 churches offered hospitality to families of
visiting athletes during the Olympics and thousands upon thousands of
volunteers helped put on the Games. Volunteers ``made a witness to the
world'' during the bidding and the preparation of the Games. All of the
volunteer efforts were strictly volunteer, with no monetary gain.
Volunteers helped clean up the city beforehand, took tickets and
drove dignitaries and officials to venues and hotels. Doctors
volunteered at the Olympic Village, homemakers and students volunteered
wherever needed, and the city's business community donated time, money
and goodwill.
The strategy to promote Atlanta as the host for the Centennial
Olympic Games was developed largely by local volunteers who understood
the universal appeal of the American South's reputation for hospitality
and graciousness. During our bid effort, these volunteers helped
educate visiting members of the International Olympic Committee about
the virtues of Atlanta. Rather than entertain the IOC members in fancy
restaurants, volunteers all over Atlanta invited them into their homes.
Here, they saw that the top executive of our largest company, Coca-
Cola, was Hispanic, and Atlanta had business and civic leaders whose
ethnic backgrounds were as diverse as could be imagined.
These members of the International Olympic Committee also were
impressed by Atlanta's, and in particular my own personal experience,
with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and his courageous leadership of the
American Civil Rights Movement. I spent many moving hours with the IOC
representatives from Africa and from other destitute nations around the
world. What they knew of Dr. King was nothing short of legendary. He
and his work inspired them in their own countries, even as they were
faced with unspeakable poverty, ethnic hatred and violence, and
deplorable living conditions.
I shared with these IOC members that our Movement began as a
struggle for freedom. But despite important gains in education and
economic opportunity, for black Americans without education, political
power, or wealth, their condition remained as Martin once described,
``a lonely island of poverty in an ocean of material wealth and
affluence.'' The IOC members from Africa and other Third World nations
understood this perfectly, because their island of poverty was very
real.
The people in these countries had nothing. When asked by the IOC
delegate from the Republic of the Congo if I could help children in the
Congo get soccer balls and gym shorts, I tried to help them. For this,
Atlanta's Olympic bid effort has been scrutinized. Mr. Chairman, I have
dedicated my life to helping children like these, and I am at peace
with myself that this act of human kindness was appropriate. If I had
failed to help these children--who even with new soccer balls still
competed in games in their bare feet--I would not be at peace. The
issue of whether or not this was within the gift-giving guidelines of
the Olympic bid process was not my primary concern. Nor was the issue
of winning a vote for Atlanta. We saw a need to help an impoverished
people, and we helped them.
The Atlanta Olympic Organizing Committee donated money to a South
African anti-apartheid organization. This organization was fighting the
single greatest obstacle to the African continent and needed help. This
organization was not even affiliated with any Olympic group, because
South Africa at that time was banned from Olympic competition. Why?
Because of apartheid. The issue of whether or not this was a
questionable gift was not my primary concern. We saw a need to bring
apartheid to an end, and in a small way, perhaps we helped.
I cannot tell you how excited I was when the South African athletes
marched into the Atlanta Olympic Stadium during the Opening Ceremonies
on July 19, 1996. But my spirit was truly lifted when--on the final day
of competition on August 4, 1996--a young South African athlete won the
Gold Medal in the final event of the Olympics, the men's marathon.
Let me briefly digress: I urge the Subcommittee to remember that in
determining a city to host the Olympic Games, the selection process by
the IOC is a series of secret ballots, taken in silence, one at a time.
The low vote getter is dropped and new ballots are marked until one
city gets a majority. With Atlanta, it took five secret ballots, and
from the small number of votes cast by the IOC members for Atlanta in
the early rounds of balloting, it is apparent that Atlanta did not buy
the vote. We had determined from the beginning that the only way to win
was to become the ``emotional'' favorite. With five secret ballots,
people voted their hearts as well as their heads. The ballots occurred
as follows:
Round 1: Athens 23, Atlanta 19, Toronto 14, Melbourne 12,
Manchester 11, Belgrade 7
Round 2: Athens 23, Melbourne 21, Atlanta 20, Toronto 15,
Manchester 5
Round 3: Athens 26, Atlanta 26, Toronto 18, Melbourne 16
Round 4: Atlanta 34, Athens 30, Toronto 22
Round 5: Atlanta 51, Athens 35
We also believe that Atlanta spent less than one-third as much as
some of our competitors in our bid process. Since few people--even in
Atlanta--thought we could win, there was no incentive to spend more.
As we all discuss ways to make the Olympic bid process more
transparent and accountable, I hope that wise ideas will be presented.
The IOC should be applauded for taking its reform efforts. But perhaps
even bolder and wiser ideas should be considered. For example, one way
to eliminate excesses in Olympic bid activities is to eliminate the bid
process--by selecting two cities on each continent to be permanent
sites for the Games. One city for the Summer Games and one city for the
Winter Games. Cities wishing to be considered could apply to the
International Olympic Committee through a streamlined and well-
supervised process. The Games would rotate to each city, giving each
city the host responsibilities once every 20 years. This is not unlike
the way football's Super Bowl goes to small selection of cities each
January.
But whatever reforms are enacted, it is incumbent upon this body--
and all other oversight groups--to let the Games be about the athletes.
It should not be easy to overlook the athletes. Some will say that the
Olympic Games are now just a big business, like all other professional
sports and many amateur sports organizations. However, for the
athletes--especially the Olympic athletes--it is all about the business
of athletic competition and human achievement. And through their
competition and achievement, we as the citizens of the planet are
touched and inspired to do great deeds ourselves.
I believe Atlanta has a magical sense of destiny that motivates us
to excel. Billy Payne's sincerity and my own spiritual faith led us to
believe deeply in the power of sport to make a change in the world.
Billy and I shared a dream about the Olympics that went beyond any
economic gains for the city. We firmly believed that the Olympics could
help young people to dream, hope and believe in more than the common
everyday life, which sometimes isn't that fulfilling to them. When you
look into the heart of the Olympics, you will see a spiritual ideology.
I believe that, other than the American Civil Rights Movement, which
counts Atlanta as its birthplace, the campaign for the Olympics was the
greatest single spiritual experience in Atlanta's history. Sports can
promote human development, as a means of breaking barriers, racial,
ethnic, and economic. Sports help nurture and sustain community values.
In times of greatness in human history, men and women have been
able to find a way to bring their lives and the lives of their
generation in tune with the Spirit of God, in harmony. When
civilizations have made sense, they have somehow found a way to live in
harmony with a spiritual basis of life.
What the Olympic Games have contributed to this spiritual basis of
life is hard to measure, but I know that it has been a great
contribution. Thank you very much.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Hybl.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. HYBL
Mr. Hybl. Mr. Chairman, I'm Bill Hybl, president of the
U.S. Olympic Committee. I certainly appreciate the opportunity
to address the committee today.
At the outset, let me say that the U.S. Olympic Committee
is one of 200 National Olympic Committees around the world, and
in that capacity this particular National Olympic Committee has
a mission, and our primary mission is to support assistance of
U.S. athletes who compete in the Olympic Games, summer and
winter, the Pan American Games, and certainly the para-Olympic
Games.
Under the rules the International Olympic Committee has
currently, an NOC, National Olympic Committee, like the United
States may put forward one candidate seeking to host the games.
It's the responsibility of the U.S., just as it did with
Atlanta, to select one city and then to oversee that particular
city in terms of what is done after the bid goes on.
By 1997, it was apparent that the U.S. Olympic Committee
was going to select a bid city for the 2012 games and also a
bid city to compete for the 2007 Pan American Games. What we've
done for the Pan American Games will be obvious this month as
the U.S. Olympic Committee will select that city on October 23.
Mr. Chairman, we will provide as we receive today the report,
some hundred or so pages, of the bid evaluation committee under
the new procedures that we are using. In fact, we go back to
February 1997, 33 cities from throughout the United States
decided that they would like in some form or another to
participate in what the U.S. Olympic Committee was doing as far
as a bid city goes. Now, we established a bid city office at
that time, and that has gone forward.
We were interrupted, of course, by the bid city scandal
from Salt Lake City, which occurred in November and December
1998. The U.S. Olympic Committee reacted on two fronts. Before
the end of that month, the USOC established the Mitchell
Commission, which has been alluded to earlier, and great
membership, individuals who really cared about the Olympic
movement and making a difference.
At the same time, USOC also initiated an independent and
really thorough investigation to review what role the USOC may
have had in Salt Lake City. In March 1999, the Mitchell
Commission's recommendations were tendered on the first day of
the month. The executive committee convened on the second day
of March 1999 in Washington and adopted all of the
recommendations by the Mitchell Commission. We felt it was
important to move quickly and decisively, particularly because
we had such good guidance from the Mitchell Commission.
With the issuance of the King & Spalding report on
September 16, we now have new information revealing that some
of the excesses of Salt Lake City also occurred in Atlanta.
USOC has not conducted its own independent investigation, but
as you can tell from the reading of your report, the issues
remain the same.
What we have done in terms of reform within the U.S.
Olympic Committee is, No. 1, future American bid cities will be
prohibited from creating or maintaining any sort of
international assistance program.
No. 2, the USOC will strictly apply its criteria for grants
awarded by the International Assistance Fund, and this will be
monitored by the in-place Office of Compliance of the U.S.
Olympic Committee.
The USOC has created this Office of Compliance, and it's
not only responsible for ensuring compliance with the rules
applicable to the bid process, but also with a comprehensive
set of revised conflict of interest proposals.
Four, the USOC has strengthened its rules and contracts
that govern that domestic selection process. We've addressed
all 15 recommendations in this area by the Mitchell Commission.
The USOC also has strengthened its direct oversight
policies and its contract with the city so that, in fact, the
USOC will be a partner ever present for bid cities in the
future.
Meetings of the USOC Board of Directors are now open. That
includes the executive committee, and we're making all of our
documents, our minutes, public after they're adopted. We think
this really projects an image of openness and also gives
everyone an opportunity to see what the USOC is doing.
We've required a series of other things as set out in the
testimony which has been submitted.
We think the USOC has acted decisively in this regard in
implementing all of the Mitchell Commission reform
recommendations, but the USOC could have done more. The USOC in
its effort to oversee Atlanta and Salt Lake City fell short. If
we had done what we have in place today, we probably wouldn't
be here before the committee.
I want to assure the members of the committee, Mr.
Chairman, that the U.S. Olympic Committee stands ready to
assist in whatever way possible to ensure that this situation
does not occur again and, more importantly, we create the sort
of atmosphere that athletes from the United States and around
the world can continue to be proud to be an Olympian and
participate in the game.
[The prepared statement of William J. Hybl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Hybl, President, United States Olympic
Committee
Good morning, I am Bill Hybl, President of the United States
Olympic Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to address you today.
i. bid city selection process background
Under the rules of the International Olympic Committee, a nation's
National Olympic Committee may put forward one candidate city seeking
to host the Olympic Games. It is the responsibility of the USOC to
first select the U.S. bid city, if any, that will be put forward to the
IOC and to then oversee that city's candidacy during the selection
process governed by the IOC.
By 1997, it was apparent that the United States Olympic Committee
was going to select a city to bid for the 2012 Olympic Games and the
2007 Pan American Games. Before those site selection processes
commenced, and well in advance of any knowledge of the Salt Lake City
bid scandal, the USOC recognized the need to guide and oversee the
process for U.S. bid cities for the 2012 Olympic Games and the 2007 Pan
American Games so that difficulties would not arise. This resulted in a
February 1997 orientation, in Philadelphia, for 33 potential bid
cities, the subsequent establishment of a bid cities office within the
USOC and the creation of a series of undertakings and agreements,
copies of which, as they existed prior to the eruption of the Salt Lake
City bid scandal, have been made available to your staff.
When news of the Salt Lake City bid city scandal broke in December
1998, the USOC reacted on two fronts. Before the end of the month, the
USOC established the Special Bid Oversight Commission (the Mitchell
Commission), chaired by Senator George Mitchell, with vice chairs Ken
Duberstein and Don Fehr, and members Roberta Cooper Ramo and Jeff Benz,
to review the circumstances surrounding Salt Lake City's bid to host
the Olympic Winter Games with a view to improving the policies and
procedures related to bid processes. At the same time, the USOC also
initiated an independent and thorough investigation and review of its
role in the Salt Lake City scandal. In March 1999, the USOC's Executive
Committee accepted all the recommendations of the Mitchell Commission
and began the process of reform implementation based upon both the
Mitchell Report and its own investigative findings.
ii. report on atlanta
With the issuance of the King & Spalding report of September 16,
1999, we now have new information revealing that some of the excesses
of Salt Lake City also occurred in Atlanta. The USOC has not conducted
an investigation of the Atlanta bid and therefore cannot comment on the
accuracy or completeness of the King & Spalding report. There is
nothing in the report, however, that would cause us to change our
response to the bid scandal. If anything, the King & Spalding report
supports the view of the Mitchell Commission that gifts and excesses
have increased over time. The lesson of Atlanta is the same as the
lesson of Salt Lake City, and it is a lesson that we have taken to
heart.
iii. status of usoc reform efforts
Let me briefly review with you what we have accomplished, to date.
1. Future American bid cities will be prohibited from creating or
maintaining international assistance programs. (Authorizing resolution
approved by the USOC's Executive Committee on March 2, 1999.)
2. The USOC will strictly apply its criteria for grants awarded by
the International Assistance Fund, with adherence monitored by an
office of compliance. (Authorizing resolution approved by the Executive
Committee on March 2, 1999.)
3. The USOC has created an office of compliance that is responsible
for ensuring compliance not only with rules applicable to the bid
process, but also with a comprehensive set of revised conflict of
interest policies. (These revised policies will be voted on at the
USOC's October 23rd Board of Directors Meeting.)
4. The USOC has strengthened the rules and contracts that govern
the domestic selection process. These revisions address all 15 of the
recommendations proposed by the Mitchell Commission. (Authorizing
resolution approved by the Executive Committee on March 2, 1999.)
5. The USOC will strengthen its direct oversight policies and its
contract with the city chosen as the United States' candidate in the
international selection process. These revisions will also address all
of the recommendations proposed by the Mitchell Commission.
(Authorizing resolution approved by the Executive Committee on March 2,
1999.)
6. Meetings of the USOC's Board of Directors and Executive
Committee are now open to the public. Minutes of these meetings are now
available to the public upon adoption. (Authorizing resolution approved
by the Executive Committee on March 2, 1999.)
7. All members of the USOC's Board of Directors and Executive
Committee will be required to attend 75% of the meetings either in
person or by telephone, subject to exceptions approved by the President
or Secretary General. (Resolution approved by the Executive Committee
on March 2, 1999, with further authorizing action pending.)
8. The USOC will seek to enhance the participation of athletes in
its governance at the officer level. (Approved by the Executive
Committee and currently being reviewed by the USOC's Constitutional
Review Task Force.)
9. An independent management study tasked to recommend ways to
enhance the USOC's governance, including a specific view to encourage
the participation of athletes, minorities, disabled, and women at the
Executive Committee level, is now complete. (The recommendations of the
study have been approved by the Executive Committee, in principle, and
will be presented for review at the October 23rd Board of Directors
Meeting and for approval early in 2000.)
10. The Executive Committee requested the President of the United
States to issue an Executive Order naming the IOC as a ``public
international organization'' within the meaning of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act in a March 3, 1999 letter.
The USOC has acted decisively in an effort to ensure that in the
future no U.S. city engages in the conduct that has been reported from
Atlanta and Salt Lake City. The impact of our reforms, however, will be
reduced if there is not concurrent and meaningful change within the
IOC. I know that Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Duberstein intend to address
that subject, Dr. Kissinger in his capacity as a member of the IOC 2000
Reform Commission and Mr. Duberstein as Vice Chair of the Mitchell
Commission.
iv. assessment of reform efforts
In reviewing the events and actions that have transpired over the
past 10 months, I would like to make the following observations:
1. The USOC could have done more to oversee the Atlanta and Salt
Lake City bid processes. If we had done so, we would probably not be
here today.
2. The establishment of a USOC bid cities office and the
restructuring of U.S. bid process, both of which occurred well before
the eruption of the scandal, and the adoption of the Mitchell
Commission's recommendations, in March 1999, represent a forceful
response to abuses that took place in the past and a significant
deterrent to any such activity in the future.
3. United States efforts within the IOC reform process have been
productive and, while the results of the December Special IOC Session
will be the measure of merit, good progress has been made by the IOC to
date.
4. In less than a year, the USOC has aggressively implemented its
own major reforms and will present to its Board of Directors, on
October 23rd, a design for an independent United States drug-testing
agency. In early 2000, a complete reorganization of the USOC's basic
management structure will be presented to the Board of Directors for
its approval. During this same time period, the USOC has also provided
significant impetus to the pace and direction of the IOC's reform
efforts, as reflected in the IOC's positive responses, to date, to the
Mitchell Commission recommendations.
5. Overall, significant progress has been made in a short period of
time and I am confident that we are on the road to constructive reform
within not only the USOC, but also the entire Olympic Movement.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Helmick.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT H. HELMICK
Mr. Helmick. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be
here and provide you with information. It is sad that we must
be here, but we must be here, and I really applaud your efforts
and the endeavors which are bringing public attention to this
situation that must be corrected. It's through efforts like
this of bringing public attention that we can support and
expedite the parties that need to make the reforms that we
need.
You asked my comments concerning the relationship between
the U.S. Olympic Committee and Atlanta Bid Committee and also
of the Atlanta Bid Committee's relationship with USA delegates
to the IOC. I was the president of the U.S. Olympic Committee
and IOC member from 1985 through 1991 during this bid process,
and I've been involved in the organization and administration
of every Olympics since Munich in 1972, when I was chef de
mission of our water polo team, which brought home a bronze
medal. I wish it were gold. A bronze medal to the United
States.
First as President Hybl has mentioned, the U.S. Olympic
Committee is charged with the responsibility of selecting one,
and only one, city that may present itself as a nominee for
receiving the Olympic Games. Once the U.S. Olympic Committee
selects that city, that city puts together a bidding committee,
which at this time was comprised of leading citizens from the
city itself. At that point it was the bid committee and not the
USOC that was responsible for this lobbying effort, but I
quickly say that--Atlanta called upon our knowledge and
experience and help to--with their lobbying effort--had to put
together the technical bid. Atlanta quickly became familiar
with this process, and pretty much from there on out the
lobbying effort was theirs and not ours.
We did support them in some of these areas which you have
noted. For instance, in the area of training athletes, in 1985,
the U.S. Olympic Committee adopted an aggressive international
relations program for what we call the friendship fund, and we
would have athletes from foreign countries come to the United
States to train. We felt it was in the hands of the national
governing bodies; any such exchange had to be approved by the
national governing body as furthering those sports programs.
Those triggered in some cases IOC members would ask Atlanta to
help them train their athletes, and they would come to the
USOC. We assisted, but I want to tell you with Atlanta's
concurrence the final decision and those training camps
supported by the U.S. Olympic Committee went through our
national governing bodies to be sure there was a valid reason
for doing that.
A great deal has been said about the excessive gifts, the
lavish travel arrangements. I'd like to make a very important
point, because this has been contested internationally.
Excessive gifts and extravagant visits were not conceived or
begun by any American city. This culture developed over a long
period of time. I personally witnessed it. What happened is we
had disaster after disaster from Mexico City, the student riots
in Montreal, the massacre in Munich, the horrible death, and
finally the awful situation, the political award of the games
to Moscow in 1980 and the boycott. The games were a shamble.
Nobody wanted them when Los Angeles bid for them, and nobody
else would take them.
Finally Los Angeles came, and we showed that the games
could be run in a businesslike manner and make a profit, and
suddenly everybody wanted a piece of the action. Let the games
begin, because at that point, starting with Barcelona and Paris
in 1986, the gifts became lavish, and they increased from that
point until Nagano was awarded the games in 1991 amidst cries
that the games were bought.
Atlanta started--came into the scene just at this point,
before Nagano. The excessiveness had not--the gift creep had
not increased, as mentioned in the Mitchell report, at that
time, but what happened, it grew over the years. Atlanta was
sort of caught in the middle. There were certain rules, certain
reactions by the IOC like this $200 rule. Please, that was not
a rule, because it was adopted and yet never enforced. There
was never any attempt to enforce, and indeed, as one of the
vice presidents of the IOC said, it was a guideline. So Atlanta
should not be hung out on whether something cost $300 rather
than $200. They came in, as they have testified, and said they
came into this culture, and what they did, frankly, I have to
say, and not to excuse it at all, it was commonplace, and, in
fact, they did modestly compared to other cities at that time.
You asked my comments on the relationship between Atlanta
and the IOC members. It's customary for bid cities to ask the
IOC members from a country to assist in the bids to arrange
meetings, and indeed sometimes to participate in the lobbying
effort. It is a matter of personal preference to what extent
the IOC member will actually become involved in the boosterism.
The IOC member from that country wants to and should help
support that bid.
I have to say I think this is something that you will be
interested in. We, IOC members and leaders, we spend a lot of
time with a bid committee. Of course we were aware of what was
going on. You can't spend that amount of time not being aware.
Of course, this excessiveness was known to everyone in the IOC.
I'm not here to say we would necessarily know about each
transaction that occurred or whether a dog was offered that was
worth $700 or $50, but certainly this whole culture was well
known at that time, well reported. I think some of the
attitudes of members, my own, were reported in the press at
that particular time.
I'd also like to make a final comment concerning Atlanta.
Please keep in mind that they did a wonderful thing for this
country in the bidding process whether they won the games or
not. The prior Olympics represented entertainment and business.
This bid committee represented how the United States citizens
could bridge differences in culture, racial backgrounds and
come together and do a remarkable thing. I applaud them.
Likewise, I applaud Bill Hybl, President Hybl's efforts.
The USOC has a history of reacting appropriately and decisively
to these types of crises, and they've done a great job.
Bill, I don't know how you could have done a better job.
They're to be applauded. That's not to say there's more
that should be done.
I would like to end up by saying the true reform will only
come if we demand a commitment by all the parties, the IOC, the
Olympic committees, international federations aided by the
athletes that--that we'll have--that will bring about checks
and balances. It's only through a true commitment from all
these parties to reform. It's not making commissions and making
rules. It's through a true commitment of all parties. I thank
you very much for your interest.
[The prepared statement of Robert H. Helmick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert H. Helmick, Past President of the USOC &
Former IOC Member
introduction
My name is Robert H. Helmick. I am an attorney in the City of Des
Moines, and a senior partner in the international law firm of Dorsey &
Whitney LLP. You have requested my testimony regarding the relationship
of the United States Olympic Committee, the International Olympic
Committee and its delegates, and the Atlanta Bid Committee with respect
to Atlanta's bid during the period of time that I was president of the
United States Olympic Committee and a member of the International
Olympic Committee.
atlanta's and usoc's procedure to obtain the games
The IOC Charter and the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act
set out the USOC's responsibility for the selection of a United States
city to hold the Olympic Games:
1. Interested cities go through a bidding process before the USOC
to prove their capacity and abilities to seek the award of the Olympic
Games from the IOC.
2. The USOC then selects one city to be its candidate to the IOC
for the Olympic Games.
3. If successful, that city forms a bidding committee comprised of
individuals from the city which actively bids for the Games.
4. If the IOC awards the Games to that city, it must form an
organizing committee comprised of individuals from the city,
representatives of the USOC and the country's IOC members as required
by the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act and the IOC.
relation of the usoc to the bid committee
Once selected by the USOC, the Atlanta Bid Committee was in charge
of the preparation of the complex bid document and the lobbying effort.
The USOC rules required no representation on the Bid Committee.
However, the USOC, its officers, sports federation and the IOC members
played a significant role in Atlanta's bidding procedure.
the lobbying effort
Although the USOC and its sport federations (the ``National
Governing Bodies'' or ``NGBs'') are highly involved in the technical
aspects of the preparation of the bid, it was the Bid Committee, and
not the USOC, that was responsible for the lobbying effort. Because of
the knowledge and experience of members of the USOC and the NGBs, they
were called upon by the Bid Committee for assistance. However, the Bid
Committee very quickly learned what must be done to promote its bid,
and became familiar with the IOC members who would make the decision.
In asking the USOC and NGBs for their assistance, the Bid Committee
was primarily interested in obtaining votes and winning the Games. The
USOC and NGBs, although keenly supportive of that effort, were focused
on the long-term effects the assistance would provide for their sport
and development of our athletes.
As an example, when an IOC member requested the USOC (through
Atlanta) to arrange a joint training program with athletes from the IOC
member's country, our NGBs approved or rejected the program based upon
whether the program was in the best interest of our athletes, or
furthered its sports program, while still being supportive of the
efforts of the Bid Committee.
In short, the focus of the USOC and the National Governing Bodies
was primarily on United States athletes, developing a pool of
international qualified athletes, sports programs and facilities, and
on the technical aspects of the bid; not on the strategies and
techniques of Atlanta's lobbying efforts with the IOC members.
the olympic environment of 1985-1991
To better understand the relationship between the USOC and the
Atlanta Bid Committee it is important to consider the status of Olympic
sport at that time.
The Atlanta bid followed a decade of Olympic disasters until the
success of Los Angeles in 1984.
Only Los Angeles was interested in holding the 1984 Olympic Games
(Tehran entered a bid but then withdrew). The reason was clear:
disaster after disaster had beset the Games. In 1968 Mexico City was
marred by student riots and demonstrations. Four years later the Munich
Games were nearly ended because of the massacre of the Israel athletes.
Then in 1976 Montreal left a devastating financial burden and debt on
its citizens. The 1980 Moscow Games, clearly a political maneuver
reminiscent of the Berlin 1936 Olympics, were wrecked by boycotts.
When in 1984 Los Angeles proved to the world that the Games could
be run by applying sound business principles and could yield a
substantial profit, the rest of the world sought a piece of the action.
Whereas there was only one bidder a few years earlier, as Atlanta
started its bid process in 1987, dozens of cities started lining up,
anxious to garner the votes of the IOC members necessary to bring the
Olympics, with their glamour and profits, to their own country. I
personally witnessed this development having been involved in the
organization and administration of each Olympics since Mexico City.
Except for the required formalities, there was no need for Los
Angeles to lobby IOC members: the IOC had no choice. Excessive gifts
and extravagant visits were not conceived or begun by American cities.
They started to become common place in 1986 as the battle for the 1992
Games between Paris and Barcelona began. This excess grew over the next
several years prompting a major United States television news magazine
to characterize Nagano as having ``bought'' the Games at the IOC
meeting in 1991 by gifts, perks and multi-million dollar donations to
the Olympic Museum, a pet project of the IOC's President. This was a
glaring example of a selection that put athletes last, considering
Nagano's facilities and the weather. It was at this time the culture of
excess was getting clearly out of hand.
But Atlanta entered the international Olympic bidding process in
the spring of 1988 and was selected in September of 1989 before the
``gift creep,'' as Senator Mitchell put it, grew to the extremes
recently reported in the 1992-1995 campaign by Salt Lake City.
Simply stated, Atlanta was not under the pressure that subsequent
cities, such as Salt Lake City felt, following its 1991 loss to Nagano,
to match and raise the gifts and incentives to win the votes.
Therefore, Atlanta needed and sought much less assistance from the
USOC.
role of the usa ioc delegates in the bidding process
The IOC members from a bid city's country are expected to, and do,
support the efforts of the Bid Committee. We United States members, as
part of the USOC, participated in the USOC's selection of Atlanta and
became familiar with its merits.
It is customary for the Bid Committee to request the USA IOC
members to intervene with arranging meetings and even participate in
some discussions with their IOC colleagues and the Bid Committee. It is
a matter of personal preference as to the extent an individual IOC
member becomes involved in the true ``boosterism'' aspect of the
lobbying effort.
Although the American members of the IOC may not have been aware of
the details, they certainly were aware of the discussions, or at least
rumors, of the propensity of some of their fellow IOC members and other
Bid Committees to engage in inappropriate conduct.
On a personal basis, although I am not surprised that there may
have been certain technical violations of the IOC rules as written (but
not followed by the IOC) I was favorably impressed with the efforts of
Atlanta to abide by the rules even in face of rumors or known instances
of outrageous abuses by other bid cities. As an example, in one
conversation with a Bid Committee executive we discussed their effort
to find a gift that would show a personal concern for the interests of
an IOC member. The $200 rule was discussed and several suggestions
eliminated because their cost would have exceeded the rule. In my
experience, Atlanta seemed to be doing the best they could in this
climate with respect to the written rules.
the atlanta bid
I would like to take this opportunity to make a comment concerning
the Atlanta bid and the attention now being given to it.
Throughout the bid process all of us, as members of the USA Olympic
family, were proud of Atlanta, what it stood for and the impact it had
on our colleagues around the world. The Bid Committee came in contact
not only with international sports leaders but business and political
leaders around the world. They represented Atlanta and the United
States. They did it well.
While the Los Angeles Olympics was known for its entertainment and
business prowess, Atlanta became known as a community demonstrating the
American capability of obtaining the unimaginable by the cooperation
and efforts of a diverse people working without regard to racial,
cultural or social background.
Whether they had won the Games or not, we all had reason to be
proud of the Atlanta bid efforts.
response of the usoc to the scandal
I have carefully reviewed the suggestions from the Mitchell report
and the actions and the response and actions taken by the USOC under
Bill Hybl's able leadership. Based on my experiences, I wholeheartedly
agree with the observations and conclusions of the Report. The USOC is
on the right track and I applaud it and President Hybl's prompt
response. Consideration might also be given to whether the Olympic and
Amateur Sports Act should specifically require oversight by the USOC of
bid city activities and the USOC's participation and representation
within any bid committee.
I would only add an observation based upon my 30 years of
experience that it will only be through a change of attitude and
culture within the IOC and the international Olympic movement that
there will truly be a change. The USOC can be a leading force to bring
that about. Merely adopting rules and appointing commissions won't do
the trick. We must demand a commitment by all parties, the IOC, the
Olympic Committees, the International Federations, and the athletes to
true reform.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear.
Mr. Upton. Thank you all. I would like to note for the
other members of this subcommittee that we're probably going to
have at least two rounds of questions. We'll each have 5
minutes. We'll use that same light. I'll be a little quicker
with the gavel for us.
I would note that as part of the committee's investigation,
we have assembled a group of documents that illustrate the
process Atlanta followed and the culture in which it competed.
I'm going to ask unanimous consent that this group of documents
be entered into the record, and I would note that we will work
with the Atlanta organizer's law firm to redact any sensitive
or personal information before the documents are printed in the
record.
Mr. Klink. Without objection.
Mr. Upton. That is so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.065
Mr. Upton. I will now start my time. I've learned to use
this clock a little bit. I am going to try to ask all my
questions shortly and let each of you respond to the questions.
First of all, I very much appreciate Judge Bell's report.
We thoroughly went through this report, found that it is chock
full of lots of different things and did a very good job. I
appreciate that and also certainly the willingness of both Mr.
Payne and Mr. Young to agree that this was the proper thing.
In that report it makes the point, Mr. Helmick, that you
just mentioned here, and I quote, more significantly within the
IOC culture, the rules were widely disregarded. There was a
competition governed by the IOC. The IOC had the responsible--
had the responsibility to both write and enforce the rules. No
city or IOC member was disqualified or sanctioned for exceeding
the written gift or travel rules.
What I'd like to hear from you, and based on some of the
other testimony, too, particularly as you relate back to other
cities--Mr. Young, in particular, you referenced going to Seoul
and how other cities were giving lavish gifts as well. I'd like
to know if you can remember specifics that other cities may
have presented or offered to any of you. I would like to know
what your sense is of the reforms that are before the reform
committee, whether they will, in fact, address the situation as
detailed in both the Bell report as well as the Mitchell-
Duberstein report, and particularly for you, Mr. Hybl, as you
are a member of that reform committee and will be voting on it
later this month in preparation for the recommendations of the
full IOC, what your sense is of where the votes are. Will that
reform package be passed both by the subcommittee--by the
committee, and if so, what standing will that have before the
full IOC when they vote in December.
As you know, Mr. Samaranch sent his top deputy here, Mr.
Francois Carrard, who is here and will testify on the later
panel. It was Mr. Samaranch's view that he wanted to spend his
time making sure that the votes were there. He wants to
cooperate with this committee and will appear once that vote is
taken, hopefully an affirmative vote. And will that correct the
abuses that were detailed both in the Mitchell-Duberstein
report as well as in the Bell report, too?
Mr. Payne, would you like to start?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir. Thank you. With respect to the first
portion, Mr. Chairman, about what we know specifically about
the history of generous gift-giving, lavish entertaining as it
existed within the Olympic movement, I think Mr. Helmick
characterized at least the beginning of our knowledge shortly
following the success of the Los Angeles Games, the Olympic
Games, for the first time, and perhaps a decade and a half once
again became an asset of great value to many countries and
cities around the world. And bidding accelerated to the point
where the bidding for the 1992 games, which were ultimately
awarded to Barcelona, came down to a competition principally
between Paris and Barcelona, and I believe at that time there
were no rules which governed this.
The consequence of the nonexistence of any rules
apparently--and I say apparently because I was not involved in
the Olympic movement--gave rise to a very straightforward
competition among those two cities, lavish gifts, incredibly
expensive receptions, of the things that Mr. Helmick has
referred to, and I'm sure perhaps he can answer better as he
was on the IOC at that time.
During the time of our competition, which followed that, we
did not pay close attention ourselves to what our competition
was doing, but we, of course, and as you have seen detailed in
many of the documents, were told by many people that in the
process and in being entertained by other cities who were
candidates, they had received rather excessive gifts.
Mr. Upton. Will you detail any of those gifts?
Mr. Payne. I can only detail, sir, that which is part of
the record that we have submitted to you, which once again is
what was told to us by third parties. I cannot--in the same
spirit, I guess, sir, of redacting names, do you want me----
Mr. Upton. I don't need to know necessarily the countries
or the cities, but I'd like to know of some of the values of
the gifts. As we look through this report, Judge Bell prepared
for us, it is just full of things, whether it be golf clubs,
trips, it is detailed, but if you were aware of competitions
with, say, Athens or somebody else that provided a similar type
thing. Where were you in the ballgame? I've heard that Atlanta
spent lots of money on some of these gifts, but some of these
other cities that failed spent considerably more.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, we spent $6.5 million putting our
bid together. Toronto spent close to $20 million; Melbourne,
$25 million; Athens, reportedly $35 million.
Mr. Upton. I've heard those same numbers.
Mr. Young. So we didn't--we knew we couldn't be in this
game----
Mr. Upton. But what were they doing that was more than you?
That's sort of my question.
Mr. Young. I'm not sure, but the thing I'd like to point
out is that we looked at it, and I'm trying to separate the
corruption of people maybe, and I'm trying to defend the
process, because, see, Congressman Waxman or somebody said that
nobody can outspend Paris, but Barcelona won, even though Paris
was doing the spending and had much more to offer. Seoul beat
Nagoya and the rich--there was a pattern of the rich cities
lavishing the gifts, but losing.
Mr. Upton. What were some of the specifics that you must
have seen? I'm trying to be fair with my own red light. I'm
going first. I'll turn it off.
Mr. Young. I think, Congressman, if you'll forgive me, I
think that's the wrong question. I shouldn't do that, but what
I see happening here is a resentment of democracy on the part
of the IOC. What you had was for the first time all of these
decisions were influenced mostly by the poor nations, and it
meant that poor nations had a say, and the little European
blue-blooded elite couldn't dominate the system anymore. And so
while the system was corrupt, it was, in fact, democratic, and
that the five secret ballots where nobody knows is one of the
ways that you can have a free and fair election.
Mr. Upton. When you say it was democratic, was it
democratic because everyone was taking the gifts, and therefore
it didn't really influence the votes because everyone was
getting about the same thing?
Mr. Young. I think it was democratic because the money did
not make any difference and----
Mr. Upton. When you talk about Athens, $35 million----
Mr. Young. We've been in politics, and we know about people
eating your barbecue and voting for your--it happens all the
time. That's what's happening in the IOC. What I'm most
concerned about is that what I think is beginning to evolve
into a very democratic system, where the checks and balances
between the rich nations and the poor nations is gradually
working itself out, that under the pressure from the U.S.
Congress, we play into the hands of the old European elite and
do away with some of the democratization that has come with the
present Olympic movement.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Hybl, since my time is close to expiring, if
you could just answer the question as to whether you think the
reforms presently before the reform committee will, in fact,
end the abuse and the culture of corruption, and whether or not
you think the votes are there not only to pass it in both
bodies, the committee and the full IOC. If you could just
comment briefly, and I will yield to my friend Mr. Klink.
Mr. Hybl. The current reforms before the IOC which were
adopted by the executive committee of the reform commission
will be taken to the full 80-person commission on October 30
and 31. The fact is that they do provide what you indicated
earlier, transparency, accountability. They do provide a whole
series of democratic processes for representatives from the
athletes, from the National Olympic Committee, and from the
International Federations. They have age limits. They have
terms that have to be renewed. The fact is they've come--the
IOC has done a lot, particularly because of their leadership in
going forward.
The fact is, sitting in on those hearings and those
meetings, there is diverse opinion among the members of the
IOC. These will be great for the IOC and the Olympic movement
if they're adopted. I think that the IOC members could probably
address the question whether they will be, but December 11 and
12 is the critical time for this and the U.S. Olympic committee
and our representatives--you'll hear, of course, from Dr.
Kissinger this afternoon--continue to support the reforms, and
it's up to the IOC whether they're adopted or not.
Mr. Upton. Is it your sense that they'll pass if you were a
betting man?
Mr. Hybl. Actually, I am a betting man, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. I know Mr. Hefley is not, so I didn't want to
cast judgment.
Mr. Hybl. I would give the chance for adoption of the
reforms as they are currently proposed at something a little
better than 50 percent.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Klink.
Mr. Klink. I thank the chairman for his insight, and I
would request a little leniency with the red light, if you can,
because there's a lot to cover here from the chairman's
questioning.
Let me start with Mr. Young because I'm a little troubled
by where we have headed here. What I've heard from the comments
was this: In deference to Judge Bell, I think you've really
done a great job in your report. You've helped us a great deal.
Senator Mitchell has helped us a great deal as well. What I'm
left to believe here is what we are now being told is, look, we
took a whole heck of a lot more from a lot of other people, and
then we stiffed them. We didn't give them what they thought
they were going to get. So my question is this: Were the
members of the IOC really taking people in some of these--$35
million in investment from the Greeks, and how much from the
people in Paris, and how much from the Canadians, and Toronto
didn't get the games as well. That's what really remains to be
told is, A, what were all of those gifts, and were these people
being taken as rubes, set up to have their barbecue eaten and
then vote for the opponent? That is just as troublesome as
anything that might have happened to Salt Lake City, might have
happened to Atlanta. I would ask that Mr. Payne and Mr. Young
would respond.
Mr. Young. Thank you very much, Congressman. I think what
we're dealing with also is a general gift-giving culture around
the world; that people are used to receiving gifts wherever
they go, and those are not considered bribes. So I think that
while they were generous gifts, I think the members of the IOC
received those gifts, but did not take it as bribes. They also,
Mr. Chairman, almost everywhere I went, and we tried to visit
every IOC member in their home, everywhere I went people
presented us with some kinds of gifts.
Mr. Klink. Let me ask Mr. Payne, in terms of ethical
conduct, what difference do you see in what occurred in the
Atlanta Bid Committee and their operation and what happened in
Salt Lake City? Specifically what do you think Salt Lake City
did that you didn't do? Help me draw the line there.
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir. I'm obviously reluctant to do that
because I don't have personal knowledge, sir, of what Salt Lake
did.
Mr. Klink. I'm asking you to go from public information.
Things have been published. I'm sure you've read about it.
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir. I think what we did, sir, is evidenced
in quite extensive detail in the report that Judge Bell
prepared and submitted, and notwithstanding the fact that there
were excesses, I believe the scale and scope of those excesses,
sir, would pale in comparison to what's been reported not only
at Salt Lake, but perhaps other Olympic cities as well. So I
think I would be required to say in first response, sir, there
was quite a significant quantitative difference, which does not
excuse us getting over $200 at all, but yet----
Mr. Klink. In other words, we had--I'm sorry to cut you
off. We're on kind of a timeframe here. What you're saying, Mr.
Helmick talked about, was gift creep. If anything happened
between Atlanta and Salt Lake City, it was that the extent of
the gifts got much larger and much more numerous.
Mr. Payne. From what has been publicly reported, yes, sir.
Mr. Klink. The end of your written statement, your remark,
you believe reform is needed in the bidding process,
particularly in the areas of gift and travel. When did you
start to reach that conclusion?
Mr. Payne. I guess within the last year, sir, when our
actions, which we had always been so very proud of, came under
scrutiny and had been criticized. While we had believed that we
had subjected them somewhat to a sense of reasonableness, all
of a sudden they were found in great disfavor, and so I guess I
began concluding that the way to eliminate that problem is to
eliminate gifts and travel expense reimbursement altogether so
that no future cities would have to deal with this 10 years
after the fact like we're doing here today.
Mr. Klink. What I'm left with is kind of, Mr. Chairman, the
old saying--and my kids have done it as well, still continue to
do it because they're young enough--they say, Mommy and Daddy,
everybody is doing it. The old saying is, well, if they jumped
off a bridge, would you do that, too? That's really what we're
left to. No one really wanted to blow the whistle.
I want to walk you through some of the travel and
accommodations that you provided to just one IOC member and in
the end have you explain the logic behind the spending. Page
21, exhibit K, travel section of the King & Spalding report,
this is for an IOC official named O'Flanagan. I was going to
walk through this. Between April 30 and May 5, 1989, checks
number 540 and 725 went for nearly $5,371 for airfare. For the
same period, there's a $4,150 hotel charge paid by Atlanta;
then on May 4, 1989, several more checks cut for an Augusta
trip totaling $5,291. In March 1990, you then pay $5,420 trip
for Mr. O'Flanagan that includes the itinerary of Dublin;
Atlanta; West Palm Beach, Florida; Atlanta; and back to Dublin.
Then on March 21, 1990, you paid $2,092 for airfare for Mr.
O'Flanagan that included the itinerary of Atlanta, Zurich,
Geneva; on March 14, 1990, another hotel charge for Mr.
O'Flanagan and for a Mr. Hickey for $1,480; and then on March
16, 1990, you paid $1,100 in Savannah for Mr. O'Flanagan to
stay in a hotel in Savannah. On March 18, 1990, there's another
charge for Mr. O'Flanagan, and now Mr. Hickey at Sea Island for
another $1,790. For the same period there's a hospitality
charge for Mr. O'Flanagan and a guest and Mr. Hickey for
$1,655. Then back in May 1989, there appears to be an offer
made to visit Atlanta and play golf at Peach Tree Country Club.
It's not clear whether the offer was accepted.
You spent thousands of dollars on this IOC member, and
there are many others like this. The question is were you
trying to buy his vote?
Mr. Payne. No, sir, we were not. I hope there are not too
many like this one. It is very extensive. It's evident that he
was one of the IOC members that came to Atlanta more than once.
Mr. Klink. Unfortunately there are--let me just run through
this very quickly, Mr. Chairman. According to the King &
Spalding report, Atlanta officials paid $11,989 for the IOC
official from Libya to travel from Tripoli, to Zurich, to
Geneva, back to Zurich, to Atlanta, then to Chicago, back to
Atlanta, then to Zurich, then to Malta and back to Tripoli. The
question is why did Atlanta have to pay for travel to Malta,
Chicago, Zurich and Geneva? Then you paid a cash reimbursement
of $12,204 to the IOC official from Morocco to fly from
Casablanca, Paris, Atlanta, New York, Paris, Casablanca. Why
did Atlanta have to pay to send this official to New York and
Paris?
You also paid $2,649 for the Australian IOC official to
stay at the Grand Cypress Resort. Other IOC members also
apparently went to that resort. That's in Florida, not Atlanta.
What about $1,878 for an IOC official to stay in a hotel in
Coral Gables? You paid $1,745 on tab K, page 15 to provide
limousine service in Washington, DC, for an IOC official from
France. There was another trip for an IOC official from
Finland. It involved travel from Chicago, to Bloomington, to
Peoria, to Boston, to Bangor, to Newark and Toronto. Atlanta
paid for at least part of that trip, yet Atlanta wasn't even on
the trip. And the question is did this trip also involve the
use of a vacation home owned by the GAAF member in Maine? We
need to know why Bangor, Maine, was on that trip.
I threw a lot at you. These are some questions in the
limited amount of time I've got to have the answers to them.
We're going to submit these questions to you. We want you to
pursue these for us and try to find out why this was done. It's
puzzling.
Mr. Upton. A quick response.
Mr. Payne. The quick response is I believe we have provided
explanations as best we could to your staff, sir, and I think
most of them do have explanations. I'm unable, however, with
the rate at which you enumerated those excesses to come back to
you with them on a seriatim basis.
Mr. Klink. Unfortunately, Mr. Payne, we have more excesses.
It is unfortunate that, our time and your time, that we don't
have time to get into the details of this. I know that unfairly
I rushed those by you, but we need to get more of this nailed
down in writing. We need to find out what has happened.
I think beyond that we also need to take a look, chairman,
at what has happened in some of the other cities that did lose
that were not looked as closely at in some of these reports
that we have in front of us.
Mr. Upton. It sounded like you used to work for Federal
Express with that ad.
Mr. Klink. I could go faster.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Payne, let me ask you, based upon what Mr. Hybl said
about reforms at the USOC, had the USOC reformed prior to the
Atlanta bid or to the Salt Lake City bid, and you adhered to
those changes, would any U.S. city--would either of those U.S.
cities have won their bid based upon the culture at the IOC
today?
Mr. Payne. That's a difficult question, sir. I really don't
know how to answer it. I think----
Mr. Burr. I would suggest to you that the answer is
probably we wouldn't, because that's the assumption I think
that Atlanta made, and even in the first response by Mr. Bell,
there were four instances to questions where the answer was
we're not aware of any IOC guideline and provisions for health
services, athletic training, covered provisions of athletic
sporting equipment to disadvantaged people guidelines, and
provisions of scholarship. I think that somebody perused it
pretty well, and certainly your follow-up has suggested that
the culture there--and I'm not faulting Atlanta, I'm a
businessman, this is just a temporary position--you do it to
win, you do it to be successful, and I think that Atlanta
should not be faulted for that.
I guess I would ask you how many times did the IOC or the
USOC tell you you were in violation and warn you that you
shouldn't lobby as aggressively?
Mr. Payne. I don't believe we were ever specifically
advised of anything we had done, sir. I have been made aware of
routine letters that were sent to all bid cities or IOC members
with respect to adherence to the rules, the very same rules,
sir, that we did exceed in the times we've enumerate.
Mr. Burr. Let me read for you and Ambassador Young a
September statement by an IOC spokesperson who was quoted as
saying, ``Atlanta pushed those favors and gifts on to IOC
members under the pretext of friendship, and the delegates were
not used to this systematic approach to lobbying.''
Would either of you care to comment on whether that
statement is accurate based upon----
Mr. Young. I'll say that we were probably both very guilty
in that, that we didn't have to push anything on them, but as
Congressman Klink has said, we were also in a position that
when somebody wanted--when we asked somebody to visit us, and
we offered to reimburse them for the travel, if they had reason
to go to some other places, there are explanations for a lot of
these, and some of them make sense. Some of them are excessive.
Libya, because of the boycott, you couldn't go directly here,
so he had to go a roundabout way. He also--we were trying to
get him to accept softball, an American sport, so there was a
softball federation or something meeting in Chicago.
Mr. Payne. We won the gold medal when we got in.
Mr. Young. But I'm saying when we wanted people to come to
visit us, and we extended the invitation, and we knew these
were people who were not on salaries--and that's one of the
reforms I would recommend to the IOC, that they put everybody
on a salary and let them give it back if they don't want it.
But when people come and they then submit you an excessive
bill, you really can't reject it.
Mr. Burr. In the follow-up response from the committee to
the committee's questions, let me just read on page 3 just out
of your report, subjective votes of IOC members and a system
known to welcome generous gifts and travel allowances. It
doesn't give me the impression as you've gone back that
anybody's recollection was that it was forced.
Page 4, same report. In the marketplace Atlanta competed
according to its understanding of the IOC's expectations. That
certainly does not give an impression on further review that
there was any pretext on your part that you had pushed or had
done something that was not expected of the IOC. No reference
to the IOC's guidelines or rules.
Mr. Helmick, you were head of the USOC at the time.
Mr. Helmick. Yes.
Mr. Burr. Did you ever counsel Atlanta that there were
potential violations that were occurring or notified the IOC of
concerns that you had as the head of USOC?
Mr. Helmick. I notified the IOC NBG inside the executive
committee of concerns, as did others, of the excessiveness,
particularly after Paris and Barcelona. As to Atlanta, please
keep in mind that personally we spent a great deal of time
together all over the world. I do remember one occasion I
believe it was Ginger Watkins and I were going through a list
of personal gifts to be given. I became very aware that this
Atlanta bid person was very careful about the so-called $200
gift rule, frankly excluded a couple of gifts that I had
suggested, personalized gifts, because of it.
And so, yes, indeed, they were counseled about it and felt
that these gifts were appropriate.
Mr. Burr. Do you know how IOC members are chosen?
Mr. Helmick. IOC members are basically--they're on the
surface elected by the IOC. They're--basically a great deal of
it is hand-picked by the president.
Mr. Burr. And they serve until death or at 80, whichever
comes first?
Mr. Helmick. Whichever comes first.
Mr. Ganske [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
Let's have one last answer.
Mr. Burr. I think he answered that question. My point, Mr.
Chairman, is twofold. One, I question in an atmosphere like
that whether the culture can change voluntarily, and I would
also say to the Ambassador that though there is a democratic
vote, I question whether true democracy can work in a system
that its membership is elected without what seems to be
accountability, that goes along with it, and with that I yield
back to the chairman.
Mr. Ganske. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I've
listened with a great deal of distress to your presentations
and this whole--this whole view, this whole business is a
pretty tawdry business. What I think has to happen is the IOC
has got to change its ways. It's got to reform itself, and
we've had recommendations by the panel that Senator Mitchell
chaired to do exactly that.
Now the IOC, which basically sounds like a bunch of hand-
picked people by President Samaranch, is going to meet in
December, and we've been told that we ought to let them meet,
we ought not to interfere in any way, let them reform
themselves. Now, we've been told that already for quite a bit
of time. But if they come back, Mr. Hybl, in December having
failed on what you think is basically a 50/50 proposition, I
proposed legislation, and my legislation would say we would
prohibit American corporations, including the TV networks, from
providing any financial support to the IOC until the IOC adopts
the Mitchell Commission reforms.
Do you think that legislation would drive the point home to
them that--their failure to adopt reforms is not going to be
acceptable in this country, and do you--would you support our
doing that if they don't reform themselves?
Mr. Hybl. Congressman, as I indicated earlier, the fact is
that I'm probably not the best person, not being an IOC member,
to judge what they're going to do and how they're going to
react.
Mr. Waxman. Whatever they do they're going to do. If they
succeed, fine. We'll hope that things will be better for the
future. But if they fail, do any of you think we should just
let it go and say that this is a system that will continue on
as stinking as it is, or do you think we ought to take action
in the United States if other countries don't want to do it, at
least in the United States to make the IOC pay the penalty of
not getting support from our American corporations?
Mr. Hybl. I would suggest that from the comments that are
made to me by IOC members, they are listening to what is being
said, and not only the Congress, but--well, in the House and
the Senate. Our job is trying to make sure that we can garner
the support for the U.S. athletes as--it's all private support.
We don't receive government funding. And I hope that the
reforms will be adopted. We're doing everything we can to
encourage that because we see the danger to the athletes and to
the movement in the United States if this does not happen, and
I believe you've made them certainly aware of that, and I
believe they're going to respond at the IOC level.
Mr. Waxman. I sure hope so.
Mayor Young, if they don't respond, don't you think the
Congress has to act, and at least in the United States we ought
to say, if you're not going to reform yourself, we're going to
put sanctions on the IOC, not on the American Olympic
Committee, but on the International Olympic Committee, that
they can't come here and get our American corporations and
networks to give them money?
Mr. Young. I agree with Mr. Hybl that I think reform is in
process, and I think you have another panel this afternoon that
will probably go into that in much more detail.
Mr. Waxman. Yes. But if they don't adopt reforms, what do
you suggest we do?
Mr. Young. Then I think we have to help them adopt reforms
with some congressional action.
Mr. Waxman. How about you, Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. I personally am confident, sir, that this
inquiry, others that have been similar, the Mitchell report,
the efforts ongoing in USOC will cause reform successfully
within the IOC, within the time period that's acceptable to
you.
Mr. Waxman. And if not, you feel that we in this country
should take action?
Mr. Payne. I would defer to your leadership, sir, and that
of the Congress, but I think it would be important to ensure
that the integrity would permit future American cities to have
the same honor that we did in hosting the games.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Helmick?
Mr. Helmick. I don't share the confidence, but I certainly
share the hope that the reform will come. Certainly election of
IOC members is absolutely essential to change the environment.
If nothing happens, I think you had an excellent model in 1978,
and you need to have congressional action to urge further
reform. In 1978, I heard of many people say, well, the
international community will not accept reforms that we had in
the Stevens Olympics Sports Act, and indeed within a year or 2,
they accepted those reforms, and our representatives'
international federations were changed. I think the same thing
can happen here.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ganske. The Chair will exercise his prerogative, since
I was next anyway, to ask a question. I want to follow up along
Mr. Waxman's line. One of my neighbors is vice president for
Pioneer Hybrid, which--and he travels around the world seeking
business for a major international firm. Now, he has to follow
a United States law called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
This basically make it is illegal for U.S. corporations to get
involved with bribes overseas in order to get business. One of
the great advantages of doing business in our country is that
this has not been a common practice that in order to get a
contract, you have to provide a bribe.
Now, yes, there is a, ``gift-giving culture'' around the
world, but I think everyone here is also--also realizes that
there are countries where it exceeds a simple gift of goodwill
and gets deeply into corruption practices, and that has
significant potential in terms of doing business.
Now, last year Congress enacted a law to enable the
President to designate by Executive Order the IOC or other
organizations to be subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act. I want to ask each of you, the President today has not yet
acted on that authority. Should the President apply that by
Executive Order to the IOC? Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. To be very truthful, sir, I have not thought
about nor studied that issue, and I would just have to defer to
the wisdom of Congress. I really don't have an opinion on that
issue, sir.
Mr. Ganske. Mr. Young?
Mr. Young. It's a difficult issue, and the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act is difficult. Attorney General Griffin Bell at
the time of that act reminded us that there was in the
legislative language an understanding that grease payments
might be acceptable. Most of what you talk about here would not
be--most of what we're talking about would not be covered under
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and it's very difficult for
American businessmen, even in relationship to their own laws,
trying very desperately to uphold those laws, to deal with
questions like travel reimbursement and things like that.
I don't know that the IOC can be reformed from outside by
force. I think the kind of pressure that you're bringing on
this hearing and the kind of public testimony that's being made
is what is needed to get them to reform themselves.
Mr. Ganske. I need to get down the roll a little bit
because I'm going to have to go for a vote here pretty soon.
Mr. Hybl, I think on March 3, 1999, you took a different
position. I think you stated the U.S. Olympic Committee fully
supports the recommendation and respectfully request--this was,
I believe, a letter to the President--request that you issue
such an order. Is that correct, and is that still your
position?
Mr. Hybl. That's still our position. It's based on the
fact, Mr. Chairman, that what you have is 22 different nations
hosted the Olympic Games. Twenty of those are signatories to
the OECD, and we think only Russia and Bosnia that hosted the
games would be outside that. We believe this is one vehicle
that would help level the playing field, not place the American
cities or athletes at any disadvantage, and we did send that
letter on the March 3--in fact, I sent it, and we stand by that
position. To their credit, the IOC has requested of the OECD
based in Paris that they be included on some basis, which I
think they probably will define this afternoon, so that is
going forward.
Mr. Ganske. Mr. Helmick, do you have a position on that?
Mr. Helmick. Yes, I fully support that.
Mr. Ganske. My time--I'm going to have to run for a vote
pretty soon. I just want to ask one last question.
Mr. Helmick, if you were Mr. Samaranch, how would you--what
would be the recommendations that you would make to clean up
this process?
Mr. Helmick. I think, first of all, it has to be something
that's reasonable. The end process must be having the IOC
members responsible for their constituents back home. We know
that here in Congress. So elections, I would predict existing
IOC members would probably be reelected. That's not going to
happen overnight. Phase in some programs, but ultimately you
have to have the IOC so that, just like all of you, that you're
subject to being responsive and responsible to a constituency,
and there's nothing like the loyal opposition and other people
nipping at your heels to get your job that keeps these things
clean and open.
Mr. Ganske. Should the IOC salary members who evaluate the
sites; should they pay for their travel and should they have a
strict gift limit similar to what we have in Congress?
Mr. Helmick. Absolutely. It was at one point--and this is
why there's some frustration being inside the IOC--I believe,
and perhaps Mr. Carrard can correct me, for a brief period of
time when I was on the executive committee, we actually
required that all ticketing go through the IOC travel agent,
which was a good way to control this. My suggestion would be
just no gifts whatsoever, and enforce it, and have a culture so
that it is okay to turn down a request for a gift because
nothing was forced.
It was very, very difficult for Atlanta to refuse that type
of trip that was itemized, but the culture has to be that you
can report this type of activity, and sanctions and threats
will be made against you.
I would say absolutely no gifts. I think the visits are
primarily silly. They don't really help the IOC member, nor do
they help the bid city. I think the IOC has recognized this and
has made some attempts to limit it, but I would continue on
that way.
Mr. Ganske. I thank the panel. We're going to go into
recess. We'll try to get back here just as soon as we can. And
so the committee is in recess.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Burr [presiding]. The Chair would ask the witnesses to
return to the table.
The Chair has been informed that Ambassador Young will be
here shortly. I've asked Mr. Stupak, who is the next in turn,
if he would prefer to wait. He said, no, he could go ahead. So
at this time the Chair would recognize the gentleman from
Michigan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm looking at the report here from King & Spalding. I've
read it with great interest, as I'm sure everybody on this
panel has. And throughout this report, I see on page 11 it
says, Atlanta's bid was submitted as a joint application with
the USOC. So USOC, while we focus on Atlanta, if you're jointly
involved in this whole operation, they are one and the same,
the way I look at it.
The part that bothers me throughout this report, and going
anyplace where you want under any subsection, we continue to
see GAAF, that's the Georgia Atlanta, whatever it was, but the
Atlanta folks indicate they did not incur any expenditures in
connection with this donation, or GAAF volunteers assisted or
offered or attempted to steer financial assistance for
relatives or friends. There's always a third party or
volunteers who did the things on behalf of GAAF or the USOC.
It seems like in this report what we acknowledge wrong, we
can't account for anything because we don't know because of
volunteers or third parties did it. So when you gave us the
figure of $6.5 million that Atlanta spent, now, was that just
what Atlanta spent, or does that include what the volunteers
and relatives and friends gave, too?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir. Thank you. I think volunteers
throughout that report, sir, is used generically to describe
not only the community in general as they helped us, but the
actual people working full time, because they were, in fact,
for that 3-year period all volunteers even though we work full
time. So that is--that's not to--that's not to defer
responsibility, but to attribute it to the leadership group as
well.
Mr. Stupak. My question is the $6.5 million you speak of,
does that include----
Mr. Payne. I believe, sir, it was actually--I don't want to
disagree with the Ambassador, but I believe it was actually
$7.8 million including cash and value in kind, and I believe to
the fullest extent possible that includes other unidentified
third parties or other--the people about which you are
inquiring, what they may have contributed in support as well.
Mr. Young. I used $6 million because the million dollars
extra was the bill they gave us for the party after we won. But
to win, we were around $6, $6.5 million.
Mr. Stupak. The report goes on, and it's on page 4, I think
it says same thing in the summary on the last panel. Many of
Atlanta's expenditures would have been improper. That's water
over the dam, but the part that continues to bother me is this:
Instead, GAAF volunteers believed during the bid process and
continue to believe today that their expenditures were within
the bounds of acceptability under the circumstances and were
the minimum required to remain competitive in a bid with other
cities. Basically--and when they summarize, they say, well, we
realize that some people may look at it as being wrong. We
believe, and we continue to believe today, that what they did
was within the bounds of that culture. In fact, I'm reading
from page 19. Those involved believe and still believe today
that they conducted their bid within the bidding culture of the
time, and their conduct was within the bounds of culture.
In hindsight their effort can be reviewed as excess by some
respects, but they still don't believe they've done anything
wrong.
Mr. Stupak. I guess I'm trying to get at this culture. Even
if you do new rules come December 12 or 13, it's really not
going to change anything, is it, if the culture is the same?
Mr. Payne. I think with the rules, sir, must also be
included sanctions and procedures to ensure their observance
and enforcement, and so I think there will be a difference,
yes, sir.
Mr. Stupak. Who's going to do the enforcement?
Mr. Payne. I think the choice now is the IOC itself,
acceptable to the participants around the world or other
governments, as you are suggesting, that would choose to have
some part in the enforcement for the protection of the Olympic
athletes and the movement in their own respective countries.
Mr. Stupak. Well, to take--for example, it's listed at page
15--other accommodations. In one case two volunteers transport
money into the United States the IOC member from Jamaica could
not have brought in himself without addressing certain
reporting requirements.
Mr. Payne. Address that?
Mr. Stupak. That's not even within the culture. That's in
violation of U.S. law. Do we go so far that we violate the
United States currency laws?
Mr. Payne. I'm not sure, sir, that that is an absolute
assessment that violates the law. I know it was done
innocently, although mistakenly.
Mr. Stupak. Explain to me if a Jamaican person is coming
into this country, why would he need two volunteers to bring
money into this country and somehow that's a mistake? Why
wouldn't the Jamaican bring in the money?
Mr. Payne. He was not coming within time that he needed to
pay a legitimate bill and asked them to do it for him, sir.
Mr. Stupak. These volunteers, are they considered--were
they paid people?
Mr. Payne. No, sir, they were not paid people. They were
full-time volunteers.
Mr. Stupak. Well, but they were obviously directed by the
Atlanta committee and all that, right?
Mr. Payne. With respect to that transaction? No, sir.
Mr. Stupak. They weren't?
Mr. Payne. No, sir. They made an honest, innocent mistake.
Mr. Stupak. How would the person from Jamaica contact two
volunteers to do this if they're not at some direction from
somebody with the Atlanta committee?
Mr. Payne. The question asked were they under our direction
with respect to that specific transaction, which would mean to
me did we know about it. The answer is no, sir. The response
was that they were there visiting him and were requested to do
that, and they made an honest mistake when they agreed to do
it.
Mr. Stupak. Well, Mr. Payne, do you know a Ginger Watkins?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stupak. Shannon Chandler?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stupak. Were they volunteers?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stupak. Reviewing some of the files, I see memos from
you to these so-called volunteers. You certainly had control
over these volunteers.
Mr. Payne. Absolutely sir. I'm not disputing that, nor
discounting any responsibility even for the mistakes of others.
Mr. Young. There's some question about whether he had
control of them, though. These are women in our community who
gave their own money, their own time, and I would say they
controlled us more than we controlled them, and what they did,
they did with the utmost sense of integrity and discretion, I
think.
Mr. Stupak. I just really have trouble, the culture, the
so-called volunteers; it seems like there's a shift when things
look bad, well, it must have been a volunteer. We don't know
the amount of money because that was a volunteer.
Mr. Young. You know, we did what we said we did. And we're
not trying to----
Mr. Stupak. Where are the limits? Let's go back to this
Jamaica situation.
Mr. Young. We exceeded reasonable limits of this committee.
Mr. Stupak. You also exceeded U.S. law. The Jamaican person
was one who brought in $15,000, so what you had to have is two
volunteers because you had to break up the $15,000 because the
most you can bring into this country is $10,000 that you have
to declare when you come in back and forth to this country.
Mr. Payne. Sir, we've already said that Andy and I had
nothing to do with that transaction. We believe it was an
honest mistake by two very fine gentlemen.
Mr. Stupak. I guess my time is up. Seeing that this culture
is going to change when we--that may be the culture within the
IOC or whoever it may be, but we even violate U.S. law to in
hopes to get a vote on the IOC for Olympic Games.
Mr. Young. He didn't even vote for us. He never----
Mr. Stupak. It makes it look even more foolish.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I
missed the statements of the panel members, although I have
read some of them in advance, and I know Mr. Payne's statement,
one thing that came through perfectly clear is that there is a
culture that has developed in the efforts to win the votes of
these members to determine where these games will be located.
As I said in my opening statement, which was quite brief, we
are just trying to get some background information to have a
better understanding of the way some of this took place.
But in some of the documents that were provided to us, and
I know I am sure this is not unusual and other cities have done
it as well, but there was a document that Mrs. Samaranch, how
do I pronounce the same Samaranch, Samaranch, okay, Mrs.
Samaranch was in Atlanta and Charleston, S.C., and I guess our
committee, the Atlanta committee maybe paid more than $12,000
for her and a friend to visit, and first of all I don't know
that that is true, but that is in here somewhere.
Mr. Young. Yes, sir, that is true.
Mr. Whitfield. Was that trip in and of itself a violation
of any of the IOC travel rules?
Mr. Payne. I don't believe so, sir, but I guess you will
have the opportunity later today to find out. We did not
believe it was.
Mr. Upton. Was Mr. Samaranch an IOC member herself?
Mr. Payne. No, she is not. She is the wife of the
president.
Mr. Whitfield. Did president Samaranch know about that
particular trip, or do you know?
Mr. Payne. Yes, I would assume he knew she was coming to
Atlanta, yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. How did that trip actually come about? You
may not have been personally involved in it, but I assume that
since he is the president, there must have been a feeling that
if we accommodated her and helped her visit Atlanta and helped
in any way we could, that that would be a good influence.
Mr. Young. Yes, sir. I will not discount that at all. I
think--it was important for us to impress her as well.
Mr. Whitfield. That probably was the basis of that whole
trip and decision to do that.
Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. And then I am assuming that is why Atlanta
did pay for that trip then.
Mr. Payne. We were actually billed for the trip by the IOC.
They sent us a bill for reimbursement.
Mr. Whitfield. They paid for her to come and sent you a
bill for the trip and you all reimbursed her?
Mr. Payne. I believe that is so, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, in your testimony, I know you had
talked a lot about the--it is like you are out to win votes and
you want to influence these people and give them a good
impression of your community. So I am assuming that you all
probably gathered quite a bit of information and intelligence
on individual IOC members. Would that be accurate or not?
Mr. Payne. Various members of our early bid team, sir, met
extensively with people, some of which volunteered information,
others which we sought out, I think as Andy has described
earlier, to find out all we could so that we could later
formulate our own strategy.
Mr. Whitfield. Right. Do you all know, does anyone on the
panel know how the IOC members themselves are selected to
serve?
Mr. Payne. I believe Mr. Helmick knows, sir.
Mr. Helmick. Yes, sir, they are elected by the IOC
membership, but it is really most of them are hand picked by
the president or the executive committee members.
Mr. Whitfield. By the president----
Mr. Helmick. Of the IOC.
Mr. Whitfield. So the president, he has the authority and
the power?
Mr. Helmick. He does not have the authority and power, but
his influence is very great. My experience has been in most
every case it is a hand selection, he makes the final decision,
and I have never known him to put forth a name that did not
pass, including some very controversial names.
Mr. Whitfield. Right. And how long has he served as
president of the IOC, Mr. Samaranch?
Mr. Helmick. My recollection, since 1980. Mr. Carrard could
correct me.
Mr. Whitfield. The red light went on. Maybe I will get
another round.
Mr. Upton. You will. Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Young, you
testified today that there were five rounds of balloting and
you did not believe that there would be any way you could
unduly influence the election of which city was selected
because of the process, correct?
Mr. Young. Correct.
Ms. DeGette. Now, I guess I would like you to answer this
then: If this cannot be influenced, why then did Atlanta and
Salt Lake and all these other cities participate in this gift
giving and scholarship offering and all of this, if it has no
influence on the balloting?
Mr. Young. It has influence, but there is no quid pro quo
attached to it.
Ms. DeGette. No direct quid pro quo. But I assume that the
IOC just as the U.S. Congress and many other bodies recognizes
that lavish gift giving and international travel and so on can
be--can give an undue influence because they have all enacted
rules against it. For example, all of us are prohibited from
taking gifts over $50. I assume that is because there is some
inference that it could exert an undue influence, isn't that
correct?
Mr. Young. That is the assumption. But that didn't happen
here until 1974.
Ms. DeGette. I think we all agree it is increasing.
Let me ask you this. You mentioned in response to
Congressman Stupak's question that these volunteers, I believe
you said ``these women,'' but some of course were men, in your
community, controlled you more than you controlled them. Did
you explain the rules that at least were on the books of the
IOC to these volunteers?
Mr. Young. No, they explained them to me.
Ms. DeGette. The volunteers explained them to you. Did they
seem to be aware, for example, that the IOC had at least on the
books a rule that said there was only one trip allowed, and
only to the city itself? Did they explain that to you?
Mr. Young. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. And did these volunteers explain to you that
the 1996 and 1998 rules as well as the 1988 rules stated
explicitly that gifts of a value exceeding U.S. $200 are not
permitted? Did the volunteers explain that to you?
Mr. Young. They explained that that was honored only in the
breach and we tried to stay----
Ms. DeGette. So the volunteers were aware, according to
your testimony--excuse me, sir, let me finish my question. The
volunteers were aware that these rules were on the books, and
they explained that to you?
Mr. Young. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. So everybody knew that at least this was
supposed to be what was happening, although everybody agreed
that it happened only in the breach, according to your sworn
testimony.
Mr. Young. We were volunteers too.
Ms. DeGette. I understand. And, you know, I am not
inferring anything illegal was done here, but the point is
everybody knew these rules, and yet they were doing what they
had to do.
Mr. Young. And we admitted we knew the rules, we knew
everybody else was breaking them. We weren't going to do
anything that violated our consciences. But we were going to
win.
Ms. DeGette. I get you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Helmick, let me
speak with you for a moment. You are a former member of the
IOC. Would you agree with the perception I have and many others
have that this gift giving and this lavish travel and so on has
been increasing worldwide over the last 20, 25 years? Or has
this always gone on in the Olympic movement?
Mr. Helmick. An exponential curve. Giving gifts has always
been a part of international competition. When I was playing
water polo, you don't speak the language, so you have small
gifts that you give. So the idea of gift exchange, they became
excessively exponential following Los Angeles and particularly
as we got into 1986 with the Barcelona.
Ms. DeGette. Was that about the time that the IOC at least
on paper adopted the $200 gift rule and the traveling only one
time and only to the potential host city and all of the other
rules?
Mr. Helmick. Yes. My recollection is starting in 1985,
perhaps in 1986, there were a series of memos from Mr. Gap,
from Mr. Carrard, Mr. Zwiffel, and even the president to the
members that talk about that. The word ``rule'' has been
stated. One of the most influential IOC vice presidents has
several times called those ``guidelines.''
Ms. DeGette. I know. You said that before in your testimony
today, sir, so I went back to my report here, and it says quite
clearly a number of times in various written documents that
were sent to the Atlanta committee, it says gifts offered to
IOC members by and on behalf of candidate cities should be
limited to documents or other items intended for information
and/or souvenir articles. Gifts of a value exceeding U.S. $200
are not permitted.
Mr. Helmick. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. That doesn't sound like a guideline to me.
Mr. Helmick. It doesn't sound like a guideline to me
either. That is why I am very surprised that the IOC vice
president said that.
Ms. DeGette. That is nowhere in writing that I have. Has
anybody received a document that says this is only a guideline?
Mr. Helmick. It is not written, no, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. You said as a member of the IOC and in
assisting Atlanta that you reviewed the gift list and that you
said some were okay and some weren't. Is that an accurate
characterization of your testimony?
Mr. Helmick. In reference to a full conversation I had with
one of the members where we were reviewing personal gifts, that
is correct.
Ms. DeGette. You said some were excessive and some weren't?
Mr. Helmick. In our joint conversation, whether she said
that or I said that, I don't know. She was struggling with
that.
Ms. DeGette. The concern I have, and then I am done, Mr.
Chairman, is we have in our documents prepared by King &
Spaulding, lengthy lists of gifts in excess of $200 in value
which apparently no one had a problem with.
Mr. Helmick. I would have a lot of problems with a lot of
those gifts, but particular--the particular instance was the
final gift.
Ms. DeGette. You didn't see lists like that?
Mr. Helmick. I am very surprised with that list. What
bothers me is the consistency of it, the pressure put on the
Atlanta to just give more than one $200 gift. But all of those
gifts, time and time again, you see 80 or 100 gifts of $100 to
$200 or $300. That is really what is excessive, is the number.
Ms. DeGette. The aggregate amount. You weren't aware that
was going on?
Mr. Helmick. Yes, I was. It was consistent with the
expectations and is the thing that a lot of us spoke out
against and said you have to stop it because there are a lot of
countries that cannot afford that.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Bryant.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened to
most of the testimony and expressed concern in my opening
remarks about this culture that exists out there in the Olympic
community, and I am going to speak very broadly now, that
apparently exists in terms of this instance of selecting host
committees.
I see a city like Atlanta having to go through some of
these hoops unfortunately to get to the end that they want, but
I think, Mr. Hybl, once Atlanta is picked as the city in the
United States that would bid for this, that the USOC becomes a
team player with them and an advocate for them, I trust, and
hopefully an adviser in terms of what you can and cannot do.
I suspect that the USOC is aware, and probably Atlanta was
aware to some extent, of this culture within the broader IOC of
the way things are done. I know in the business community, I
have business friends who go overseas, and in some countries
things are done differently.
So I don't know what our answer is. I do to some extent
though think the USOC ought to exercise more authority in its
role as I assume the intermediary between Atlanta or any other
city, Salt Lake City and the international committee, in trying
to be an advocate to follow the rules out there. It doesn't do
any good to have $200 gift limitations if they are not
enforced, and obviously none of that is done. But my overall
concern, again as I mentioned in my statement, and I would like
perhaps a comment from one of the gentleman from Atlanta
representing a host city viewpoint, and Mr. Hybl, you as the
representative of the U.S. Olympic Committee, I am concerned
about this, again, the unilateral disarmament and how we ever
being affected here.
Th IOC, what is their attitude to this hearing, to this
investigation? Is it going to hurt us as a country in future
selections? And how in the world are we going to enforce
standards uniformly when we have to rely on other nations to do
that? Is that feasible? Are other countries going to play by
the rules if we play by the rules?
I am not advocating we don't play by the rules, but I am
just wondering as a matter of practicality, are we going to
have any chance at success in future Olympics if this reform is
not uniformly accepted and followed around the world?
Let me just maybe, Mr. Hybl, you go first and Mr. Young or
Mr. Payne follow.
Mr. Hybl. Well, first of all, we concur, Mr. Bryant, with
the question that the reform is needed. We also as a practical
matter are aware of the fact that it really has to be broad-
based with other countries also if the United States is going
to compete on a level playing field. This was the reason behind
the recommendation from the Mitchell commission which was sent
to President for the OECD recommendation for the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act that would be adopted. I believe there
are 34 nations that are subscribers right now to the OECD,
which would ensure that in virtually every case others would
also be subject to the international rules against bribery.
I would say that we wouldn't be proceeding with bids for
the 2012 games if we thought that the United States had no
possibility of being the designated city. The fact is that we
don't know what the atmosphere will be 7 years out, which is 5
years from now basically, 5\1/2\, and we are encouraged because
of the quality of the U.S. cities that are competing, as we
think U.S. cities have done in the past, that ultimately the
games will return to the United States and we will host games,
because we think it is good for the country.
Mr. Bryant. You don't see any retaliation or any backlash
from the IOC in terms of what we are doing in this country in
terms of investigating and bringing to light some of these
abuses?
Mr. Hybl. The comments that have been made to me would
suggest that there are those that are not particularly happy
with the United States and the process that has gone on, but I
think as time goes on, the U.S. will be able to compete
effectively.
Mr. Bryant. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent for
1 minute perhaps where Mr. Payne or Mr. Young--I know it was a
rambling question, but if you have any thoughts. If you don't,
that is fine.
Mr. Young. One of the things about the American people, as
you well know, Congressman, is we love to compete and we don't
even mind accepting a handicap if competing. We thought we were
competing with a handicap, and our excesses I think were our
trying to be too creative. I think American cities like the
Olympics, the American people like the Olympics. It was a $5
billion windfall for Atlanta, that 1 year, and they are still
building in Atlanta because of the influence we garnered from
the Olympics.
So American cities are going to go after it and are going
to win it. We would be helped by a fair process, but if it is
fair, it has to be enforced, and it is hard to know how to
influence things internationally.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Strickland.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Payne and Mr.
Young, clearly any money that the IOC officials spent should
have been spent we think to make it clear that Atlanta was the
best city to host Olympics, and according to the King &
Spaulding report, certain things happened that I would like to
ask you to comment on, if you would.
In Exhibit O on page 1 there is evidence that Atlanta
officials discussed with the IOC official from Sweden a
cleaning contract for Olympic venues in buildings with a
company owned by the IOC official's friends. That contract I
understand was not taken. But how do you view such a move as a
way to demonstrate Atlanta's ability to be the best host city
for the Olympics?
Mr. Payne. Do you want me to go?
Sir, on several occasions we were asked if we could
facilitate an interview, set up a prospective business meeting
with IOC members' acquaintance with somebody in Atlanta,
somebody they heard of or whatever, and we did that on I think
a couple of occasions. We honestly thought nothing was wrong
with it. We didn't recommend or insist that anything come out
of it. I am not even sure that the follow-up calls were even
made in many of those instances. But the answer, sir, we did
not believe that was an inappropriate thing to do.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you for your answer. There is also
evidence that efforts were made to secure job interviews for
IOC officials' children, that various offers were made for
medical care or medical evaluations, and would your answer be
the same to those matters as well?
Mr. Young. Mine would, sir, because if you are from
Swaziland and the only place you can get your heart treated is
South Africa, and you happen to be black, you recommend that
you get your treatment when you come to Atlanta.
We had doctors who were glad to treat people freely. We
didn't consider that bribes. We were operating in the real
world and we were dealing with the real conditions of people's
lives. We had four people who had been run out of their homes,
political exiles, and we probably did more for them than we
would have done for others.
But that was part of the way we were expressing our
friendship.
The other thing is we thought we were dealing with our own
money. We didn't have the taxpayers' money here, very little of
it. We knew what we were doing, we were raising money from our
friends, from volunteers, who committed themselves to go after
the Olympic games. We also knew the prize.
So we thought these were minuscule favors that didn't cost
us anything. I would go on further to say that most of the
hospitals would not send us bills. They saw that as part of
their contribution for the Olympics.
Now, maybe that is wrong, but that was the spirit in which
we engaged in this, is trying to help people anyway we could.
Mr. Payne. May I add to that answer, I would add to
conclude Andy's remarks, there were no jobs that were given,
and I don't believe, except for my friend who I took to my
personal doctor because I was afraid of this hocus-pocus
medicine he was taking for heart disease, did we render any
medical care except of an emergency nature when something went
wrong while somebody was there.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you for those answers. Mr. Payne, I
think this question may have already been asked you, but if it
was, I was not here and I apologize for repeating it. But for
me it is an important question.
Toward the end of your written statement you remarked that
you believe that reform is needed in the bidding process,
particularly in the areas of gifts and travel.
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
Mr. Strickland. I am wondering at what stage of this
process in your own experience you reached that conclusion and
what sort of reforms you would, as a result of your experience,
what sort of reforms would you suggest are most needed?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir, that question was asked and my answer
was when we ourselves came under attack for what we did, that
I--and we were so criticized that I started thinking that what
we thought at the time was perfectly appropriate to do in the
context, other people didn't like, people we respect and honor,
and so, you know, that was the first time I personally had the
thought, well, let's just do away with all the gifts and just
reform the process dramatically. So about a year ago----
Mr. Strickland. And do you think that is possible?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir, I believe--I am not sure I am in the
majority here today, but I believe there will be dramatic
reforms announced in the short term.
Mr. Strickland. And my friend on the other side asked if
the rest of the world would concur with reforms that we may
embrace and whether or not it would place us at a disadvantage.
Is it your impression that the IOC at large will agree to these
kinds of reforms?
Mr. Payne. I am sure they will speak for themselves later
on, sir, but I am the eternal optimist, and I believe the
relative importance of this country to the Olympic movement, as
viewed as a cooperative, not a combative relationship, will
emphasize the need of those reforms, and that they will be
undertaken in a way that satisfies everybody and will be
accepted. That is my personal opinion, sir.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you. If I can just make a comment
regarding Mr. Young's testimony, and I read that you provided
soccer balls for the impoverished children and so on, I can
understand why you felt the need to do that. I guess what
troubles me is that these are sort of select individuals who
may have access to an individual like you or to resources that
the IOC committee would have, and I guess it is better to do
something that affects a small group of people, but it seems to
me like the rationale there is a limited rationale in terms of
its outcome.
Mr. Young. For instance, Congressman, we arranged to send
food supplies to 13 different countries because the heads of
state told us there was a shortage of protein for the athletes
training. We got free food delivered from American companies
and shipped to these countries for their athletes.
The soccer balls that we took, we took them ourselves and
we passed them out in villages. I mean, that is what we thought
was American friendship.
Mr. Klink. Would the gentleman yield to me for one moment.
Ambassador Young, look, if all that had occurred was taking
food to hungry people and taking soccer balls to Third World
countries, we would not be sitting here. The reality is in the
case of Mr. Ganga, the evidence shows that the money was put in
his personal account, some $50,000 I think.
Mr. Young. Not from us.
Mr. Payne. No, sir.
Mr. Klink. By Salt Lake, in that case. That wasn't you
guys. But the fact of the matter is that there is so much
beyond that going on here, I laud you for that. I wish I would
have been there to see the soccer balls arrive and to see what
occurred and to see what happened when the foodstuffs arrived.
But it gets far beyond that. We are far, far, far beyond the
pale with this.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Upton. I want to follow up on a couple points that were
made. Mr. Helmick and Mr. Hybl, you both through your testimony
and certainly the report that we heard from the Mitchell
Duberstein report indicated that virtually everyone knew the
abuses were taking place, and I am just curious, particularly
Mr. Helmick, as you think back 10, some 10 years ago, if they
were well-known to everyone, what did you do then? Did you do
anything? What went through your mind as you watched all this
happening, particularly as you had seen from other cities that
had not participated in this type of thing? I think you
indicated you thought it started in Barcelona, that is when it
started going, and Paris, Barcelona, and it has escalated since
then. Where were you as this thing was happening?
Mr. Helmick. Well, I was there, and I spent a great deal of
time thinking about that question, and obviously I should have
done more. I was in a unique position to have done more.
Anything I say at this point sounds like an excuse. There are
some things we did. You have to keep in mind that we had
another bid city going at that point. We were focused on
changing the amateur rule. The scandal at that point was we
can't compete evenly with the Soviets. There were a lot of
other things on our plate. That is sounding like an excuse.
The things we did were not sufficient. We should have done
more. We did do some things. At that point it was obvious to
me, having been at most of the IOC sessions since Athens in
1978, that it had to come within the IOC. I felt it was awfully
important that the president of the U.S. Olympic Committee be
an inside member of the IOC. I still feel that way. Bill Simon
before me felt that way. We started to do some things inside
the executive board. The rule was good. My recollection is
having the IOC take care of travel arrangements were good.
Obviously those were not sufficient. We should have done more.
That is the only way I can answer you.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Hybl, in the Mitchell-Duberstein report,
``It is difficult to believe that members of the executive
committee or individual trustees did not become aware through
these encounters that a large number of IOC members and their
relatives were visiting, attending schools and finding
employment around Salt Lake City.'' it goes on.
I would sense that you would think that you have looked at
this report and you sense it is accurate. With all this
evidence there, I am still astounded that your earlier comment
that you thought only 50 percent of the members, you thought it
was only about a 50 percent chance that the reforms will be
adopted, knowing the pattern of abuse is as widespread as it
is?
Mr. Hybl. Mr. Chairman, I think the odds are greater than
50 percent. As I indicated, it was for the complete package of
reforms that are in front of the IOC.
Now, some of the reforms will undoubtedly be adopted, but
our view is that the package as presented by the Mitchell
commission, there may be some differences in there, but should
be reflected in a policy as in the USOC at the IOC level. It is
for that complete package that I say that the odds are just a
little better than 50 percent, in my view, that they would be
adopted.
Mr. Upton. I want to touch base a little bit on this
international assistance fund. I am not sure when it started.
Did it start while you were president, or was it around for a
long time, the IAF?
Mr. Hybl. I believe it started when Bob was president.
Mr. Helmick. Yes, it was a response to the Los Angeles
organizing committee.
Mr. Upton. How is it funded?
Mr. Helmick. Initially it was funded from profits from the
Los Angeles Olympic Committee. It was the village fees, by
about $4 or $5 million.
Mr. Upton. Would you agree with my sense of things,
particularly in some of the things mentioned in the report,
that this could be construed as a slush fund?
Mr. Helmick. No. It started out as an athlete training fund
which was governed by our national governing bodies and was
strictly monitored only for legitimate cross training for
athletes. It grew out of hand.
Mr. Upton. Tom Wilkinson was quoted as saying that the IAF
grant to train Sudanese athletes ``doesn't look like a wise
investment unless IOC votes are involved. It seems to me there
was a deal, and Sudan delivered. Sudan, again, in the future,
don't burn bridges. This is not a good investment of USOC
dollars. It is a payback for Salt Lake City votes.''
Mr. Helmick. What was the timeframe of that? I believe that
was after I was president.
Mr. Upton. It was after.
Mr. Helmick. That is why I said it grew out of what was a
good idea, and it is like the gifts grew into something that
was then being abused.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Hybl, was this one of the things you touched
on in your testimony. This function of this IAF, is it going
away?
Mr. Hybl. We have certainly tightened that down. That does
not mean that we will not have international assistance, but it
will not be tied to any bid city.
I would say that the comments that you just read were not
only inappropriate, I don't believe that they reflect the
position of the U.S. Olympic Committee.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Young, I just want to follow up on something
that you said. You indicated that none of these gifts, I
believe this is what you said, none of these gifts that were
offered would violate your conscience.
Mr. Young. I probably said that, yes.
Mr. Upton. I mean, again, I give great credit to Judge Bell
and the report that he put together. You know, as I look
through some of these exhibits and I see that, you know,
$16,000 for CD players, $10,000 for handbags, $11,000 for
pewter cups, $10,000 for bathrobes, I mean, I don't know--and I
see one of the dossiers that you did on a fellow that no longer
is a member of the IOC, Mr. Ganga, and in your own dossier that
was done on him you were involved in the strategy, at least as
documented in this, and the observation is ``greedy, will try
to rip you off, can be bought. Will tell you what you want to
hear.''
Later on in the Salt Lake City investigation it says,
during many trips to Salt Lake City Mr. Ganga and his family
members received extensive medical care, and in fact it talks
about to the tune of Mr. Ganga is the IOC member who most took
advantage of the bid committee's and communities' generosity.
Indeed, bid committee and SLOC expenditures attributable to the
Ganga family totaled more than $250,000.
I suspect that this--with this particular individual, he
didn't change from Atlanta to Salt Lake City.
Mr. Young. No, but what happened, Congressman, was during
the period between Atlanta and Salt Lake City's bid, he was
driven out of his home. His whole country was destroyed. He was
a government official. There was a kind of communist military
cabal. Everything he had was destroyed and he was very
vulnerable during that period.
Now, he also has a reputation of being a very aggressive,
outspoken Africanist, and has been fighting with the IOC
establishment since 1968. We knew that. Our appeal to him was
not through his personal need or greed, but through his African
nationalist sentiments.
One of the reasons we gave money to South Africa was
because the Africans were always saying to us, you just come to
us and get our votes. You never do anything for us. When we get
through voting, it is just like in Congress, when you get
through voting, we never see you any more until election time
comes.
So we tried to do some things to help African athletes. But
we didn't do anything directly to help Ganga except try to get
an interview for his son for a job. But there was no guarantee
for a job. He did not get the job. He was a very well trained
accountant, spoke two languages. We thought there might be an
Atlanta company that might want to hire him.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Klink.
Mr. Klink. First of all, Mr. Helmick, I am a recovering
journalist, so I just want to give you a chance to clear
something up, something that stuck in my ear. One of my friends
here on the Democratic side asked you a question about how you
became troubled by this excessive gift giving, and your exact
quote was you thought this would have to stop because a lot of
countries couldn't afford it. I assume you meant there were
other reasons than that to stop?
Mr. Helmick. Absolutely.
Mr. Klink. I want to give you a chance to clear that up,
because our friends at the press table, I did not want
anybody--I know you didn't mean just that and I wanted to give
you a chance to clear that up.
Mr. Helmick. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Klink. I am kind of troubled by, I remember as a young
man, and I was young at one time, reading a book about Jim
Thorpe and his unfortunate Olympic experience when he had his
medals taken from him because they found out one time he had
played professional baseball and had gotten a couple of bucks,
and it was no more than a couple of bucks. To think we have
gone from that to a time now when such extravagant expenditures
have to be made in order to compete for whether or not you get
the games, and as we said, you have to pay to play, but when
you do pay, there is no guarantee you are ever going to get to
play in this Olympic game. We have seen examples, Ambassador
Young told us, of cities that have spent a lot more money that
never got to host Olympics.
I am troubled by all of this. Let me just ask you, Mr.
Payne, who is Charlie Battle?
Mr. Payne. Charlie Battle, sir, was one of the full-time
volunteers who worked with us for the entirety of the bid and
the games.
Mr. Klink. What does Mr. Battle do?
Mr. Payne. He runs a private foundation, the benefactor of
which is one of his cousins.
Mr. Klink. What is his background?
Mr. Payne. A lawyer.
Mr. Klink. A lawyer. Was he with a big law firm?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir, he was with the Atlanta firm of King &
Spaulding.
Mr. Klink. When we get back to this point about an honest
mistake being made in regard to this $15,000 in cash, I was
troubled by this handwritten memo from Charlie Battle to the
file, and in this he says that since you are permitted to bring
into the United States cash the amount of which does not exceed
$10,000, I, Charlie Battle, brought in $8,000 and Bobby brought
in $7,570. I took this money to a trust company, a bank, and
received a cashier's check, et cetera, et cetera. Then he goes
on to say I truly believe that no laws were broken.
Now, if he had been an accountant or had been a dentist or
had been something else, I would have less problems with this.
But the reality is that he quotes right in his own memo that
the law says you can't bring in more than $10,000, and then a
few lines later he handwrites I don't think the law was broken.
My problem is, what was going on there? Did they think this
was a suggestion by the Federal Government that you cannot
bring in more than $10,000? I would question also as to who all
saw this and what action was taken. If this was ever brought to
somebody's attention, that you had a lawyer with this well-
known law firm that by his own admission in his own handwriting
admits that he circumvented the law, and then at the end of the
memo, writes I don't think the law was broken.
Can you enlighten me on that?
Mr. Payne. May I confer with Judge Bell?
Mr. Klink. If it were me that had to answer the question, I
would want to confer with Judge Bell too. Judge Bell, could you
sit down where we could hear you at the microphone, sir.
Mr. Bell. It is my understanding that memorandum was not
written until just a few months ago. It was written after Salt
Lake City. Mr. Battle has a lawyer of his own, so I am not
wanting to interfere in any way in this. But since you asked
the question, as I understand it, he said that after Salt Lake
City he started wondering if he had ever done anything wrong
while he was working in on this group, volunteer group. He was
on a leave of absence from the law firm because he was so
interested in getting the Olympics. So he wrote down in the
last 3 or 4 months, he wrote this memorandum. It was 10 years
after this happened.
Mr. Klink. There are no dates on it, so you----
Mr. Bell. I just found that out recently when I was doing
the investigation. So I thought you would want to know that.
Again, as I say, he has a legal advisor of his own.
Mr. Klink. Well, it is something we----
Mr. Bell. I don't want to interfere in that.
Mr. Klink. It is something we may want to have answered.
Mr. Payne, this discussion about, and I thought it was
interesting that Ambassador Young mentioned the fact that you
are directed more by the volunteers than you direct them. I
guess I can appreciate that to a certain extent.
But I was also interested in this memorandum from you,
August--this is one of many, I just pulled one, it could have
been anyone, but August 20, 1990, to Ginger Watkins and Shannon
Chandler, subject, personal gifts. Attarbulsi, I hope I said
that right, I know I butchered that, an offer from Emory Clinic
acknowledging that we would like him to come to Atlanta for
medical treatment whenever he needs it and an offer to pay his
air transportation. Follow-up for Dibos and Mendoza. Follow-up
with American airlines for free complimentary tickets. Gafner,
perhaps an agreement to publish his novel in English. De Leon,
de Leon bought clothes at L.A. Town in Korea. We could call
Johnny Liu and have him make a suit. Mbaye, perhaps a letter
showing support for Atlanta signed by all members of the United
States Supreme Court. O'Flanagan, a signed card from hundreds
of school children in Savannah, which invites him back to grand
marshal another parade, which includes a picture of him during
the parade. Von Schoeller, call Campbell about some kind of
horse memorabilia. Pal Schmitt, get a letter from the
University of Georgia offering a scholarship to his daughter.
Well, no wonder your volunteers were leading you all the
wrong direction if the direction they were getting from you was
to perform this kind of personal gift giving. That is the
problem here, that it appeared that this closed culture of the
Olympics was being instructed from the very top.
Mr. Payne. Well, as I have said before, sir, we don't--we
are not trying to assign any responsibility. That memo has been
a source of embarrassment to me before, as have others in the
files, and the only one we did on that was the suit for Mr. de
Leon, which came within the gift rules and limits, and they
were bad ideas, sir, which were quickly pointed out to me by
these other volunteers and no action was taken.
Mr. Klink. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am struck as I have
read the reports and the memos and the various investigatory
results of the similarities between this and the way football
recruiting used to be in the Southwest Conference. Bear Bryant,
who coached at Maryland and Kentucky and where I went to
school, Texas A&M and then Alabama, his biography makes no
bones about the fact that his fundamental job was to win
football games, and in order to win football games he had to
have players on the field. If he needed to get an alumni to get
somebody a job, buy a car or get him a girlfriend or get a
couple of hundred dollars for a flight, he did it. And when you
read the testimony and you read the reports, it strikes me that
Atlanta basically decided to compete for the Olympics, and they
went out and hired the best advisers that they could, and the
advisers told them if you want to get the Olympics, here is the
way you have to do it.
There is a legal criteria, and then there is the real
world. Now, am I fundamentally missing the program, Mr.
Ambassador?
Mr. Young. We didn't hire any advisers, you know.
Mr. Barton. Well, the report that Mr. Bell prepared says
that early on you retained an adviser that had represented
Anchorage and paid him $19,000. You also extensively talked to
people who had been involved in the process.
Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. I am not being disparaging. I am just trying to
set the stage. The goal was to get the Olympics to Atlanta, and
you found out what the rules say and then what do we really
have to do, and you decided to do what you really have to do.
Does anybody fundamentally disagree with that?
Mr. Young. I think that is a very good illustration.
Mr. Barton. Okay. Now, I believe that if you are going to
solve the problem, you have got to have fundamental reform, and
if you are going to have fundamental reform, you have to start
at the top. My understanding is that the president of the
International Olympic Committee at the time is this gentleman
from Spain, Mr. Samaranch, is that correct?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. Now, again, in Judge Bell's report that he
supplied to the committee, it shows that Mrs. Samaranch came to
Atlanta and took side trips to Savannah and Charleston and the
total cost that is reported for all that with her friends is
over $12,000.
Now, did she have a vote? She didn't have a vote.
Mr. Payne. No, sir.
Mr. Barton. So this is no official reason to be paying for
airfare and side trips to the president's wife and her friend,
is there?
Mr. Young. Yes.
Mr. Barton. And----
Mr. Young. I mean, again, you said it. We wanted to get
anybody who could influence him. He is very hard to get to.
Mr. Barton. I understand that. That is exactly my point.
Mr. Young. If his wife wants to come to Atlanta, well,
we're glad to have her come.
Mr. Barton. Here is my point. It is hard for him to claim
public outrage and shock and amazement that we have got all
these problems if his wife and her friend flew to Atlanta, took
a side trip to Savannah and Charleston, all at the expense of
the Atlanta Olympic Committee. So why is he still president of
the International Olympic Committee? Anybody want to answer
that question?
Mr. Young. He gets the majority of the votes. He gets
reelected and--but in fairness to him, he is an old line
European aristocrat who has brought the Olympic movement a long
way on some issues. One, he has brought more minorities, the
diversity of the Olympic movement under his leadership----
Mr. Barton. Which is a good thing.
Mr. Young. Is a good thing, and that is one of the reasons
he gets support.
Mr. Bartlett. My guess is he is not the only one who could
do that.
Mr. Young. He is the only one who did. It was a white male
old boy's club until he took it over. The athletes on the
Olympic Committee, the anti-doping efforts, the difficulties of
keeping--he had been Ambassador to Russia, so he was one of
those that was influential in helping to keep the Russians in
the Olympics.
Mr. Bartlett. My time has expired.
Mr. Young. There are good reasons why he is still the
president.
Mr. Barton. There are no good reasons that I can tell. You
need fundamental reform. It is not going to happen in my
opinion as long as he is president. I think you need to reform
the voting process. I think you ought to have an open vote. It
is pointed out in Judge Bell's report on the first ballot
Atlanta got 19 votes and they didn't get anywhere close to
competitive until the last ballot. If you made it an open vote
process, you prevent these 86 members of the International
Olympic Committee from promising everybody something. In other
words, you got to put your vote on the board like you told
somebody you are going to put your vote on the board. I think
you need to reform the mechanism for who puts you on the
International Olympic Committee. From what I can understand,
President Samaranch has quite a bit of influence on who gets on
the International Olympic Committee. So I am not here to
chastise the Atlantans, but if I am still here when we get the
IOC, I am going to chastise them significantly, because I think
that is where the problem is.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Barton. I have been generous with
the time, as you can see, that everyone has lots of questions
and many of us still to ask. I am going to ask all members if
they can to submit questions to you all in writing. I have two
members, each of which want to ask questions very desperately,
and I will yield at this point to Ms. DeGette and then to Mr.
Burr, and at that point we will excuse this panel and begin the
next.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This kind of wraps it
up a little bit. We all have a pretty clear picture from
reading the documents and hearing you testify here today what
happened in Atlanta, what has been escalating since the 1980's,
and I would like to place a question to Mr. Hybl, and it is as
follows.
We have written policies that the IOC apparently adopted in
the late 1980's and has reiterated throughout the 1990's,
particularly with respect to travel and with respect to gifts.
We also have an acknowledged recognition by host city members
that they knew of those rules going in and that they knew that
the rules weren't followed by anybody, and also that the rules
were never enforced by the IOC.
So my question to you is, what reforms do you think that
the IOC could adopt that could and would actually have some
hope of being enforced? And what would the mechanism look like
to actually have real reform versus paper reform?
Mr. Hybl. Well, let me answer that two ways, if I may. The
first is the U.S. Olympic Committee now has experience with our
new reform process, as we bid for the Pan Am Games. The cities
have been visited, the USOC paid all the expenses, with the
exception of a couple lunches and one reception within the
community. We paid the airfare for our people to go to the
city, we paid for their expense also while they were there, we
have a limit of $25 on gifts. But in these cases there were no
gifts.
Let me tell you, no matter who wins, on October 23, whether
it is Raleigh, NC or whether it is San Antonio, Texas, these
rules are working.
Ms. DeGette. I don't mean to interrupt you. I know that
within the United States we are doing this and enforcing it.
Maybe you can extrapolate internationally. I know the chairman
has said we don't have much time.
Mr. Hybl. Second, it would be my view there is probably no
real reason for individuals to visit a host city if in fact it
can be done by an evaluation team who then makes a
presentation. If people are not visiting, you certainly don't
have the problem with receiving excessive gifts.
The second thing is, and the IOC is making I believe great
strides here, is representation for the athletes that are
elected by the athletes, because there is no better catalyst
for change within any organization than these--in the Olympic
movement--than having the athletes actively participating,
advocating change, and certainly being a positive force for the
whole movement.
I believe that is going to happen. I think change will
evolve quickly in some areas, but over the long term, the
prognosis is very good.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, I am not
going to ask you how you knew the Jamaican voted in a closed
voting session, but clearly that is one I will still be curious
on. Let me ask you, Mr. Payne, did Atlanta have competition in
the U.S. to be the site pushed by USOC?
Mr. Payne. Yes, sir. We had extensive competition.
Mr. Burr. How did the USOC make their choice?
Mr. Payne. By a ballot cast at an election process in
Washington DC. On April 28.
Mr. Burr. Was that an open vote?
Mr. Payne. I believe it is a secret ballot, is it not, Bob?
Mr. Helmick. I believe it was a secret ballot.
Mr. Burr. Let me ask you a question and ask you to think
about it long and hard before you answer. Did Atlanta have to
do anything other than be the best site to receive the USOC
endorsement?
Mr. Payne. I think we were the best site. I think that
determination, that selection, was assisted by introducing
members of the U.S. Olympic Committee executive committee to
the people of Atlanta and their enthusiasm for the Olympic
movement.
Mr. Burr. Was there any discussion prior to their vote
relative to splits of their participation in the games as it
related to any of the concessions?
Mr. Payne. I believe we were required to sign as a
preliminary to the vote, as were all cities, an agreement which
basically said the division of the big revenues are A, B, C,
and we will negotiate later all the details.
Mr. Burr. Let me ask you, Mr. Hybl, how important is it
that if there is an American city in the process that that
American city win versus a foreign city to the USOC?
Mr. Hybl. I think for the promotion of sport in our
country, particularly Olympic sports, it is important that an
American city win.
Mr. Burr. Is there a financial advantage for the USOC if a
U.S. city wins the bid process?
Mr. Hybl. Yes, the answer is yes, because of the
attractiveness of being a sponsor of the U.S. Olympic Committee
and it's at least----
Mr. Burr. Don't get a cut if it is in a foreign city?
Mr. Hybl. The U.S. Olympic Committee participates in a
variety of ways through the IOC TOP program, through television
revenues in the United States, no matter whether the games are
here or not.
Mr. Burr. But you wouldn't get a percentage of the sale of
concessions, for instance, if it were held in Athens versus
Atlanta, am I correct?
Mr. Hybl. Well, the fact is that with a joint marketing
agreement which we had with Atlanta and also that we do have
with Salt Lake City, there is a participation. But this is
strictly based on revenues that are raised jointly, not what
Atlanta would be doing.
Mr. Burr. That you wouldn't get jointly if it were in
Athens?
Mr. Hybl. That is correct.
Mr. Burr. Okay. Now, you have been associated with USOC,
looking at your background, I think since 1981. Is that about
the right time?
Mr. Hybl. That is correct.
Mr. Burr. Let me ask you, as president, are you paid
anything?
Mr. Hybl. No.
Mr. Burr. As USOC president?
Mr. Hybl. I am paid expenses, and I have an allowance for
two staff members.
Mr. Burr. Are any of the officers or board members paid?
Mr. Hybl. No. None of the officers are paid. The staff is
paid, headed by an executive director.
Mr. Burr. Let me ask you, given the structure in the USOC
of unpaid positions for board members, is in fact duplicative
of the IOC structure, one of you or both of you said earlier
one of the reforms that has to happen is the IOC has to pay
their board members. Did I dream that? It was the Ambassador
that said that. Let me ask the two of you then to comment on
whether that is a needed reform that must take place.
Mr. Hybl. The U.S. Olympic Committee is in the process of
an evaluation of our management by Mackenzie and company and we
will be moving much of the authority that has been incumbent I
guess on the president and the officers to the paid staff to
really put the president, the position I am in, more as
chairman of the board, which means that we wouldn't have the
decisionmaking process as much within the volunteer staff. I
don't believe the volunteers should be paid.
Mr. Burr. Let me, Mr. Payne, ask you one last question.
There is no predetermined answer to this one.
If there was not a tremendous amount of U.S. corporate
money and U.S. TV rights that went along with Olympic Games
today, do you believe the IOC would be at the point that they
are as it relates to efforts to reform the process?
Mr. Payne. I am not sure that the amount of money derived
from U.S. sources is as relevant to the reform as it has been
historically to the success and the growth of the IOC. I
believe that the corporate support from American companies is
absolutely critical, absolutely critical, to the worldwide
success in meeting the legitimate objectives of the IOC to
support.
Mr. Burr. So if by not performing they lost support of U.S.
corporations or U.S. TV contracts, that would put in jeopardy
the success of the Olympics; they would respond?
Mr. Payne. That would be my personal opinion, sir.
Mr. Burr. I would take that as a yes, they are responding
because there is pressure.
Mr. Payne. There is pressure and I believe you will find,
sir, that they do believe reform for its own right and merit is
needed.
Mr. Burr. Let me take this opportunity once again to thank
the four of you but to especially thank Ambassador Young and
Mr. Payne, the folks in Atlanta for going through I know what
has to be a grueling process of trying to remember 10 years ago
and also to have to publicly go out and say there's some things
we did that don't look good and that's not always fun but it's
an important part of the process. Did you want to say
something?
Mr. Young. Yes, Congressman. I've sounded like I'm
defending a lot of things that I don't--that are indefensible.
I defend paying the board members of the IOC in large measure
because about half of them are from very poor countries and one
of the things that has happened in sport--I mean, we are
responsible for the big money culture around sport and we tend
to be ashamed of money as rich folks but it has given so many
opportunities. I say the commercialization of sport has also
been the democratization of sport, that a kid who can run, who
can jump or who will train doesn't have to be rich. Before the
U.S. corporations got interested in sport, you had to be born
rich to compete in the Olympics. You had to have somebody to
take care of you. I always wanted to go to the Olympics but I
could never take off and do nothing but train for 2 or 3 years,
whereas the Soviet athletes had government support. Now all
athletes have support. American corporations have been very,
very helpful to sport.
Mr. Burr. As an individual that did not grow up in a
wealthy family but was the recipient of a football scholarship
to Wake Forest when it was the only way I could go, I treasure
the opportunity that I had and the ability to achieve that and
by the same token now 25 something years since I graduated look
at the experience that just went on at Florida State and wonder
how can it continue and where is the supervision. I think we
share the same concern but we also share the same goal and
that's excellence for the next generation of potential
athletes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Upton. The gentleman's time has expired. Gentlemen, we
appreciate your being with us for the greater part of the day
today. We appreciate your answers. We certainly appreciate the
testimony you provided in accordance with committee rules in
advance. I do know of a number of members that have additional
questions and we will be communicating that in writing. If you
could communicate back in a fairly short order, that would be
terrific. You're excused. Thank you very much.
Our next panel includes Mr. Francois Carrard, Director
General of the IOC; Ms. Anita DeFrantz, Vice President of the
IOC, and Mr. Jim Easton, a member of the IOC. Members of the
next panel, as you heard from the first panel, we have a long-
standing practice of taking testimony under oath. Do any of you
object to that? I also advise you that under the rules of the
House and of this committee, you're also entitled to be advised
by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel? And if so,
could you identify those individuals.
Mr. Carrard. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Culvahouse.
Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Oparil.
Mr. Upton. I just want to make sure our clerk is able to
get the names. Mr. Easton.
Mr. Easton. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Upton. If you could all stand and raise your right
hand.
Thank you, you are now under oath. As you know, our format,
I'm going to be try to be a little stricter. We're going to use
this clock. Your full testimony is made a part of the official
record in its entirety. If you could limit your remarks to
about 15 minutes, that would be terrific. Mr. Carrard, we'll
start with you. Welcome to the subcommittee.
TESTIMONY OF FRANCOIS CARRARD, DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; ANITA L. DeFRANTZ, VICE PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; AND JAMES L. EASTON, MEMBER,
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
Mr. Carrard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. My name is Francois Carrard, I'm a Swiss citizen.
I'm the Director General of the International Olympic
Committee. My language is French and I ask for understanding if
now and then I have a slip of tongue because I learn hard
English thanks to a scholarship in California many years ago,
but it's not my language. Thank you for your invitation to
appear and let me tell you outright that it is the IOC's strong
determination to fully cooperate with your committee. It is Mr.
Samaranch's equally strong determination to cooperate and to
appear in front of this committee in December.
Before addressing shortly our crisis and our result action
for in-depth reform, let me say a few short words about the
Olympic movement and the IOC. The Olympic movement is the
concerted action of all those in the world, and we are speaking
of hundreds of millions of people, who accept to be guided by
the principles and the rules of the Olympic charter. All these
people are integrated fundamentally into three different
constituencies: First of all, the international federations
which are international nongovernmental bodies governing sports
at world level; the National Olympic Committees, this is the
second constituency, 199 of them in the world, one of them the
most important being the U.S. Olympic Committee; and last, the
International Olympic Committee, the IOC, which is of course
today in the heart of the matter.
The IOC coordinates the entire Olympic movement in
accordance with the Olympic charter. It is a nongovernmental
international organization privately funded, privately funded.
Its legal structure is that of an association under Swiss law
with headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland. The present
membership consists of 103 individuals coming from 77 different
countries, 103 from 77 countries. Total independence, totally
free of their acts, entirely not paid and their meeting
constituents, the supreme body, the general assembly which we
call the session. Session elects the executive body, elects
president and chooses the host cities for the Olympic games.
The session also approves the changes in the charter which
would be necessary for the reform process. Their entire reform
process under way will be submitted to the session on December
11 and 12. A two-thirds majority is required and I can say that
fundamental, unique, unheard of changes will be submitted. It
is a formidable challenge after 105 years for Mr. Samaranch and
all those committees to reform.
A few words about the crisis. The crisis has to do with
people with structures and with procedures. We were aware of
the--as soon as we had evidence and that was the key word,
evidence, of misconduct. We took immediate action in late 1998.
Immediate internal investigation was ordered. Shortly
afterwards, a commission was set up, the so-called ad hoc
commission chaired by Vice President Pound dealing with the
problems of the people. Within 3 months we reviewed all the
files of all the members, and the result is that an
extraordinary session was convened in March 1999, practically
after 3 months, and this led to the exclusion, the expulsion of
six members and to the resignations of four others.
So practically for the first time in 105 years, the IOC did
cutoff the 10 percent of its membership for misconduct. This
was, Mr. Chairman, very harsh action.
We further studied and took into account as soon as we
received it the Mitchell commission report and took immediate
measures for transparency, accountability. Our accounts,
audited according to international standards, were disclosed.
We opened the next session which took place in June 1999 to the
media at large, for the first time in 105 years. The decision
was taken immediately, no trips, no visits anymore for the
ongoing campaign which led to the decision for the 2008 games
because that's--we saw it as quite an important matter. We
applied following the recommendation of the Mitchell commission
to OECD to be governed by the regulations internationally,
because we're a worldwide organization, on corruptions. We
established an ethics commission composed for a vast majority
of leading senior independent persons with a very strong action
and inference. And then there is a reform process, the IOC 2000
reform going on.
Many of the reforms proposed are absolutely radical,
introducing age limits. We are proposing 70 years old. Term
limits, a new nominations committee, more members from outside
including athletes and athletes democratically elected by their
peers, and there will be new procedures also on the
candidacies. Anita DeFrantz will speak of that.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of this committee for
your time. We consider this investigation as necessary. It's
not easy for us but useful and constructive and positive
contribution to our reform process. We are very thankful also
to Senator Mitchell, Mr. Duberstein for all the time they have
taken as well as for the leading, the leading American
personalities who are helping us with this process.
We have a crisis. Yes, there have been abuses. Yes, there
have been excesses, but we're fully committed to deliver for
the end of the year fully newly renovated IOC.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Francois Carrard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Francois Carrard, Director General, International
Olympic Committee
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Francois
Carrard, and, as Director General of the International Olympic
Committee (IOC), I am here to represent the IOC and its President.
I want to thank you for the courtesy you and other Members of the
Committee extended to me last week during our meetings. I also want to
reiterate the IOC President is absolutely prepared to testify before
your Committee after the IOC Session meets to vote on reform December
11 and 12. I want to thank you for understanding his need to
concentrate on building the necessary consensus among our multicultural
organization for the acceptance of our reform package. As you know,
changes to the Olympic Charter require a two-thirds majority vote for
passage.
the olympic movement
The International Olympic Committee was established in 1894 to
revive the spirit and competition of the Olympic Games celebrated in
ancient Greece. Since then, the IOC has coordinated and supervised the
celebration of the modern Games and the growth of the Olympic Movement.
In the most simple terms, the Olympic Movement is made up of those
people who agree to uphold the Olympic Charter. Although the Movement
consists of many partners, most notably the Olympic athletes, the three
leading elements of the Olympic Movement are the International Sports
Federations (IFs) that manage sport on a global level, the 199 national
Olympic committees (NOCs) that coordinate the Olympic Movement within
their own countries, and the IOC.
The IOC is organized as an association having legal personality
under Swiss law and is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland. Its
activities and relationships are governed by the terms of the Olympic
Charter, and it has a permanent staff of over 100. The IOC has 103
members from 77 different countries, which means they also come from
different backgrounds, cultures, races, and religions. Nineteen members
come from North and South America, 19 from Asia, 13 from Africa, 48
from Europe, and four from Oceania.
Each member serves as an independent trustee of the Olympic
Movement. This independence is a hallmark of the IOC and has allowed
the Olympic Movement to survive political pressure inconsistent with
the Olympic values. While all different, their common bond is their
love of sport--one out of four is an Olympian--that drives them to work
as unpaid volunteers for the development of sport around the world. I
should also mention that six of the eleven members of the Executive
Board are Olympians.
crisis as opportunity
Over the past Century, the Olympic Movement has faced several major
challenges--from the World Wars to the boycotts. Today, we are gathered
to discuss the most important challenge--most important because it is
leading to fundamental change in the organization. It is the IOC
President's firm conviction that this crisis has a positive side
because it has generated the political will to make overdue changes.
To the IOC's credit, the Olympic Games have grown into the most
important sports event in the world. Unfortunately, while the Games
evolved, our organizational structure did not keep up with the pace of
change. In effect, we did not realize we were going through a growth
crisis.
The result of an old-fashioned structure managing modern Games was
not corruption, but a situation in which some of the less responsible
members--a small minority--showed poor judgement and abused the system.
Our problems were caused by weak people, structures, and
procedures. This is why the International Olympic Committee is now
engaged in a comprehensive and unique review and reform process.
people
The revelations coming out of Salt Lake City and Atlanta show us
there were both givers and takers among the organizations involved. The
IOC has taken responsibility for the behavior of its members, and where
that behavior stepped over the line, the IOC levied the harshest of
sanctions.
Immediately after it became clear there were improprieties involved
with the selection of the host site for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games,
the IOC President took steps toward organizing an internal probe. The
IOC was the first to act and the first to report. As a result of its
investigation, six members were expelled, four resigned under pressure,
and one passed away before the beginning of the investigation. Ten
others were sanctioned with warnings of varying degree of severity.
Expelling six members by vote of their peers and leading four
others to resign was a most painful moment for the International
Olympic Committee; yet these actions were overwhelmingly endorsed by
the membership.
Regarding the Atlanta allegations, the IOC President has referred
the response known as the Bell Report (by the Georgia Amateur Athletic
Foundation) to your Committee to the newly established permanent and
independent IOC Ethics Commission, a majority of whose members are
senior, independent voices from outside the IOC. They will make
recommendations to the IOC Executive Board if disciplinary action is
required. I should mention, many of those referred to in the Bell
Report are the same people that were disciplined earlier this year.
structure
Once we dealt with these problems, we turned our attention to key
structural changes. We already have seen substantial progress and some
results.
Ethics Commission.
The first key change in terms of structure was the creation of the
permanent and independent Ethics Commission. The IOC membership voted
to create the IOC Ethics Commission at its 108th Session in Lausanne in
March 1999. The Ethics Commission is charged with ensuring the ethical
standards for IOC members are clear, applied, and enforced.
The Commission is headed by Judge Keba Mbaye, former vice president
of the International Court of Justice and an IOC member since 1973. He
is joined on the Commission by five independent, international
personalities:
Howard Baker, former U.S. senator;
Javier Perez de Cuellar, former United Nations secretary
general;
Robert Badinter, former president of the French Constitutional
Court and former French minister of justice;
Kurt Furgler, former President of Switzerland; and
Charmaine Crooks, a five-time Olympian from Canada.
IOC members Kevan Gosper, who is a former chairman and CEO of Shell
Australia, a former Melbourne city executive, as well as a Silver
Medallist, and Chiharu Igaya, another Silver Medallist and a member of
a number of corporate boards, also serve on the Commission.
The Commission's initial work resulted in the adoption of a Code of
Ethics and changes to the Olympic Charter at the 109th Session in June
1999.
The IOC Code of Ethics will govern the actions of IOC members as
well as those of officials of candidate cities and Organizing
Committees of the Games (OCOGs) as they interact with IOC members.
Among other provisions, the new Code limits gifts to items of nominal
value and hospitality to the prevailing customs in the host country.
The amendments to the Charter enhanced and clarified the powers of the
IOC Executive Board to sanction and suspend members for unethical
behavior.
IOC 2000
Further changes to the IOC's structure are being contemplated by
the IOC 2000 reform commission, and we are on schedule to enact
fundamental reforms on December 11 and 12, 1999.
The IOC 2000 Commission was established by the IOC's March 1999
Session with a broad mandate to review all facets of the organization,
including its structures, rules, procedures, and host city selection
process.
IOC 2000's general membership of 80 is led by a 26-member Executive
Committee, comprised equally of IOC members and external personalities.
(Of the thirteen external personalities on the Executive Committee,
five are from the United States.) IOC 2000's plenary commission
includes top leaders of international sports organizations, senior
business executives, academics, sponsor and television broadcast
partner representatives, and other internationally known public
figures.
The IOC 2000 Commission also includes the ten members of the IOC
Athletes Commission, democratically elected by their peers during the
last Summer and Winter Olympic Games.
Among the members are:
Henry Kissinger, former US secretary of state;
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former UN secretary general;
Paul Allaire, chairman, Xerox;
Michel Barnier, European Commissioner;
Dick Ebersol, chairman, NBC Sports;
Peter Ueberroth, former Olympic Games organizer and Major
League Baseball commissioner; and
Thomas Stoltenberg, former foreign minister of Norway.
The IOC 2000 plenary commission met on June 1 and 2, and its three
working groups have met three times since then.
The three IOC 2000 working groups' preliminary recommendations
include several key elements to revising the structure of the IOC. They
are:
setting the membership to 115 members which will include 15
members who come from the ranks of the International Olympic
Sports Federations, 15 from among national Olympic committee
presidents, and 15 active Olympic athletes. The athlete members
would be elected by their peers at the Olympic Games;
lowering the age limit to 70 years old;
establishing a nominations commission that would review the
qualifications for people considered for election or reelection
to the IOC;
setting the term of service at eight years, after which
reelection to the IOC is required; and
setting the term of the President of the IOC at eight years
after which he or she could be reelected to serve only one
additional term of a yet to be determined length.
The IOC 2000 Commission will meet October 30 and 31 in Lausanne to
finalize its recommendations for reform. The plenary meetings will be
open to the media, and the full roster of recommendations will be made
public at that time. IOC members will review and vote on this set of
final recommendations at the IOC Session on December 11 and 12.
policy and procedures
The third major area of reform is revision of IOC policy and
procedures.
Transparency
Perhaps the most obvious shift of policy is the IOC's stronger
embrace of transparency. In March, the IOC published its financial
statements that were audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. A couple of
months later, we opened the IOC 2000 Commission plenary meetings to the
media. Then in June, we took a further step by opening the IOC's annual
membership meeting, the IOC Session, to the media for the first time.
And we have made an incredible amount of information available on our
web site, www.olympic.org. I think the media will concur that we are
making major strides in this area of openness, and I hope you will see
the IOC President's willingness to come to Congress to explain the
reform as yet another step toward greater transparency.
OECD
Earlier this month, the IOC President instructed me to send a
letter to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) asking that the IOC be covered by the organization's anti-
corruption convention. Some members of the Senate Commerce Committee as
well as the Mitchell Commission urged the IOC to find ways it could be
covered by the US's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. After consultations,
we determined a direct application to the OECD would be the best
approach for the IOC, as we could circumvent the need to apply to each
of the OECD's member nations one by one.
At this point, I would like to thank the members of the Mitchell
Commission, especially Senator Mitchell and Ken Duberstein, who have
made themselves available to meet with us and provide input on how they
feel the IOC reform efforts should be directed. In this same vein, I
would like to say we appreciate the interest this Committee and your
Senate colleagues have taken in the reform of the IOC.
Host City Selection Process
Perhaps the most important reforms in terms of procedure are the
fundamental changes being contemplated for the host city selection
process. IOC Vice President Anita DeFrantz, who was the chairman of the
IOC 2000 working group addressing this area, is here to provide
detailed testimony on the proposed changes to the process.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I hope in the time provided I was able to give you
and your colleagues a basic understanding of how substantial a reform
effort is underway at the IOC. Senator Mitchell has commented that the
reforms his commission recommended alone would be hard enough to
implement, and IOC 2000 has a much broader mandate to review all
aspects of the IOC.
I respectfully submit that the IOC is undergoing a reform process
that is unprecedented in both scope and pace for a 105-year-old,
multicultural organization. Let me repeat: the IOC leadership is fully
committed to ensuring the reform efforts growing out of this crisis
result in a fully renovated IOC that will be better able to lead and
serve the Olympic Movement.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal statement. I look forward to
taking your questions following the testimony of Ms. DeFrantz and Mr.
Easton.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. As you may have heard, we have those
buzzes and lights that indicate that we have a vote on the
House floor so we're going to temporarily recess and we'll come
back promptly at 2 for Ms. DeFrantz. Thank you.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Upton. There are members who are trying to sneak a
sandwich and do a number of things. A number of subcommittees
are meeting. But I think we'll continue. Mr. Carrard, thank you
very much for your testimony. Ms. DeFrantz, we'll begin with
you. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF ANITA L. DeFRANTZ
Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on a topic of great
importance to me. I also want to thank you and the members of
the committee for the constructive dialog of the International
Olympic Committee. My name is Anita L. DeFrantz, I'm an
executive committee member of the U.S. Olympic Committee. I'm
Vice President of the International Rowing Federation, FISA,
and I'm Vice President of the International Olympic Committee.
My involvement in the Olympic movement has been continuous
since I first rowed for the U.S. Olympic team. I am an
Olympian. I represented our country in the games of the 21st
Olympiad in Montreal in 1976 and I'm proud to say we were able
to win a bronze medal that year in rowing. I was also a member
of the 1980 Olympic team which was not allowed to compete in
Moscow. Since then I have served in a various--a variety of
volunteer positions within the USOC. I also worked as a vice
president for the Los Angeles Olympic organizing committee
which put on the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles and I was
elected to the IOC in 1986. Today my work is as President of
the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles, which is the
legacy of the 1984 Olympic Games.
I have stayed involved with the Olympic movement because I
believe in what the Olympic movement stands for, which is, as
written in the Olympic charter, building a peaceful and better
world by educating youth through sport, practiced without
discrimination of any type of any kind and in the Olympic
spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of
friendship and fair play.
Most people think of the Olympic movement only when they
watch the games every 2 years. While the games do bring
together the world in a celebration of human excellence, it's
what the International Olympic Committee does to promote
international sport leading up to and in between the games that
makes me proud to be a member of the IOC.
Through the moneys generated from the sale of broadcasting
rights worldwide and worldwide sponsorships, the International
Olympic Committee helps fund training programs to enhance the
national sports organizations around the world. The programs
seek not only to prepare athletes to compete in the Olympic
Games but also to train their coaches in the latest techniques
and to teach the national sports administrators to better
manage their country's sports programs.
As a result of these programs, athletes who could not
afford the training much less the airplane ticket to the games
now compete alongside their peers from wealthier nations. Due
to the success of these programs, we now have athletes from 199
National Olympic Committees participating in the Olympic Games
and I'm happy to say that more than 40 percent of those
athletes are women.
There is a whole list of programs which are undertaken
under Olympic--what we call Olympic solidarity. There are
programs for administrators, for coaches, for athletes, sport
for all, women in sports, sport and the environment,
Olympafirca, and these programs are funded through our
sponsorship. I must also point out that the U.S. Olympic
Committee and their four U.S. athletes are major beneficiaries
of the moneys generated through the worldwide sale of broadcast
rights and sponsorships.
From the IOC's worldwide sponsorship program, the TOP
program, the first 20 percent of revenues are distributed
directly to the USOC. The first 10 percent of television
rights, U.S. television rights goes directly to the United
States regardless of where the games are held. Perhaps it is
because I am so proud of the work of the International Olympic
Committee that I am so disappointed about what we have learned
during this past year. It is also why I have given so much of
my time to help advance the reform process.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to assure you the process for
selecting the host cities in the future will be dramatically
different from the recent past. Following the revelation of
problems with the 2002 bid process, the IOC took immediate
action. An inquiry panel was immediately formed to examine the
actions of IOC members who had abused their trust. Ten members
resigned or were expelled from the organization. Ten others
were warned. The IOC president then put in place a reform
process with the development of a new interim procedure for
selecting the 2006 Olympic Winter Games site, the creation of
an independent and permanent Ethics Commission and the IOC 2000
Reform Commission.
Recognizing the urgent need for action on the bid process,
the system for the selection of the 2006 Olympic Winter Games
was immediately changed. Under that interim system, gifts and
visits were prohibited and a selection college chose two
finalist cities. The winner was elected by secret ballot cast
by each member of the IOC.
If the reform process goes forward as planned, the host
city of the 2008 games will be elected through an even more
thorough and improved selection process.
Although the Ethics Commission has existed for only 6
months, it has already made an impact on the future host site
selection process through the ethics code it drafted. The
members of the International Olympic Committee adopted this
code in June. You should note the code lays out ethical
standards for the interaction of the members of the
International Olympic Committee with the members of the bid
committees, and the National Olympic Committees. Second, it
limits gifts to those of nominal value; third, it limits
hospitality to that of the prevailing local customs. The new
ethics code will be enforced by the independent Ethics
Commission of which Senator Baker is a member.
With the ethics code as the backdrop, the IOC 2000 Reform
Commission is revising the process by which the International
Olympic Committee will elect future Olympic host cities. First
we have proposed changes to make clear the responsibilities of
the National Olympic Committees in the bidding process. We
found through the Mitchell report that there was no legal
leverage over the bid committees and no mechanisms to compel
the National Olympic Committees to assert closer control over
the activities of the bidding committees. Second, we will add a
new phase to the process called the bid acceptance phase. In
the past, any National Olympic Committee could propose a city
and that city would be declared a candidate for the games. In
the future, the IOC with the assistance of technical experts,
athletes, representatives of international federations, and
National Olympic Committees will screen the cities to determine
whether that city can be considered a candidate to host the
games in question.
After the bids are accepted--I'm sorry, a very important
step at that point is that there will be a contractual
relationship with the bid cities. The leverage that was not in
place in the past will be there in the future.
After the bids are accepted, they'll go through a more
thorough evaluation process. The third major change. The
International Olympic Committee has long studied the
qualifications of the bid through the work of the evaluation
commission. However, we have recommended the expansion of that
commission to involve more technical consultants, athletes, and
other representatives of the federations and National Olympic
Committees.
Under the previous system after the distribution of the
evaluation reports, the IOC members would visit the cities. The
executive committee of the IOC 2000 reform has recommended that
we eliminate the member visits to the bid cities which would be
the fourth major change. If the number of candidate cities is
too large at this point the IOC executive board would have the
authority to limit that field.
Mr. Chairman, I hope you will see that the International
Olympic Committee has been working to reform one of our most
important procedures. Choosing the site of the next Olympic
Games is a serious responsibility, as it determines where the
dreams of future Olympians will be realized. We are making sure
that the choice is being made under the best circumstances.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Anita L. DeFrantz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anita L. DeFrantz, Vice President, International
Olympic Committee
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on a topic of great importance to me. I
also want to thank you and other Members of your Committee for the
constructive dialogue with the International Olympic Committee.
My name is Anita L. DeFrantz, and I am an executive committee
member of the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) and a vice president of the
International Olympic Committee (IOC). I am also vice president of the
International Rowing Federation, FISA. I am an Olympian. I represented
our country at the Games of the XXI Olympiad in Montreal in 1976 and
was proud to win a Bronze Medal in rowing. I also was a member of the
1980 US Olympic team that did not get a chance to compete in the Moscow
Olympic Games.
My involvement in the Olympic Movement has been continuous since I
first rowed for the US Olympic team. I have served in various volunteer
positions within the USOC. I worked as a vice president for the Los
Angeles Olympic Committee for the 1984 Olympic Games. I was elected to
the IOC in 1986. I am currently employed as president of the Amateur
Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles.
I have stayed involved because I believe in what the Olympic
Movement stands for, which as written in the Olympic Charter is, ``. .
. building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through
sport, practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic
spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship
and fair play.''
the olympic movement
Most people think of the Olympic Movement as the Games they watch
every two years. While the Games do bring the world together in a
celebration of human excellence, it is what the International Olympic
Committee does to promote international sport leading up to the Games
that makes me proud to be a member of the IOC.
Through the monies generated from the sale of broadcasting rights
and world-wide sponsors, the International Olympic Committee helps fund
training programs to enhance the national sports organizations around
the world. The programs seek not only to prepare athletes to compete in
the Olympics but also to train their coaches in the latest techniques
and to teach the national sporting administrators to better manage
their countries' sports programs. As a result of these programs,
athletes who could not afford the training, much less the airplane
ticket to the Games, now compete alongside their peers from wealthier
nations. Partly due to the success of these programs, we now have
athletes from 199 national Olympic committees participating in the
Olympic Games, and I am happy to say that more than 40 percent of the
athletes are women.
The goal is to ensure both today's and tomorrow's athletes from all
nations continue to compete on the world stage.
Among these programs are:
For Administrators
Assistance to Continental Associations
Grants for NOC operating costs
Preparation for and participation in the Olympic Games
International Olympic Academy
Programs with the Medical Commission
Training for sports administrators
For Coaches
Olympic scholarships for coaches
For athletes
Preparation for and participation in the Olympic Games
Sydney 2000 programs
Olympic scholarships for young, promising athletes
Programs with IFs
For sport in general
Sport for All
Women in Sport
Sport and Environment
Olympafirca
The United States Olympic Committee, and therefore the U.S.
athletes, are major beneficiaries of monies generated through the
world-wide sale of television rights and sponsorships. From the IOC's
corporate sponsorship program, the TOP program, the first 20% of
revenues are distributed directly to the USOC. And, no matter where the
Olympic games are held, 10% of the U.S. television rights fee goes
directly to the USOC.
international olympic committee action in response to recent crisis
Perhaps it is because I am so proud of the work of the
International Olympic Committee that I am so disappointed about what we
have learned during this past year. It is also why I have given so much
of my time to help advance the reform process.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to assure you the process for selecting the
host cities in the future will be dramatically different from the
recent past.
Following the revelation of problems with the 2002 bid process, the
International Olympic Committee took immediate action. An enquiry panel
was formed to examine the actions of IOC members who had abused their
trust. Ten IOC members have resigned or have been expelled as members.
The IOC President immediately put in place a reform process with
the formation of the IOC 2000 Reform Commission and a permanent and
independent Ethics Commission.
One of the goals of the IOC 2000 Reform Commission is to examine
the bid process and make recommendations for change. I was appointed
chair of this working group.
2006 host city election process
Recognizing the urgent need for action on the bid process, the
system for the selection of the 2006 Winter Games was immediately
changed. Under that interim system, gifts and visits were prohibited
and a selection college chose two finalist cities. The winner was
elected by secret ballot cast by each member of the IOC. If the reform
process goes as planned, the host city of the 2008 Olympic Games will
be elected through an even more thorough and improved selection
process.
ethics commission's impact on host city election process
Although the Ethics Commission has existed only for six months, it
already has made an impact on the future host site selection process
through the Ethics Code it drafted. The members of the International
Olympic Committee adopted this Code in June. With your permission, I
would like to enter it into the record. First, you should note the code
lays out ethical standards for the interaction of members of the
International Olympic Committee with members of bid committees and
national Olympic committees. Second, it limits gifts to those of
nominal value. Third, it limits hospitality to that of the prevailing
local customs.
The new Ethics Code, enforced by the independent Ethics Commission
of which Senator Baker is a member, will govern the behavior of all
involved in the host city election process.
ioc 2000 reform to the host city election process
With the Ethics Code as the backdrop, the IOC 2000 Reform
Commission is revising the process by which the International Olympic
Committee will elect future Olympic host cities. We have devised a
process that will work well into the future and address the issues with
which this Committee is concerned.
First, we have proposed changes to make clear the responsibilities
of the national Olympic committees in the bidding process. We found, as
did the Mitchell Report, that there was no legal leverage over the bid
committees and no mechanism to compel the national Olympic committees
to assert closer control over the activities of the bidding cities. The
Olympic Charter clearly states that the national Olympic committees are
responsible for the bid city they propose. As we have found, there was
a varying degree of involvement in both the initial preparation and
ongoing oversight of the bid cities. The proposed procedure will
mandate that involvement.
Secondly, we will have a new phase, called the bid acceptance
phase. In the past, any national Olympic committee could propose a city
and that city would be declared a candidate city for the Games. In the
future, the IOC with the assistance of technical experts, athletes, and
representatives of International Federations and NOCs will screen
cities to determine whether that city can be considered a candidate to
host the Games in question. This step will assess whether there is the
necessary infrastructure to host the Games in place now or can be
reasonably expected in seven years time. If not, the city will be
encouraged to work toward improving its chances for the future.
After the bids are accepted, they will go through a more thorough
evaluation process--the third major change to the system. The
International Olympic Committee always has studied the qualifications
of the bid through the work of the Evaluation Commission; however, we
have recommended the expansion of the Evaluation Commission to involve
more technical consultants, athletes, and representatives of the
International Federations and NOCs. The added input will provide a more
thorough evaluation.
Under the previous system, after the distribution of the evaluation
reports, the members of the IOC would have visited the cities. The
executive committee of the IOC 2000 Reform has recommended that we
eliminate the member visits to the bid cities--the fourth major change.
At this point, if the number of candidate city is too large, the
IOC Executive Board will reduce the field to a manageable number on the
basis of the Evaluation Report. It will then present those candidates
to the membership for the final vote.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I hope you will see that the International Olympic
Committee has been working to reform one of our most important
procedures. Choosing the site of the next Olympic Games is a serious
responsibility, as it determines where the dreams of future Olympians
will realized. We are making sure the choice is made under the best
circumstances.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I'm happy to
take questions.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Easton?
STATEMENT OF JAMES L. EASTON
Mr. Easton. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name
is James L. Easton. Before I start, I would like to ask you if
the four documents that we brought could be a part of the
record.
Mr. Upton. Without objection they will be made part of the
record in their entirety. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.072
Mr. Easton. Thank you. Together with Ms. Anita DeFrantz, I
have the honor of representing the IOC in the United States. I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the
committee and for your concerns of the Olympic movement and the
athletes we represent.
Briefly, my background is I'm chairman and chief executive
officer of James D. Easton, Inc., a manufacturer of sports
equipment. I'm also president of the International Archery
Federation, FITA. And I was elected president of that
association in 1989 and have been reelected for my third term.
My previous involvement with the Olympics goes back to 1976
when I filmed the archery competition as the official film
maker for archery at that Olympic Games.
My next involvement was in the organization and operation
of the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, where I served as
mayor of the Olympic village for athletes at UCLA and also was
a commissioner of the archery competition.
As an IOC member of the United States, I also serve on the
management committee of the Salt Lake Olympic organizing
committee and the executive committee of the U.S. Olympic
Committee.
From September 1995, when I was elected to the IOC, through
1996, I also served on the Atlanta committee for the Olympic
Games, on their executive board. International sports
federations are one of the three pillars of the Olympic
movement. We are the guardians of our respective sports. We
promote and develop the sports internationally. We set the
rules for competition internationally so those rules are
consistent. We train the judges to enforce those rules and we
sanction and oversee competitions internationally, including
the Olympic Games. In short, we make sure our rules are fairly
applied and our athletes are protected and our sport grows.
Although FITA is one of the smaller international sports
federations, I consider this an advantage as I am able to get
to know many of the competitors on a personal level. This
connection with the athletes along with my lifelong love for
the sport of archery keeps me focused on the most important
part of the Olympic movement: The athletes.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I'm strongly in
favor of reforming the IOC to prevent any future occurrences of
inappropriate actions by bid committees and IOC members.
I understand that proposals are being considered by the new
IOC Ethics Commission and the IOC 2000 Commission. These
proposals will be presented in early December at the
extraordinary session of the IOC and I look forward at that
time devoting on these necessary--voting on these necessary
reforms and also committed to help convince other IOC members
that they should vote for them also.
We must not and will not fail the Olympic movement. I'm
grateful that the IOC has given me the opportunity to work for
the athletes across the globe, and I look forward to continuing
my efforts on their behalf.
Before I close, I'd just like to make another statement, a
personal statement, that I'm troubled by the statements that
have been made here today that all IOC members are guilty or
have been guilty of accepting or requesting excessive gifts.
From my personal experience, I have not seen that. I can state
that these statements are not true and I believe they unfairly
condemn many IOC members who have a high level of ethics and
would not do many of the things that had happened in the past.
And I just wanted to say that because there are many of us who
do fit that mold and it is I believe unfair that every one of
us is condemned with that same unethical activity.
I'd like to thank you and I would be pleased to answer any
questions you have.
[The prepared statement of James L. Easton follows:]
Prepared Statement of James L. Easton, Member, International Olympic
Committee
Chairman Upton, Members of the Committee, my name is James L.
Easton. Together with Anita DeFrantz, I have the honor of representing
the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in the United States.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee and for
your interest for and concern with the Olympic Movement and the
athletes that we represent.
Briefly, my background is as follows. I am Chairman and CEO of Jas.
D. Easton, Inc. (Easton). We manufacture sporting goods equipment. In
addition to being a member of the IOC, which I have had the privilege
of being since 1994, I am also the President of the Federation
Internationale de Tir a l'Arc (FITA) otherwise known as the
International Archery Federation. I was first elected to this post in
1989 and am currently serving my third term as president. My
involvement with the Olympic Games goes back to the organization and
operation of the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. In addition to
other duties, I had the privilege of serving as the Mayor of UCLA
Olympic Village and as Commissioner of the Archery Competition.
As an IOC member in the United States, I also serve on the USOC
Executive Board and am I a member of the Management Committee of the
Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee (SLOC). From the time of my
election to the IOC until 1996, I also served on the Executive Board of
the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG).
The international federations are an important part of the Olympic
Movement. We are, in effect, the guardians of our respective sports. We
promote all aspects of our sports, assure that the rules are applied
evenly and fairly and oversee the conduct of our sanctioned
competitions, including the Olympic Games. In short, we make sure that
our athletes are protected and the welfare of the sport is safeguarded.
Although FITA is one of the smaller International Federations, I
consider this an advantage, as I have been privileged to get to know
many of the competitors on a personal level. It is this connection with
the athletes, along with my life-long love for the sport of archery,
that keeps me focused on what really matters in the Olympic movement:
the athletes and the Games.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am strongly in favor
of reforming the IOC to prevent any future occurrences of inappropriate
actions by bid committees or by IOC members. I understand that
proposals are being considered by the new IOC Ethics Commission and the
IOC 2000 Commission. These proposals will be presented to the IOC
Executive Committee and then to the full IOC membership in early
December 1999. I look forward to voting on these necessary reforms in
December, and have personally committed to working diligently to secure
the necessary approval of two-thirds of my IOC colleagues. We must not
and will not fail the Olympic Movement.
I am grateful that the IOC has given me the opportunity to work for
the athletes across the globe, and I look forward to continuing my
efforts on their behalf.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Upton. That was perfect timing with the clock. Again, I
appreciate all of you being here, particularly Mr. Carrard,
whose international travel has been able to bring him before
this subcommittee today and you'll be here, as I understand it,
again in December with Mr. Samaranch. So we very much
appreciate that.
We have a number of questions. First of all, I guess Ms.
DeFrantz, Mr. Easton, it's my understanding, correct me if I'm
wrong, but in the past you have been voting members of the
selection committee; is that correct? Ms. DeFrantz, have you
cast a vote in favor of one city or another in past Olympics
and if so, which ones?
Ms. DeFrantz. Since I was elected to the IOC in 1986, I did
not vote in that election. I was elected at the end of the
session, although I'm pictured as a part of the session.
Mr. Upton. With which Olympics have you helped select as a
member of the voting body?
Ms. DeFrantz. From--in 1988 we elected the site of the 1994
Olympic Winter Games. In 1990 we selected the site of the 1996
Olympic Games. In 1991 we selected the site of the 1998 Olympic
Winter Games. In 1993 we selected the site of the 2000 Olympic
Games and in 1995 we selected the site of the 2002 Olympic
Winter Games and this year we selected the site of the 2006.
Mr. Upton. So you have been present for six votes of the
cities and throughout all that, you were aware, were you not,
of the $200 gift rule that was in place I believe for all of
those? Is that correct?
Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, the rules changed a little bit,
but essentially that is correct.
Mr. Upton. Were you ever in a position where you saw cities
come to you and offer gifts that exceeded the $200 gift rule?
Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, I had a particular approach to
this. I believed that my responsibility was to find out from
every bid city what they were going to provide for the
athletes. So I always ask for technical information. Gifts were
not of interest to me. I paid no attention to them and indeed I
usually left them in the room if they came to me.
Mr. Upton. So you were never--yes or no. Were you offered
gifts that exceeded $200?
Ms. DeFrantz. I don't know because I didn't accept gifts.
Mr. Upton. You accepted no gifts but the question was were
you offered gifts? Were there gifts that were offered to you
that you might have turned down that were in excess of $200?
Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, it's difficult for me to
answer. If I didn't open a box or look at a gift, I can't tell
whether it was over $200 or not but I can tell you that I
understood that the rule was gifts were okay as long as they
were under $200.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Easton, were you ever in a position to also
vote on the selectionsite of cities?
Mr. Easton. Yes, I was. I voted on the 2002 Winter Games
and I voted on the 2004 Summer Games.
Mr. Upton. Did you ever have a member from another--from
the United States or any other country ever come to you and
offer you a gift in excess of $200?
Mr. Easton. Not that I was ever aware of. They never looked
to me like that they exceeded that value. Like Anita DeFrantz,
most of them were things you didn't want to take home. I left
many of them in the rooms.
Mr. Upton. I remember when Congress was under a great
examination a few years ago and in reference to your closing
statement as part of your testimony, one bad apple can spoil
the whole bunch. And certainly no one is accusing you or anyone
else specifically of abuse. But one of the things that we did
when Congress was under attack was to pass a very strict ethics
rule and in fact for a good part of the last number of years,
there in essence has been a no gift rule all together. Maybe a
T-shirt and a baseball hat but not a meal where you could sit
down, and as part of the enforcing mechanism we have an ethics
committee that's bipartisan. It's equal in numbers. A number of
members in fact missed votes last week on the Dingell-Norwood
HMO bill because they were meeting to discuss and review at
least one case before them but that ethics committee works, I
think, in most cases pretty well. I know that the Senate has
one, too. Would you say that even though that $200 gift ban was
in place that because there was no ethics committee until now
recommended before the IOC that that was what may have rendered
it somewhat infective?
Ms. DeFrantz. There were two parts that made it
ineffective. Certainly having no Ethics Commission was a huge
problem but equally important there was no leverage. There was
no contractual relationship with the bidding city and we intend
to change that so that there will be such a relationship and so
that the bidding city, the National Olympic Committee as well
as the IOC members will be under the guidance of the Ethics
Commission.
Mr. Upton. I have a followup question but I'm going to
adhere to this clock.
Mr. Klink.
Mr. Klink. Let me first start off with Mr. Easton. I don't
know if you were in the room for my opening statement, but my
concluding paragraph was, let me conclude by saying that while
some within the IOC have strayed from the Olympic movement,
from what the Olympic movement should be about, and have sadly
used the bid process to seek personal award, most have not and
are extremely hard working and dedicated individuals. In fact,
I believe the vast makeup of the IOC care very deeply about the
health and the integrity of the games. You might have missed
that.
Mr. Easton. I appreciate that statement.
Mr. Klink. You may not appreciate that because there are
some questions that have to be asked of all of you. And that
is, if you are hard working individuals, and I believe you are,
and all of this was going on, not only in the cities that were
awarded as the previous panel showed us but in the cities that
lost to spend tremendous amounts of money, why didn't you know
what was going on? What kind of blinders, not just you, but
what kind of blinders did people in the Olympic movement have
on that you weren't aware that millions, tens of millions of
dollars was being spent on courting the members of the IOC
around the world?
Ms. DeFrantz, we'll start with you. You testified, I think,
you've been with the Olympic movement since 1976. That's 24
years, is that correct?
Ms. DeFrantz. Yes, as an athlete first and as an
administrator second.
Mr. Klink. You never saw anything that raised your
suspicions?
Ms. DeFrantz. Well, certainly, raised suspicions as well as
I read the memos from Francois Carrard, from Madam Zheifel,
from Mr. Gafner who wrote to the bidding cities always
attempting to control, but again we did not have the leverage
in place. That was the flaw. There was no way other than to
send a memo saying please adhere to the rules. We understand
that there are expenses being made that are totally
unnecessary. The receptions, the dinners and things like that,
we wanted to stop that, but we failed to have in place what we
will have in place starting in December of this year, which is
a way to sanction the bid cities. There was no contractual
relationship at that time.
Mr. Klink. My difficulty is we've got this report of the
International Olympic Committee by the Toronto, Ontario Olympic
Council. This is dated the January 9, 1991. This is after they
lost. Maybe you'd say they're sore winners but they outline--
and I'll get to this a little later on. Mr. Carrard, maybe can
you tell me. The thing that bothers me is that it prompted the
Salt Lake City scandal. It prompted the United States press,
the Department of Justice, and the Congress making this
investigation before anybody came forward to try to do
anything.
We're looking at Salt Lake City and Atlanta. The question
is have you at the IOC taken a close look at the bids
surrounding--the activities surrounding the bids for Nagano,
Athens, Sydney and perhaps other cities, even cities that were
not awarded? Were there similar serious wrongdoings or bid
irregularities like what happened in Salt Lake City, like what
was alluded in Atlanta. I can't believe these are two exclusive
situations. What happened at Nagano or Athens or Sydney? My
understanding is Nagano, the records are burned. They're gone.
They're destroyed.
Mr. Carrard. Congressman, we did ask from all National
Olympic Committees involved because some of these organizations
have been dissolved and liquidated since then to report to us
any possible facts or any possible form of misconduct. This was
done of course early this year. We did receive reports from I
think all countries involved. I would say that reported to us
were a few minor flaws but nothing of substance. In the Nagano
case, we were told by the Japanese that the records were
burned. We certainly--we learned it like the rest of the world.
And whatever we received from those other foreign countries is
immediately passed on to the newly established Ethics
Commission.
Mr. Klink. The credibility of your investigation is in
question. If in fact you're not able to go back--we heard from
the first panel. Atlanta said this was widespread. We were
simply doing what everyone else was doing. We were in fact
doing less of it because if you look at how much we spent, all
of these other cities spent that much more. The difficulty is
how do we get to the bottom of this to make sure the intent is
really to clean this up.
I've got the red light and I understand, but I just want to
end with the investigation that has occurred here in the U.S.
We've had discussions with you and you've had discussions with
us. You've been cooperative in trying to get to the bottom of
this. But the other thing that troubles me is that in pursuing
this, we have been told, staff had been alluded to the fact
that the United States is going to pay a price for the pressure
that we have put on the IOC and our attempts to clean it up. We
have heard some say that because the U.S. is so aggressively
pushing reforms in the International Olympic Committee, that it
could be decades before a United States city sees another
Olympics. Whether that would be something planned or not or
whether that would be the other members of the IOC would simply
say, look, on our own, doesn't have to be any great plan or any
correlation of plans but just say, look, we're not going to
vote for the U.S. if they're going to put us through all this.
We had a good thing going. We got to travel for free. We got
medical supplies for free. We got gifts. We got watches. We had
champagne, shopping trips. Our wives didn't have to pay for it.
We traveled all over the world.
We went where we wanted to. We had the use of houses,
condominiums and now the stupid people in the United States are
causing things to end. Why is the U.S. having to do all the
dirty work? Where was everybody else in cleaning up all of
this? What is going to occur? How are you going to convince us
you really want to get to the bottom of this?
Mr. Carrard. I can assure you, Congressman, we want this
thing solved and fundamentally reformed. And the U.S. is a
major constituent in the Olympic movement. The Olympic movement
is universal and certainly it is our aim to get this done,
clean the house, and get on with the Olympic movement in a
universal way.
Mr. Klink. Where was everyone else? Why are we doing the
heavy lifting here? Why do we have to be the bad people of the
International Olympic Committee? Where has every one else been?
Where have your people been? You just can't have not been
realizing there was a problem. Someone had to know all of these
things was going on. Leverage can't be the only thing.
Certainly leverage is the press. You go to the press, the best
antiseptic is sunlight. And you go to the press, you say this
is what's going on. It's a stacked deck. This is the way
they're doing business. This is not the way the world views the
Olympic Games. Amateur competition among athletes. It's not
over tens of millions of dollars in gifts.
Why did it take us to get to the bottom of it? And why are
we the bad people. I still haven't heard why the rest of the
world hasn't repudiated this activity over the decades it has
been going on.
Mr. Carrard. Congressman, I cannot speak for the rest of
the world because I don't represent them. I can say that as
soon as we had for the first time, thanks to the United States,
thanks to your power of investigation and your laws, the first
evidence which came from Salt Lake City which was about in
1998, we immediately acted and since then we have been acting
non-stop.
Mr. Klink. First evidence was 1991. This is a report and I
have no evidence of anyone did anything about it.
Mr. Carrard. There was no name of any member of the IOC.
What we have been trying, Congressman, was to obtain names.
We've been trying to obtain evidence. The cities file a report
like Toronto but when we were asking please bring evidence,
please give me a witness, please give me a name----
Mr. Klink. There are three names on the front of this
report. You're telling us Mr. Henderson, Mr. Eagleton and Mr.
Seagram wouldn't give you the names of the people who did this?
Mr. Carrard. That's exactly accurate, Mr. Congressman, and
no city ever wanted to give us a name. It's one thing to have
rumors and allegations. It's another thing, and that was our
difficulty, was to secure evidence.
Mr. Klink. I think, Mr. Chairman, I might suggest to you we
attempt to see if we can get some cooperation from the people
who signed this report.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. Mr. Carrard, we're not here talking about rumors
or innuendos here today. We're talking about things that are
substantiated that do have names and do bring credibility to
the Toronto report, at least in the spirit of how that report
was written.
Ms. DeFrantz, let me ask you what exists today that would
in these proposals that we've been given that won't allow
anything like this to happen in the future?
Ms. DeFrantz. Several things exist. Well, actually December
11 and 12 will be finalized but what exists today is the
proposals that will go to the session that No. 1, when a city
is proposed by a National Olympic Committee before it can
declare itself a candidate city, they will have to be accepted.
In other words, they will have to show they have the technical
capability now or feasibly within the 7-year period.
Mr. Burr. That in some way assures us that there's no
violation of the gift rules?
Ms. DeFrantz. I'm getting to that, sir.
Mr. Burr. Would you get there quickly, please.
Ms. DeFrantz. I will. We will make certain that only the
evaluation commission goes to visit the cities. We will have a
contract with the bidding city, the National Olympic Committee
and the city that is bidding with the IOC, assuring that they
understand they're under the code of ethics and subject to
actions by the Ethics Commission, and that is a significant
difference. Before we had no leverage. There was no mechanism.
There will be a mechanism so no city can be a bidding city
without entering into a contractual agreement, which will
ensure that they'll abide by our code of ethics. We also have
changed the process so there won't be the travel and there
won't be the gifts.
Mr. Burr. Let me ask Mr. Carrard, an IOC spokesperson in
September is quoted as saying Atlanta pushed those favors and
gifts on IOC members under the pretext of friendship and the
delegates were not used to the systematic approach of lobbying.
Were you that IOC spokesperson?
Mr. Carrard. No, sir.
Mr. Burr. Do you know who it was?
Mr. Carrard. No, sir.
Mr. Burr. Do you believe that Atlanta pushed those gifts
and favors on IOC members?
Mr. Carrard. Sir, I think the best answer we have today was
given by Ambassador Young on exactly what happened at that
time.
Mr. Burr. I'm asking you do you think as the IOC--excuse me
for not knowing your title--executive director--Director
General, excuse me, do you believe that Atlanta pushed favors
and gifts on IOC members?
Mr. Carrard. I didn't follow myself the Atlanta campaign
because at the time I was rather new shortly before the vote. I
never went to Atlanta before the vote.
Mr. Klink. Would the gentleman yield.
Mr. Burr. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Klink. I have a news article in front of me. The IOC
spokesperson Franklin Schriver, it's in the second paragraph if
you're referring to that news article.
Mr. Burr. Do you know a Franklin Schriver?
Mr. Carrard. Yes, of course.
Mr. Burr. Did he work for the IOC?
Mr. Carrard. Yes.
Mr. Burr. Does he still work for the IOC?
Mr. Carrard. Yes.
Mr. Burr. He believes Atlanta pushed the favors and the
gifts on IOC members.
Mr. Carrard. Well, he started working with us last year so
he wasn't there either.
Mr. Burr. Let me ask, Ms. DeFrantz, you were involved in
the Atlanta process, weren't you?
Ms. DeFrantz. Yes. I live in Los Angeles but as a member of
the IOC in the U.S., I was supportive of the USOC's interest in
yet again hosting the games----
Mr. Burr. Did you ever see anything on Atlanta's part that
would have broken in the spirit or the letter the gift ban or
the gift rule of the IOC?
Ms. DeFrantz. I did not see the gifts----
Mr. Burr. Did you hear about it?
Ms. DeFrantz. I did not hear about it. I was advised from
time to time by the bid committee of who might be coming to
town as they asked me if I could be there but the list of gifts
was not shared with me.
Mr. Burr. Did you ever see Salt Lake City break the gift
rule of the IOC?
Ms. DeFrantz. During their very first bid, I noticed that
they were given a jacket which to me seemed a tad--looked like
it might be more than $200 worth of jacket and I asked them
were they abiding by the rules and the response was yes, they
bought them in bulk and they were significantly less than $200.
Mr. Burr. But other than the jacket, there was never an
indication that you saw as an IOC member that Atlanta or Salt
Lake City was working out of the guidelines or the rules of the
IOC?
Ms. DeFrantz. Not in my purview, sir.
Mr. Burr. I would take for granted from that that you've
never expressed to the IOC of any violation that existed by
either of those two bidders or any other city that you've been
involved in the bid process?
Ms. DeFrantz. When on occasion for example--actually, we
were in meeting--I can't remember where now. But in my room
arrived something that seemed to me beyond the rule. I took
that item down to the office which was then in place of
coordination of bids. The IOC started a process to coordinate
the bids. That happened in the middle 90's. By the way, this
visiting process is rather new. It started in the late 80's so
it hasn't been decades. And that also gives me great hope----
Mr. Klink. Will my friend yield for a moment.
Mr. Burr. I'd be happy to.
Mr. Klink. Your question gets to where I was headed with
this. In a February 1, 1999 article I think the majority has it
if you don't we'll share it with you. It talks about the
excessive gifts during Nagano and Salt Lake City. It says all
members have been lavished with extravagant last minute gifts
from the various bid cities. Expensive Italian luggage, Stetson
hats, hand blown glassware, laptop computers, enough stuff that
the IOC set up a parcel post station in the hotel to make it
easier for delegates to send their booty home. My question is,
why didn't somebody see it?
Mr. Burr. You never saw that, Mr. Carrard?
Mr. Carrard. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Burr. Mr. Carrard, did you ever see what Mr. Klink just
reported?
Mr. Carrard. The parcels, I know exactly what it's all
about. It is customary at the end of an IOC session of the
Olympic Games which has for a long time, they get a lot of
material, they get a lot of documents. They have their thick
files and things like that. They also ask to have some special
parcels for----
Mr. Burr. Mr. Easton entered into the record this IOC code
of ethics. Is this the new code of ethics?
Mr. Carrard. Absolutely.
Mr. Burr. With indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I just ask for a
clarification. Under integrity, I'll read No. 2, only gifts of
nominal value in accordance with prevailing local customs.
Could one of you define nominal value or what prevailing local
customs might give us a yardstick as to how to follow what the
guideline is?
Ms. DeFrantz. Certainly in this House I think, as was said,
a cap and a T-shirt in this country would work but we would
leave that to the Ethics Commission.
Mr. Burr. In South Africa, would that include diamonds? I
don't ask it to be a joke. Mr. Young said earlier he couldn't
compete with diamonds and furs. Therefore, I think somebody
must have supplied those before.
Mr. Carrard. With your permission, Congressman, the code of
ethics you're referring to is new and has been operated by the
Ethics Commission and you will I think hear Senator Baker, who
is a member, and they interpret their own rules. We don't.
Mr. Upton. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Prevailing local
custom is a very unusual term to use when the prevailing custom
of IOC members was to take lavish gifts. I wonder if we're
going to have this kind of interpretation of those words. I say
that facetiously, not as a question.
Mr. Carrard, I was amazed at your testimony a minute ago
where you said thanks to the Congress, thanks to the
investigations of Salt Lake City, we now know about these kinds
of practices. How could you not have known about these
practices? This is like the scene from Casablanca when the man
comes out and says gambling here in this establishment? How
could you not know? There are stories with people coming with
three empty suitcases and leaving with them full. How could you
not know?
Mr. Carrard. There were three steps, Congressman. First and
foremost, I would say at the end of your 80's, we were
concerned only with trying to keep the amount of the expenses
made by the candidate cities to reasonable figures because we
figured out we had 10 candidates for instance, nine were going
to lose. Nine out of 10 we knew that and we said, please,
please do not spend too much. They were the most eager to
spend. It was their own money. Sometimes they were rich.
Sometimes they were poor. At that time we were not concerned
about the IOC members at the beginning. I'm just explaining the
chronology.
Second steps, Congressman, there began to be rumors, rumors
in the media, rumors in the press. We started looking for
evidence because the IOC members are, as I said, 103 totally
independent persons, unpaid. They're volunteers. They are not
under contract and this is going to be changing with the
reform, but they are absolutely not accountable, they were not
accounting to anybody but their own conscience.
Mr. Waxman. I only have a limited amount of time. You
really didn't answer my question. But I'm going to ask the
questions and I'd like an answer if I can get them. Because it
seems to me you don't need an investigation in the United
States to recognize that what was going on were bribes. Now,
maybe it just became the prevailing custom--obviously it became
the prevailing custom and that's what has gotten us so
disturbed.
I just have to say this to everybody. In reading these
reports, I've become so disturbed about what's going on in the
Olympics that I introduced a bill saying that American
corporations also ought to be prohibited from putting any money
into the IOC until the Mitchell reforms are in fact enacted.
And I don't agree with Congressman Bob Barr. You may not
appreciate this but the Americans who follow politics will know
that he and I are not particularly on the same wavelength
politically, but he has joined me on this legislation and I'm
convinced that if the IOC does not adopt those Mitchell reforms
in December, the Congress is not going to have any patience any
longer to leave the IOC to reform itself.
I want to ask Ms. DeFrantz and Mr. Easton, you're Americans
on this panel. Do you agree with the fact that the Congress of
the United States should act if the IOC is not going to take
responsibility to end this culture that they've developed?
Ms. DeFrantz. Well, as a constituent of yours in southern
California, I live in Santa Monica, I'm pleased to tell you
that I don't think you're going to have to worry about that we
are going to reform. We're going to make this happen. We
understand fully that we have a responsibility to the athletes
of the world and we will make it happen.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Easton?
Mr. Easton. Well, I agree with Anita but I also think that
participating in the Olympic Games is voluntary. If we were to
pass a bill that no Americans can participate in the Olympic
Games, that would solve the problems also. But I don't think
that's what we want to do. What we want to do is try to reform
what we have, make it better, and I think we are heading in
that direction and we will be there. I don't think we need any
other incentives to do so.
Mr. Waxman. I want to tell you I think that's a really
insulting answer that you've just given me. We don't do
anything that would affect the athletes. What we do is we say
to the IOC they no longer will have all the revenues they get
from American corporations, including our networks. And I think
that's the money that subsidized the lifestyle of Mr. Samaranch
and some of the others at the IOC in addition to the booty that
they've been able to collect every time a city wants to try to
attract the Olympics to be held in their site.
My time is up. I want to put this on the table: You already
had a gift limit, and that was never enforced. I want to be
sure that if the IOC is going to make some changes in December,
that there is an enforcement mechanism, because rules that are
not enforced or ethics committees that don't act independently
to make sure that the rules are obeyed, become fairly
meaningless. I don't think the American people are going to
tolerate that kind of sham, if that is later called a reform
that doesn't really get enforced.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. We will continue. Again, we have votes on the
House floor. We will come back at 3 o'clock.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Upton. We will get started again.
I know Mr. Strickland has some questions, but I think I
will start. Ms. DeFrantz, I wanted to go back to my question I
ended on in the first round, and that was you indicated that
you were never approached with gifts. Were you aware of other
members that were approached of the IOC with gifts exceeding
$200? Did you ever hear any stories from any of your peers?
Ms. DeFrantz. Did I ever hear any stories from my peers?
No, they didn't tell me. No.
Mr. Upton. You mentioned in your testimony a little bit
earlier to another member, I don't remember which one it was, I
think you indicated that you thought that you had received a
gift, you didn't describe it, and you sent it away. Can you
tell what that gift was?
Ms. DeFrantz. Sure. It was a briefcase which appeared to me
to be close to $200 limit, and I simply turned it in to the
coordination office of the bidding cities.
Mr. Upton. Based on your testimony, Mr. Easton, you were
not aware either of other members of the IOC being approached
with offers of gifts, is that true?
Mr. Easton. I never heard of any excessive gift offers to
any IOC member. I am not sure I would have. I continue to think
if they were doing something that was improper, it would not
have been very public.
Mr. Upton. So would you say then when the Salt Lake City
report came out detailing a number of abuses, that that was the
first you had heard of that?
Mr. Easton. I was very surprised. It was the first I heard
of that.
Mr. Upton. Ms. DeFrantz, in your testimony that you gave
before Senator McCain's committee earlier this year, I think
you testified that it was--that you agreed with the comments
made by the Mitchell-Duberstein report that there was a culture
of corruption. At what point did you think--was it the
initiation of that report that brought you to that conclusion,
or were there events in earlier years that began to lead you to
that conclusion?
Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, I think I said there was at
least a sub-culture of corruption. Not everyone was corrupt. I
do not consider myself to be corrupt.
Mr. Upton. I am certainly not casting any bad finger at
you.
Ms. DeFrantz. Thank you, sir. Overtime, with memos from the
directorate saying to the bidding cities we want to make sure
that you abide by the rules, that was the regulations, that was
the indication to me. The cities in the United States did not
show me the list of things they were doing. They asked me to
come and support them, which I did when I had the time, but I
sadly was not privy to the things that they did.
When someone offered a gift, the rules were the gift being
offered should not be of more than $200 of value, and that was
my understanding of the way they should comport themselves. All
of the bidding cities.
Mr. Upton. What is your estimate as to--you are a member of
the reform committee that will be voting later this month. What
is your sense of where the votes are? Will it pass or fail?
Ms. DeFrantz. I believe it will pass, and I am going to
work very hard to make sure that it will pass.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Easton, you are not a member of the reform
committee, as I understand it, but you will be voting in
December, is that correct?
Mr. Easton. That is correct.
Mr. Upton. And if the reform, assuming that Ms. DeFrantz is
correct and the vote passes in the reform committee, do you
think that there will be sufficient votes to pass it by a two-
thirds vote as required?
Mr. Easton. I think there will be, and I think a lot of us
are going to be working and talking to our colleagues to try to
convince them, those that are not already in favor of it.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Carrard, would you share the predictions by
these two members, both in terms of the committee and assuming
that that takes place, that it would pass in December?
Mr. Carrard. I stopped making predictions, but I work very
hard to make this reform pass.
Mr. Upton. Okay. What is the penalty for those that violate
the gift rule in the future? I know that a new ethics committee
is established, I think it will be led by Senator Howard Baker.
He certainly will be a member of that panel.
What is, as there are tough sanctions, as there should be,
for Members of Congress when they violate ethics rules, one of
the things that has come out in the testimony today is that
before there was a $200 threshold, there really wasn't a
penalty that was sanctioned. What will the sanction be if and
when someone violates that new threshold? Can anybody tell me?
Ms. DeFrantz. We will have--of course, any violation will
be turned to the ethics commission on which Senator Baker does
serve. The scale of sanctions is anything from a reprimand all
the way up to expulsion, just as was the case this last year.
We have one member at present who is still a member, but has
been stripped of all his responsibilities as a member, save
coming to the session. So there is a range of possibilities,
including expulsion.
Mr. Upton. Will that member be able to vote in December?
Ms. DeFrantz. Yes.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Strickland.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carrard,
according to your testimony, the IOC recently sent a letter to
the OECD asking that the IOC be covered by the organization's
anti-corruption convention. To your knowledge, has OECD
responded to the IOC and has there been any progress in this
matter?
Mr. Carrard. Not yet to my knowledge, Congressman, but this
letter is very recent, I think it is September 24, to be
specific, and we certainly hope that we will get a favorable
response.
The question, if I dare say so, which was not as easy maybe
to raise, that is why it took some time, is that we are not an
international governmental organization. We are a non-
governmental organization. That creates--we are in a situation
which is not classical, so-to-speak.
We are referring, and this was suggested to us by Senator
Mitchell and Mr. Duberstein, we are asking for the same
treatment as the Red Cross from OECD. We hope to have a
favorable response and we are following up on that closely.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you. In your judgment, sir, how will
the IOC respond to the King & Spaulding report?
Mr. Carrard. In which sense? I am not sure I understand the
question, Congressman. How would we respond?
Mr. Strickland. Yes. Will the IOC respond to the King &
Spaulding report?
Mr. Carrard. Yes, I am sorry. The IOC immediately passed on
the King & Spaulding report made by Judge Bell to the ethics
commission, and now this report is in the hands of the ethics
commission. And let me be clear, I don't even know what they
are doing, because they are totally independent in the sense
there is a majority of outsiders, like Senator Baker and other
leading personalities. They are dealing with it. They will take
whatever action they think is fit and appropriate. They have
the means to investigate, and they will make whatever
recommendations at the end which they feel appropriate. But I
don't know what they are doing with it. They don't tell me.
That is proper.
Mr. Strickland. Okay. One other question, and then I have a
question that I would like to address to all three panelists.
Mr. Carrard, if the IOC felt it was important to examine
what happened in Salt Lake City and in Atlanta, to gain lessons
learned that can be used to improve, does the IOC intend to
also examine activities which may have surrounded bids by
Athens and Sidney and perhaps other cities, or do you know the
answer to that question?
Mr. Carrard. Congressman, from the moment we knew of what
occurred in Salt Lake City, we did ask from every national bid
committee involved with any bid for, I don't remember, as many
years as possible, I think we were--we touched at least 36, if
my recollection is accurate, or if not more bids. We asked for
a report. We have asked for facts. We have asked for evidence.
We did receive answers I think from all of them. We
received a couple of reports where I would say there was some
minor flaws, but nothing substantial, including, I must say,
the first report, the first answer from Atlanta.
Mr. Strickland. A question I would like to ask all three of
you for your personal opinions. If a level of corruption has
existed at a certain level within the IOC regarding the cities
that are trying to attract the games and so on, is it
reasonable for us to be concerned that that atmosphere or
attitude which could be referred to as corruption or ethical
breaches, or there may be other ways to describe it, could also
affect the actual games themselves and the way the athletes are
able to participate?
Is there reason to be concerned that the games themselves
are influenced by unethical or questionable behavior on the
part of the IOC? That is a judgment that I am asking you to
give me.
Mr. Carrard. I think I would first like to hear my vice
president, which is an athlete and who is an Olympian.
Ms. DeFrantz. The answer would be no. I can tell you when I
first competed, after practice 1 day one of my teammates said
if we win a medal we will get it from the Lord. I said well,
yes, divine providence is very good to have. She said no, you
nitwit, the President of the IOC, the Lord Callahan. As an
athlete, you really don't care about the IOC, you care about an
opportunity to compete. The International Federation, the rules
of the federation are what are in place during the time of the
games. The IOC selects a city. The organizing committee
organizes it, provides the venues, provides them with someplace
to work, gets the athletes to the venues and the actual conduct
of the sporting event is under the rules of the International
Federation.
So what is happening with the IOC is something we are
ashamed of, but we are fixing, we have gotten fixed. We have
changed the way we selected the 2006 site of the games. We have
an ethics commission in place, and I am absolutely certain that
the athletes who are training understand that their chances to
compete in Sidney are going to be fair and safe.
Mr. Strickland. Is that something that you would like to
speak to, Mr. Easton?
Mr. Easton. Just to embellish that a little bit. As the
president of an international sports federation, we do control
the competitions, so if you are concerned, and I think it is a
valid concern that you can have with this thing by what you
have heard so far, that is totally out of the hands of the IOC.
It is in the hands of the individual sports federations who
supply the judges and who supply the rules and who really
oversee action of the athletes on the field.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you. That is reassuring. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Klink.
Mr. Klink. Thank you. Again, the problem here with having
other countries do investigations and counting on them is,
Nagano, what they did was get rid of the records. They cleaned
up everything by burning it. The question is what, and why the
IOC didn't take some action.
I want to tell you, I talked just briefly a few moments
ago, I want to get back to this 1991 report, that I understand,
I have looked through it, it does not have names in it. Go back
to the Sports Illustrated article. Sports Illustrated, a pretty
widely read magazine. I would imagine people in the Olympic
community were aware of this article, talking about the tactics
of Olympic bidders, varies somewhat, but they are never very
subtle. The most popular strategy is to simply shower everyone
on the IOC with gifts, trips and parties. IOC. I am sorry, I
get a little confused this late in the day, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for babysitting me.
Continuing, no city did better in this area than Paris.
Whenever an IOC--IOC member--I did it again--felt they needed a
vacation in Paris for a while, they were instantly sent airline
tickets and given a free room in the Eliont Hotel and reserved
tables at these restaurants. Bills were paid in advance.
Members traveled everywhere in limousines, sometimes with a
police escort. Given perfume, raincoats, jogging suits,
discounts at some of Paris' finest shops.
I would think that somebody in the IOC would have read
that, would have wanted to. Even if you--maybe I need to go to
Mr. Carrard on this. Even if you didn't know the names of the
people who were doing this, doesn't it bring up the question of
what kind of systems you have in place to make sure that this
doesn't occur? And when you see the 1991 report, you have to
assume that there is some credibility here again.
It talks about members obtaining airline tickets from local
sources at sometimes discount prices, then demanding hard
currency in return for the unused first class passes. Obtaining
combination air tickets to several cities on a single trip and
demanding cash equal to return first class tickets between
their countries and in each bid city. Demanding and receiving
full fare tickets, failing to arrive and cashing in those
tickets. Coupling a trip paid by a bid city with a trip to a
session paid by the IOC and converting the city's passes to
cash.
It says it is our estimate that all of the aforegoing
abuses associated with the IOC members' visits, talking about
the Toronto committee, may have cost between $700,000 and
$800,000 in 1991.
Given the published reports in Sports Illustrated, given
this report given you by the city of Toronto, we don't know
what else was out there. Wasn't there at least something that
occurred between the late 1980's when this article in Sports
Illustrated was there, the early nineties when this report was
made, that you said at the IOC we want to put a system in place
where we have checks and balances. Let us check our system to
see if IOC members are able to cash in plane tickets, if they
are receiving all these lavish gifts.
Why does it fall upon us to cause some action to occur?
The second part of that question is how do we know that you
are really going to follow through if we are not looking? If
you didn't fix it when we didn't know it was going on, and
there is every evidence that a lot of people at IOC did, how do
we know you will when we are not looking that you are going to
do something now?
Mr. Carrard. Well, to the first part of your question,
Congressman, late eighties, as I said earlier, there was a
concern of an escalation of expenses by all the candidate
cities, and there was the desire to put them on an equal
footing, and you must understand that when we are dealing with
the candidate cities, they all got together with us to discuss
the whole process. They discussed the whole process with us,
and at the same time we tell them, look, we don't want these
expenditures, and they also attended, and that is where I
confess we failed, to police each other, because we always tell
them, these are the instructions which you are getting and for
which you sought on this limitation of expenses. We expect you
to tell us if anything goes wrong. We were also counting to a
certain degree to one city saying the other city is
misbehaving. We have seen a little bit of that, but too late.
We started with that in the late eighties. We tried, for
instance, to put in place a system under which we would control
all the tickets issuing for any visits of members. These
instructions were aimed at members making one visit to prepare
their vote.
We had everybody complaining, these cities. Everybody said
it doesn't work because they had free tickets from their
sponsors which they wanted to use and reduce their cost, and it
was practically extremely difficult, I must say. I am not
saying we were successful. I am not saying we did all what we
should have done, because in retrospect we see what happened.
But what I can tell you, this is the second part of your
question, Congressman, is that the mechanism which is now being
put in place, the first immediate decision, immediate decision
which was taken, was no trips, no gifts. This was the first
reaction of our President, Mr. Samaranch, because a lot of
these problems are linked with the traveling and the
hospitality and the lavishness on the exchanges of these
visits.
This was the first step taken. Again, with an independent
ethics commission working fully independently as described
earlier, with authority to take swift and hard actions with new
sanctions voted, I think we can reasonably say we are committed
to succeed.
Mr. Klink. Ms. DeFrantz, I have to say you have risen to a
very strong position within the IOC, and it seems absolutely--
you seem like a very nice person, but it seems incredible to me
you have been with the Olympic movement all this time, the
published report was out, this stuff was out, and you come
before the committee today and say you didn't know any of this
stuff was going on. If the IOC does not vote for reforms,
should Congress then take direct action?
Ms. DeFrantz. Well, let me say that we expelled 10 members
and they were the 10 members who were doing the wrongdoing. We
sanctioned 10 more, and we are looking at them and all their
activities for the future will be under a microscope. Should
Congress take action, programs. I don't know what action you
would intend to take, so it is hard for me to say yes. I
believe that the IOC will do what needs to be done. I honestly
believe that, and I am going to work every moment of December
10, 11, and 12 to make sure that that happens.
Mr. Klink. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize once
again for being in and out, but I did--you may have already
covered this, but I want to ask Mr. Carrard a question or two
if I could.
Mr. Carrard, you are the Director General of the IOC, and
in that position I am assuming it is your responsibility, you
are maybe the chief executive officer. Could you explain what
your responsibilities are?
Mr. Carrard. It is somehow comparable to chief executive
officer.
Mr. Whitfield. Good. I know that as a result of the
revelations, some of the revelations at Salt Lake City and
Atlanta, that the IOC has taken some action to address some of
these concerns.
Would you expand on that a little bit? Perhaps you have
already covered it, but the IOC has taken some action already,
is that correct? Or is that not correct?
Mr. Carrard. Oh, yes, indeed, Congressman. As soon as we
had the evidence, as I said, which was about late November of--
I think late November, the first action was to order a full
investigation, because we had evidence. We immediately
appointed an ad hoc commission to investigate all files of the
members, because we were getting at last files. We were getting
the files on the members, on the figures, on the behaviors and
the patterns. Because in the United States everything is a
matter of public record and you have laws which allow that,
which is not the case in most of the rest of the world where
these actions are not illegal or not even alleged to be
illegal. They are wrong, but they are not illegal and we have
no authority. We are not a government. We have no power. The
judges would not act on our request.
We immediately appointed our ad hoc commission which in
less than 3 months, and there was a holiday season to exchange
the files, as the Vice President recalled now, it led to the
departure of 10 members, 6 expelled, 4 resigned, and more
sanctions on 10 members.
Immediately it was said no more visits and trips for the
ongoing campaign, 2006. This was effective immediately. And in
March we had an extraordinary session. At that time the 2000
commission for reform was put in place, the ethics commission
was put in place, independent, as I said, with the senior
outsiders to control the process, a code of ethics was voted by
our session in June, and the process is going on. The schedule
was set by the President to end up on December 11 and 12 with
an extraordinary session.
So we have been acting nonstop since then.
Mr. Whitfield. And did you say that 10 members, or 20
members were either sanctioned or dismissed from the IOC, is
that correct?
Mr. Carrard. Ten members left the IOC, that is to say 6
were expelled by decision of their peers where they had to
present their case, 4 resigned in anticipation of most likely
exclusion, and 10 others got other sanctions like warnings,
reprimands, and, as Ms. DeFrantz said, are under control.
Mr. Whitfield. The 2000 committee, who appointed members to
that committee?
Mr. Carrard. The 2000, IOC 2000 Commission, is a vast
commission composed of 80 members, 40 of them IOC members, and
40 others being outsiders who are contributing and helping the
Olympic movement by their highly welcome participation. I see
Henry Kissinger is one of them, just entered now.
It is a broad commission which is studying all the reform
processes divided into three working groups, one dealing with
the structures, the other with the activities, and its third
one with the reform of the bidding process of the candidate
cities.
That is the commission, with half of its members being
outsiders, that will discuss the very many proposals for
further reforms on October 30 and 31, and these proposals will
then have to be submitted to final approval by an extraordinary
IOC session in December.
Mr. Whitfield. The IOC is not bound in any way to implement
these recommendations, but I am assuming that they would be
considered seriously and many of them would probably be
adopted.
Mr. Carrard. Congressman, you can be sure they will be
considered very seriously, and we are all working toward that.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Whitfield. I have a couple more
questions before we move to panel 3. Mr. Carrard, it is my
understanding that you and Mr. Samaranch sent a letter back in
1990 to all of the cities competing in bids that they--a
reminder that they should follow the rules. Do you remember
that letter?
Mr. Carrard. Is there any way I could see it?
Mr. Upton. I will have someone bring it down to you. I will
come back to this question.
Mr. Carrard. I am sure there have been many letters.
Mr. Upton. I want you to look at the letter and get a
response. Are you satisfied that the reforms before the reform
committee and those that will then hopefully be taken up by the
full IOC will satisfy this--listening to the hearing this
afternoon and this morning, are you convinced that if those
reforms are adopted, that in fact that will satisfy all if not
most of the concerns raised by members on this subcommittee?
Mr. Carrard. I believe so, Mr. Chairman. Let us never
forget there is human nature.
Mr. Upton. I will let you look at that and come back to you
in just a second.
Ms. DeFrantz, when you appeared before Mr. McCain's
committee in the Senate in the spring, an individual by the
name of Mr. Jennings, an author who wrote the Lord of the Rings
book, testified, and he says it had been a cultural fear that
they could not get the Olympic games in the future if they told
the truths that they knew, somewhat going back to the report
perhaps that the folks in Canada had written.
Do you feel that our actions here have been helpful in
pushing the reform process forward and to adopting necessary
reforms that are needed?
Ms. DeFrantz. I think it is very important to talk about
these issues, and especially in this country it is very
important to better understand how the Olympic movement worked,
how it has worked in the past, and what we intend to do to make
sure it is strong in the future for the athletes. So, yes, sir.
Mr. Upton. One of the things that he wrote about in his
book, he talked about some boxing matches in Seoul, and I
remember those well as a TV viewer, the fact that I felt our
country was not--did not receive the medals that they should
based on the performance of the boxers. There was quite an
outcry then. As I recall in his book, he references that and
indicates that it is because of some penalty that the U.S.
might have taken not on the athletic scene that brought about
some of the decisions by those judges.
Are you aware of that?
Ms. DeFrantz. Actually, I am not.
Mr. Upton. Have you read his book?
Ms. DeFrantz. I read some of it. It became so--well, I read
some of it. I will leave it at that.
Mr. Upton. I may communicate with you. I may cite those
chapters and ask for you to respond back. I might ask a follow-
up question. Have you heard because of our committee action
today and inquiries that we made, is there any sense that in
fact that same type of activity that I believe did happen in
Seoul might happen in future Olympic games that would
discriminate against our athletes?
Ms. DeFrantz. I certainly hope not, Mr. Chairman, and I
will work with my colleagues. I am a vice president of an
international federation, so I understand that there is a
difference between the IOC and how the various sports are run.
I will tell you that in 1980, because we weren't there, rules
were changed and the best example is that prior to 1980, you
could have three swimmers from any one country. Of course, the
United States was very, very strong in swimming. Because there
was no presence of the United States during those games, rules
were changed in the Congress of the international federation so
there could be only two swimmers per country.
If you were to step back and say that is better for the
whole world, that means there is one more space because the
U.S. wouldn't get three athletes, you could say that it was
really an improvement for the entire world. But I believe that
that was done as a bit of a punishment for the U.S. for trying
to bring down the games in 1980.
Mr. Upton. So you have not heard of any evidence at this
point based on our committee action, you have heard it has only
been constructive? Would that be a proper----
Ms. DeFrantz. I am doing my best to make sure that if
someone asks a question about what is happening in the United
States, that is my answer. It is to make the Olympic movement
stronger.
Mr. Upton. I have one further question before I get back to
Mr. Carrard with regard to that letter. I had heard a report,
an allegation, that in Japan during the final selection vote
process when Atlanta was awarded the city, and we heard
testimony from the first panel that they had, I think it was
Mr. Young indicated that Atlanta had spent $7 million on the
games, but other cities had spent considerably more. I had
heard a report that, I believe it was Greece, had prepared some
rather lavish gifts for the members of the voting IOC that
included a black pearl necklace, antique coin, diamond studded,
done by one of the finest jewelers in the world.
Were you aware of that gift that might have been presented
to some of the members of the IOC at that time?
Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, in my case----
Mr. Upton. I am not talking about your case, and I am not
at all accusing you and have no reason to believe that you
accepted such a gift or that it was even offered to you. My
question is, were you aware that other members, not yourself,
of the IOC may have been presented a gift of that nature, that
certainly exceeded the $200 mark, and probably even the $10,000
or $15,000?
Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, I was not present when any such
gift was given to any----
Mr. Upton. I don't doubt that answer. I wouldn't have
expected you to be present. The question is, were you aware of
any IOC member being given that type of gift? You didn't have
to be present to have heard about it.
Ms. DeFrantz. Well, sir, the rumors abounded, and rumors to
me are just that. There were rumors, yes.
Mr. Upton. Did you hear that rumor?
Ms. DeFrantz. Well, yes, you heard rumors that every city
was doing something.
Mr. Upton. Did you hear about that specific lavish gift
that may have been offered to members of the IOC?
Ms. DeFrantz. No.
Mr. Upton. Okay. Mr. Carrard, just a last question with
regard to that letter. What might have prompted you to send
that letter at that time?
Mr. Carrard. Well, Mr. Chairman, I see the letter is April
1990. I think we wanted--I am trying to recall, we were in
Belgrade. In Belgrade we had an executive board meeting, I
think, not a session.
We were, and I was personally concerned, as I said again,
by this escalation of expenses. At the time, to be absolutely
candid, the concern was not misbehavior by IOC members, but
keeping these costs down. And in my function, I have no
authority over the IOC members, I knew of tricks. The classical
trick was what, you prohibit the organization of a cocktail
party to a candidate city. Then it comes back that the
Ambassador of country X, Y, Z throws a lavish party and invites
all IOC members. It is becoming insulting to refuse an
invitation of the Ambassador. I knew very well that it was the
reappearance of the party I had been trying to avoid. So again
and again we were reminding the bidding cities of these
practices, and that is the context in which, Mr. Chairman, that
letter was sent, as far as I can remember, because it has been
close to 10 years.
Mr. Upton. I appreciate that. I just want to go back to my
earlier question and Dr. Ganske is going to ask a quick
question and we will move to panel 3. Apparently an L.A. Times
story, Ms. DeFrantz, as you indicated you are from California,
I don't know if you saw this, May 25, 1999, there was, and I
quote here, ``recently calls,'' I guess this individual is from
Australia, ``hit more trouble when his former wife said she
received expensive jewelry in 1990 from a businessman connected
with Athens' failed 1996 Olympic bid,'' that is the end of the
quote, which would have been that opportunity in Japan. So you
still have no--you are not aware of this at all until today?
Ms. DeFrantz. I am sorry, sir, I thought you meant at the
time. I was in fact a member of the executive board and we
discussed the case, so I was aware of it in this year. But
excuse me, I thought you meant at the time when people were
visiting the cities which would have been for the 1996 games in
1990.
Mr. Upton. Did I accurately describe this gift of this
necklace?
Ms. DeFrantz. Well, the issue became did she receive the
necklace and was it worth that much or not.
Mr. Upton. And were other members offered a similar gift?
Ms. DeFrantz. This question wasn't raised, sir. We were
specifically looking at the case of Mr. Coles, and there was an
allegation made by his former wife that she had indeed received
these gifts and later it was found that in the divorce decree
there was no indication of gifts of any value, so there was a
question as to whether they were costume jewelry or not. So
that discussion was all within this last year, sir.
Mr. Upton. Dr. Ganske.
Mr. Ganske. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. According to Atlanta's
supplemental response to the committee, exhibit K, Mrs.
Samaranch and a guest made a trip from Barcelona to Savannah,
Georgia, and Charleston, South Carolina, from April 4 through
April 8, 1990. According to Atlanta, the cost of the trip to
them was more than $12,000.
Mr. Carrard, were you Director General of the IOC in 1990?
Mr. Carrard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ganske. Mr. Carrard, do you know who initiated this
trip? Was it Atlanta, Mrs. Samaranch or IOC President
Samaranch?
Mr. Carrard. I don't know, because when Mr. Samaranch
travels, it is his staff. He has his own staff and secretary,
about three people. They take care of all of his scheduling,
traveling. He receives numerous invitations all the time as IOC
President, and I am not informed--I mean, I am informed. I see
his schedule, particularly when I try to meet with him, but I
am not at all involved in the scheduling or organization of his
own traveling.
Mr. Ganske. Do you know whether IOC President Samaranch was
aware that Mrs. Samaranch and her friend took a trip at
Atlanta's expense?
Mr. Carrard. Congressman, I do not know it, but I would
reasonably assume that he would know what his wife does.
Mr. Ganske. But you were not aware?
Mr. Carrard. No.
Mr. Ganske. Did President Samaranch accompany his wife on
that trip? Again you don't know.
Mr. Carrard. I don't know. I heard what was said in the
deposition here, and I assume----
Mr. Ganske. The answer is no. Mr. Carrard, has Mrs.
Samaranch or her friend ever been a member of the IOC?
Mr. Carrard. No.
Mr. Ganske. Well, if they were not IOC members and
President Samaranch did not accompany them, in your opinion was
this trip in violation of IOC rules in place in 1990?
Mr. Carrard. No.
Mr. Ganske. Why not?
Mr. Carrard. Because the rules, which are instructions and
guidelines, were established, and I confess they were badly
written, absolutely, but were established with a clear target.
It was to organize the trips of the members who wanted to visit
candidate cities to make up their opinion to prepare their
vote.
Mr. Ganske. But she is not a member. You just testified she
is not a member. So would it not be a violation if----
Mr. Carrard. No, no, because--excuse me, these instructions
were not concerning, and they should have said it very clearly,
I would say two categories of people. There was the president
and his wife, who was traveling constantly invited. He may go
5, 6 times to a bidding city for other reasons, because he
represents the Olympic movement, and he takes his wife or she
represents him on a number of occasions. You had another
category, you had members of the IOC in the candidate country
who had to travel a lot back and forth.
Mr. Ganske. Do you think it was appropriate for Mrs.
Samaranch to make that trip at Atlanta's expense?
Mr. Carrard. I don't know in which circumstances she was
invited, because I wasn't involved at all in that, so I will
not pass comment.
Mr. Ganske. Would that be allowable under the rules you are
considering instituting?
Mr. Carrard. Excuse me?
Mr. Ganske. Would that be allowable under the tightening of
the rules that you are talking about?
Mr. Carrard. We should ask the--as I said earlier----
Mr. Ganske. Can spouses travel at the expense of a city?
Mr. Carrard. I think Ms. DeFrantz knows more.
Ms. DeFrantz. Yes, if I may, Congressman, the rules will--
the working group had two proposals, and the executive
committee chose one of the two, and in neither proposal was
anyone but the IOC member allowed to visit.
Mr. Ganske. You are quite clear you are not going to allow
that kind of behavior in the future? Is that right?
Ms. DeFrantz. That is correct.
Mr. Ganske. Why do you feel that way?
Ms. DeFrantz. As a matter of fact, as I was preparing for
this, as I was trying to find a document, a letter from Atlanta
said we have finally been able to prevail upon Mrs. Samaranch
to come and visit, we are quite excited and look forward to
having her there. They clearly were working hard to get her
there. She clearly decided, finally decided to come, and it is
now an issue in a hearing before the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Ganske. Mr. Carrard, are you aware of any other trips
Mrs. Samaranch may have taken to cities bidding to host
Olympics at the city's expense, and, if so, which cities?
Mr. Carrard. No, I am not aware of it.
Mr. Ganske. According to documents produced to the
committee, Mrs. Samaranch's trip to Savannah and Charleston was
at least 2 months in the making. Atlanta's organizers attempted
to make sure all details were looked after. In one document,
February 5, 1990 memo to the file by Billy Payne, it should be
before you, and it should be in the book, Mr. Payne makes the
following notes and instructions: ``Mrs. Samaranch does not
like adhering to President Samaranch's very tight schedule and
prefers to shop (line up a Saks and Lord & Taylor visit with
the store managers and when she selects something, make them
insist that it is on the house because she is such an important
person, et cetera. Make it convincing by prior arrangement with
the respective stores.''
Now, I understand that that shopping trip did not take
place, but clearly the intent to provide gifts that would have
been in excess of rules for the IOC was there.
Mrs. Samaranch wasn't even an IOC member, nor was President
Samaranch with her. All of this planning to make Atlanta's bid
look attractive. Atlanta was one of only three cities competing
at this stage.
Mr. Carrard, do you know of any instances where a city
competing to host games provided gifts or travel in excess of
IOC rules to Mrs. Samaranch?
Mr. Carrard. I am not aware of it.
Mr. Ganske. Only a month after Mrs. Samaranch and her
guests traveled to Savannah and Charleston her husband, IOC
President Samaranch, sent a letter to IOC members asking them
to strictly adhere to IOC rules. Mr. Carrard, do you know if
President Samaranch had a specific instance of an improper gift
giving or traveling in mind when he wrote that letter?
Mr. Carrard. Could I see that letter? It is in there? I am
sorry.
Mr. Ganske. Staff can probably provide you with the page
number. It is coming right here behind you.
Mr. Carrard. Thank you very much. Oh, yes, I know that
letter.
Mr. Ganske. Let me repeat my question. Do you know if
President Samaranch had a specific instance of improper gift
giving or travel in mind when he wrote that letter?
Mr. Carrard. No, because do you have the reference on top
of it, FCD, and it is my reference. This is typically the
letter I was writing to the candidate cities to remind them of
our desire to generally fight against escalation of costs. I am
the author of this letter. That is my reference, and if you
look at the first paragraph, it says as you remember, the
escalation of costs incurred by candidate cities in connection
with the preparation, promotion and presentation of bids for
the Olympic games raised here, et cetera.
Mr. Ganske. So you are asking us--you wrote the letter, is
that in the first place?
Mr. Carrard. I drafted it for the President. I wanted the
President to remind the bidding cities that they had to comply
with the then existing instructions.
Mr. Ganske. So your concern was that the cities not have
any additional expense.
Mr. Carrard. The concern was placed to make sure that they
were limiting the expenses, and, as I said earlier in an
example, the concern, I am saying quite frankly, was not then
about possible misbehavior by IOC members. But by the tricks I
was alleging to the parties which were not allowed and
organized by embassies and sometimes foreign governments and
even the cities to curb the rule. That was the major concern.
Mr. Ganske. Let's go back to my original series. At least
today you think it would be unethical for the wife of the
President, President Samaranch, to be traveling at the expense
of potential host cities, and you are going to make sure that
that doesn't happen in the future.
Mr. Carrard. Certainly in nearly all cases I know, the IOC,
if the wife of the President travels, picks up the bill.
Mr. Ganske. I thank you.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Well, this completes our questions
for you all. We appreciate your willingness to come. I just
might note that members may have written questions for you as
we did with the first panel. We would appreciate your
timeliness in getting a response back. Just one thing I would
like to add, we certainly appreciate Mr. Carrard, your coming
again from overseas to be with us today. We look forward to
your presence on December 15 with Mr. Samaranch. Though many of
us here would have preferred that he would be here with you in
early November so that we could help make sure that this vote
comes out the right way, we surely expect that you will come
back with good news, and if any message had to go back to Mr.
Samaranch, I think it was well expressed, certainly by Mr.
Waxman and others, that should this vote not happen, I think
you can expect bipartisan legislation here to make sure that in
fact we are successful in cleaning up the taint that we found
from the Olympics in the past.
We appreciate your willingness to cooperate and to be here
with us again. Thank you very much. You are all excused.
Our final panel will include two individuals, Dr. Henry
Kissinger and Mr. Ken Duberstein. I would note that because of
the length of the hearing, Senator Howard Baker was unable to
remain with us for the day, but has agreed to come back when we
reconvene on this topic on December 15.
As both of you individuals know, this has been a
longstanding tradition in this subcommittee to take testimony
under oath. Do either of you have objection to that? Also under
both House and committee rules, you are allowed to have
counsel. Do either of you desire or did you bring counsel?
Terrific. If you would both stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Upton. You are both under oath. Your testimony will be
made complete in the record. We would like you, if you could,
to summarize it in no more than 5 minutes or so, and this light
will give you that time indication.
Dr. Kissinger, welcome. It is a pleasure to have you here
today.
TESTIMONY OF HENRY KISSINGER; AND KENNETH M. DUBERSTEIN
Mr. Kissinger. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Upton. If you might bring the mike just a little
closer.
Mr. Kissinger. Mr. Chairman and members, I only returned
from Europe last evening, so I did not have time to prepare a
formal statement. If you will forgive me, therefore, if I talk
more or less extemporaneously. Also if I keep to 5 minutes, you
can all say you were present at an historic occasion.
Mr. Upton. Go ahead.
Mr. Kissinger. Mr. Chairman, my relationship to the IOC is
of very recent vintage. I am a sports fan and I read about it
in the newspapers and I read all the accounts that brought you
here, but I have no personal knowledge of any of the events
that I have read about and some of which I heard while I was
waiting to testify.
I was asked to join the Forum 2000 for the purpose of
reforming the IOC and the operation of the Olympics. In order
to do this, I talked to individuals whom I greatly respect who
had studied some of these issues, like my colleague here, Ken
Duberstein, Senator Mitchell, Donald Fehr, who were members of
the Mitchell committee. I also talked to General McCaffrey
about the drug problem, and I tried to inform myself not so
much about the past as about the future. Also I had many
conversations with Mr. Uberoth.
Now, it became apparent that there was a need for
significant changes, one, in the organization of the committee;
second, in some of the methods of operation; third, with
respect to some of the financial accounting procedures; and
also in the manner in which some of the expenses were being
handled.
I had no preconceived notions on how to tackle this. As you
know, there were three working groups formed and all of us on
these working groups, at least all of the active members, have
spent a fair amount of time on it, usually giving up weekends
to do so. I must say that the leadership of the IOC under
President Samaranch and his colleagues have given useful
support in these efforts.
As you know, the process is not completed. We have to meet
with the executive committee at the end of October and then
there is a meeting of the whole IOC in December, and it is sort
of a tricky problem to get the people who have to change
procedures and indeed have to modify their terms in office to
vote for some fairly significant changes.
I believe that if the recommendations by the three working
groups are accepted, then many of the--I would say almost all
of the abuses that I read about will be eliminated. That is
certainly our intention. The non-IOC members have certainly no
other interest in this except to bring about exactly that
situation. If, frankly, for any reason either the executive
committee or the full IOC were not to go along with these
recommendations or watered them down, certainly I, and I know
my friend Ken Duberstein and Senator Mitchell and all the
others who have spent a fair amount of time working on this,
would be heard from, and you would hear from us.
So at this point, I am quite optimistic that we will
succeed. President Samaranch, whatever may have happened in the
past, has been fully supportive, and we have achieved at least
in the working groups a degree of agreement that many people
were skeptical about having the ability when we started.
So this is the essence of where I come from. Of course, I
will be delighted to answer questions about either what I said
or about some specifics. I want to thank you for giving me this
opportunity to express my views.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much. Mr. Duberstein.
TESTIMONY OF KENNETH M. DUBERSTEIN
Mr. Duberstein. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
I want to echo what Dr. Kissinger said. I am betting on Henry
Kissinger. I am grateful for this invitation to participate in
the hearing. I do so on behalf of the independent special bid
commission appointed by Bill Hybl, President of the USOC, which
was chaired by former Senator George Mitchell and included Don
Fehr and myself as vice chairman, along with members Roberta
Cooper Ramo and Jeff Benz.
I request that my written statement, Mr. Chairman, be made
part of the record, along with a copy of the report of our
commission dated March 1.
Our commission reviewed the circumstances surrounding Salt
Lake City's bid to host 2002 Olympic Winter Games. We did not
address Atlanta, but we found that a culture of improper gift
giving extended beyond Salt Lake City and predated Salt Lake
City's participation. Our principal mandate was not to
investigate, but to make recommendations for reform at all
levels of the Olympic movement, local, national and
international.
The U.S. Olympic Committee moved quickly to adopt
substantially all of our recommendations. They took the
medicine we prescribed. The IOC unfortunately needed more than
time release capsules. They required major surgery.
Our recommendations for the IOC call for fundamental
structural changes which are set forth in detail in our report.
These changes necessarily require a period of study and
consensus building prior to adoption. The IOC appears to have
undertaken that process in earnest with the appointment of the
IOC Reform 2000 Commission, which includes Dr. Kissinger, Peter
Ueberroth, Paul Allaire and Dick Ebersol, as well as a new
ethics committee which includes in its membership my old
colleague Senator Howard Baker.
Although it is too early to draw any firm conclusions, we
are encouraged by the progress the IOC has accomplished to
date. Former Senator Mitchell and I met with Juan Antonio
Samaranch and Francois Carrard, the President and Director
General of the IOC, in early July. At that time they provided
us with a report outlining the IOC's preliminary actions in
response to our recommendations. The meeting was both
encouraging and positive. We were reassured of Mr. Samaranch's
personal commitment to the need and urgency of reforming the
IOC. We were heartened in recent days when the IOC formally
requested the assistance of the OECD in becoming a public
international organization within the meaning of the OECD
convention on combatting bribery of foreign public officials in
international transactions. We applaud them for this
initiative.
While these efforts are to be commended, there is still
much more work that needs to be done. The IOC Reform 2000
effort deserves close monitoring and frequent checkups as they
approach finalizing their recommendations by the end of October
and then again for the full IOC on December 11 and 12. The
IOC's progress and continuing commitment to reform I think must
be closely evaluated. I am reminded of a Russian proverb that
my old boss, President Ronald Reagan, referred to from time to
time. ``dovy eye no provey eye.'' trust but verify.
I encourage this subcommittee to verify the IOC's ongoing
efforts to systematic reform. The proof is in the pudding. They
must do more than just reassure sponsors. They must face
realities, not create illusions. They need to manage what they
promise.
At this point, therefore, I would grade them the following
way: I would give them an I for incomplete for the reforms are
not quite done. I would give them an O for outstanding effort,
including the work of Dr. Kissinger. And I would give them a C
for careful, be careful in evaluating the end product at least
until we see specifically what the IOC Reform 2000 recommends
at the end of October. I share with each of you the hope and
expectation that the Olympic flame must burn clean once again
in those words that completed our report back in March 1.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Kenneth M. Duberstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Duberstein, Vice Chair, USOC Special
Bid Oversight Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you
for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. I respectfully
request that my written statement be made a part of the record of this
hearing, along with a copy of the Report of the USOC's Special Bid
Oversight Commission dated March 1, 1999.
The Salt Lake City bid scandal came to light in December of last
year. Very shortly thereafter, the United States Olympic committee
appointed a Special Bid Oversight Commission (the ``Commission''). The
Commission's charge was to review the circumstances surrounding Salt
Lake City's bid to host the Olympic Winter Games, and thereafter to
make recommendations for improving the process by which cities are
selected to host the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter
Games. Senator George Mitchell acted as Chairman of the Commission, Don
Fehr and I were Vice-Chairs, Roberta Cooper Ramo and Jeff Benz were
members.
The Commission presented its recommendations on March 1 of this
year. Very generally, our recommendations called for the elimination of
the improper gift-giving practices that have grown out of any
reasonable bounds, and for the IOC to make fundamental structural
changes. Our recommendations were directed to both the IOC and the
USOC.
The USOC moved quickly to adopt substantially all of our
recommendations. They took the medicine we prescribed. The IOC needed
more than just medicine--they needed major surgery.
Our recommendations for the IOC are far greater in scope than our
recommendations for the USOC. Many of them require significant changes
to the structure of the IOC, and necessarily require a period of study
and consensus-building prior to adoption. The IOC appears to have
undertaken that process in earnest. The IOC 2000 Commission and working
groups thereof have met regularly since late May. A final meeting is
scheduled for October 30-31, at which time recommendations will be made
to the IOC. Although any reforms recommended by the IOC 2000 Commission
will be subject to the approval of the full IOC in December, I think we
will learn a great deal from the final recommendations that come out of
IOC 2000.
Although it is too early to draw any conclusions, I am encouraged
by what the IOC has accomplished to date. Senator Mitchell and I met
with President Samaranch and Francois Carrard, the Director General of
the IOC, in early July. At that time, they provided us with a report
outlining the IOC's preliminary reaction to the Commission's
recommendations. I trust that your staff has shared that report with
you. Because the work of IOC 2000 is not yet finished, it is not timely
to publicly comment on the views expressed in the report. We did,
however, share our comments with the IOC.
Some of the changes that we recommended to the IOC are not
difficult to implement. By way of example, the following actions have
already been taken by the IOC:
1. The IOC's audited financial statements are now available to the
public at large.
2. The IOC has appointed an Ethics Commission chaired by Judge Keba
Mbaye, a former member of the International Court of Justice.
Senator Howard Baker is a member of the Ethics Commission.
3. The IOC Ethics Commission has adopted a Code of Ethics. The new Code
of Ethics prohibits gifts of more than nominal value.
4. Certain meetings of the IOC are now open to the public.
I am also encouraged by the fact that, subsequent to our meeting,
the IOC formally requested the assistance of the OECD in becoming a
``public international organization'' within the meaning of the OECD
Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in
International Transactions.
When the Commission appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee
in April, Senator Mitchell stated that the end of this year is a
reasonable deadline for IOC action. The IOC is on schedule to meet that
deadline. It is important, however, that we evaluate the IOC's progress
at each step of their journey. I am reminded of a Russian proverb that
my former boss, President Reagan, referred to on occasion.
Trust, but verify. While I am encouraged by what the IOC is doing,
I also believe that they should be closely and frequently monitored. We
will have an opportunity to do that later this month.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you both. As you heard, the buzzers sound.
We have a vote on the floor. Dr. Ganske has been over to vote
and when he returns, I will be gone and he will continue so
that we can try to finish this. I'm going to do some questions
and Dr. Ganske is going to come back so that we can keep this
flowing. Mr. Duberstein, in your written testimony submitted in
your appearance in the Senate last April before Senator McCain,
you were particularly hard on the IOC. In fact, you said and I
quote, the pace and the scope of the IOC's reform actions are
disappointing, expelling a few rank and file members, allowing
a handful to resign but leaving the two most prominent culprits
who sit on IOC's executive board to escape with a gentle slap
on the wrist is not encouraging, end quote.
Would you say that today based on the grades that you gave
and if you assume, to take Dr. Kissinger's words, that they
will succeed in adopting these reforms, that if in fact that
happens, they will restore the shine on the rings and you'll be
proud of the Olympic movement again?
Mr. Duberstein. Mr. Chairman, I think that the efforts
under way with IOC Reform 2000 are fundamentally sound. That
does not mean that they meet every one of our recommendations
but the thrust is very much in the right direction. I am
encouraged by the personal commitment of Mr. Samaranch. I am
even more persuaded by the participation of Dr. Kissinger and
Mr. Ueberroth and Mr. Allaire as well as others. I think that
bodes very well.
I would not retract there my statement the fact that some
of the members of the executive committee received only a slap
on the wrist. I felt strongly at the time that more harsh
punishment was in order, but I think as far as looking forward
to making sure that we do not have a repeat of what happened in
Salt Lake City and other places, I think they have made great
strides and I look forward to them fulfilling this commitment.
Mr. Upton. I don't know if you've actually seen the actual
reforms that are in place. I know you've had some discussions
with Mr. Carrard and others. If you were able to add an
amendment that could be adopted by that reform committee, how
would it read?
Mr. Duberstein. If I were to add any recommendations, I
would look toward more athlete participation in greater numbers
on the IOC, and I would be very concerned about the
interlocking directorate so that some people in fact could be
appointed not simply as IOC representatives but to represent
their countries to the IOC.
Mr. Upton. Dr. Kissinger, what would your response to that
be?
Mr. Kissinger. First of all, I want to also point out that
the chairman of the USOC, Bill Hybl, has been tremendously
helpful in this process and has made a very significant
contribution and I want to thank him.
I believe the recommendations that Ken Duberstein just
made, that we can go a long way toward meeting them if not
meeting them completely. Basically all I knew about what needed
to be done I learned from him and Senator Mitchell and his
report, and however pleasant he is when he testifies to you he
sort of stays on our back all the time to make sure that we are
properly performing.
I think the members of the executive committee, there will
be a rotation very quickly if these reforms are carried out
because while it may be necessary to have a period of
transition for the whole IOC in the top positions, it is
foreseen in this reform program that all the limitations and
changes take effect immediately.
Mr. Upton. Though I know Mr. Duberstein is not a member of
the Reform 2000 Committee, how--you do know, I'm sure, all of
the members on that committee. How receptive have they been to
the reforms that have been proposed?
Mr. Kissinger. Well, I would think that some--that some
people feel that the IOC has constituted a fairly comfortable
operation and do not have an overwhelming desire to go into
barricades and change it but the fact is that our reports of
the working groups have been unanimous and that some of the
established individuals who have had leadership positions have
cooperated with drafting in a way that meets the technicalities
of the IOC and I believe in the working groups we will
certainly succeed. Now, the next hurdle will be the executive
committee and I have not met with them, but I agree with Ken. I
will take the same position that Ken has indicated here that I
will--no halfway house is really feasible that does not reflect
on the Olympic movement. So I really expect that these working
group reports will be accepted with only the most minor
modifications.
Mr. Upton. We hope that that's true. As you know, we have a
vote on. I am getting to go vote. You going to make this vote?
Ms. DeGette. I'll make this vote. I just have a couple of
questions.
Mr. Upton. As long as you don't steal this gavel you may go
ahead and when you finish we will recess until Dr. Ganske gets
here.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Hybl will tell you I always behave.
Mr. Duberstein, first of all I know I can speak for the
entire panel when I thank you and Senator Mitchell for the
outstanding job you did in putting this report together. I
fully endorse the recommendations that you've made and I think
most of us do. Of course, the problem is that there's been
public knowledge of the lavish gift giving of the IOC for
years, and as I asked several of the previous panels, I know
Dr. Kissinger wasn't here. I don't believe you were either. We
have had written rules in effect by the IOC for many years
since the 1980's which should have prevented the kind of
profligate gift giving that has been going on.
For example, in terms of gifts, there is a strict rule that
says gifts of value are not permitted and that it strictly says
gifts of value exceeding $200 U.S. are not permitted but yet
the previous panel's testified and your report accurately
represents everyone completely ignored this and in fact it was
quite the opposite. If your recommendations are adopted, what
is it about these particular recommendations that you think
will actually make them be observed versus existing only on
paper only as the previous rules have been?
Mr. Duberstein. I believe the acceptance by the IOC of the
recommendations of the working group and the prestigious
members who are on the working group will in fact infect world
opinion. We have a microscope right now on the IOC. We have
heard President Samaranch's firm commitment to Senator Mitchell
and to me that he wants to leave as his legacy for the IOC a
reformed IOC. I think you will in fact find by the end of this
year the IOC will approve the reforms.
Ms. DeGette. Let me stop you. They may approve the reforms
but do you think that they will be observed?
Mr. Duberstein. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Is there anything about the structure you're
recommending that will make it more likely that they will be
observed or do you think it's because the world opinion will be
shifted?
Mr. Duberstein. I think world and national opinion here
will be such that in fact they will have to abide by these
rules, by these guidelines.
Ms. DeGette. So there's nothing inherent in your----
Mr. Duberstein. There's no enforcement.
Ms. DeGette. Dr. Kissinger?
Mr. Kissinger. May I make a point here. Each member of the
IOC will be given--has a fixed term now. They're not appointed
for life or until the age of 80 if these reforms are accepted.
And each member will have to go before a selection committee
which will be composed of both IOC and non-IOC members. So if
there are credible allegations, it would be amazing if they
were not brought up when a member's name comes up for renewal
before the selection committee.
Ms. DeGette. Do you think that world opinion has begun to
shift in any way as a result of the light that's been shed on
the Salt Lake City and Atlanta bids?
Mr. Duberstein. I think there is a strong view that in fact
the IOC needs to clean up its act. I think President Samaranch
is now committed to that and I think a lot of that has to do
with opinion throughout the world.
Ms. DeGette. Just one last question. We asked the first
panel what they thought the likelihood of these new rules being
adopted is. Do you have any sense? We were told slightly
greater than 50 percent.
Mr. Duberstein. No, I don't have any magic wand that says
85 percent or 90 percent. I'm not a betting man but I believe
that President Samaranch that Mr. Carrard and others will work
diligently to getting them approved and with the kind of
prominence that is on the IOC Reform 2000 panel that it will be
very difficult for the IOC to turn back.
Ms. DeGette. Dr. Kissinger, do you have any sense how
likely you believe it is?
Mr. Kissinger. I have--I'm new in this so I have not
encountered the full membership of the IOC and I've had only
one session with the preliminary executive committee. I have
operated on the assumption that we will get these reforms
through. That's the position I've taken in the working group
and that's the position I will take at the end of October. I
also have reason to believe that President Samaranch will
support it but there are a number of senior people in this
group, Allaire from Xerox and Yellay from Fiat and non-IOC
members will be united in supporting these recommendations. So
it would be quite a responsibility to turn them down.
Ms. DeGette. Let me just say because I have to now go vote,
I do not have any faith at all that the international community
will simply believe people are prominent and therefore they
will follow these rules. I think that some of the
recommendations of the structure will help. I think, as Dr.
Kissinger said, the term limits will help, but I think that
there needs to be more vigilance because after all, as long ago
as the 1980's, many prominent people said that the rules had to
be changed. The rules were changed on paper and people still
completely disregard it.
Thank you, gentlemen, both for coming. I apologize for
having to leave. I appreciate it.
Mr. Ganske [presiding]. The Chair recognizes himself.
Well, doctor, one of my prerogatives, well, Dr. Kissinger,
you're the diplomat so I won't ask you to make a comment on
Mrs. Samaranch's trips, but I do want to ask you in light of
the fact that it was the events in Salt Lake City that served
as the catalyst for the present atmosphere of IOC reform, have
you detected any anti-American sentiment during your work with
the IOC 2000 commission?
Mr. Kissinger. Yes. There is a feeling that the Americans
are trying to impose their standards, that we are picking on
the smaller developing nations. I wouldn't suggest that it is
this attitude among some members and I've heard statements to
that effect. They have not prevailed and I don't expect them to
prevail.
Mr. Ganske. Well, Dr. Kissinger, in light of some of those
anti-American sentiments, I understand that the IOC 2000
commission is now finalizing its recommendations and will
announce them at the end of the month and that the IOC will
vote on these recommendations in December of this year.
However, these are only recommendations. Is the IOC obligated
to adopt any of the commission's recommendations?
Mr. Kissinger. No, the IOC is not obligated to adopt the
committee's recommendations, but they would lose the support of
the non-IOC members and I think the games next year would be
under shadow if the IOC rejected the recommendations that were
so far as I can see unanimously endorsed by a group of
individuals who have given a fair amount of their time and who
have no ax to grind.
Mr. Ganske. What do you think will be the result if the IOC
adopts only the least intrusive, least controversial
recommendations and ignores the ones with real clout?
Mr. Kissinger. Well, if you called me back before this
committee, I would express my disappointment strenuously and I
can't believe that that will happen. In fact, I don't believe
that President Samaranch will take it quietly. Not only I but a
number of the individuals that we have mentioned giving up--
have given up a number of weekends, traveled long distances.
We're doing it again at the end of October. We'll do it again
in December. And our only interest in this is to have an
Olympic Games that the world can be proud of, that Americans
can be proud of participating in and we have absolutely no
reason to compromise and we won't.
Mr. Ganske. I'll be with you in just a minute, Mr.
Duberstein. If the IOC only adopts some face saving measures
but not the full chest, I'm sure, Dr. Kissinger, you're aware
that we have a law called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
which makes it illegal for American companies, individuals to
bribe foreign officials or businesses. Now, the IOC is not
covered by that law. However, last year Congress enacted a law
to enable the President to designate by executive order the IOC
or other organizations to be subject to the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act.
Would you recommend that the president do this if the IOC
does not act in good faith to clean up their own act ?
Mr. Kissinger. I would expect the IOC to clean itself up.
Second, I expect the IOC to accept the principles of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, even if it doesn't use its exact
language so that it does not seem to be submitting to a law of
one particular country. And so if that circumstance arose, we
might be in a situation where our law might be implemented but
I don't--I really would be disappointed if we reached that
point.
Mr. Ganske. Your preference would be for us not to have to
do that but you wouldn't rule it out as an appropriate action
at some time?
Mr. Kissinger. I wouldn't rule out if there were a
conviction that the principles of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act, never mind whether it applies legally, if the principles
were being violated, I would understand it if the Congress made
its views felt.
Mr. Ganske. I thank you.
Mr. Duberstein, in his report to the USOC, the Mitchell
commission concluded, quote, that the USOC shares
responsibility for the--this is the USOC shares responsibility
for the improper conduct of the bid and organizing committees
in Salt Lake City, end quote. The report also recommends
several steps the USOC should take to strengthen its oversight
of the site selection process. However, a more stringent
oversight role in the site selection process may leave the USOC
open to a conflict of interest. If a U.S. city's bid to host
the games is successful, it's like the USOC may benefit in the
form of increased television and sponsorship revenues. While
the USOC and its members do not personally gain in this
scenario, it's hard to argue with the lure of the additional
sums or funds to help train athletes or promote amateur sports
in the U.S.
Mr. Duberstein, you served as vice chair of the Mitchell
commission. Is it possible for the USOC to balance a more
stringent oversight role against the benefits that it would
gain as a result of a U.S. city hosting the games?
Mr. Duberstein. Mr. Chairman, we were very heartened within
a few days after our commission's recommendations that the
USOC, the executive committee of the USOC, unanimously went for
every one of our recommendations and I believe Mr. Hybl when he
testified this morning made reference to that. I think the
oversight clearly was lacking. I believe that they now have the
message. I think that what they have enacted based on our
recommendations in fact ensures that the USOC will be far more
mindful so that you don't get into the situations as you
described.
Mr. Ganske. I think I'd like to hear from both of you in
answer to this question. Dr. Kissinger, in light of the fact
that you testified today that you think there is an anti-
American feeling because of the exposure on this issue, do you
think that this could affect U.S. cities getting the Olympic
site in the future?
Mr. Kissinger. Not really because whatever the anti-
American feeling exists is balanced by the realization that the
majority of the funds come from the United States and the
incentive--it's one thing to needle us, it's another to
antagonize us.
Mr. Duberstein. I subscribe to exactly what Dr. Kissinger
said.
Mr. Ganske. What a great diplomatic response. My time is
finished. I will yield to Mr. Klink.
Mr. Klink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duberstein, in your
statements you reiterated that old chestnut of President
Reagan's trust but verify. You say that that adage now applies
to your monitoring of what they are doing at the International
Olympic Committee. This is kind of a follow up to the last
question. We might say we want to verify but other countries
might say, well, it's the U.S. meddling, imposing their will on
us, overreaching.
Do you think that we have a right and a responsibility to
actively monitor the progress that the IOC makes in this reform
process? Specifically, let me ask you what should the U.S. role
be in all this?
Mr. Duberstein. I think we need to verify each one of these
actions. I think when we see at the end of October what the
working panels recommend, we will take another step in
evaluation. When our commission testified before Senator
McCain's Commerce Committee, we were asked about legislative
remedies and what we said was let's see what the IOC does.
Let's give them to the end of the year. I think that caution is
still worthwhile now, but I do think that we have an obligation
and a responsibility whether it's the USOC or the U.S. Congress
to make sure that the IOC not only enacts rigorous reform as I
expect that they will do but also that they match the practice
with the words.
Mr. Klink. Are you as troubled as I was--I don't know how
much of the hearing you have been present for--but I brought up
to some of the other committees that I'm troubled that it took
the United States, took our Justice Department, took our press,
took our Congress out there exposing this when it--the gifts
became so exorbitant and the problem became so obvious with
Salt Lake City. And then we sat here today in a very public
fashion and we had Ambassador Young and others here and talked
about what happened in Atlanta, yet there doesn't appear to be
anyone else at the International Olympic Committee that are
looking at what has happened in their country.
My example would be what happened in Nagano or Sydney or
Athens or Barcelona or cities that weren't successful, like
Toronto or Melbourne or Manchester or Belgrade. We have
reformed what we--the way we operate the U.S. Olympic
Committee. We appear to be headed that way. Reforms are in
place but what happens to the rest of the National Olympic
Committees and what happens to their introspective look if
we're the only ones that are policing this?
Mr. Duberstein. I don't think we're the only ones that are
the police. I think the litany that you delivered failed to
mention the U.S. Olympic Committee. That's who appointed the
Mitchell commission. It was Bill Hybl who said everything that
I have seen from Salt Lake City says we need to get on this and
get on it now, not to do an investigation. That's left to the
Justice Department and to others. But to come up with
recommendations so this will never happen again.
I think we're very much on our way to that. I think the
world opinion will in fact rally behind if the IOC does the
right thing and doesn't do lip service, doesn't just worry
about reassuring sponsors but in fact runs an ethical and
trustworthy Olympic movement which will be good for all the
cities and all the countries.
Mr. Klink. Dr. Kissinger, again we mentioned this during
the hearing today. We had the ``Sports Illustrated'' article
from 1986 that mentioned all of the lavish gifts and all the
things that occurred back then. We have the 1991 report that
the people in Toronto who were unsuccessful filed. Yet all of
these things were ignored. What confidence do we have now that
once your back is turned and our back is turned and other
people's backs are turned, that people who ignored these
problems for decades, in fact allowed them to proliferate, get
more serious until Salt Lake City pushed this over the edge,
what confidence do we have that we're not going to then relax
back into a standard where we have this closed culture where
these things are allowed to proliferate?
Mr. Kissinger. Well, I believe that first of all it would
be very appropriate for this committee to keep an eye on the
process. Second, the previous organization of the IOC was sort
of a family kind of organization where members who are for life
or later were changed till the age of 80 and there was an
attitude that they were responsible as far as I can understand
to each other and that made it of course very difficult to
investigate allegations carefully. I think the rotation in
office but I am impressed by what I've heard here. I will
discuss when I get back to Lausanne in 2 weeks the creation in
the office of the president of some mechanism that audits--the
auditing of finances is taken care of but the performance of
the reform, I think that's a very good point that we ought to
try to take into account.
You understand I'm speaking for myself because I don't know
what the reaction will be, but this is a reasonable proposal it
seems to me.
Mr. Klink. Suppose you can help us with one housekeeping
person. Mr. Samaranch has responded back to the committee's
request that he testify. He told us at the IOC bid process--
about the IOC bid process to Congress. We asked him to come and
talk to us. He said we're going through trying to talk to all
of these countries. I don't want to appear that I'm heavy
handed by coming in and testifying before Congress when this is
going. In your expert opinion as persons that are affiliated
with this Olympic reform movement, when would be the
appropriate time for Mr. Samaranch to come and testify before
the subcommittee?
Mr. Kissinger. I will tell you I recommended to him to
appear after the process is completed and I'm happy that a date
apparently has been fixed for December 15. He will be the key
person in maneuvering these reforms through the committee.
Whatever we outsiders do he's the indispensable element on the
parliamentary level. This will require some very careful
maneuvering with tender egos, and I think it is better for
everybody if we can come here and put before you a completed
project and know that he will be tested by your questions
rather than speak in a preliminary way where he may have to be
very careful about what he is free to talk about.
So I frankly am partly to blame for his view that he should
appear after he has something to present to this committee and
I also believe that this will be a major contribution by this
committee to spur the reforms because he will be in a very
difficult position if he has to explain--some compromises may
have to be made but if they are significant and go to the core
of it, I would expect the members of the committee to proceed
with a relentlessness as has been exhibited in my brief stay
here.
So I think this is the best time, December 15, that I'm
grateful for the committee for having to agree to the session.
Mr. Duberstein. I think what is absolutely critical is that
Mr. Samaranch has agreed to appear before this committee. Some
of us may have wanted him to appear after the IOC Reform 2000
report is done at the end of October. Some have suggested that
he not come until December. I think the fact that he is coming
before this committee is a mark not only of his commitment to
reform but his willingness to sell this to you and I think that
is very encouraging news.
Mr. Klink. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duberstein, you
also make reference in your testimony to the July 14 interim
report done by the IOC on your and Senator Mitchell's report.
It's called the IOC paper on the recommendations made by the
U.S. Olympic Committee special bid oversight commission in its
report on March 1, 1999. None of the reactions made in that
report are carved in stone and of course are subject to change.
When will we really know which of the Mitchell's report
recommendations are being adopted by the IOC? Is there going to
be a plenary session October 31.
Mr. Duberstein. You're going to have a strong indication
October 30, 31 but full IOC is meeting on December 11 and 12.
So we will know both from the former date as well as the
latter.
Mr. Stupak. Would it be--should all of them be adopted in
its--are there some of them that should be adopted, some of
them that aren't you can live with? Could you try to give us a
little bit more insight as to----
Mr. Duberstein. We think all of our recommendations are
important. Clearly some are more critical than others.
Financial accountability, term limits, age. The ruling out of
visits to the bid cities, all of that getting tied up so that
in fact the process of selecting bid cities as well as the
accountability, responsibility of the IOC itself, the
structural reforms I think are all taken as one, Congressman
Stupak.
Mr. Kissinger. And the creation of an auditing system that
Mr. Allaire from Xerox considers equal to those of
multinational corporations would be a complete innovation.
Mr. Stupak. Would that be like an inspector general type
function?
Mr. Duberstein. No, it's an independent audit by outsiders,
not by the inside, publicly released is what we called for. We
also called for open meetings which I believe the IOC is now
doing. It's all of that that the sunshine comes.
Mr. Stupak. That sunshine, that's audits but let's get to
enforcement then. How would the enforcement come other than
public scrutiny?
Mr. Duberstein. It's public scrutiny.
Mr. Kissinger. Rotation in office and the submission of
each--even existing members have to in addition to the age
limit have to be rotated at periodic intervals and have to go
before the selection committee where they are compared with
other candidates, plus the fact that more athletes are being
added, the international federations, the national committees
so that there will be a number of groups that are new that were
not previously represented institutionally on the committee.
Mr. Stupak. Will any of these groups then, these new
groups, will they have investigative powers within the IOC of
any alleged wrongdoing?
Mr. Kissinger. The athletes of course have a vested
interest in the Olympics being clean and they also have the
greatest interest in the doping issue, and I have noticed of
the working groups that the athletes are among the most vocal
and concerned and constructive members of the working groups.
Mr. Duberstein. In addition, you also have the creation of
a new independent ethics committee for the IOC which I think
speaks volumes.
Mr. Stupak. Let me put it this way. After let's say the IOC
reforms are implemented, what will actually be set up to detect
any wrongdoing other than rotating people and the athletes are
concerned about it. Is there any mechanism there that we can
point to? You see, my problem here is with this culture we have
seen here and it's a culture thing. Everyone does it. This is
the way you do it. This is the way you get host cities. How do
you change that culture? You may change the rules but if
there's no accountability and responsibility and some
enforcement, I don't see how we change the culture.
Mr. Kissinger. I think a number of you members have raised
this point, and I will certainly bring that back when I go to
the executive committee meeting and I think in the president's
office or the executive committee some mechanism has to be set
up on the--at least I would think ought to be set up on the
basis of which these questions can be answered.
Mr. Duberstein. I also think that you should address some
of this to Senator Baker when he comes here as a member of the
ethics committee as far as an ongoing role in overseeing not
only the reform effort but the governance of the IOC.
Mr. Stupak. You've got to have a hotline, inspector
general, someone there to enforce it. You've got to have a
watchdog there somewhere I believe anyways.
Mr. Upton. Before I yield to Mr. Strickland I just want to
ask, do you know if the reform committee meeting in the end of
October of this month and again in December, is that open to
the public? Or is it a closed meeting?
Mr. Kissinger. It was last time. The first plenary session
was open to the public.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Strickland.
Mr. Duberstein. Mr. Stupak, the answer from the IOC it is
open, according to Mr. Carrard.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Strickland.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one
question and then I will make a comment and then I will stop.
You've been kind in giving us of your time. I would like to ask
you if you would share with us your reaction to what happened
in Atlanta. We heard from the Atlanta folks earlier today and
in your judgment, if your commission had used Atlanta's bid as
opposed to Salt Lake City, do you think you would be making the
same sort of recommendations to the USOC and the IOC as you are
making?
Mr. Duberstein. Congressman, I did not hear the testimony
of Atlanta today but just from the flavor of what I have read
and heard, we said in our commission report it did not begin in
Salt Lake City. These are the nature of the same kind of
allegations. So I don't think our report would have changed one
iota as far as our recommendations for fundamental systemic
reform of the USOC, the IOC, and the handling not only of the
bid process but the governing of the IOC.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you, sir. And if I could just make a
comment. I don't want to be offensive to anyone, certainly not
my colleagues, but as I was sitting here listening to folks
today and what we're talking about is the selling or the
purchasing of influence, I think, and it is proper, I think,
for those of us who are concerned about this to sit in some
judgment on what has happened and to be concerned about reforms
and making recommendations for the future, but just in fairness
to those who may have been caught up in this, you both have
been around Washington for a long time and you've observed the
functioning of Congress and I wonder if you see any
similarities between some of the things that we've talked about
today and been concerned about today and maybe some of the
practices that exist within our own governmental bodies in
terms of decisionmaking and influence buying and so on.
Mr. Kissinger. Well, collegial bodies have a tendency to
cover up for each other. That is--and in fact what then later
an investigation looks like covered up is an attempt to help
out friends with whom one has worked and isn't perceived this
way. So this is something that is built into any bureaucratic
and--on the other hand, one shouldn't go to the other extreme
of starting a culture of investigations so that everybody feels
under permanent threat. So I would think that if it is very
successful reforming the system and if then there is some
procedure by which one can check on the performance internally,
then the outside pressures should still continue but they
should not be the form of a permanent investigation but
something like a periodic checkup to see, and after all by now
there's a fairly wide body of people who have been involved in
the reform or in the investigations who have, as I said before,
have no other interest except seeing this thing cleaned up.
Mr. Duberstein. I think when we have seen the lack of
accountability, it leads to problems. When we got into the
Mitchell commission, we got into this. One of the things that
we were startled with was what we thought was a total lack of
accountability. I think that's as true in Lausanne as it is in
Washington. Those are the seeds for problems. We often deal
with perceptions and in this town especially perceptions become
reality. What we found, though, as far as Salt Lake City and
before is that the perceptions were reality. The misdeeds were
taking place. I don't think that that calls for a permanent
investigation. That's why in my opening statement I talked
about periodic checkups. I think it is worth dialing into from
time to time.
Look, when I appeared before Senator McCain's committee, I
was a critic. I doubted that the IOC was as committed as I
hoped that they would be. I have learned in several months
trust but verify that when you have people involved, whether
it's Bill Hybl or Henry Kissinger or Peter Ueberroth or Dick
Ebersol or Paul Allaire and they are pushing the same
direction, when my friend and former colleague Howard Baker
joined the ethics committee, that is another indication that
the IOC got the message.
Business as usual is no longer. You have to move on. You
have to turn the page. And I think that's as applicable in
Washington as it is in Lausanne.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you both. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Bilbray, do you have questions?
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I think
first of all we need to clarify again, and again one of our
colleagues pointed out that a lot of this discussion is about
the world Olympic committees and the multinational not to tar
and feather the U.S., not that we don't have points that we
need to get included. I guess the argument of my colleague
about the fact that maybe we look at ourselves, the issue of
gifts and everything else have been discussed here in the House
hasn't been entrusted to the executive branch as much recently.
But in California we've got a full disclosure and I guess this
is where it gets to Mr. Kissinger's issue about you don't want
to have a Spanish inquisition but you also don't want to have
major cover-ups. In California one of the things we said is
anybody in the field of trust just publicly publishes
everything they've received unless it's under certain
categories and that sort of makes sure that at least somebody
knows--it may be a happy medium and that's what you talked
about before. But growing up on the frontier in the Southwest,
I'm worried about we talk about this culture within the Olympic
International Committee but can we expect the culture of the
committee to be any different than the culture of the world
that it's working within and that may now seem abstract but I
know for one thing that Governor Rufo of Baja, California, the
first freely elected Governor of Mexico in 67 years, made a big
deal about the corruption and the corrupting influence of
society just within his state. And about what a struggle it is
in a lot of these countries to try to get out of a culture of
mordida, the culture of this is the way business is done. And I
think it's rather inappropriate for us to be so naive to think
that the American standard or the Western European standard is
just universally the only standard that is going to apply.
How do we address this issue within the Olympic Committee
when it is obviously going to continue to be influenced by the
world culture experience that there is these what we perceive
inappropriate influences and decisionmaking?
Mr. Duberstein. Let's get over October 30 and 31 and
December 11 and 12. Let's get these reforms done and then we
can come back and address that question. But I would rather
focus on getting the reforms in place and then implemented and
I think that you will then see other parts of the world saying
the IOC is in fact leading the way. I think that helps.
Mr. Kissinger. Also this is a question that after the
reform should be discussed with the president, with the new
executive committee in due course with the new president
because that is how it will have to be implemented. It is not
at all a trivial question. There's no doubt that in major parts
of the world we here consider unacceptable behavior is the
normal way by which influence is established. So one has to
take--it will work best if it is done under the aegis of the
IOC rather than as a demand from the United States. And we
hope--I speak here for Ken as well, that we cannot change the
world but we might be able to make a contribution to changing
the atmosphere in which the Olympic Committee operates.
Mr. Bilbray. I hope we have that sensitivity when we look
at that. My family is from Australia. I grew up on the frontier
with Latin America. I look at Americans' rather critical review
of certain cultural traditions in Mexico but at the same time
my cousins in Australia believe that trying to tip a waiter is
a bribe and is immoral and is wrong. And we sort of chuckle at
that. I think there may be people all over the world that would
sort of look at our perception about mordida, about a gift,
what we saw as an inappropriate deed and sort of chuckle at
that too and I think we just need to desensitize that and try
to move into it.
I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I just feel as we address
this issue, we've got to remember that we are working within a
world culture and maybe, maybe we can start the process of
helping to influence a world cultural experience in a positive
manner. God bless Governor Rufo. He left office frustrated with
the fact that he couldn't change something that he saw as a
cancer in his culture that he was trying to remove.
But thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. In closing, I'd like to say a couple
of things. First of all to both of you we appreciate your time
and your very hard work and to those that were not able to
come, Senator Mitchell, Senator Baker, we know that their
spirit and their work help lend great credence to this hearing.
I also want to thank all of the members that participated on
both sides of the aisle and the staff who worked countless
hours getting documents, doing questions, really helping us
understand the issue.
I talked to Senator McCain yesterday with regard to the
hearings that he held in the spring and I intend to talk to him
yet this evening before he goes to conduct his hearing that
he's going to have next week as well. And I guess the reason--
and he thanked me for holding this hearing today. And as I see
it, this hearing does provide the setting. It initiates the
momentum, it helps send a message. It rallies the troops that
will be casting these votes later this month and again in
December to make sure that the votes will be there so that we
are all proud, not only as Americans but as citizens on this
planet. And I would hope that in your discussions and in your
work, particularly Dr. Kissinger as a member of that committee
and others in this room that will be voting as well, that you
will convey that message and that spirit in a constructive way
in terms of the work that this committee is trying to do.
I have a daughter who wrote a letter to the local city
schools complaining that the gymnastics program was being
canceled and that if it was canceled, if indeed they followed
through on that recommendation, that they would lose a future
Olympian who at some point in the future would be in those
Olympics. It is in that spirit that we're all here because
we're proud of the Olympics, whether it be a Jesse Owens,
whether it be a Mohammad Ali, a Mark Spitz, anyone in the world
that can triumph in those world games and what they mean to all
of us.
And so it is in that ethics, with that integrity that we
urge you to carry on your mission. We appreciate the work that
you have done and as they say in Ann Arbor, thanks for coming
to the big house today.
Mr. Klink. Would the gentleman yield for one moment.
Mr. Upton. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Klink. Thank you for that. That was a fine closing
statement. I see Mr. Carrard is still here. I want to thank you
for coming today as well. I see we've got some of our other
witnesses that stayed around. I'm not speaking for Chairman
Upton but I'm sure he agrees with me. We have doors on the
front of our office and they are open. If we can help you to
clean this up, if there's something that we can do, I would
suggest that you get in touch with us. We want to see this
done. There's not a lot of fun in what we did today. We'd
rather sit down and talk to all of you about how wonderful
these games are and how wonderful they're going to be. We did
not enjoy this, and the same to Dr. Kissinger and Mr.
Duberstein; if there's some way that you see that we in
Congress have the ability to positively impact this plan to
clean up the International Olympic Committee, let us know what
we can do. We're here to work with you. We have not had fun
today.
Mr. Upton. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard H. Baker, Jr.
Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Klink, and members of the
subcommittee, I thank you for inviting me to discuss my views on the
International Olympic Committee's response to the many well-publicized
allegations of wrongdoing in connection with the site selection process
for the Olympic Games.
IOC President Samaranch invited me to become an original member of
the IOC Ethics Commission, which was established this past March to
strengthen the IOC's ethical guidelines and thereby provide a clear
standard of conduct for all members of the Olympic Family. The Ethics
Commission was also charged with ensuring that these guidelines are
reflected in the policies and practices of the IOC, National Olympic
Committees and organizations associated with efforts to host the
Olympic Games. Furthermore, the Commission takes responsibility for
considering specific allegations of ethical violations by organizations
and individuals within the Olympic Family.
I am joined on the Commission by Javier Perez de Cuellar of Peru,
former United Nations Secretary General; Kurt Furgler of Switzerland,
former Swiss President; Robert Badinter of France, former President of
the French Constitution Court; and Charmaine Crooks of Canada, a five-
time Olympian. Three current IOC members were also appointed to the
Commission: Judge Keba Mbaye of Senegal, Chairman of the Commission and
former Vice President of the International Court of Justice, R. Kevan
Gosper of Australia, IOC Vice President and Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Shell Australia; and Chiharu Igaya of Japan.
Notably, a majority of the Commission members are not IOC members.
As an indication of the IOC's commitment to actively promoting a
culture of ethics within the Olympic Family, the Ethics Commission met
twice during the month of May and approved a new Code of Ethics that
was adopted by the IOC Executive Board in June. This Code sets forth
the basic ethical guidelines to be followed by the entire Olympic
Family, including IOC members and those representing cities bidding to
host the Olympic Games. It also establishes that the IOC will play an
important and ongoing role in monitoring and enforcing these
guidelines.
While the IOC did have ethical guidelines in place prior to the
adoption of the new Code this year, they were not actively communicated
or enforced. Under the new ethics regime, the IOC will aggressively
educate members of the Olympic Family about the new Code, exercise an
oversight function, fully investigate alleged violations of the Code,
and impose sanctions where necessary.
To ensure the active involvement of the IOC in maintaining high
ethical standards, I proposed that the Ethics Commission adopt a set of
guidelines to govern the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of
the Code of Ethics. The Commission accepted my recommendation and asked
me to work with a fellow Commission member (Kevan Gosper of Australia)
to develop bylaws to the Code that would accomplish this purpose. My
intention is to establish permanent mechanisms through which clear
standards for ethical behavior will be communicated by IOC leadership
to the entire Olympic Family. I would also like to develop the basic
infrastructure that will ultimately accommodate the processing of
complaints and the regulation of compliance issues, as well as the
reporting of same to the Ethics Commission and the IOC. This process is
ongoing and will be discussed during the next Ethics Commission meeting
on October 28.
As the Ethics Commission has worked toward establishing stronger
ethical guidelines for the Olympic Movement, it has also considered
individual cases where violations of the existing rules have been
alleged. Accordingly, the Commission will review the Atlanta situation
as well which of course was the subject of earlier panels. I know that
Judge Bell has put together a comprehensive and straightforward report
that was submitted to the IOC President, who subsequently asked the
Ethics Commission to conduct a review. Since this review will commence
during the October 28 Commission meeting, it would be inappropriate for
me to comment on the substance of the report at this time.
Concurrent with the efforts of the Ethics Commission, I know that
many other steps have been taken in the overall effort to reform the
IOC and address prior allegations of unethical conduct. The IOC itself
has taken a number of actions during the past several months. After
conducting an internal investigation of allegations arising out of the
Salt Lake City matter, the IOC expelled and accepted the resignations
of several members found to have been engaged in unethical behavior,
while sternly warning others. As part of a broad effort to reform the
site selection process, the IOC has prohibited visits by IOC members to
candidate cities and visits by candidate city representatives to IOC
members. It has also banned gift giving, in connection with the bidding
process. Ultimately, the IOC plans to develop a permanent site
selection process to promote clarity, consistency and, of course,
ethical behavior. In addition, the IOC has responded to criticisms
about the secrecy of its financial affairs by releasing a financial
report that was audited by a major US accounting firm, an action that
will now be repeated every two years.
To comprehensively review the IOC's policies and practices and
recommend necessary changes, the IOC established the IOC 2000 Reform
Commission, with Dr. Henry Kissinger among its members. Dr. Kissinger
will no doubt share his thoughts on IOC 2000 during his testimony. In
my view IOC 2000 has done an outstanding job. I am happy that the good
work done by the Special Bid Oversight Commission chaired by Senator
Mitchell and Vice-Chairman Ken Duberstein has been received and given
serious consideration. I know that IOC 2000 reported preliminary
recommendations this summer and plans to submit a final report to the
IOC for its consideration during a special session in December. I am
hopeful that the IOC will fully support it.
While I was initially skeptical about whether the IOC would
undertake serious ethical and structural reforms in a fairly short
period of time, I am now convinced that the IOC and its membership
understand and accept the need for meaningful change. The IOC's actions
thus far are consistent with my belief It has also become clear to me
that all international bodies, National Olympic Committees and
individuals that are part of the Olympic Movement must join with the
IOC in accepting responsibility for conducting themselves in a manner
that will preserve the integrity of the Movement for generations to
come. The IOC certainly cannot in any way encourage a ``culture of
corruption'' as many have alleged, but a concurrent obligation exists
on the part of the entire Olympic Family to recognize and follow the
highest ethical standards. Ultimately, we all want the Olympics to be
about the athletes and the competition, not about ethical scandals.
Going forward, the IOC must send a very clear message that its
members cannot and will not be unduly influenced during the site
selection process for the Olympic Games. Those cities and countries
bidding to host the Games must correspondingly abstain from any
activities that might even be perceived as improper. In my view, this
kind of cooperative effort is required if we are to see lasting change
and the long term preservation of the integrity of the Olympic
Movement.
Thank you for allowing me to express my views.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.329
THE OLYMPIC SITE SELECTION PROCESS: REVIEW OF THE REFORM EFFORT
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Upton, Barton, Burr,
Bryant, Waxman, and DeGette.
Also present: Representative Oxley.
Staff present: Jan Faiks, majority counsel; Clay Alspach,
legislative clerk; and Chris Knauer, minority investigator.
Interpreters present: Alexandre Schiavo and Fernando van
Reigersberg.
Mr. Upton. Good morning, everyone, and welcome. We are
sorry for the slight delay this morning. We have a number of
members that are stranded at a variety of different airports
around the country, and at this point, I will ask that their
remarks be included by unanimous consent as part of the record.
And I know that a number of members are still going to try
to get here for the hearing that will go much of the day. So we
wish for them to have safe travel and get here as fast as they
can.
We are here today because the Olympic Games are too
important to allow a culture of corruption to be whitewashed
and perpetuated by a piece of paper called ``reforms.'' The
record is riddled with evidence of over a decade's worth of
blatant abuse which was ignored by those who consistently,
arrogantly, unbelievably, turned a blind eye to the ugly truth.
Now, after being dragged under the magnifying glass, the IOC
reports to have turned over a new leaf. They say they have seen
the light. They say action has been taken. The question is, can
we trust that the reforms will be vigorously enforced once the
spotlight has dimmed? How can we be sure that business as usual
has truly ended?
In May of this year, when the committee started its inquiry
into the Atlanta organizing committee's 1996 Olympic bid, we
wanted to learn whether the events surrounding the Salt Lake
City's Olympic bid were an isolated incident or part of a
larger pattern of misconduct. At the first hearing, the Atlanta
organizers and other witnesses testified that Atlanta actively
gathered information about IOC members and, armed with this
information, broke gift and travel rules in order to keep its
host city competitive.
Additionally, the committee learned that IOC members
requested and received numerous gifts, travel and other perks
from Atlanta organizers. Based on the testimony and records
presented in the first hearing, including the 1991 Toronto
report, it is clear that Salt Lake City and Atlanta were not
the only bidding cities engaged in improper gift giving. Sadly,
this culture of corruption has existed for more than a decade.
Today, we will hear directly, for the first time, from the man
who has headed the IOC since 1980, Juan Antonio Samaranch.
As we all know, the IOC voted on a reform package this past
weekend, and Mr. Samaranch has received kudos for steering
these reforms through. Today, however, he must do more than
merely outline what the reforms are intended to do. He must
detail exactly how he will personally enforce what is written
on paper. The conduct by IOC members in the bidding cities did
not spring up yesterday, and it will not go away simply because
there are new rules written on a piece of paper. The rules on
paper, no matter how tough or complete, are just that.
Frankly, it is hard to have confidence in the success of
these reforms, given some of the disturbing statements in the
media the last couple of days. These include the IOC Ethics
Commission declaration that they, ``Do not plan to initiate
investigations and probably would not take up any new cases
that develop out of the Salt Lake City probe.''
Another panel member, Robert Badinter, says, ``We will not
be detectives or Scotland Yard or the General Attorney of the
United States.''
Mr. Samaranch has declared, ``The new millennium will see a
new International Olympic Committee.''
We are at a point where we want to believe, based on
enactment of these reforms, a new day has dawned. The bottom
line needs to be trust, but verify, verify, verify.
Along those lines we will hear also today from Senator
Howard Baker, who is the only American member on the new IOC
Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission is charged with
ensuring that ethical standards for IOC members are clear,
applied and, in fact, enforced. We want to learn whether the
Ethics Commission will be strong enough to end the mentality
that rules are made to be broken.
On the second panel we will also hear from Senator George
Mitchell and Dr. Henry Kissinger. Senator Mitchell chaired the
USOC's Special Bid Oversight Commission to review the
circumstances surrounding the Salt Lake City bid and to make
recommendations to improve the process. Dr. Kissinger is, in
fact, a member of the IOC 2000 Commission.
The bidding process was eroding away from an evaluation of
the true merits of a bid city into an auction awarding the best
bidder. The qualifications of a city began to matter less and
less. How many gifts given to IOC members mattered more and
more. Only after the Salt Lake City scandal erupted and was
exposed on the world stage did the IOC finally step up to the
plate and address the need for reform.
My concern about the IOC's commitment is based upon their
response and President Samaranch's reaction, in particular, to
over a decade of serious warnings and allegations that
improprieties were occurring. The Toronto report was presented
in 1991 to a group of IOC executive committee members,
including Mr. Samaranch, and yet no serious follow-up
investigation occurred that the author of the report, Mr.
Henderson, is aware of. Certainly no one asked to see Toronto's
records, which were public at the time.
Additionally, Mr. Bob Helmick, an IOC executive committee
member, never received from the IOC a copy of Toronto's report,
and he is not aware of any further investigation into the
allegations. The report should have served as a clear warning
shot across the bow. Was no one looking? Was no one standing
watch? Or was this shot simply ignored?
In fact, there is documentation on this culture of
corruption dating back to the mid-1980's. Peter Ueberroth's
biography ``Made in America'' describes the bidding process for
the Seoul games that Ueberroth saw as tantamount to bribery.
The 1987 L.A. Times details a luxurious life-style enjoyed
by an elite few in which travel is in grand manner, every
expectation is fulfilled, and it is ``all on the house.''
In 1992, another Washington Post article states, ``Cities
often go to great lengths to impress its members, who have been
given the opportunity to play golf at Augusta National, ski in
the Alps, or have their names engraved on a plaque on the Great
Wall.
In September, 1997, the Post discusses South African
officials forced to apologize for offering first class airplane
tickets to wives of 19 IOC officials. Yet nothing was really
done to adequately address these problems. In fact, we know of
one instance when the lavish gift-giving was showered on
President Samaranch's wife. Mrs. Samaranch and a friend were
flown by Atlanta organizers to Atlanta with a stopover in
Charleston, South Carolina, for a cost of more than $12,000.
The trip included a private fashion show for their enjoyment as
well.
The fact that President Samaranch was informed of this trip
and allowed it to occur does not give me great confidence that
he is prepared to address similar abuses in the future.
Consequently, imagine my surprise when I read a recent Time
magazine article regarding an interview with President
Samaranch, when he was asked about his wife's trip to Atlanta
and whether she would make another trip to a bidding city, when
the response was, ``Maybe. It depends. After all, my wife is
the wife of the president.''
Why should I or any member of this panel believe that the
IOC leadership is serious about implementing these reforms now?
We need to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not
repeated.
Our last panel today features some of the finest athletes
in the United States, and I am proud to represent a district
that some Olympians have called home, including Jesse Owens and
Muhammad Ali. These men and women practice many, many years,
often overcoming tremendous odds to compete for Olympic
victory. On behalf of today's Olympic athletes, past Olympic
competitors, and athletes throughout the world striving to be
Olympians, this committee will maintain its vigilance over the
IOC reform effort. The athletes represent the very best in the
Olympic movement and they deserve no less than the best from
the IOC and its leadership.
I will yield to the acting ranking member of this
subcommittee, as Mr. Klink is stranded in Pittsburgh, Ms.
DeGette, from Colorado.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations
Good morning and welcome. We are here because the Olympic Games are
too important to allow a culture of corruption to be white-washed and
perpetuated by a piece of paper called reforms. The record is riddled
with evidence of over a decade's worth of blatant abuse which was
ignored by those who consistently, arrogantly--unbelievably--turned a
blind-eye to the ugly truth. Now, after being dragged under the
magnifying glass, the IOC purports to have turned over a new leaf They
say, they have seen the light. They say, action has (finally) been
taken. The question is: can we trust that the reforms will be
vigorously enforced once the spotlight has dimmed? How can we be sure
that the business-as-usual era has truly ended?
In May of this year, when the Committee started its inquiry into
the Atlanta Organizing Committee's 1996 Olympic bid, we wanted to learn
whether the events surrounding Salt Lake City's Olympic bid were an
isolated incident or part of a larger pattern of misconduct. At the
first hearing, the Atlanta organizers and other witnesses testified
that Atlanta actively compiled personal profiles detailing likes and
dislikes of IOC members, and armed with this information, broke gift
and travel rules in order to keep its host city bid competitive.
Additionally, the Committee learned that IOC members requested and
received numerous gifts, travel and other perks from the Atlanta
organizers.
Based on the testimony and records presented in the first hearing,
including the 1991 Toronto Report, it is clear that Salt Lake City and
Atlanta were not the only bidding cities engaged in improper gift
giving. Sadly, this culture of corruption has existed for more than a
decade. Today, we will hear directly--for the first time--from the man
who has headed the IOC since 1980, Juan Antonio Samaranch.
As we all know, the IOC voted on a reform package this last weekend
and Mr. Samaranch has received kudos for steering these reforms
through. Today, however, he must do more than merely outline what the
reforms are intended to do. He must detail exactly how he will
personally enforce what is written on paper. The conduct by IOC members
and the bidding cities did not spring up yesterday, and it will not go
away simply because there are new rules written on a piece of paper.
Rules on paper, no matter how tough or complete are just that. Frankly,
it's hard to have confidence in the success of these reforms given some
of the disturbing statements in the media in the past few days. These
include:
The IOC Ethics Commission declaration that they ``do not plan
to initiate investigations and probably would not take up any
new cases that develop out of the Salt lake City probe.''
Another panel member--Robert Badinter--says ``we will not be
detectives or Scotland Yard or the General Attorney of the
United States.''
Mr. Samaranch has declared ``the new millennium will see a new
International Olympic Committee.'' We are at a point where we want to
believe--based on enactment of these reforms--a new day has dawned. The
bottom line needs to be trust but verify, verify, verify.
Along those lines, we will also hear today from Senator Howard
Baker, who is the only American member on the new IOC Ethics
Commission. The Ethics Commission is charged with ensuring that ethical
standards for IOC members are clear, applied, and enforced. We want to
learn whether the Ethics Commission will be strong enough to end the
mentality that ``rules are made to be broken.''
On the second panel we will hear from Senator George Mitchell and
Dr. Henry Kissinger. Senator Mitchell Chaired the USOC's Special Bid
Oversight Commission. He along with Ken Duberstein and others, reviewed
the circumstances surrounding Salt Lake City's bid and made
recommendations to improve the process. We will also hear from Dr.
Kissinger who is a member of the IOC 2000 Commission.
The bidding process was eroding away from an evaluation of the true
merits of a bid city into an auction awarding the best bidder. The
qualifications of a city began to matter less and less--how many gifts
given to IOC members mattered more and more. Only after the Salt Lake
scandal erupted and was exposed on the world stage did the IOC finally
step up to the plate and address the need for reform.
My concern about the IOC's commitment is based upon their response
and President Samaranch's reaction, in particular, to over a decade of
serious warnings and allegations that improprieties were occurring. The
Toronto Report was presented in 1991 to a group of IOC executive
committee members, including Mr. Samaranch, and yet no serious follow-
up investigation occurred that the author of the report Mr. Henderson
is aware of--certainly no one asked to see Toronto's records which were
public at the time. Additionally, Bob Helmick, an IOC executive
committee member, never received from the IOC a copy of Toronto's
report and he is not aware of any further investigation into the
allegations. This report should have served as a clear warning shot
across the bow. Was no one looking? Was no one standing watch? Or was
this shot simply ignored?
In fact, there is documentation on this culture of corruption
dating back to the mid-eighties.
Peter Ueberroth's biography ``Made In America'' describes a
bidding process for the Seoul games that Ueberroth saw as
tantamount to bribery.
1987, the LA Times details a luxurious Olympic lifestyle
enjoyed by an elite few in which travel is in grand manner,
every expectation is fulfilled, and ``it's all on the house.''
In 1992, the Washingion Post article states, ``. . . Cities
often go to great lengths to impress its members, who have been
given the opportunity to play golf at Augusta National, ski in
the Alps or have their names engraved on a plaque on the Great
Wall.''
September 1997 the Washington Post discusses South African
officials forced to apologize for offering first-class airplane
tickets to the wives of 19 IOC officials from Africa.
Yet, nothing was really done to adequately address the problems. In
fact, we know of one instance when the lavish gift giving was showered
on President Samaranch's wife. Mrs. Samaranch and a friend were flown
by Atlanta organizers to Atlanta, with a stopover in Charleston, South
Carolina, for a cost of more than $12,000. The trip even included a
private fashion show for Mrs. Samaranch's enjoyment. The fact that
President Samaranch was informed of this trip and allowed it to occur
does not give me great confidence that he is prepared to address
similar abuses in the future. Consequently, imagine my surprise when I
read a recent Time magazine article regarding an interview with
President Samaranch. When he was asked about his wife's trip to Atlanta
and whether she would make another trip to a bidding city, he
responded, ``Maybe, It depends . . . After all, my wife is the wife of
the president.'' Why should I or any member of this panel believe that
IOC leadership is serious about implementing these reforms, now?
We need to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not
repeated.
Our last panel today features some of the finest athletes in the
United States. I am proud to represent an area that some great
Olympians have called home, including Jesse Owens and Muhammad Ali.
These men and women practice many, many years, often overcoming
tremendous odds to compete for Olympic victory. On behalf of today's
Olympic athletes, past Olympic competitors, and athletes throughout the
world striving to be Olympians, this Committee will maintain its
vigilance over the IOC reform effort. The athletes represent the very
best in the Olympic movement. They deserve no less then the best from
the IOC and its leadership.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Initially,
I would like to express my thanks to my old friends, to Bill
Hybl, to Henry Kissinger, and to all of the members of the U.S.
Olympic Committee who worked very diligently to make sure that
these reforms were passed, and who have been here in this
hearing room also working with Congress to let us know what was
going on, and we do appreciate their efforts. I know I can say
that for both sides of the aisle.
But, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, news of more scandal has
emerged since our last hearing in October. As we suspected,
Atlanta and Salt Lake City were not anomalies. Reports from
Sydney about ticket hoarding and rumors of shredded documents
in other cities continue to tarnish the Olympic rings. The
allegations of bribery that have been catalogued in the reports
provided to this committee cast dark clouds over the true
spirit of the Olympic Games. And, as we will hear from the
fourth panel, the real victims of these scandals are the
athletes and the fans.
Today, the International Olympic Committee will tout the
newly approved reforms as a symbol of change and rejuvenated
effort to refocus the games on sport and sport alone. I hope
they will have that effect. However, I am concerned about the
compliance program that is supposed to monitor the IOC reforms.
They say that the devil is in the details, but thus far we have
seen very few details.
I fear that these reforms will be cosmetic and purely to
mask the aristocratic aura that has formed around the
organization. And I am not convinced that the reforms approved
this past weekend can be implemented in a manner that
alleviates the situations that resulted in IOC members
forgetting that the games are about elite athletes at the
pinnacle of their ability.
This culture of bribery coexisted with the rules of the
organization in Salt Lake City, in Atlanta, in Sydney, and in
other host cities. The rules were clear, as we found in our
last hearing, yet the rules were not adhered to in any way. In
fact, committee members from Salt Lake City believed that they
lost the 1992 games to Nagano because they played by the rules.
This corrupt culture resulted in cities and volunteers shelling
out hundreds of thousands of dollars to IOC for shopping sprees
at Saks, medical treatments for IOC members' relatives, and
college tuition. So I am hopeful that these new reforms will be
treated differently, but I am also skeptical that they can be.
I am anxious to learn if our witnesses believe that
lowering the age for IOC members to 70 years will prohibit
gifts like a tennis camp in Florida for two teenagers from the
Republic of the Congo. And I would also like to know why a
loophole has been created for the term limits which will, in
essence, result in infinitely renewable terms. I am hoping that
Mr. Samaranch and our other witnesses can convince me otherwise
today, but I am afraid that the enforcement program around the
reforms enacted this weekend will show that what the IOC passed
will simply be window-dressing and business will go on as
usual.
I am particularly concerned, as I said, about the lack of
detail in the establishment of the Ethics Commission. This is
perhaps the most crucial aspect of IOC reform. This is the one
component that can prevent other scandals like the ones that
brought us here today. However, ironically, this appears to be
the most murky of the reforms. In fact, three Ethics Commission
members gave three different answers as to how the commission
will work when asked about the structure this weekend.
Two particular guidelines caught my attention upon review
of the IOC's proposed code of ethics, both discussed in the
integrity section of the guidelines. One guideline states,
``Only gifts of nominal value, in accordance with prevailing
local customs, may be given or accepted by the Olympic parties
as a mark of respect or friendship.''
This is a difficult definition, given the wide variety of
currency, buying power and cultural traditions prevalent in the
countries participating in the Olympic movement. Most U.S.
corporations and U.S. Congress are specific, for example, that
a nominal gift is defined as one which does not have a value of
more than U.S. $100 or U.S. $50. As currently written, these
guidelines do nothing to prohibit the exorbitant gift-giving
that we saw in past scandals.
The second disturbing guideline states, ``The hospitality
shown to the members and staff of the Olympic parties, and the
persons accompanying them, shall not exceed the standards
prevailing in the host country.'' Again, this definition is
vague, at best. An Olympic guideline must be universal, and
perhaps in light of past scandals, more restrictive than some
would call ``local customs'' of the host countries in order to
prevent future scandals.
I hope our witnesses will provide more detail as to how
this commission will work on a daily basis. How will complaints
be handled? How will the commission factor in cultural
differences or even determine what cultural differences are?
The U.S. Congress, for example, has a self-policing Ethics
Committee and we all know what a difficult task it is to
evaluate and discipline peers. The IOC cannot discount the
importance of this commission nor can it allow it to falter by
failing to provide proper guidance for Ethics Commission
members.
This committee, and I can say probably this entire
Congress, is eager to work collectively to decide how the
United States will help in its leadership role to develop and
implement the new reforms and guidelines that we can stick
with. I applaud the Mitchell Commission for taking the
initiative in developing a comprehensive plan for reform. And I
sincerely hope that Senator Mitchell will continue to offer his
expertise as the IOC flushes out the details of the Ethics
Commission and other reforms.
Again, I applaud the USOC for taking the lead in trying to
implement the reforms recommended by the Mitchell Commission,
and I hope this organization is willing to lend its leadership
and experience to other national Olympic committees as they
implement similar reforms. But the United States cannot act in
a vacuum, and I believe we also need to take the lead in
helping the IOC to instigate tough Ethics Commission guidelines
so that we can stop the abuses that we have seen.
Above all, the United States and the USOC can and must
ensure that the athletes, some of whom we will hear from today,
will regain their proper place as the central focus of the
Olympic Games. U.S. cities, like cities worldwide, have had to
perform like dancing ponies. And the USOC has been just as much
a victim as anybody. On the other hand, United States cities
have participated voluntarily in this type of conduct and,
therefore, it is incumbent on the cities, the USOC, and the
United States to act as they have in helping the IOC take a
leadership role in this way.
In conclusion, I hope that the IOC will extend the good
faith it showed last weekend and begin to act in the spirit of
the games it represents and to move to implement successfully
real reforms. And I believe that if the Ethics Commission is
strong and independent, these reforms can be achieved.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Diana DeGette follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Colorado
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, news of more
scandal has emerged since our last hearing in October. As we suspected,
Atlanta and Salt Lake were not anomalies. Reports from Sydney about
ticket hoarding and rumors of shredded documents in other cities
continue to tarnish the Olympic rings. The allegations of bribery that
has been catalogued in the reports provided to this committee casts
dark clouds over the true spirit of the Olympic games. And, as we will
hear from our third panel, the real victims of these scandals are the
athletes and the fans.
Today, the International Olympic Committee will tout the newly
approved reforms today as a symbol of change and a rejuvenated effort
to refocus the Games on sport and sport alone. I hope they will have
that effect. However, they say the devil is in the details, but thus
far, I have seen very few reforms. I fear that these reforms are purely
cosmetic reforms and fail to eliminate the aristocratic aura that has
formed around the organization. I am not convinced that the reforms
approved this past weekend can be implemented in a manner that
alleviates the situations that resulted in IOC members forgetting that
the games are about elite athletes at the pinnacle of their ability.
This culture of bribery that co-existed with the rules of the
organization in Salt Lake City, in Atlanta, in Sydney and other host
cities. The rules were clear, as we learned in our last hearing, yet
they were not adhered to in any way. In fact, committee members from
Salt Lake City believed they lost the 1992 games to Nagano because they
played by the rules. This corrupt culture resulted in cities and
volunteers shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to IOC for
shopping sprees at Saks, medical treatments for IOC member's relatives
and college tuition. So I am hopeful that these new reforms will be
treated differently, but skeptical that they can be. I am anxious to
learn if our witnesses believe that lowering the age limit for IOC
membership from 80 to 70 years old will prohibit gifts like a tennis
camp in Florida for two teenagers from the Republic of the Congo. I
would like to know why a loophole has been created for the much touted
``term limits'' which result in infinitely renewable terms. I am
hopeful that our witnesses can convince me otherwise today, but
unfortunately I am afraid the reforms enacted this weekend signify that
the IOC passed will simply be window dressing and business will go on
as usual.
I am particularly concerned by the lack of detail in the
establishment of the Ethics Commission. This is perhaps the most
crucial aspect of IOC reform; this is the one component that could
prevent other scandals like those that brought us here today. However,
this appears to be the murkiest of all the reforms. In fact, three
Ethics Commission members gave three different answers as to how the
Commission will work when asked about the structure this weekend. Two
particular guidelines caught my attention upon review of the IOC's
proposed Code of Ethics; both discussed in the Integrity section of the
guidelines. One guideline states: ``Only gifts of nominal value, in
accordance with prevailing local customs, may be given or accepted by
the Olympic parties, as a mark of respect or friendship.''
This is a difficult definition given the wide variety of currency,
buying power and cultural traditions prevalent in the countries
participating in the Olympic movement. Most U.S. corporations, and the
United States Congress are specific, for example, that nominal gift is
defined as one which does not have a value of more than $US 100, or $US
50. As currently, written, the guideline does nothing to prohibit the
exorbitant gift giving we saw in past scandals.
The second disturbing guideline states: ``The hospitality shown to
the members and staff of the Olympic parties, and the persons
accompanying them, shall not exceed the standards prevailing in the
host country.''
Again, the definition is vague, at best. An Olympic guideline must
be universal and perhaps, in light of past scandals, more restrictive
than some would call local customs of the host countries in order to
prevent future scandals.
I hope our witnesses will provide more detail as to how this
commission will work on a daily basis. How will complaints be handled?
How will the Commission factor in cultural differences? Or even
determine what cultural differences are? The US Congress has a self-
policing ethics Committee, and we all know what a difficult task it is
to evaluate and discipline peers. The IOC cannot discount the
importance of this Commission, nor can it allow it to falter by failing
to provide proper guidance for Ethics Commission members.
This Committee, and indeed I can probably say this entire Congress,
is anxious to work collectively to decide how the United States is
going to take the leadership role implementing the new reforms and
developing guidelines that we can stick with. I applaud the Mitchell
Commission for taking the initiative in developing a comprehensive plan
for reform and I sincerely hope that Senator Mitchell will continue to
offer his expertise as the IOC flushes out the details of an Ethics
Commission and other reforms. Again, I applaud the USOC for taking the
lead in trying to implement the reforms recommended by the Mitchell
Commission and I hope this organization is ready to lend its leadership
and experience to other national Olympic Committees as they implement
similar reforms. But the United States cannot act in a vacuum. I
believe we must take the lead in insisting that the IOC install tough
guidelines. Above all, the US and the USOC can and must ensure that the
athletes, some of whom we'll hear from today, regain their proper place
as the central focus of the Olympic games.
U.S. cities, like cities worldwide, have had to perform like
dancing ponies and the USOC has been just as much a victim as anyone.
On the other hand, United States cities have participated in this type
of conduct, and, therefore, it is incumbent on the cities, the USOC,
and the United States Congress to take the lead in putting
international pressure in cleaning up these practices.
I hope the IOC will extend the good faith it showed this weekend
and will begin to act in the spirit of the games it represents and move
to successfully implement the reforms it has approved.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
At this point I will recognize the vice chairman of the
subcommittee for an opening statement, Mr. Burr from North
Carolina.
Mr. Burr. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter my
statement into the record, my written statement, because I
think it is pretty good, but I feel compelled, listening to my
colleagues before me, to make some remarks off the cuff.
Let me welcome Mr. Samaranch. I know this is voluntary
participation, and I appreciate your willingness to come and to
testify in front of this committee. I also want to take this
opportunity to welcome our other witnesses, because I believe
it is extremely important that we do a thorough, fair and open
process in completion of this task before Congress.
I had the opportunity to play college football. I
understand what real competition is, what winning and losing
is. I understand what is generated from fans of schools and
fans of countries as it relates to sporting events. I also
understand the integrity that must exist for that support to
continue and for that trust to build. One only has to look at
the reports since the weekend to understand, and I commend the
IOC and its president for a number of changes, that there are
still statements that contradict each other.
It was quoted in The Washington Post by the President of
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, Mr. D'Allessandro, that
``the first thing they have accomplished is they have
acknowledged that public opinion does count. In the past, there
has been no limit on the levels of arrogance. We are somewhat
more confident, but we will have a wait-and-see attitude with
how everything is implemented.''
In the same article, an IOC member, Mr. Nicaleu of Greece,
told Mr. Samaranch over the weekend, ``I would suggest you do
not go to Washington. You are the President of the IOC and you
are only accountable to the Olympic family.''
What a huge difference in the perspective of, one, a
financial contributor to the Olympic Games and, two, a member
of the voting committee who had an opportunity to pass real
reforms.
Mr. President, I am thankful you did not listen to that IOC
member from Greece and that you are in fact in front of us
today, because I think the correct observation is closer to the
President of John Hancock Mutual Life, that public opinion does
count, that public trust and integrity is essential to the
games, and that the Olympics are about athletes.
I agree with Mr. Samaranch's statements, as they appeared
in the world press, that this weekend's vote marked an historic
page in the long history of the IOC. Unfortunately, just
turning the page on the transgressions of the past will not
ensure that those transgressions are not repeated. You can turn
the page, Mr. Samaranch, but the next page will not make much
sense if the IOC doesn't build on the recommendations and see
that meaningful reform actually takes place.
Many IOC members have expressed concerns that the outside
world, including this subcommittee and this Congress, has no
business involving itself in IOC affairs. I must respectfully
disagree. The IOC may own the rights to the Olympic rings and
other symbols, but the Olympic Games themselves are bigger than
any one person and any one group. They belong to the people of
the world, to the athletes that devote their lives to excelling
in a sport, to the spectators who stand in awe of their
accomplishments. The Olympic family does not consist of just
the IOC and its membership, and that is something the current
IOC membership has to date failed to recognize.
The entire Olympic family deserves nothing less than the
knowledge that the games and all events surrounding the games
are conducted in a free, open and fair manner. I hope that, as
we move forward, Mr. Samaranch, that in fact we will all aspire
to a free, open and fair process.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Richard Burr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Burr, a Representative in Congress
from the State of North Carolina
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this important
hearing--the second held by this subcommittee to investigate the
Olympics site selection process. Our first, in October, left many
questions unanswered and many areas unexplored. I am hopeful that we
can address some of the remaining issues today, but I hold no illusions
that today will mark the end of this subcommittee's involvement in this
issue. Nor should it. The American people--who have long been champions
of the Olympic movement and the staunchest supporters of its values and
principles--as well as people around the world deserve to know if those
charged with promoting, developing, and staging the Olympic Games are
doing so not in their own self-interest but in the interest of the
Games and all they stand for.
I am pleased to see that the subcommittee has invited such
distinguished witnesses to testify before us today, particularly the
president of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio
Samaranch. I was pleased to see the IOC approved all of the IOC 2000
Commission's recommendations this past weekend, due in no small part to
the efforts of Mr. Samaranch. However, a number of serious questions
remain that I hope Mr. Samaranch and our other witnesses can address.
Of utmost importance to me is adequate oversight and control of the
site selection and bid process. Without serious changes in the way the
process is managed, none of the reforms adopted by the IOC will have
any meaning. The faults in the bid process go to the heart of the
difficulties currently facing the Olympic Movement, and those faults
must be repaired. We must fully understand the relationship between bid
cities, national Olympic committees, and the IOC as well as the
responsibilities of each.
I agree with Mr. Samaranch's statements, as they appeared in the
world press, that this weekend's votes mark a historic page in the long
history of the IOC. Unfortunately, just turning the page on the
transgressions of the past will not ensure that those transgressions
are not repeated. You can turn the page, Mr. Samaranch, but the next
page will not make much sense if the IOC doesn't build on the
recommendations and see that meaningful reform actually takes place.
Many IOC members have expressed concerns that the outside world,
including this subcommittee and this Congress, has no business
involving itself in the IOC's affairs. I must respectfully disagree.
The IOC may own the rights to the Olympic rings and other symbols, but
the Olympic Games themselves are bigger than any one person or any one
group. They belong to the people of the world, from the athletes that
devote their lives to excelling in a sport to the spectators who stand
in awe of their accomplishments. The Olympic Family does not consist of
just the IOC and its membership, and that is something the current IOC
membership has, to date, failed to recognize. The entire Olympic Family
deserves nothing less than the knowledge that the Games, and all events
surrounding the Games are conducted in a free, open, and fair manner.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Burr.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for holding this important hearing, and I want to
welcome all of our distinguished guests that are going to be
appearing before us today.
Fifteen years ago, my hometown of Los Angeles hosted the
23rd Summer Olympics. It was a proud moment both for the people
of Los Angeles and for the entire country. The success of the
1984 Olympics was an accomplishment that we are still proud of
today in Los Angeles.
Unfortunately, the reputation of the Olympics in 1999 is
very different from what it was in 1984. That is why I believe
that the United States and, in particular, the U.S. Congress
has an obligation to try to clean up the Olympics.
In April, I introduced legislation to prohibit American
corporations, including the television networks, from providing
any financial support to the IOC until it instituted the
reforms proposed by Senator Mitchell's commission. It was a
tough bill, a controversial one, but a necessary piece of
legislation. It was also a bill with bipartisan support from
members with very different political views.
Now that the reforms have been adopted, some people believe
that the U.S. Congress should step aside. I disagree. Congress
can and should play a role in ensuring that these reforms are
actually implemented and that they are effective. If this does
not happen, Congress should move forward with sanctions like
those envisioned in my bill. It is easy when you are under a
lot of pressure to take some actions that appear to be doing
the right thing, and then, when the world is not paying
attention, to ignore those very rules.
In my opinion, there are several important issues that
still need to be addressed.
First, are these reforms enough? Does more need to be done
to ensure that the problems that occurred in Salt Lake City and
Atlanta do not occur again? I am especially interested in
hearing Senator Mitchell's views on this topic.
Second, how will these reforms be enforced? For a long time
the IOC has had rules against gift giving, rules which were
regularly disregarded. I have great faith in Senator Baker and
know that he will do his utmost to enforce the new rules
adopted this past weekend. But I also know that the culture of
gift giving and perks that existed for years cannot be
eliminated overnight, and it certainly cannot be eliminated by
one person, even if that person is Howard Baker, unless he has
the complete support of the rest of the IOC.
Finally, merely changing a few rules does not mean we are
going to solve the problem. After all, it is easy to rewrite
rules. It is much harder to change attitudes and behaviors,
particularly when they are so ingrained in the fabric of an
organization. That is the real challenge facing the IOC in the
coming months. Without a genuine change in attitude, no amount
of enforcement will be enough.
When I read the press coverage of this weekend's meeting, I
was struck by the reaction of several IOC members to the reform
package. An Italian IOC member said, ``Our vote was mostly a
vote of confidence for Samaranch. Many, many people were
against some of the proposals. But we decided almost
unanimously that we would support the President.'' To be honest
with you, that does not sound like someone who believes in the
importance of reform.
Even more incredible is a comment from a Pakistani member,
who said that bid cities used ``Satanic''--that is his word,
``Satanic''--methods to prey upon IOC members. This IOC member
also said that the IOC was ``unnecessarily suffering from a
guilt complex.'' Clearly, this is another IOC member who does
not get it.
Reading these comments does not inspire a great deal of
confidence in me that the IOC problems will be solved
overnight. I hope that the witnesses today will give us some
reason to feel confident.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, want to welcome the distinguished President of the
International Olympic Committee to this subcommittee hearing. I
have great admiration for many of the innovations that you have
instigated during your tenure as president since 1980. I think
it is only fair that you get the credit for the good things,
but I think it is also fair that you get the accountability for
the bad things.
I have a written statement, Mr. Chairman, I am going to put
in the record. And, as Mr. Burr, I am just going to kind of
outline what my questions will be.
I think the first question I am going to ask when it is my
appropriate turn is why, of the reforms that have been
implemented, apparently none of them apply to the office of the
presidency? As I understand it, even if these reforms are fully
implemented and enforced, you would be able to travel at host
city expense; you would be able, or whoever the president
happens to be, would be able to receive gifts; all the things
that have caused consternation as they have been reported in
the United States. If you or whoever becomes president were to
continue those activities, it would be acceptable. I just
cannot believe that that would meet with much support if the
rank and file of the Olympic movement knew that.
Second thing I am going to ask is why it is necessary for
the Olympic committee to maintain a luxury suite at the Palace
Hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland, for your personal use, your
private use, apparently your exclusive use on a year-round
basis. We have not been able to determine exactly how much that
costs, but the estimates range from $100,000 to $300,000 a
year. I do not see how that furthers the Olympic movement
myself, but perhaps you can explain that to us.
We would also like to know how it furthers the Olympic
movement that apparently you feel it is appropriate for your
family, specifically your wife, to travel at potential host
city expense all over the globe, and in the case of the Atlanta
host city at a cost of at least $13,000. And that is exclusive
of hotel rooms, meals, and shopping excursions. And according
to documents that the committee has, we are told that she did
not want to be bothered with looking at the venue, that she
really liked the high society and to go shopping.
I have a wife, too. She likes high society, she likes to go
shopping, but when she goes shopping, I pay for it. The
potential host city does not pay for it or some committee.
So those are some of the questions that I am going to be
asking.
Quite frankly, I think it is well-known that I have asked
that you resign. I would like for you to announce today that
you will resign. I think you have done many good things, but I
do not think that the good things you have done overwhelm the
bad practices that have developed, and I think it is time for
some new blood and some new leadership, and this would be a
great venue for you to be a true statesman of sport and
announce that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Today's hearing is the second time we, as a Subcommittee, have come
together to discuss the process in which potential sites for Olympic
Games are considered, reviewed and chosen by the International Olympic
Committee, IOC. As we all know, we last met here on October 14th of
this year in response to the widespread media reports of corruption and
abuse of power involved in this process. Our last hearing attempted to
highlight some of the problems involved in this process and, hopefully,
bring about substantial and meaningful reform within the IOC. Today's
hearing is to review what efforts have been taken. It should come as no
surprise to anyone present today that I feel that the reform efforts
taken thus far by the IOC are not sufficient and the environment for
potential unethical conduct is still quite evident. In fact, it has
become obvious to me that true reform of the Olympic site selection
process will be difficult to enforce until a change in leadership of
the IOC occurs so that someone with a fresh outlook and impartial voice
can attempt to address these concerns.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, specifically
current president of the IOC, Juan Antonio Samaranch. It is with his
actions that I personally am most concerned. Mr. Samaranch has been
quite vocal recently as to the ``sweeping'' reforms he has spearheaded
in the IOC. However, these recent actions and sound clips by Mr.
Samaranch may be misleading. During his 19 years in office, many
questionable actions have occurred by he and other members of IOC
throughout the site selection process. It is alleged that for many
years, members were accepting lavish gifts and trips from potential
site cities, both solicited and unsolicited. In most cases, these items
were viewed by potential cities as a must in order to secure votes by
IOC members. It is the opinion of some that President Samaranch knew
this was occurring and did nothing to stop it because he, too, may have
been benefitting from and soliciting such actions.
The IOC is a non profit organization. Why does the IOC have
overhead costs 3 to 4 times higher than other non-profit organizations?
Why do proposed reforms of the IOC selection process not appear to
apply to President Samaranch himself? Why should he be provided a hotel
suite, year-round, in Switzerland with the hefty cost of over $100,000
per year paid for by funds from the IOC? In what official capacity did
his wife and family friend serve when they accepted an all expenses
paid trip to Atlanta, Charleston and Orlando? How does his influence
over the Executive Committee and other IOC members affect any attempts
of impartial investigating by the Ethics Commission? Are there any
limitations as to the number of times IOC policy can be altered, such
as the maximum age of IOC serving members for example, to personally
benefit his standing in the organization?
These are just a few of many questions that raise serious concerns
with me as to the ability of Mr. Samaranch to effectively serve as
President of the IOC. I feel that it would be beneficial that Mr.
Samaranch resign so that any reform efforts established by the IOC will
be able to be independent in nature, clear in direction and fresh in
its outlook. Until a change in leadership exists, I am concerned that
it will be very difficult to ensure that any reform proposals will be
taken seriously and feel that is safe to say that the temptation for
members to continue such unethical practices may continue to occur
throughout the IOC.
I appreciate Chairman Upton holding this follow-up hearing and am
looking forward to hearing the testimony of all the witnesses gathered
here today.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Barton.
Mr. Bryant, from Tennessee.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate, as
everyone here on this panel does today, you holding a follow-up
hearing on this important issue. I especially want to thank all
of our distinguished witnesses, not only this panel but the
panels to come.
I am confident today that the panels we will hear from will
provide the members of this subcommittee as well as the
supporters of the Olympic Games around the world a new
perspective on the culture of the IOC and its dedication to
achieving much needed reform. I was pleased to see in the news
over the weekend that the IOC had taken several important steps
toward restoring the public's faith in the sanctity of the
games.
As a result of the 2-day meeting of all the IOC members,
the committee expelled six members, and four others resigned
after they were accused of breaking rules on accepting gifts
from representatives of the Salt Lake City team during its
successful bid for the 2002 Winter Games.
Among the reforms that I have made reference to, that you
have agreed to over this weekend, was a proposal to make
members face reelection every 8 years, thus eliminating the
unchecked power and influence associated with lifetime
appointments.
The session also voted to allow future presidents to be
elected for an 8-year term, with a right to stand for a further
4 years, and agreed to add 15 active athletes to the committee.
I hope that these athletes testifying today will provide us
with their comments on the benefits of this last change in
particular.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with Dr. Kissinger that the IOC, had
they not taken these steps, would have faced a crisis of public
confidence sooner or later. However, I also concur with former
President Reagan's belief that we should trust but verify.
At our last hearing we were informed that rules were
already in place limiting the ability of IOC members to receive
gifts. For example, under the IOC rules, gifts of a value
exceeding $200 are not permitted and that candidate cities
shall not organize individual receptions for IOC members. Yet
King and Spalding, the Atlanta law firm that is involved in
this, has clearly documented gifts such as cameras, a shotgun
and a bowl with values ranging from $250 to $1,000. My question
would be, what assurances do we now have that these new rules
will actually be carried out and enforced?
I will also appreciate hearing from the distinguished IOC
president what assurances he can give the members of this
subcommittee that our United States cities will not be denied
future site consideration as retribution for its role in
calling for reform. These are important questions, and it is
vital we do not leave here today congratulating the IOC for
supporting reform without some indication that these changes
are put into practice and not simply promised.
Again, I appreciate your presence here to testify. I
appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your holding this hearing, and I look
forward to listening to today's testimony, and I would yield
back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ed Bryant follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ed Bryant, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Tennessee
Thank you Mr. Chairman:
I appreciate your holding a follow-up hearing on this important
issue, and I especially want to welcome all of our distinguished
witnesses. I am confident that the panels we will hear from today will
provide the members of this subcommittee, as well as supporters of the
Olympic games around the world, a new perspective on the culture of the
International Olympic Committee and its dedication to achieving much
needed reform.
I was pleased to see in the news over the weekend that the IOC has
taken several important steps toward restoring the public's faith in
the sanctity of the games. As a result of the two-day meeting of all
IOC members, the Committee expelled six members and four others
resigned after they were accused of breaking rules on accepting gifts
from representatives of Salt Lake City during its successful bid for
the 2002 Winter Games.
Among the reforms agreed was a proposal to make members face re-
election every eight years, thus eliminating the unchecked power and
influence associated with lifetime appointments. The session also voted
to allow future presidents to be elected for an eight-year term with
the right to stand for a further four years and agreed to add 15 active
athletes to the committee. I hope the athletes testifying here today
will provide us with their comments on the benefits of this last
change.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with Dr. Kissinger that had the IOC not taken
these steps, they would have faced a crisis of public confidence sooner
or later. However, I also concur with former President Reagan's belief
that we should trust but verify.
At our last hearing we were informed that rules were already in
place limiting the ability of IOC members to receive gifts. For
example, under IOC rules ``Gifts of a value exceeding $200 are not
permitted'' and the candidate cities ``shall not organize individual
receptions for IOC members,'' yet King and Spalding clearly documented
gifts such as cameras, a shotgun, and a bowl with values ranging from
$250 to $1000. What assurances do we have that the new rules will
actually be carried out and enforced? I would also appreciate hearing
from IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch what assurances he can give
the members of this subcommittee that US cities will not be denied
future site consideration as retribution for its role in calling for
reform. These are important questions, and it is vital that we do not
leave here today congratulating the IOC for supporting reform without
some indication that these changes are put into practice and not simply
promised.
Again, I appreciate your holding this hearing Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to listening to today's testimony and yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Bryant.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
This is the second hearing that the Committee has held on the
International Olympic Committee's (``IOC'') site selection process. We
learned at the first hearing that the various parts of the scandal were
evident for more than 10 years before the shameful events involving
Salt Lake City exploded across the world stage. Consequently, at this
hearing we will be reviewing what reforms and more importantly what
enforcement will be necessary to ensure that the abuses and excesses
that developed within the site selection process will not occur again.
The Olympics represent the highest of ideals. Unfortunately, the
fundamental principles of the Olympic Movement have been tarnished by
these scandals. Therefore, it is critical that the reforms we will
learn about today are aggressively implemented and enforced. If it were
not for the effort and hard work of both this Committee and the
Americans sitting in this room today, the IOC reform effort would not
be a reality. Senator Mitchell investigated the Salt Lake City scandal
and produced a comprehensive report recommending extensive reforms for
both the USOC and the IOC. We are very pleased to have Senator Mitchell
with us today to give his assessment of the reforms that have just been
passed by the IOC last weekend. Senator Baker is a member of the IOC
Ethics Commission. We are very lucky to have someone with his
experience and integrity working to ensure that a meaningful framework
is developed and maintained to implement the ethical standards that the
Ethics Commission recently has adopted. Finally, Dr. Kissinger
testified at our first hearing regarding his work on the IOC 2000
Commission. He is returning today to give the Committee a status report
of the reform process and an analysis of those reforms just passed. We
welcome all of you and certainly thank you for your work.
This past weekend the IOC passed a number of reforms that are
intended to restore the ideals of the Olympic Movement. I am hopeful
that the necessary changes can be realized. But this will only be
achieved with true commitment to reform. I thank the Chairman for
holding this hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Klink, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this hearing.
This weekend the IOC made partial payment on a promise it made
months ago. In the extraordinary session held on December 11th and
12th, the IOC passed a series of reforms. I applaud them for making
that first step. But while there are those that say the IOC is now
``reformed,'' I believe a more accurate description is that the IOC has
begun a ``Process'' of ``reforming.'' The IOC's reform is not complete
because certain areas still need considerable work.
Mr. Chairman, to understand why last weekend's reforms are but a
beginning and not an end, one must first understand the mindset from
which this organization must reform. For more than a decade, warnings
had been issued suggesting serious problems existed within the IOC. In
fact, as far back as the mid 1980's, the press reported on a culture of
excessive gift giving in connection with the efforts made by bidding
cities to win the right to host the games. For example in 1986, Sports
Illustrated made the following observation:
``The tactics of Olympic bidders vary somewhat, but they are
never very subtle. The most popular strategy is simply to
shower everyone on the IOC with gifts, trips and parties . . .
No city did better in this area than Paris. Whenever an IOC
member felt the need to vacation in Paris for a while, he was
instantly sent airline tickets and given a free room in the
elegant Hotel de Crillon, as well as reserved tables at Maxim's
or Tour D'Argent with the bill paid in advance. Members
traveled everywhere in limousines, sometimes with a police
escort, and they were given perfume, raincoats, jogging suits
and discounts at some of Paris's finest shops.''
Perhaps the IOC could have argued that evidence such as this was
too vague; that it was only what the press was saying, or that nobody
directly affiliated with the games had made such allegations. But a
1991 report given to the IOC by the Toronto Ontario Olympic Council
(whose bid to host the Olympics was unsuccessful) provided additional
and seemingly credible evidence that should have raised red flags. To
quote from that report:
``No single issue is so open to abuse as gifts and other
material inducements to individual IOC members. Perhaps no
single issue has the power to undermine the integrity of the
IOC as this particular one. Unfortunately, many IOC members
expect to receive gifts above and beyond what anyone would
judge to be courteous and gracious. Cash, jewelry or other
items easily converted to cash, were hinted at on several
occasions. We were surprised to discover on more than one
shopping trip that the bid city host was expected to pay for
all the purchases made by not only the member, but the guest as
well.
In yet another section of the Toronto Ontario Olympic Council
report, this time involving the issue of IOC member travel, other
abuses were illustrated and presented to the IOC:
``The most blatant abuses were the misappropriation of travel
expenses and airline tickets or passes advanced by [Toronto] to
IOC Members. Our personal observations suggest that at least 18
Members and their companions materially benefitted [sic] from
one or other of the following devices:
--obtaining airline tickets from local sources at sometimes
discounted prices and demanding hard currency in return for
the unused first class passes received from [Toronto];
--obtaining combination airline tickets to several bid Cities on a
single trip and demanding cash equal to return first class
tickets between their countries and each bid City;
--demanding and receiving full fare tickets, failing to arrive, and
cashing in those tickets;
--coupling a trip paid by a bid City with a trip to a Session paid
by the IOC and converting the City's passes to cash.
It is our estimate that all of the forgoing abuses associated
with IOC Member visits may have cost [Toronto] some $700,000 to
$800,000.''
Those were serious allegations, Mr. Chairman, made almost 10 years
ago by a seemingly credible source. But as with other evidence, it
appears that much of this information was either outright ignored, or
management was incapable of using it to determine if key reforms were
needed.
Equally troubling, this attitude appears to have persisted even
into this year. After this Subcommittee began to expose the
questionable behavior by some IOC officials connected with Atlanta's
bid to host the games, the IOC again became defensive. Rather than
acknowledging some immediate responsibility for the problems that were
increasingly becoming evident with Atlanta's bid, an IOC spokesperson
said the following:
``Everything that we have read shows that Atlanta actually
pushed those favors and gifts onto the IOC members under the
pretext of friendship . . . The members weren't used to this
systematic approach to lobbying.''
Incredibly, this statement was made even after the revelations of
Salt Lake City suggested that such practices had been widespread for
years.
It is important to remind ourselves of this troubling fact-pattern,
because if the IOC is serious about reform, it must move beyond a hear
no evil see no evil. speak no evil style of governance. But so far, Mr.
Chairman, I see no clear evidence that the IOC has implemented a system
capable of doing this.
To be fair, the IOC has created an ethics commission that is
supposed to assume this role. But details remain vague on how this
commission will function and what role it will play in preventing
future corruption. At the very least, we should know the following:
(1) What specific authorities will this commission have to investigate
potential wrongdoing? Can it compel testimony from all IOC
officials, for example? What happens if such parties refuse to
testify, or they provide misleading or wrongful testimony?
(2) What is the commission's jurisdiction regarding activities
connected with IOC business, and what is the time period during
which this commission can investigate potential wrongdoing?
Press stories have suggested it can only investigate events
occurring after January 1, 2000. Other reports say the
commission can look at events before this date. Which is it?
(3) How will allegations be reported to the commission for possible
investigation? For example, will the commission be allowed to
initiate investigations based on information reported in the
press? Will the commission be allowed to initiate
investigations from anonymous sources? Will it have a hotline?
If so, who will staff it, and in what languages will it
operate?
(4) Will the ethics commission develop a compliance manual with
unambiguous and detailed rules all IOC officials must follow?
Will each IOC official receive training on both the purpose and
the definition of such rules?
(5) Finally, what resources will the ethics commission have to carry
out its mandate? Will it have large enough staff to do the
daily work? So far, there are a number of prominent figures
associated with the commission that meet from time to time--all
very bright. But I don't envision Senator Baker or Judge Keba
Mbaye answering a hotline or personally conducting an inquiry.
Mr. Chairman, it is critical to recognize that none of the reforms
voted on last weekend were designed to detect and sanction the sorts of
ethical lapses that have so undermined the credibility of the IOC. That
effort remains the task of the ethics program. But because details have
yet to be defined, this important reform remains incomplete. Simply
put, as long as this commission remains a ``work in progress,'' the IOC
should not be considered ``reformed.''
Mr. Chairman, an ugly storm has engulfed the IOC over the past
year. Yet through the efforts of many, the IOC has made progress toward
meaningful reform. Nevertheless, significant work remains. And while I
want to acknowledge the efforts of the many who have contributed to
this effort--in particular the efforts of three distinguished
gentleman, Senator Mitchell, Senator Baker, and Dr. Kissinger--we
should not let our guard down until this job is complete. As an old but
useful saying goes, ``You may trust in God, but always tie your
camel.''
I welcome the witnesses before us today and I greatly look forward
to their testimony on the progress the IOC is making toward reform. But
because there remains considerable work ahead, and because some of the
most important reforms remain incomplete, I'll continue to keep my
camel tethered.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Upton. I have a few housekeeping things that I need to
do before we get started with testimony from Mr. Samaranch.
First of all, I need to ask unanimous consent that in the
first round we will not have a 5-minute question period but 10.
So is there any objection to a 10-minute question period?
Hearing none, that will be the case.
Second, Mr. Samaranch, you may be aware that this
subcommittee is in fact an investigative subcommittee and, as
such, we have always had the practice of taking testimony under
oath. Do you have any objection to testifying under oath?
Mr. Samaranch. No.
Mr. Upton. Also, under the Rules of the House and the
committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel. Do you
desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today?
Mr. Samaranch. Yes, I am.
Mr. Upton. If you and your counsel then would rise and
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Upton. Thank you. You are now under oath. We recognize
you.
I want to make sure that you are aware that your entire
statement will be made part of the record, and we now would
like to listen to your opening statement. You may begin. Thank
you.
TESTIMONY OF JUAN ANTONIO SAMARANCH, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANCOIS CARRARD, DIRECTOR
GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, COUNSEL TO MR.
SAMARANCH
Mr. Samaranch. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
thank you for giving the International Olympic Committee and
its president an opportunity to address our crisis and our
subsequent efforts. I would like to summarize what happened,
what we did, where we are now, and, finally, where we intend to
go.
What happened? A little more than 1 year ago the
International Olympic Committee had for the first time evidence
of misconduct by some of its members. Yes, there had been many,
many rumors. Yes, there were many allegations in the media. But
every time we tried to get proof, nothing that could have
initiated an inquiry was ever produced.
The simple fact is that, as the financial stakes become
higher and higher, leading the cities bidding to hold the games
become more and more aggressive, and also some of our members--
and I would like to say all volunteers and independent--become
vulnerable and misbehaved. This happened and was revealed in
the occasion of the bid of Salt Lake City.
What did we do? We immediately ordered a full-scale
investigation run by an ad hoc commission chaired by our first
vice-president, Mr. Dick Pound, who is here with me. The ad hoc
commission immediately set to work in full coordination with
Salt Lake City.
Also, all of the cities, bidding cities for many games,
more than 30, we asked them for a report. Within 3 months,
regarding Salt Lake City, without any coercive authority, the
ad hoc commission ended its work, which led to the departure of
10 IOC members--6 were expelled and 4 resigned, 1 had passed
away--plus severe sanctions for other members. But we did not
stop here, as we were committed to turning this crisis, a very
important crisis, into a positive side.
Extraordinary session in March, 1999. This session was the
first session of the International Olympic Committee after the
crisis. And at the beginning of this very important session,
because in the session they had to study the possibility to
expel some members, I thought myself, as president of the
International Olympic Committee, that I had a great
responsibility. For this reason, at the very beginning of the
session, I asked all the members for a vote of confidence.
As you know, I was elected by the members of the
International Olympic Committee in 1980 in Moscow. My first
responsibility is to the IOC members. I left the hall, the
meeting room. The vice president took the Chair. He organized a
secret ballot regarding if the members held confidence in me or
not. The result was stunning even for me: Eighty-six members
voted in favor, with 2 against and 1 abstaining.
This vote--the result of this vote was really very
important for me. Because I realized that the members of the
International Olympic Committee were not only confirming me as
president of the International Olympic Committee, they were
telling me directly, ``You are the man to run this crisis. You
have the experience, you have our support, and you, with all
the people that run with you, with the support of the IOC, the
staff of the International Olympic Committee, we think you can
solve this crisis before the end of this year.''
But we did many other things in this session in March. We
published publicly the accounts audited by PriceWaterhouse
Coopers, and today you can see this account in our website, the
website of the International Olympic Committee. Because we
thought that the main problem of the IOC regarding bidding
cities was the visit of the members and we had an election for
the Winter Games in 2006, we canceled the visits. And the
system, for me, worked very well. And in this session in March
in Seoul, Torino, Italy, was elected as the city who will have
the honor and also the responsibility to organize the games in
2006.
And we established a new Ethics Commission consisting of a
majority of independent external personalities like Senator
Baker, who is with us today. But we established also the IOC
2000 Reform Commission that was comprised by 50 percent of
members outside the IOC and 50 percent of members of the
International Olympic Committee. As you know, there were around
80 members.
Among the members outside the IOC, there were many
important personalities in the world like Dr. Kissinger, Mr.
Ebersol, Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, Mr. Peter Ueberroth, Paul
Allaire, Mr. Agnelli, Mr. Stoltenberg, a very important man, a
former foreign minister of Norway.
Also, we studied carefully the Mitchell report. And I flew
to London, and I met with Senator Mitchell and also Mr.
Duberstein. That meeting for us was very positive, very
positive. And I would like to say also that the report of
Senator Mitchell was a guide to us for the future reforms. I
would like, before you, to thank Senator Mitchell and also Mr.
Duberstein.
The second important step was done in Seoul, the second
session of the IOC this year. A code of ethics was approved.
And for the first time in the long history of the International
Olympic Committee, we opened the session to the media through a
television circuit. And I think the media now they can follow
all the details of our meetings.
Also, during the summer, there were many meetings of the
IOC 2000 Commission's Working Groups until late October, when
this IOC 2000 Commission presented the 50 recommendations.
During this time, also, I spoke with many members of the
International Olympic Committee, because the most important of
this stage was that many members had to give up many of their
powers, many of the advantages they had as members of the
International Olympic Committee. And I think during these
meetings with the IOC members, we convinced them it was time
for change.
Finally, the third session of the International Olympic
Committee this year, normally we have only one, was last
weekend, 11 and 12 December, in Lausanne, where we have the
headquarters of the International Olympic Committee.
What we will do. We approved many things, and many of these
things already are implemented. The new nomination of the
International Olympic Committee, to be a member, will be
totally different. Sports organizations, like international
federations, National Olympic Committees as well as athletes
and other persons have the right to present candidates. New
nominations will be screened by this screening committee
composed of 3 members of the IOC, 4 members outside the IOC,
and 1 athlete.
In this first step of the nomination committee, the
proposals will go to the executive board of the International
Olympic Committee and finally to the session, where they will
vote by a secret ballot the approval of the admission of new
members.
Also, the International Olympic Committee will include in
physical position 15 representatives from international
federations, 15 from national Olympic committees, and 15
athletes chosen by their peers, active athletes. These
elections have been organized in Atlanta and also in Nagano.
These elections have been organized with great success. In
Atlanta, 53 percent of the members, of the athletes, they
voted. That means around 7,000. And the participation of the
athletes in Nagano was really much more important, because 60
percent voted. In Atlanta, they elected seven athletes
representing the Summer Games, and in Nagano three athletes
representing the Winter Games.
Also, during this session in Lausanne last weekend, every
member, new member or old member, must be reelected every 8
years. For the new members, we lower the age limit to 70 years.
This limit vote will have in the future 15 members instead of
11, and they will reflect the whole membership of the session.
That means that when we vote we must have representatives of
international federations, of National Olympic Committees, from
athletes, and also minimum, minimum, one woman.
The term of president has been changed. To now, in 105
years of history, we have had only seven presidents of the
International Olympic Committee. Our founder, Baron de
Coubertin, served for 29 years as president. Mr. Avery
Brundage, from your country, served 20 years, and now I am in
my 19th year as president. Now, for the next president, will be
a term of 8 years, plus 4 if he is reelected.
Also, something that was I was looking for a long, long
time, we changed the system of election of host cities. There
will not be more visits of International Olympic Committee
members to the cities. I think, really, that is not necessary.
But, also, there will not be visits from the bid cities to the
IOC members. I think avoiding these visits also we avoid a real
danger.
There are other reforms, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to
emphasize the most important. I would like also to say that
many of these changes are now, today, in the Olympic Charter--
now, today, in the Olympic Charter.
I am going to where we are now. In 1 year, I think we
worked a lot. Normally, we have one session; we had three
sessions. Normally, we have four executive board meetings; we
had eight, and many other meetings. I think we cleaned the
house, and a fundamental reform package has been adopted.
Much more for me is much important, because I know you are
very interested in the athletes, we have already incorporated,
elected, 10 active athletes as elected by their peers. Seven
that were in Lausanne were introduced to the session. They sat
among the members of the International Olympic Committee. In
the last part of our session, they had the right to speak, they
had the right to vote. That is the first time that active
athletes have been members of the International Olympic
Committee. One of these athletes is coming from the United
States.
But besides these active athletes, I would like to say that
in the International Olympic Committee we have 29 members, 29
members, that took part in the Olympic Games. That means that
we have today 39 members of the International Olympic Committee
that took part in the Olympic Games, and 26 of these members
gained a medal during the Olympic Games. That means, and some
of you mentioned the aristocracy in the International Olympic
Committee, today the aristocracy in the International Olympic
Committee are the athletes.
We also are very pleased that the International Olympic
Committee was touched, we suffered a lot, but the Olympic
Games, they are not touched. The preparation of the Sydney
games are going very well.
Some of you mentioned the whole scandal with the tickets. I
will say, on a positive side of the scandal, that that means
that 1 year before the games the Australians are very much
interested to buy tickets to attend this very important event
at the Olympic Games. Salt Lake City also suffered from this
crisis.
Now we have a new president of the organizing committee,
Mr. Romney, very good relations with International Olympic
Committee, and he is doing really, I would like to say, a
wonderful job. It was not easy for him. But we can assure you
that today the games in Salt Lake City, they are going the
right way.
What do we intend to do from now on? As I said before, most
of the critical reforms are already implemented and written
into our Olympic Charter. The inclusion of athletes is done.
The ban on visits of the bidding cities also. The 8 years fixed
term for members and the lowering age limit, the limit term for
the President's mandate and the opening of the session to the
media all have been done.
For the other reforms of the--for example, the composition
of the executive board, they met 1 day after the session, last
Monday in Lausanne, the executive board, and we began to work.
And we think that all of the other measures will be implemented
before or during the games in Sidney next year in September.
Our goal is to make sure that the world gets with the new
millennium a totally renovated IOC, younger, modern,
transparent, accountable, dynamic, worthy of the fundamental
values of Olympism. That is our goal. And my personal hope is
to be able to deliver to my successor, in 2001, an
International Olympic Committee with a fully restored prestige
and credibility, not only for the best of the Olympic Movement,
but also for the youth of the world. And for the athletes, we
have the responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I can assure you
that we will deliver what we promise. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Juan Antonio Samaranch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Juan Antonio Samaranch, President, International
Olympic Committee
Mr. Chairman, on January 24, I promised the IOC would institute
fundamental reforms. I can now say the IOC has kept its word.
Once fully implemented, the reforms will result in a fundamentally
renovated IOC--one that is more transparent, more accountable, and more
responsive. It will be an institution adapted to contemporary society
featuring a lower age limit, specific terms of service, 15 active
athletes elected by their peers as members, more sports leaders
nominated by their national or international organizations, and new
processes for electing IOC members and Olympic host cities. We have
elected 10 active athletes to our membership and banned visits to bid
cities.
It is because these changes promise a better future for the Olympic
Movement that I believe the crisis will go down in history as a
positive force for the International Olympic Committee.
the international olympic committee
The IOC was established in Paris in 1894 to revive the spirit and
competition of the Olympic Games of ancient Greece. Since then, the IOC
has consistently coordinated and supervised the celebration of the
modern Olympic Games and the growth of the Olympic Movement. In the
most simple terms, the Olympic Movement is made up of those people who
agree to uphold the Olympic Charter. Although the Movement consists of
many partners, most notably the Olympic athletes, the four leading
constituencies of the Olympic Movement are the international sports
federations (IFs) that manage sport on a global level, the 200 national
Olympic committees (NOCs) that coordinate the Olympic Movement within
their own countries, the IOC, and the athletes.
The IOC is organized as an association having legal personality
under Swiss law and is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland. It is
privately funded and receives no public monies. Its activities and
relationships are governed by the terms of the Olympic Charter, and it
has a permanent staff of around 100.
The IOC's membership includes 113 members from more than 80
different countries, with different backgrounds, cultures, races, and
religions. Each member serves as a fully independent trustee of the
Olympic Movement. This independence is a hallmark of the IOC and has
allowed the Olympic Movement to survive political pressure inconsistent
with the Olympic values. While all members are different, their common
bond is their love of sport. One out of three is an Olympian, as are
six of the eleven Executive Board members, with four of them being
Olympic medalists. This love of sport drives them to work as unpaid
volunteers for the development of sport around the world.
role of the ioc president
Presiding over an organization of 113 unpaid, independent
volunteers, the IOC President serves principally as a coordinator and
motivator for the growth of the Olympic Movement and the preservation
of the Olympic Games.
As President of the IOC, I too am an unpaid volunteer; however,
because I work nearly full-time as IOC President, the IOC covers the
cost of my expenses. I frequently travel to varying sports competitions
and related events, administrative meetings, and to cities bidding for
the Games. In many countries, because of the values the Olympic Games
represent, the IOC is regarded as an important institution, and thus,
its president is greeted with treatment comparable to a senior
government official, and sometimes even a head of state.
Questions have been raised in this Committee whether the IOC
president is subject to the Hodler guidelines and the IOC ethics codes.
Every member is equal, however, the IOC president represents and acts
on behalf of the entire organization and thus receives gifts and
hospitality on behalf of the organization. I give these gifts to the
Museum or for display at IOC headquarters. Mainly for this reason, in
all deliberations over the guidelines, the IOC president was never
considered to be subject to the limits the IOC set to check the
b