[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing 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
behavior of bidding cities toward voting members. This is not
specifically written, but it is the custom. As President, I have never
participated in votes for the host city. Likewise, this is not written,
but it is the practice.
My wife sometimes accompanies me on my travels, and sometimes
represents me. With regard to her trip to Atlanta, I had been to
Atlanta on the occasion of the opening of the bid committee's offices,
as I happened to be traveling in the U.S. at that time. Officials of
the Atlanta bid committee asked whether my wife would visit Atlanta,
expressing to me that they wanted her to see their city first hand.
Over the next several months, a number of bid committee members wrote
to my wife, asking her to come. She accepted the invitation and went,
as a representative of the IOC, as a courtesy.
My wife accepted the invitation to Atlanta in the spirit in which
it and so many others have been offered: friendship and hospitality. A
stranger to Atlanta, she put herself at the bid team's disposal,
agreeing to participate in an itinerary planned and selected by those
who knew the city best. She was honored by the enthusiasm generated by
her visit, and left Atlanta with many friends. Even Vice President Dan
Quayle wrote to her afterwards, expressing his appreciation for her
visit.
the ioc's choice of host cities
The selection of the host cities for the Olympic Games and the
Olympic Winter Games, which was the central issue in this crisis, is
one of the most important roles and responsibilities of the IOC. The
Games are, in some respects, the ``engine'' that drives the whole of
the Olympic Movement and the IOC exercises great care in the selection
of host cities.
The selection process for host cities has evolved over the years,
as we have tried both to be of assistance to candidate cities and, at
the same time, to be more confident that we have reviewed all relevant
aspects of the candidature files for purposes of making an informed
choice from amongst the various candidates.
For the Atlanta bid, on which this Committee is particularly
focused, we had six candidates: Athens, Atlanta, Belgrade, Manchester,
Melbourne and Toronto.
The report of the IOC Evaluation Commission (which did not, at the
time, give numerical rankings) nevertheless made it reasonably clear
that Atlanta had the best overall ranking amongst the six candidates.
This is not to suggest, however, that other cities would not have been
capable of staging excellent Games as well, such as Toronto, which
finished third, or Melbourne, which finished fourth. But it did
indicate that Atlanta met all the criteria that the IOC considered
important in a potential host city for the Games.
The voting, on the occasion of our Session in Tokyo in 1990,
indicated that the IOC members had quite differing views on the matter
of where the Centennial Games should be celebrated. One group, which
might be characterized as conservative or traditional, felt very
strongly that the Games should return to Athens, where they began in
1896. This group was convinced, despite the fact that Athens was
probably not ready, at the time of the election, to host such an
ambitious project, it would, because of the importance of the Olympic
Games to Greece, make whatever efforts might be necessary to host
successful Games. The other group, a significant majority of the
members, was not so convinced.
The early rounds of the voting were, therefore, essentially a
process of choosing the candidate that would eventually go up against
Athens in the final round of voting. Our system is that an absolute
majority is required for a decision and, where no such absolute
majority is obtained, the candidate with the lowest number of votes
drops off and we proceed with the next round. Atlanta emerged from this
process and, in the final round, won handily over Athens. The IOC was
quite satisfied with the process and the eventual winner. Atlanta
staged exceptional Games for the centenary of the modern Olympic
Movement and the United States should be proud of that success.
the relationships between the ioc, its members, the usoc and bidding
cities
The IOC operates, in a manner akin to governments, by
``recognition'' of international sports federations (``IFs'') that
govern particular sports and of national Olympic committees (``NOCs'')
that agree to subscribe to and be bound by the provisions of the
Olympic Charter.
The responsibilities of NOCs are, inter alia, to promote the
Olympic Movement within their respective territories and to select the
athletes from those territories who will participate in the Olympic
Games.
In addition, NOCs are responsible for the selection of possible
candidate cities from within their territories to bid to host the
Olympic Games. In most circumstances, the NOC will work closely with
its candidate city to provide advice and counsel at that stage of the
process, since most candidate cities have no real knowledge of the
Olympic Movement when they begin the quest. The NOCs are represented on
any Organizing Committee that is formed, should the candidate city from
that country be successful in winning the right to host the Games. This
is a requirement contained in the Olympic Charter, to ensure that the
Organizing Committees benefit from the knowledge of the sports
authorities in their country.
Thus, the USOC selected Atlanta from amongst several U.S. cities
that wished to be candidates. Our rule is that only one city per
country may be presented as a candidate to host any particular edition
of the Games.
The candidate cities, once they are officially selected by the NOC,
embark on a process not unlike an election campaign. Each candidate
city tries to convince as many IOC members (the voters) that it would
be the best prospective host city for the Games. This involves many
meetings over the course of the campaign, some of which are formal,
when presentations are made on the occasion of Olympic gatherings, and
some of which are informal, whether in groups or one-on-one situations.
Under the previous system, the candidate cities would try to convince
IOC members to visit them in order to show them the highlights of the
cities and the proposed locations of the many Olympic events. Those
cities not as well known to international audiences thought it was
vital for the IOC members to make a physical visit, especially when
other cities with established international reputations are involved.
The Atlanta bid organizers felt this way because at the time, it was
not so well known internationally.
The visits of those IOC members who were willing to travel to bid
cities were paid for by the bidding committees, as the IOC members are
not paid to perform their duties. The IOC had become, over time,
concerned that candidate cities not incur too much expense in their
activities, since only one would win. It is important to the IOC that
we have candidate cities for each Games in the future and we did not
want the costs to be so high that cities would be inhibited from coming
forward as candidates to host the Olympic Games.
We took many steps in this regard to reduce the costs incurred by
candidate cities in that process, many of which were vehemently opposed
by candidate cities themselves. They considered that they should be
free to promote themselves in any way they chose and that it was
paternalistic of the IOC to restrict their activities. In that regard,
many of the candidate cities considered that the process of obtaining
the Olympic Games was similar to that of attracting industries or
corporations to their cities, getting major projects to occur within
their communities, or competing for franchises, conventions and other
spectacles. They did not appreciate that normal practices, whether of
business or governments, used in such circumstances might not be in the
best interests of the Olympic Movement on a long-term basis.
But, it was nevertheless the desire of the IOC that expenditures we
considered to be of no or marginal value in the bid process be
restricted, in the best interests of the Olympic Movement and all
candidate cities, present and future. For example, we restricted the
holding of expensive receptions, the preparation of hugely expensive
bid books, staging expensive displays around the world on the occasion
of Olympic meetings and the number and duration of visits by IOC
members. We also tried to make it clear that the IOC did not want
candidate cities to spend money on expensive gifts. The rules were not
intended, beyond this overall objective of reducing the costs of
Olympic bids, to restrict the day-to-day activities of the candidate
cities per se in the promotion of their candidacies. I believe we were
successful in reducing such costs by millions of dollars for each
candidate city.
the growth of the games and the movement
Looking at the Olympic Games today, it is hard to imagine a time
when they were unprofitable in a financial sense or even when the very
future of the Olympic Movement was in question. But this was the case
not even 20 years ago. The Olympic Movement and the world in which it
lives have changed since the management of the Games became a
profitable enterprise so coveted by so many cities. While not yet
official, perhaps a dozen cities will vie for the honor of hosting the
Games of the XXIX Olympiad in 2008.
Much good has been accomplished since the financial success of the
Olympic Games of Los Angeles. Our Olympic Solidarity program, helping
turn the Games profit into benefits for the athletes, is stronger than
ever. NOCs that before could have never dreamed of being able to afford
to train their athletes along side competitors from wealthier nations
now do. IFs now have extra funds to improve the administration of world
sport. Advanced research into doping controls has been commissioned.
Educational, cultural, environmental, and women in sport programs have
been and are being advanced throughout the Movement.
The Olympic Games have grown into the most important sports event
in the world. This growth and financial success, however, did not come
without risks, nor did all of our practices keep up with the pace of
change.
The result of an old-style structure managing the details involved
with the modern Games, including the bid city visits, was not
corruption, but a situation in which some of the less responsible
members--a small minority--abused the system.
We ran a system that relied heavily on the expectation that our
members would act honorably and uphold their Olympic Oath. Without the
introduction of gains to be had, or members vulnerable to temptation,
the system was sufficient. The far majority of our members conducted
themselves in a proper manner in the past, and they still do today. As
IOC President, I always have trusted the members elected by the
Session. After all, before being elected to the IOC, many of them had
been democratically elected to the heads of international and national
sports organizations or held other respected positions within their
communities as either senior business executives or high-ranking
government officials.
As the temptations rose, our policing of the situations that placed
people at risk should have increased. We can now see our practices were
too weak to disallow those among us who could be tempted to accept--and
unfortunately even demand--excesses. Yes there were rumors, but never
proof; so with limited knowledge, we took limited action. As mentioned
earlier, we attempted to place guidelines on what bid cities could do--
initially to limit their expenditure, and later on, to limit the
chances for impropriety. We tried to control the aggressive nature the
bid process was assuming, but the Salt Lake City experience
demonstrates our actions were insufficient.
In ours, and for some other long-standing organizations, it took a
crisis to come to the realization and build the political will to
affect real change. In the face of this realization, I considered what
would be the best for the organization--for me to resign, as some
suggested, or to remain as president. My decision was to put this
question to a vote of the Session. By secret ballot, the Session voted
for me to stay in office by a vote of 86-2. I interpreted this vote to
be a mandate to make the changes necessary to fix the problems. From
the beginning, I thought good would come from these revelations. This
nearly unanimous vote steeled my and the Executive Board's
determination to find the positive outcome of the crisis. That positive
outcome today is a renewed organization.
reform
Many of the problems that directly caused the crisis could have
been taken care of by rooting out the wrongdoers, refining the
procedure for electing Olympic host cities and by limiting the risk of
vulnerable members to cross the line. In fact, one of the first steps
the IOC Executive Board took in reaction to the crisis was to eliminate
both visits and gifts for the bid for the Olympic Games in 2006.
However, we realized that this was the moment to review and refresh our
policies to bring them in line with the demands of contemporary
society.
Expulsions and Sanctions
The revelations that came out of Salt Lake City demonstrated there
were IOC members among those at fault in the wrongdoing. The IOC took
responsibility for the behavior of those members and levied the
harshest of sanctions on them.
On December 1, 1998, I sent a letter to SLOC asking for more
information about the allegations that were being reported by the Salt
Lake City media. On December 11, 1998, the Executive Board created an
ad hoc commission to investigate credible evidence of wrongdoing in
relation with the bid. On January 29, 1999, I widened the investigation
by sending letters of inquiry to all NOCs that had participated in bids
going back to 1990. We incorporated these findings along with the
findings of the SLOC investigative committee into our initial
investigation.
Immediately after it became clear there were improprieties involved
with the selection of the host site for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games,
the Executive Board and I took steps toward organizing an internal
probe. The IOC was the first to act and the first to report.
As a result of our investigation, by March 17--less than three
months after credible evidence emerged--six members were expelled, four
resigned under pressure, and one had passed away before the beginning
of the investigation. Ten others were sanctioned with warnings of
varying degree of severity.
Expelling six members by a two-third majority vote of their peers
and leading four others to resign was a most painful moment for the
International Olympic Committee; yet these actions were resolutely
endorsed by the membership.
Transparency
Once we dealt with these problems, we turned our attention to key
policy and structural changes. One of the more immediate shifts of
policy was the IOC's stronger embrace of transparency.
The IOC had not grasped the desire of the public to know more about
our internal workings. To the IOC, the Olympic Games were what
mattered, and we make every effort to ensure everyone can participate
in the experience, including enforcing a free-TV-only policy for
broadcasting the Games. Now we understand the public wishes to know
more about the process which bring them the Games. We have no problem
with this, it just took time to realize the interest.
We took several significant steps. Earlier this year, the IOC
published and posted on the Internet its financial statements audited
by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Our communications department was
reorganized to provide a wealth of information to the public, most of
it available on our web site, www.olympic.org. We opened the IOC 2000
Commission plenary meetings and the IOC's annual membership meeting,
the IOC Session, to the media. And, of course, the media was able to
follow the deliberations over the reforms earlier this week as well.
Our financial transparency will be enhanced by the publishing of
additional financial reports that clearly illustrate the flow of the
sources and uses of IOC revenues. We will disclose the amounts of
revenues redistributed to the numerous Olympic organizations and
require those organizations that receive IOC funding to publish similar
reports on how they use those funds. The IOC has also recommended that
all NOCs and IFs follow the same disclosure policy.
Ethics Commission
The first key change in terms of structural reform was the creation
of the permanent and independent IOC Ethics Commission. The IOC
membership voted to create the Ethics Commission at its 108th Session
in Lausanne in March 1999 and charged it with ensuring the ethical
standards for IOC members and staff 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:
Robert Badinter, Senator, former president of the French
Constitutional Court and former French minister of justice;
Howard Baker, former Senate majority leader and White House
chief of staff;
Charmaine Crooks, a five-time Olympian from Canada and an
elected member to the IOC Athletes Commission.
Javier Perez de Cuellar, former United Nations secretary
general; and
Kurt Furgler, former President of Switzerland.
IOC members Kevan Gosper, Olympic silver medalist, former chairman
and CEO of Shell Australia, and former Melbourne city executive, and
Chiharu Igaya, silver medalist and board member of major corporations
such as the American Home Assurance Company and American International
Underwriters, also serve on the Commission.
The Commission's initial work resulted in the adoption of a code of
ethics and changes to Rule 25 of the Olympic Charter ``Standards and
Sanctions'' at the 109th Session in June 1999. The IOC Code of Ethics
will govern the actions of IOC members and staff, the NOCs, the
officials of candidate cities, and the organizing committees of the
Games (OCOGs). 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 Rule 25 of the Charter enhanced and
clarified the powers of the IOC Executive Board to sanction and suspend
members for unethical behavior.
After organizing itself and writing the Code, the Ethics Commission
decided it will hire a Special Representative who will implement,
monitor, and enforce the Code. This decision was taken following a
presentation by highly-respected experts in the field of implementing
ethics programs in a multi-national context. It is a critical area for
the success of the Ethics Commission, and the details of this
implementation program are still being worked out. The Ethics
Commission was advised by experts; in order to be most effective, these
programs must be developed with deliberate consideration.
I want to thank Senator Baker for helping the Commission focus its
efforts in this direction. His ideas will have a lasting, positive
impact on the IOC.
IOC 2000
The results of this weekend's Session provide further fundamental
changes to the IOC's structure. These come as a result of the hard work
of the IOC 2000 Commission.
The IOC 2000, the IOC's reform commission, was established by the
will of the IOC Session in March 1999 and was given 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 82 was 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 were from the United States.) IOC 2000's plenary
commission included top leaders of international sports organizations,
senior business executives, academics, sponsor and television broadcast
partner representatives, and other internationally known public
figures.
Among the members were:
the ten members of the IOC Athletes Commission, elected by
their peers during the last Summer and Winter Olympic Games;
Paul Allaire, chairman, Xerox;
Giovanni Agnelli, the honorary chairman of Fiat;
Michel Barnier, European Commissioner;
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former UN secretary general;
Dick Ebersol, chairman, NBC Sports;
Henry Kissinger, former U.S. secretary of state; and
Thomas Stoltenberg, former foreign minister of Norway.
IOC 2000's working groups met throughout the summer to develop the
list of 50 major recommendations, endorsed by the IOC 2000 plenary
commission on October 30, and adopted by the IOC membership on December
11 and 12, 1999.
The 50 reforms adopted at the 110th Session last weekend mean
fundamental change.
New Composition
The new IOC will have a new makeup of its membership that, when in
place, will be more reflective of the sports world.
The key to a good organization is having good individuals within
it, so the IOC has made improvements as to how it will choose its new
members. While some recommended that national and international sports
bodies elect representatives to sit on the IOC, we felt this system
would add problems as it tried to solve others. The biggest problem
with this suggestion is that the IOC would then be comprised of members
wed to external interests rather than the interests of the Olympic
Movement. Members would be subject to the very political and
ideological pressures from which the Movement has tried to refrain.
Under that type of system, I doubt, for example, that the Movement
would have survived the tensions of the Cold War.
The IOC has added totally new procedures to the election process.
First, all Olympic organizations are entitled to nominate people for
election to the IOC. Second, a nominations committee, consisting of
three members elected by the IOC, three by the Ethics Commission, and
one by the athletes commission, will screen the nominations and present
the qualified ones to the Executive Board. Third, the IOC Executive
Board is entrusted select candidates from this pool to present to the
IOC membership for a vote.
Eventually, the membership will be set at a maximum of 115 members.
Fifteen will be active Olympic athletes elected at the Games by their
peers; 15 will be chosen from among the NOC presidents; and, in similar
fashion, 15 will be chosen from among the Olympic IF presidents. The
other 70 members will be elected as individuals.
At the 110th Session, we elected for the first time, 10 active
athletes to the IOC. These athletes had previously been elected to the
Athletes' Commission by their peers in Atlanta and Nagano.
The age limit for incoming members is now set at 70 years. The
current members are not affected by this change, as it is proper to
maintain their rights acquired upon their election. Grandfathering
acquired rights is a time-honored tradition in the United States and is
one we chose to uphold.
All members, including current members, will serve for renewable
terms of eight-years. Members will have to face the reelection process
above to renew their terms. It is interesting to note that more than
half of the IOC's membership today has been in office eight years or
less.
The IOC's leadership also will be different in the coming years.
The term of office for the IOC President will be set at eight years
with a possible four year second term. The Executive Board will be
enlarged to 15 members to better reflect the new composition of the IOC
membership. It is my hope and expectation that the IOC will always
reserve a seat by practice for at least one active athlete.
New Bid Procedure
The IOC will now elect its host cities in a substantially different
way. The Executive Board has been given the new responsibilities and
powers to better manage this process. A new bid acceptance procedure
has been established that will review the organizational capacity of
the interested cities in order to accept them as candidates. The
obligations of the NOCs to oversee and counsel the bidding committees
in their countries will be clearly laid out and reinforced. The IOC,
the accepted candidate cities, and their NOCs will sign a contract
outlining the obligations of each party, the applicable code of
conduct, and the sanctions for breach of the terms. Member visits to
candidate cities have been eliminated, as they were rendered
unnecessary by the enhancement of the IOC Evaluation Commission. Of
course, gifts have been limited to nominal value by the Ethics Code.
Other Reforms
Along with changes to the IOC's structure and the bid process, the
Session adopted further enhancements of many other IOC policies. Mr.
Chairman, I would like to request that the record be kept open to allow
me to submit when completed the new Olympic charter that will
incorporate the changes enacted last weekend.
fundamental ioc principles
All of these reforms will improve the IOC without destroying the
special characteristics that have made the Olympic Movement a worldwide
phenomenon. The structure and the fundamental principles upon which the
IOC was founded have been essential elements in the success and growth
of the Olympic Movement, which has been a force for social good and
progress, the motivation of the youth of the world and the building of
a better society through the combination of sport, education and
culture.
I want to stress the importance of the autonomy of the Olympic
Movement, which I consider to be absolutely essential to its growth and
existence. Matters relating to the governance of sport must be left in
the hands of the sports authorities. Yet, the sports authorities
welcome the involvement of the public authorities in the development of
sport and welcome the opportunity to work in co-operation with them.
The IOC always has encouraged this co-operation and has worked for many
years to build up good working relationships with the public
authorities throughout the world.
The traditions and stages of development of sport in each country
are necessarily different. As I understand the development of sport in
the United States, the government has always supported the Olympic
Movement and has encouraged the existence of a strong and independent
USOC. This has been especially true in recent years, following the
enactment of the Amateur Sports Act in 1978, when the USOC was given
wide responsibilities and powers for the coordination and advancement
of the Olympic Movement and amateur sport within the United States. The
IOC also has supported the activities of the USOC, recognizing its
special role in your country and the importance of the United States
within the Olympic Movement. We have made special arrangements with the
USOC to reflect our understanding of the special role that it plays and
we have awarded the Olympic Games to the United States on more
occasions than for any other country. Under my presidency alone the
Olympic Games were celebrated twice in the United States. This is a
very important relationship, and I hope that it can be encouraged by
your government so that the United States can continue to play a major
role in the Olympic Movement.
ioc's appreciation
Looking back at the reform process, the IOC owes a debt of
gratitude to the members of IOC 2000--especially the external members--
who gave so much of their time to help develop the appropriate formula
for IOC reform.
The IOC always has valued the input of leading personalities who
are not affiliated with the Olympic Movement, but never have we
embraced the contributions of these external personalities to the
extent we did during the reform process. This was a positive experience
as these contributions were extremely valuable.
I also want to recognize the contributions of this Committee and
those of the Senate Commerce Committee. Our US members, Ms. DeFrantz
and Mr. Easton, have met with you and your staff during your oversight
review, and we have received beneficial input from those meetings.
Thank you for receiving them.
In addition to the views of the Congressional Committees, the IOC
gave serious consideration of the recommendations of the United States
Olympic Committee's Special Bid Oversight Commission, known as the
Mitchell Commission.
I would like to thank the Mitchell Commission, especially Senator
George Mitchell and Mr. Ken Duberstein who met with us and provided
input on certain areas of IOC reform. In some cases, IOC 2000 may have
recommended different solutions, but I believe the reforms achieve
almost all the goals of the Mitchell Commission: terms of service and
reelection; more transparency, financial disclosure, responsiveness,
and accountability; conflict of interest protection; changes to the bid
procedure; and so on.
An area still unresolved is the recommendation to apply to be
covered under the statutes of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. As an
international organization, the IOC wrote to the Organization of
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to determine how it could
be governed by the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public
Officials in International Business Transactions. The OECD recently
replied that they would study how the IOC may be able to be covered
under its conventions even though we are not an international
governmental body.
One area where the IOC has gone further that the Mitchell
Commission recommendations is in the area of visits. While the Mitchell
Commission recommended restricting them, we simply eliminated them.
Finally, I would like to thank the people without whom the reforms
would have never happened: the members of the International Olympic
Committee. Over the course of this year, the misdeeds of a few have
colored the reputation of all. The good members of the IOC have
suffered a steep personal toll. Despite this, they stayed focused on
the necessary course of action and embraced change.
conclusion
The work of this year was dedicated to regaining the trust of the
people. Our comprehensive reform effort has brought forth renewed
structures and enhanced policies, and we are working on their
implementation. I realize it will take more than new policies and new
structures to regain the trust of the people, so I will work during the
remainder of my tenure to make sure the spirit of the reform effort
becomes a living part of our culture.
While the IOC has just completed a reform process that is
unprecedented in both scope and pace for a 105-year-old, multicultural
organization, the IOC leadership will continue to work toward regaining
the public's trust and ensuring the celebration of human effort that is
the Olympic Games flourishes well into the next Millenium.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal statement. I look forward to
your questions.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much. We want those words to ring
true, that you will deliver what you promised.
This little light now is for us, and I have set it at 10
minutes. I will go first.
Mr. Samaranch, I am interested in learning how and why the
culture of excessive gift giving, favors, perks to IOC members
by bid cities became a normal practice within the bidding
process. In the words of a very famous Senator, who happens to
be sitting in the front row, I want to know what did you know
and when did you know it. When did you personally become aware
that bid cities were giving excessive gifts and inducements to
IOC members in violation of IOC rules? And in our last hearing
we learned that during the 1986 competition between Barcelona
and Paris, excessive lobbying and gift giving occurred.
Were you aware that any excessive gifts were given to IOC
members during that bidding cycle?
Mr. Samaranch. May I answer?
Mr. Upton. Yes.
Mr. Samaranch. The culture of gift giving and also some
borderline illicit initiatives on the part of members of the
IOC date back to the Los Angeles games. The Los Angeles games
were a tremendous success, not only from a sport standpoint,
but also financially. And this was an achievement by the
president of the organizing committees of the Los Angeles
games, Mr. Peter Ueberroth. I believe that the net benefit of
the Los Angeles games were in excess of $200 million.
That's how we funded two foundations. One was established
to assist Californian youth, gearing them toward sports
activities; and the second through the United States Olympic
Committee was designed to assist young athletes. After this
economic success, the cities that would bid for the upcoming
games became far more aggressive. These cities began to invite
members of IOC.
We came to realize that this was risky and we passed a few
rules. They were called the Hodler Rules. For instance, they
included the provisions such as that a member of the IOC would
not be allowed to stay in the same city for more than 3 days,
that no presents with value in excess of $200 could be received
by him. But the fact is that these regulations did not produce
anything. I realize that we have made a mistake, but it was
very difficult for us to persuade the members of the IOC that
they could not take part in such visits. And now, perhaps
thanks to this crisis, we have been able to persuade them.
As I said in my statement, we heard a great deal of rumors
and the media has also informed about abnormalities. But
whenever we become cognizant of some concrete fact such as the
Toronto report, we officially ask them to name names, members--
names of members of the IOC who did not have the proper
behavior. This is not only for Toronto, but also it applies to
other bidding cities. We can only take action if we have
concrete evidence. And the first time that we became cognizant
of concrete evidence was when I received a series of documents,
copies, from the Salt Lake City organizer; and in these copies
there were many members of IOC who were involved. That's when
we set up the ad hoc commission presided over by Mr. Pound, the
vice president. And I think he took expeditious and fair
action, as I see it. In these instances we succeeded in
gathering sufficient intelligence, and that enabled us to expel
6 members, and 4 additional members resigned.
Concerning Barcelona and Paris, I would like to address
that specifically, although I have already done so in my
statement. I think we made a mistake in failing to take action
against these visits by the IOC members. But we tried it
several times, however, and we were unsuccessful. They would
not be willing to relinquish that right, the members of the
IOC.
Mr. Upton. Let me tell you something that concerns me. I
would like to read parts of the Toronto report that I have
highlighted. This, for those in the audience, dates back to the
9th of January, 1991. On page 15, it says, ``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.''
On page 19, it goes on to say, ``Other bid cities staged
functions which clearly were outside the guidelines, yet no IOC
member suggested to us that he thought that any bid city had
been acting improperly.''
And in this report, it also talks about on page 8, ``We
would be pleased to answer any questions that you might have
about them,'' meaning this report. Some discussions that
happened this weekend--at this point I will ask unanimous
consent that a letter be inserted into the record dated
December 13, 1999. This is a letter from Bob Helmick, who
writes--and I will just include parts of this in my statement.
``I first received a copy of this report''--meaning the Toronto
report--``on January 29, 1999, following a conversation with
Chris Grosskurth of CBC News, Canada, in response to my comment
that I heard that Paul Henderson with the Toronto committee and
others had met with certain executives of the IOC in which they
claimed of the excessiveness of the bid process, certain
inappropriate actions of the IOC members, and suggestions for
the IOC to remedy the situation. I do not recall ever having
seen the report. I am able to confirm that the report had never
been furnished to me. I was a member of the executive committee
of the IOC at this time and do recall that in an IOC executive
committee meeting in 1991 a reference was made to this
meeting.''
But he concludes, ``I am not aware of any further
investigation into the allegations made in this report,'' which
was almost a decade ago. My concern is that as you talked about
Los Angeles and the beginning improprieties that were known,
began to become known in the 1980's and again in the early
1990's, that when you say you want expeditious action and
enforcement, that in fact this information has been on your
doorstep for a long time, and until now nothing was done, which
stretches our confidence in terms of what can be done with
these reforms that were announced to be in place this weekend.
[The information referred to follows:]
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
December 13, 1999
Committee on Commerce
United States House of Representatives
Attn: Jan Faiks, Counsel
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Testimony regarding bidding process for Olympic Games
You have requested a statement regarding my knowledge, if any, of
the ``Toronto Report,'' namely the document entitled ``Report to the
International Olympic Committee--9, January, 1991 by the Toronto
Ontario Olympic Council on the Candidature of The City of Toronto to
host the Games of XXVIth Olympiad.''
I first received a copy of this Report on January 29, 1999,
following a conversation with Chris Grosskurth of CBC News Canada in
response to my comment that I heard that Paul Henderson, with the
Toronto Committee and others, had met with certain executives of the
IOC in which they complained of the excessiveness of the bid process,
certain inappropriate actions of IOC members, and suggestions for the
IOC to remedy the situation. I did not recall ever having seen the
Report.
Upon receipt of the Report that day by fax, I am able to confirm
that this Report had never previously been furnished to me. For purpose
of identification, I have enclosed a copy of the Report I received from
CBC News Canada.
I was a member of the Executive Committee of the IOC at this time,
and do recall that at an IOC Executive Committee meeting in 1991 a
reference was made to this meeting. We were informed that some
unsubstantiated claims were made, but nothing was produced that could
form the basis of confirming the facts or forming the basis of an
investigation. The details of this matter should be reflected in the
IOC Executive Committee minutes and, more particularly, the verbatim
transcript that was made of all Executive Committee meetings.
I am not aware of any further investigation into the allegations
made in the Report.
If this does not fairly respond to your question, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Robert H. Helmick
Enclosure
Mr. Samaranch. I have explained this earlier on, but
concerning Toronto, I would like to reiterate my answer. This
report was the source of alarm to us. We called Mr. Henderson
to come to Lausanne and he did so. He had an interview with Mr.
Hodler, who was in charge of controlling and checking visits by
IOC members, the bidding cities. And we requested from him
names, facts. Never did he submit a single name. Had they given
us a name, we would have been able to take action.
Concerning, Mr. Chairman, the letter from Mr. Helmick, I
think it is of dubious value. Mr. Helmick was a member of the
IOC; in fact, a member of the executive board. He had problems
in the United States. He had to resign from the presidency of
the United States Olympic Committee, and also he resigned his
membership in the International Olympic Committee.
Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired. If I intend to keep
this gavel, I will come back. At this point I recognize Ms.
DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Samaranch, as you
see, the red light goes on really fast in this committee. I
would appreciate it--I have a series of questions to ask you. I
would appreciate short answers, if possible.
First of all, as you have heard from members of this panel,
we are concerned how the IOC will ultimately police itself. We
are glad the rules are on the books, but the policing will be
the issue. Now, we understand that the IOC has formed an ethics
commission which is really a compliance program, but over the
weekend there was much confusion in the press by IOC members as
to how this commission will function. So I would like to ask
you some questions about the powers of the commission.
First of all, Mr. Samaranch, will the commission be allowed
to compel testimony from all IOC officials if it believes there
is wrongdoing?
Mr. Samaranch. The ethics commission is totally
independent. I am sure Senator Baker would be in a position to
provide----
Ms. DeGette. So you, as president of the IOC, do not now
whether or not the commission will be allowed to compel
testimony by subpoena or other means from IOC officials, yes or
no?
Mr. Samaranch. To give you a short answer, yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. You do know?
Mr. Samaranch. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. And will they be allowed to compel testimony?
Mr. Samaranch. They are fully independent, and they act as
they find advisable.
Ms. DeGette. So is that a yes, that they will be able to
compel testimony, or an, I don't know whether or not since they
are independent?
Mr. Samaranch. As I say again, the ethics commission is
independent.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Samaranch, will the ethics commission be
able to compel testimony or not? If you don't know, I will ask
someone else.
Mr. Samaranch. I do know, and the answer is yes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now, do you know how they will
compel testimony from witnesses? Subpoena, other kinds of
means?
Mr. Samaranch. Generally, this consists of a letter
summoning him before the ethics commission.
Ms. DeGette. What if the witness does not want to comply
with the request of the letter? What will happen?
Mr. Samaranch. The ethics commission will then decide on
some form of sanction for this member.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Will the ethics commission decide
what that sanction will be if they don't cooperate?
Mr. Samaranch. They propose a sanction, and that proposal
is then ratified by the executive board.
Ms. DeGette. But the sanction to be proposed would be
decided by the ethics panel. Correct?
Mr. Samaranch. Precisely.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Samaranch, who exactly will be allowed to
make an allegation to the ethics commission?
Mr. Samaranch. Everyone. Sports organizations, athletes,
and also private citizens.
Ms. DeGette. How about the press?
Mr. Samaranch. Also.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Samaranch, can the special representative
or the ethics commission begin an inquiry based on an anonymous
source?
Mr. Samaranch. Yes. Yes, ma'am. This is part of our
regulations, and the regulations have been passed.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Samaranch, will there be a detailed set of
rules or an ethics manual developed so that IOC members will
know precisely what the rules are that they are required to
follow?
Mr. Samaranch. This code will be put together as soon as
possible. I hope you realize, ma'am, that the ethics commission
has been working now for the last 3 to 4 months only.
Ms. DeGette. Yes, I do. Do they have a target date by which
the code will be completed?
Mr. Samaranch. Mind you, it is a totally independent----
Ms. DeGette. I understand that it is independent. Have the
members told you some date by which they hope to complete the
code----
Mr. Samaranch. But you will have an opportunity to ask
Senator Baker about it.
Ms. DeGette. When would you like to see it done, Mr.
Samaranch, as president of the IOC?
Mr. Samaranch. As soon as possible.
Ms. DeGette. Do you know, Mr. Samaranch, whether there will
be a certification process to ensure that all IOC members have
been taught the rules and fully understand what they mean?
Mr. Samaranch. As I pointed out, I believe so. But the
ethics commission still has to complete the drafting of these
regulations.
Ms. DeGette. As soon as possible. Mr. Samaranch, I have
reviewed the IOC rules from over the years. And here is what I
am concerned about, that we have a very strong certification
requirement. In 1987, the IOC gift rule said IOC members should
be limited to documentation relating to a city's candidature,
and souvenirs, hence gifts, of value are not permitted. In 1988
the gift rule said that gifts of a value exceeding U.S. $200
are not permitted. In 1989, similar rules. And it goes on in
1990. The gift rules that were just promulgated last weekend
said, ``only gifts of nominal value in accordance with
prevailing local customs may be given or accepted by the
Olympic parties.''
We know, based on our investigations, that the previous
gift rules were flagrantly violated time and time again for at
least the Atlanta and Salt Lake City Olympics. We are hearing
more evidence of flagrant violation in other cases. I would
like to know why you think the new gift rules just promulgated,
which admittedly are quite vague, will be obeyed when the
previous gift rules have never been obeyed.
Mr. Samaranch. The rules you termed as vague, quite vague,
I think it was one of the agreements in the ethics commission.
But that problem is no longer with us. It has disappeared
completely. No visits, no gifts.
Ms. DeGette. Well, you see here is the problem, Mr.
Samaranch. The visits, that's a fairly clear rule. But the
gifts, gifts were prohibited in the past. And yet we have ample
evidence that they occurred both in Atlanta and Salt Lake City.
The new gift rule says only gifts of nominal value in
accordance with prevailing local customs. What happens if
someone says a gift of $500, $1,000 U.S. dollars is in
accordance with U.S. customs? What is to prevent that under
this new rule adopted by the IOC this weekend?
Mr. Samaranch. I think gifts were closely connected to
trips. The article that you referred to would no longer be
valid today. I would ask--I will have them remove it.
Ms. DeGette. You will have them remove the gift provision?
Mr. Samaranch. So since there are no more visits, there
will be no more danger of gifts. And we are actually willing to
have the ethics commission rescind that article.
Ms. DeGette. So what you are saying is you will have the
ethics commission ban all gifts?
Mr. Samaranch. As I was saying, there are no visits, no
more visits, and no more dangers of gifts.
Ms. DeGette. If there is no more dangers of gifts, why
don't you just ban them?
Mr. Samaranch. Precisely. That's what we are going to do.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by
commending Mr. Samaranch for his English, and I appreciate your
opening statement in English. That was helpful for all of us.
Let me stay on the subject of the reforms passed by the IOC and
specifically the ban on visits. The session passed the proposal
to eliminate visits by IOC members by bidding candidate cities.
But I am troubled by the wording in the second half of the rule
change that states, and I quote, ``It is also not considered
necessary for representatives of candidate cities or third
parties acting on their behalf to visit IOC members.''
My question is what specifically does that language mean
and is it legal, is it ethical, is it appropriate for bid
cities to visit IOC members outside of that bid city's
location?
Mr. Samaranch. During our last meeting in Lausanne, I think
we did ban. The things we did ban were visits in both ways. IOC
members no longer are allowed to visit the bidding cities, and
organizing committees' representatives are not allowed to visit
the national Olympic Committee in their own country. Based on
the Olympic Committee investigation procedures for the bidding
cities, I think all the members will have enough information to
ascertain whether that or which one is the best city to be
visited.
Mr. Burr. Have I by chance misrepresented what the rule of
the reform says? I will read it again. ``it is also not
considered necessary for representatives of candidate cities or
third parties acting on their behalf to visit IOC members.''
I don't read into that statement a ban.
Mr. Samaranch. I think you are quite right. Perhaps we
drafted it incorrectly. But the decision was to ban visits on
both sides, both censuses.
Mr. Burr. Let me move on to the substance of the ethics
commission, if I can, and ask you, Mr. Samaranch, did you
select the members of the ethics committee?
Mr. Samaranch. No, we did not, sir. We only had appointed
or suggested three names that would represent the IOC at the
ethics board. The other four independent members was thanks to
some good offices given by Mr. Mbaye with important
personalities. They are Mr. Badinter, former minister of
justice of France and former president of the constitutional
tribunal; Mr. Perez de Cuellar, former secretary general of the
United Nations; Mr. Furgler, three times president of the
Helvetic Confederation, Switzerland. And the fourth, Senator
Baker.
Mr. Burr. I think you saved the best for last in Senator
Baker. I would agree with you that the credentials of these
individuals are impeccable, but I will also point to the IOC
rule as it related to the ethics commission. It states that the
members of the ethics commission shall be designated by the
president and subject to the executive board ratification.
Did you choose Mr. Mbaye, I believe I correctly pronounced
his name, to chair the commission?
Mr. Samaranch. I did not. It was the executive board of the
IOC that selected him.
Mr. Burr. Does Mr. Mbaye serve on the executive board?
Mr. Samaranch. He is the member and also the vice
president.
Mr. Burr. And the structure, the ethics commission will
report any violation to, in fact, the executive board of which
Mr. Mbaye is the vice president of the board?
Mr. Samaranch. Yes, precisely.
Mr. Burr. Should this committee or should the public be
concerned whether the ethics process can work when the ethics
committee chairman is in fact the vice president of the board
that would make a decision on the findings of the ethics
committee?
Mr. Samaranch. I think--I don't think so, sir, because the
sports world is quite familiar with Mr. Mbaye. He was the
Justice in the Supreme Court of Senegal, his country, and also
vice president of the International Court of Justice in the
Hague. I think these credentials are sufficient for us to place
our trust in him.
Mr. Burr. Will the ethics committee have the ability to--
access the bid city and bid city officials for--to conduct
their investigations?
Mr. Samaranch. The ethics board is empowered to take action
and intervene in all matters that pertain to the IOC and other
organizations that are in contact with them.
Ms. DeGette. Would you yield for one moment? I am listening
to this line of questioning, and it seems that you have faith
in the integrity of the ethics committee based on the
individual who will be chairing it. And I am wondering what
happens when he leaves? How can you be sure that someone who is
also the vice president of the IOC can have that independence
once the person you trust is gone? Again, this entire system
seems to be based on personality, not structure.
Mr. Samaranch. As soon as when he goes, we will have to
select another to replace him. The graveyards are full of
indispensable people.
Mr. Burr. Mr. Samaranch, one of the reforms passed last
weekend, in fact, lowered the age for an IOC--that an IOC
member could serve until to 70 years old. The age limit used to
be 72. In 1995 the age limit was raised to 75. Then in 1997 it
was raised to 80 years old. When this rule change was made last
weekend, it grandfathered every current IOC member under the
age of 80 years old. What is the real purpose of this 70 year
old age and what is to assure this committee that next time
when have you a vote the age won't change?
Mr. Samaranch. Well, I can't give you assurances that rules
will not be changed in the future, sir. People will come after
me and these same individuals may be--will change the rules. I
don't think any organization in the world can have unchanging
or permanent rules. Could I have the first part of your
question, sir?
Mr. Burr. The question dealt with how can we be assured
that this age does not change? I used the reference of the
original age of 72 years as the IOC membership began to age
itself. We saw a change from 72 to 75 to 80, and now we have
grandfathered every current member.
My last statement would be in line with the gentlelady, Ms.
DeGette, and it is where I am headed on this. I think she
summed it up very well. Mr. President, you said it very well
that you can't be assured that the next president and the next
committee vote might not reverse all 50 or 51 changes or all
changes that you make. The problem that we have is a cultural
change with the system. Cultural changes are not successfully
accomplished without the assurances that in the future that
that foundation that they are established on is solid, that it
is not just because the political winds, the investigations by
this committee, or the outrage of athletes around the world.
I hope that the changes that were voted on last weekend
will in fact receive the teeth that Senator Baker and his
colleagues on the ethics commission will in fact have the tools
to successfully complete their job and to bring the highest of
integrity back to this International Olympic Committee. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling on me.
Mr. Samaranch, to be a member of the IOC and to be
president of the IOC is a pretty powerful position. As you
indicated, the decisions that are made involve very high
financial stakes. When high financial stakes are on the table,
I think we want to know that those people that are making those
decisions are accountable, that they are not going to be
abusing the power that they have, and they are not going to be
caught in a conflict of interest.
It is clear to me that the rules under which the IOC has
been operating or the failure of rules under which they have
been operating indicates that you have a broken system and it
needs to be repaired. You acknowledge that as well. It reminds
me of our own campaign finance system in the United States,
which I think is also broken and needs to be changed. We all
have to be mindful of conflicts of interest and appearances of
impropriety.
Mr. Samaranch, I want to ask you today about two such
conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety. First, I
understand that allegations have been raised about the manner
in which NBC obtained the television rights for the next five
Olympics. An allegation has been made that there is a conflict
of interest because a senior NBC executive was also an IOC
member. And moreover, I understand that the IOC accepted NBC's
bid without even soliciting bids from the other American
networks.
And then the other allegation that I want to ask you about
involves an Olympic museum in Switzerland. I understand that
you have been very active in obtaining financial support for
that museum. I also understand that after winning the Olympic
television contract, NBC made a million dollar donation to the
museum. And I have to tell you that looks to me like a quid pro
quo. But even more incredibly, a Japanese corporation gave $20
million to that museum at the same time that the IOC was
considering whether to award the 1988 Olympics to Nagano,
Japan. I would like you to respond to these allegations that
have been made of possible improprieties, possible conflicts of
interest.
Mr. Samaranch. Let me try my hand at answering your
questions, sir. In the first place, let me say that we are very
happy with the NBC contract. They have been with us for a long
time now. They cover, in a very good manner, all of the games
and as a matter of fact, NBC has a representative at the IOC.
He is from Israel. I can assure you, though, that this
gentleman does not take part in any way on negotiations.
If you so desire, I would be more than happy to explain how
the negotiations are conducted with television and media.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch, the appearance is that when a
highly lucrative television contract is let out to one network
and the other networks don't even get a chance to come in and
present to you and your colleagues an opportunity to do as
well, if not better, and then money is donated by the winner to
a museum that you have been very involved in, doesn't that
appear to be a conflict of interest, an impropriety?
Mr. Samaranch. With NBC, it was to expand the contract they
already had with us. There were two very important points
concerning television contracts. One, we want television in the
open. In other words, no cable or pay-per-view; it would be
broadcast.
Mr. Waxman. But you didn't have the bidding in the open; is
that correct? It was a no-bid contract, nobody else got to
compete?
Mr. Samaranch. No. There was no such thing for the people--
--
Mr. Waxman. I'm sorry, there was----
Mr. Samaranch. [continuing] request for bids for the
renewal. We felt that NBC is a company that deserves our
confidence and had our confidence.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch, excuse me. My time is limited,
as you know.
You may well be satisfied with NBC, but they got the
contract without anybody else being able to compete. Then NBC
gives a million dollars to a museum that you personally care a
lot about. The other example that I gave you was Nagano wanted
to get the selection--they get the selection and they give $20
million to the museum as well. That appears like a conflict.
Certainly--did you require of them that they make this
contribution to the museum in order to get television rights or
in order to be selected for a site of the Olympics?
Mr. Samaranch. No, I didn't demand anything from NBC. NBC,
all it did was to persuade sponsoring agencies and companies to
make a donation to our museum. The museum is not my personal
initiative. It is the home of the world of sports.
Mr. Waxman. Have you been asking and soliciting
contributions to the museum for yourself?
Mr. Samaranch. I do not----
Mr. Waxman. I could not hear----
Mr. Samaranch. [continuing] but many of the sponsoring
companies have decided to assist us in putting together this
museum. This is no secret because at the very entrance of the
museum there is a wall with the names of each of the donors
inscribed in the bricks.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch, you are giving us your
explanations, but you still haven't addressed the fact that it
appears that there was a conflict of interest. You have the
power and the IOC has the power to let out the contract for
television coverage. You don't ask for bids from anyone else
and then a million dollars goes to this museum. And I don't
know what else might have gone to anyone else not disclosed.
The same thing with Nagano. They get the selection, and they
give their $20 million to this museum. If we are going to have
a system that is going to meet people's expectations of
confidence in the integrity of the International Olympic
Committee and its president, we have got to avoid appearances
of improprieties. These are clearly appearances of
improprieties whether you acknowledge that or not. And if you
don't, it makes me wonder whether you can see what many of us
are concerned about when we hear about what happened in Salt
Lake City and also from our last hearing that Atlanta was able
to win its Olympic bid through the giving of gifts to the
people who make the decisions.
Mr. Samaranch. Mr. Congressman, this is my personal
opinion. My concern--and I am concerned about anything that is
done sub rosa, but contracts that are closed--are open and in
the public's view are not of concern to me because it is----
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch, in that regard, are you willing
to release records dealing with the awarding of the television
contract and the museum's finances?
Mr. Samaranch. I will be more than happy to make available
to you a full list of donors to the museum together with a copy
of the contract signed by NBC and the IOC.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch--excuse me, are you finished?
Mr. Samaranch. For the last Olympic games in Nagano and
Sidney, we have hired for the negotiations $3.5 billion.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch, I don't want to argue with you
whether you have got your money's worth. My question to you is
whether we are going to get the records to know how that
decision was made.
My time is up, but we are going to have Bonnie Blair
testify before us later today. She didn't win her gold medal
because the Olympics were comfortable with her. She didn't have
to have the IOC approve her. She did it solely on the merits,
and she competed against others who wanted that gold medal as
well. But here the IOC gives a contract to one network and the
others are not even allowed to compete. They weren't even
allowed to come in and make their case to the powers that be
why they should have been given the contract and then let you
see who was the real--who was the best bidder, not the only
bidder who you thought was doing a good job and deserved your
support. That to me is what a real competition is all about,
and the Olympics should be about real competition. And the IOC
ought to make their decisions based on competition, not
something that appears to be a conflict of interest and
impropriety, a sweetheart deal.
My time is up. If the chairman would like to enable him to
respond, if he wants to?
Mr. Samaranch. With my permission, sir, may I add
something? You have requested documents and if you ask me
officially I will be glad to make them available to you.
Mr. Waxman. I am so requesting, thank you.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Samaranch,
in your opening statement you say that you first became aware
of some of these improprieties a year ago and you have begun to
take actions to correct those improprieties. You also agreed to
testify under oath, so you have sworn that everything that you
have say is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth. I want to read to you a statement from a Sports
Illustrated article, I think in February 1999, to get your
response to that in light of the fact that you just said you
first became aware of some of these problems a year ago.
I quote: ``protestations by top level IOC members
Samaranch, Pound''--and Pound is an IOC member, I believe, from
Canada who is a vice president--``and other members of the
executive board that they have had no evidence of malfeasance
before the stories begin coming out of Salt Lake City are
nonsense. In 1986 Wolf Lieberg, secretary general of the
Swedish Olympic Committee, wrote Pound to complain that an IOC
member had asked for sex from a woman member of the committee
representing the city of Prolond in its bid for the 1992 winter
games. Pound reportedly wrote back that while he was
sympathetic, without a formal request it is very difficult to
do anything.''
Were you aware of this letter that Mr. Lieberg sent to your
committee in 1986?
Mr. Samaranch. As I said earlier, we can only take action
at the IOC when we have concrete facts. I read the same thing
from a Swedish publication. We asked them for names, and they
did not come up with any.
Mr. Barton. So the fact that the secretary general of the
Swedish Olympic Committee sent your committee a formal letter,
you didn't consider that to be a formal request?
Mr. Samaranch. The letter that I received contained no
names.
Mr. Barton. Did you make any attempt in your office to
follow up on this letter?
Mr. Samaranch. We are trying to find out who that member
might be, but no success.
Mr. Barton. I see. Let's fast forward to 1991. I have here
a photocopy report to the International Olympic Committee by
the Toronto, Ontario, Olympic council on the candidature of the
city of Toronto to host the games of the 26th Olympiad
presented to the IOC, Lausanne, January 9, 1991. It is
approximately 25 pages long.
Have you ever seen or heard of the Toronto International
Olympic report? This is in January 1991.
Mr. Samaranch. At this point, I have no recollection of
having seen it, but I am sure that I have seen it. And I am
sure that in that report there are no names.
Mr. Barton. Ah. So for your esteemed committee to take
action, you demand the disclosure of names. Even if it is an
official document of the Canadian committee, that is not
sufficient?
Mr. Samaranch. Before we can impose sanctions on anyone, we
have to know who those sanctions are being imposed to.
Mr. Barton. I am told that the Canadian Olympic committee
or government, some body in Canada, kept the documents that
went into filing this report for about 7 years before they were
destroyed. Did you ask any of your cracker jack Olympic
investigators to try to go to Canada to look at those source
documents?
Mr. Samaranch. I did not know that the Canadian government
had that report.
Mr. Barton. I am not swearing that it was the Canadian
government, but some documents existed that were maintained in
Canada by a former body, and the staff says it was the
government.
Mr. Upton. If the gentleman would yield, am I right in your
question to Mr. Samaranch that you asked Mr. Samaranch if he
was there to receive the report from the Toronto committee?
Is that correct? Was that your question?
Mr. Barton. Excuse me, I was----
Mr. Upton. Was your question to Mr. Samaranch was whether
Mr. Samaranch was present for the presentation of the report
from the Toronto----
Mr. Barton. My question was whether he was aware that this
report was turned in. The salutation says Your Excellency. I am
told that Mr. Samaranch requires that he be addressed as Your
Excellency, so I assume that he was present, but that could be
a mistake.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Samaranch, was your--you do not recall this
meeting that may have occurred by the Toronto committee before
a number of the members of the IOC?
Mr. Samaranch. The meeting with Mr. Henderson from Toronto
was held with the person who was in charge of talking to
bidding cities.
Mr. Upton. The reason I ask that is the information that we
had that we have gotten from Mr. Henderson indicated that there
were a number of members present including Mr. Samaranch and
Mr. Pound, who I know is sitting behind you.
Mr. Samaranch. I can't deny that I attended that meeting.
But again I reiterate that this report names no names and that
is what really matters as far as we are concerned.
Mr. Barton. Reclaiming my time, that begs the question. We
have several documents on the record that were sent officially
to your organization while you were president and apparently
your response is if they don't name names, it doesn't count. So
I guess my next question is, the reason that you decided to
investigate Salt Lake City and Atlanta is because somebody
named names?
Is that what differentiates your actions in the last year
is because some stalwart investigative reporter began to name
names?
Mr. Samaranch. Going back to Toronto, we requested them to
supply us with names, and they did not do so.
Mr. Barton. Those are open records kept by the Canadian
Government and they remained open for at least 7 years. And I
am told at the staff level no Olympic official has attempted to
investigate those records, so they may not still be in
existence. They have been destroyed. But for 7 years they were
available, and no one at your committee made an attempt to
investigate. But I want to go on. I only have a limited amount
of time.
My next question is, of all these reforms that you have
supported being implemented, I am told that none apply to you
or the Office of the Presidency. Why is that?
Mr. Samaranch. Because I don't think this would be
necessary.
Mr. Barton. Oh. What if this subcommittee thought it might
be necessary? Would you be willing to have them apply to the
Office of the Presidency?
Mr. Samaranch. I would be glad to listen and then we will
review your proposal.
Mr. Barton. I see. Well, I guess I need to send you a
formal letter naming names, and I will send such a letter that
I formally request the International Olympic Committee to apply
the reforms that they are applying to the IOC members to the
President, the Office of the President. Would that be explicit
enough to have you consider it?
Mr. Samaranch. Particularly if you make specific reference
to the action or measures to be adopted regarding the
President, we will be glad to review it.
Mr. Barton. I appreciate that. Let me ask you about the
suite of rooms at the Palace Hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sports illustrated indicates that that costs the IOC half a
million dollars a year and that it is for your exclusive use.
Is that true?
Mr. Samaranch. No, this is not true.
Mr. Barton. Okay. What part of that statement is not true?
Mr. Samaranch. The total you alluded to, the half a million
dollars. I live in a hotel in the city of Lausanne. I have two
rooms; one is my bedroom and the other is a small salon. It is
not very large.
That costs approximately $250 a day, and days in which I am
out of town, like today, I pay $70 for them to keep the
reservation, the room available to me. Let me assure you that
that is far from being a luxurious suite.
Mr. Barton. So when Sports Illustrated says, ``demands a
suite, not just a suite, but the Presidential Suite, the finest
hotel room in the city, the IOC at a cost of some $500,000 a
year rents a massive suite that takes up half the top floor of
the Palace Hotel to house Samaranch when he stays in
Lausanne,'' that is just an incorrect statement? Sports
illustrated is wrong?
Mr. Samaranch. No, it is not that it is wrong, sir; it is a
lie.
Mr. Barton. It is a lie.
Mr. Samaranch. A lie.
Mr. Barton. If it is a lie, are you willing today to state
whatever the cost, you will pay it out of your own pocket and
not charge the IOC? If it is only $250 a day and you only use
it a few times a year and they can rent it out to other people,
are you willing to take that upon yourself to pay that cost?
Mr. Samaranch. I don't think I have a reason to pay for
that. I am the Chairman of the IOC. I have no payments made to
me. They cover my expenses, the hotel in Lausanne, and also
travel expenses when I had to come here to Washington and the
same thing occurred. I never demand to have a very large suite.
All I request usually is a bedroom and a room to receive
people, such as the case of the hotel I am staying in here in
Washington. That is all I request.
Mr. Barton. So if we formally request, and again be
explicit that we name the hotel, you will provide the
documentation or instruct the IOC accounting department to
provide the documentation that the statement you just made is
true, that it is only $250 a day and it is just two small rooms
and all that?
Mr. Samaranch. I don't think it will be necessary to
request that, because you can read it in The Los Angeles Times
today.
Mr. Barton. Well, we may want to request it.
One final question, and then I yield back. Do you maintain
personal effects in these two small rooms in Lausanne,
Switzerland, in the Palace Hotel; your clothing and personal
artifacts that are only yours, that stay there when you are not
there?
Mr. Samaranch. As I explained earlier, sir, when I am not
in town, the IOC pays $70 a day----
Mr. Barton. That is not--my question is does he maintain
his personal effects in the suite, even when he is not there?
Some of his clothing, some of his hygienic supplies,
photographs of his family, various gifts that have been given
to him by well-wishers around the world?
Mr. Samaranch. The answer is yes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Mr. Upton. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. President, thank
you for coming today to testify. I am going to try to move mine
right along. I know we have an extremely distinguished panel
which follows you. I think they can add an awful lot of
information to where we are today. After sitting here and
listening to the questioning, I think you have been asked an
awful lot already in terms of covering the territory that needs
to be covered with you. I think we have done most of that, and
I appreciate you being here today and being on the hot seat and
taking some very difficult questions.
I think you can tell from the tone and tenor of the
questioning by this panel that we are indeed very concerned
about what we have learned over the last several months in
particular and the last years of some of the practices
involving the IOC, and I can appreciate that you too are very
concerned about those.
I would, before I ask you just a couple of questions and
yield back the balance of my time, I would like to reiterate
what one of my predecessors in questioning has asked, and that
is that you give extremely serious consideration to applying
the ethical changes you are incorporating to your office. I
don't think there is any question that you know this and we all
know this, that on these types of issues, that the leadership
at the top must set the example, must lead by example.
I think, again, you gather from the questions that have
been asked, there are I think legitimate and serious concerns
about some of the issues that have been involved that would be
in the realm of ethical conduct.
I might add to that, because you answered some of the
questions, it is your view they were not conflicts, and I am
not going to get into all the different questions again, but
there is a very important element to this that it doesn't have
to actually be a conflict. Sometimes it is the appearance of
the conflict that causes a great deal of difficulty. So I
caution you that you incorporate both of those, not only
concern with regard to avoiding conflicts, but also that same
concern for avoiding the appearance of a conflict. I know you
feel that way.
The two words that I have consistently heard in the
hearings I have been in that involve the Olympics, are the
spirit of the Olympics and how that spirit, everyone is
concerned it not be tainted in any way; and that some feel that
these allegations, and in fact they are beyond allegations,
this misconduct, has tainted the Olympics. That is something we
all want to avoid.
The second word that I hear an awful lot, and it gets to my
question, is the word culture, that the culture of the Olympic
Committee has been a result or has been a cause of some of
these problems. The culture that has gone on for years, just
the way that the Olympic Committee has done business, if you
will.
I can appreciate the establishment of this commission. You
have had some outstanding people that have participated in
that, and again we are going to hear from them later. But it is
going to be important that we have confidence that we have now
a good set of rules set up. It is going to be very important
that we also have confidence in the second part of that, that
several of us have made reference to, that we make sure they
are enforced properly.
Do you feel that the expulsion of those 10 members, either
by resignation or by expulsion, do you feel like you have
eliminated that culture from the committee?
Mr. Samaranch. I sincerely believe so, sir. We gathered
evidence regarding these 10 members. Either they were expelled
or they resigned. Other members were also sanctioned, but in
various degrees. But I have full confidence in the current
membership of the IOC.
Mr. Bryant. In reading some of the articles that covered
the meeting, I was able to discern some of the debate, and
there was some opposition, relatively minor I think, but they
were concerned. They raised as a defense this questioned their
own personal ethics; they didn't need somebody to watch over
them. But I think you led the majority appropriately to the
fact that there is evidence out there that people have violated
the rules.
Again, I want to commend you for overcoming that
opposition. I think it is time that the people involved in the
Olympic Committee rid themselves of that culture. Again, I
think you have taken good steps in doing so.
I want to move on and hear from the second panel, because
again they are going to talk about how this whole set of
changes will come into play. Hopefully it will result in
restoring that spirit that we expect from the Olympics.
But I wanted to conclude my questioning by asking you
something I made reference to in my opening statement, and
after listening to the rather lively examination of you, I
simply want to reiterate that I trust that the fact that we
have been involved in this, a lot of the clamor for reform has
come from the United States, and certainly this panel has been
questioning you about those issues, I trust that this will in
no way affect any future involvement of the United States in
terms of being a site city. Do you sense that there might be,
not necessarily from you, but from others on your committee,
there might be some--``retribution'' is the wrong word, but
some unanticipated or unhoped for results in terms of this
country's hosting future Olympic Games?
Mr. Samaranch. Mr. Bryant, I am sure this will not take
place. Members and myself are of the opinion that your country,
the United States, has a very, very important position among
the family of nations, Olympic nations. This is the country in
the world that has organized the highest number of Olympic
Games. I myself had the privilege of presiding over four Summer
Olympic Games, two of which were held in the United States.
Aside from the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Games, we know for a
fact that many cities in the United States are beginning to
express interest in organizing and hosting the 2012 Games. As
you probably know, we can only accept one candidate. The
process of selection is conducted by each country's Olympic
Committee, and I am sure that the bid that will come from the
United States will be correct; they will stand identical
chances of being selected, like all the others.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bryant. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from
California.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much. Mr. Samaranch, we have
been hearing about all these problems because of Salt Lake City
and Atlanta, and most of what we heard came not from an
investigation by the IOC, but by the press and city officials
in these two American cities.
Has the IOC confirmed that no serious wrongdoing or bid
irregularities similar to what happened in Salt Lake City and
Atlanta occurred in Nagano, Athens, or Sidney? Are you
convinced that the IOC's house is totally clean when it came to
those cities?
Mr. Samaranch. Many of the national organizing committees
are no longer in existence. When this crisis came upon us, we
wrote letters or memos to all the national organizing
committees that had bid for the Summer Games or Winter Games.
We sent 30 letters. In some of these letters there is an
indication that if anything abnormal shows--and this letter was
forwarded to the Ethics Board.
Mr. Waxman. Your investigation involved letters, but isn't
it true that Nagano burned many if not all of its Olympic bid
records? If the gentleman from Ohio would allow me 2 minutes,
it is really his time now.
Mr. Bryant. I would yield you whatever time the Chair----
Mr. Upton. He has no time left.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, let me ask you then, particularly
I am asking Mr. Oxley, I have to run to another hearing, and I
wanted to ask questions, so I would do it within 2 minutes
rather than miss the opportunity for a 5-minute round later.
You waited very patiently for your time. I leave it to your
discretion.
Mr. Oxley. It is okay. I will be glad to yield. I need to
be recognized first, and I will yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. Upton. I accept the unanimous consent agreement that
Mr. Waxman have 2 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. I thank my colleagues. Unfortunately, I have to
go to another hearing, so I will not be able to be here for all
the testimony. But what I wanted to ask about, Mr. Samaranch,
is it seems like the only investigation the IOC did of other
cities in the past was sent letters; and, as I understand it,
when it came to Nagano, I have heard that they burned many if
not all of their Olympic bid records. Is that an accurate
statement?
Mr. Samaranch. I learned the same thing as you have.
Mr. Waxman. What does that mean to you? Why do you think
they would do that? What are we supposed to make of the fact
that a city would burn its Olympic bid records? Is it to keep
it from you, to keep it from the press, from the world?
Mr. Samaranch. I don't know. I think you should direct that
question to Nagano.
Mr. Waxman. The reason I am asking you is that the IOC
doesn't appear to have done much of an investigation about any
of the potential abuses by other cities except to send some
letters asking them whether they knew of some abuses, and
accepted pretty much what they had to say. It seems to me that
the IOC, if you really cared to know whether abuses took place
in the past, would have demanded records and called the people
from Nagano on the carpet to find out why they destroyed their
records.
We in the United States have had Salt Lake City and Atlanta
held up to real scrutiny because we care about this issue. But
it looks like we care about it, I am not sure the IOC cares
about it.
Mr. Samaranch. I respect your point, sir. We did what we
had to do. We sent those memos to all the national organizing
committees and also the United States Olympic Committee, and
all these letters were also forwarded to the Ethics Commission.
Mr. Waxman. Would the Ethics Commission be permitted to
reopen these issues from these previous cities' bids to know
whether there were improprieties?
Mr. Samaranch. Whenever new facts arise that will warrant
opening up an investigation, the Ethics Board will do so.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and particularly Mr.
Oxley for giving me this opportunity to jump in on these
questions. But it appears that I have heard it said over and
over again, when facts come up, when we are presented with
names, then we will do something about it. That kind of
attitude doesn't give me confidence that the IOC really wants
to know what abuses have taken place and that they are going to
aggressively encourage their Ethics Committee to go out and
investigate these matters and to take actions against those
that have acted improperly.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will continue our
investigation in this committee and continue our oversight on
this whole question of whether these reforms are real or not.
Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of whatever
time I might have had.
Mr. Upton. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Ohio has been very patient. We welcome
the Chairman of the Finance and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee, Mr. Oxley, to join us today. You are recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
participate in this important hearing. As the Chair knows, I,
along with Chairman Bliley, cosponsored legislation dealing
with antibribery as it related to the OECD Convention and
bringing the United States into conformity with the OECD
Convention.
Mr. Samaranch, there have been reports in the press about
the IOC petitioning to be subject to the OECD Convention on
combatting bribery of foreign public officials as one way to
address some of the IOC's recent problems. However, my
understanding is that only governments can join the Convention,
and since the IOC is not a government, it could not join. I
understand that this was confirmed for you recently in a letter
sent by the OECD.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from the letter. This a
letter from Donald J. Johnston from the OECD to Mr. Carrard,
who is with us today, the IOC Director General. In part it
states the IOC does not correspond to the definition of a
public international organization in the meaning of Article I,
paragraph 4 of the Convention, and that as a result its members
could not be regarded as foreign public officials in the
meaning of the Convention.
He goes on to say, I have asked the Secretariat in the
context of this work, to put to the working group the idea of
the Convention possibly covering the officials of
nongovernmental international organizations such as the IOC.
Mr. Chairman, this was translated from French. I want you
to know I did not do this personally, that is the translation.
But I would like to make it part of the record and ask
unanimous consent that the letter be made part of the record at
this point.
I thank the Chair.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.330
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.331
Mr. Oxley. Furthermore, as the letter indicates--I am
sorry, the letter does not indicate, but it is my understanding
the Convention only deals with those who pay bribes, not with
those who receive them. In the case of the IOC, the allegations
dealt with bribes received, not bribes paid, and there is
obviously a big distinction there.
Mr. Samaranch, I would like to ask you, would you agree
that OECD member governments such as the United States and
others should make the IOC subject to their own anti-bribery
laws, laws which needed to be adopted in accordance with the
Convention?
Mr. Samaranch. The issue of OECD came up during our
negotiations or our contacts with Mr. Mitchell in London. They
told me that the International Red Cross was a member of that
organization and I told them that the IOC would have no
problems in applying for membership at the OECD. They did so,
as you so aptly pointed out, and their response which came to
us about 5 days ago was that we were not eligible because we
were not a governmental organization.
We will be very happy if the U.S. Government would lend its
good offices to have us become members of the OECD. We would be
very happy.
Mr. Oxley. It is my understanding that the information
regarding the Red Cross was in error, that in fact it is quite
clear that NGO's, nongovernmental organizations such as the
International Olympic Committee or indeed the Red Cross cannot
become members of the OECD Convention.
Is that statement correct?
Mr. Samaranch. What I can tell you, sir, is that at that
point the IRC was told that they--I was told that the IRC was a
member. That is why we came up with the application. But if
there is any other organization that is very much the same as
OECD, we will be more than glad to consider the possibility of
applying for membership.
Mr. Oxley. I would appreciate that. Again, it appears to
this member that we will need to take some leadership working
with you to make certain that the member countries of the IOC
make application to follow the OECD Convention, and we want to
work with you toward that end.
Mr. Samaranch. Please bear in mind the fact that we have
200 countries in our membership.
Mr. Oxley. I understand that. There may be some members,
member countries, that are not--I am sure there are a number of
them that are not signatories to the OECD Convention, and that
is precisely why it is important that we work with those
countries to make certain that they adopt not just for the IOC,
by the way, but in general to expand the Anti-bribery
Convention at the OECD. I think they did yeoman's work, and the
IOC is an important part of that, but only a part of joining
that Convention.
Mr. Samaranch. I can say that we fully accept your
proposal, sir.
Mr. Oxley. Let me turn to a question regarding the
television contract, if I may. Mr. Samaranch, did you even know
about the NBC donation before the contract dealing with Salt
Lake City and Sidney was signed?
Mr. Samaranch. No, I did not.
Mr. Oxley. Isn't it a fact that you were surprised when
that announcement took place at the ceremony celebrating the
contract?
Mr. Samaranch. It did not come as a total surprise to us
because we had already received donations from sponsors, many
of them from the United States.
Mr. Oxley. But the specific gift to the museum from NBC
network, that was a surprise?
Mr. Samaranch. It did not surprise.
Mr. Oxley. It did not surprise. And how many sponsoring
companies are on the wall there at the museum?
Mr. Samaranch. We have received about $80 million in
donations, about 60 or 65 companies, but not only businesses,
but also States and governments, the organizing committees, for
instance, of the Games. In other words, all the names are there
for the public to see. And we are very thankful for these
donors, because thanks to them, we have been able to build this
museum which is a source of great pride to us.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Oxley. I know that a couple of
members have a couple more questions, so we are going to move
this to a 5-minute round, and then I think we will be done with
the first panel, and we will start with the second panel
immediately following.
Mr. Samaranch, we appreciate your testimony and willingness
to come today. I guess if I had a bottom line, I want to be
perfectly clear that we want the Olympics and the Olympic
movement to be clean as a whistle, and that means that the
referees have to be able to blow the whistle and have to be
able to throw a flag when there is a penalty, as we would see
on a football field. We want no loopholes, none.
I want to go back to a question that I think Mr. Burr
asked. I want to clarify your answer with regard to the visits
to cities.
The way that a number of us read the documentation, you
indicated that though IOC members will no longer be able to
visit the cities, it is not necessary, and those were the words
used, it is not necessary for the cities to visit the IOC
members. I want to come back to you and to all of us up here, I
think, the language ``not necessary'' means that it in fact is
still permissible.
With your statement, does that mean you are going to amend
what we had read before and in fact will block visits by cities
to visit IOC members in their respective countries? Do we
expect to see that clarification come about?
Mr. Samaranch. Let me address the two questions, if I may.
I fully concur with you, we need a referee, and that referee is
the Ethics Commission.
I would like to once again reiterate that the visits by
organizing committees to members of IOC are banned. My Director
General points out that perhaps you would have with you a draft
of the recommendation, but the decision was to ban visits in
either sense.
Mr. Upton. On both sides.
Mr. Samaranch. And this is absolutely firm.
Mr. Upton. Good. My last question before I move down the
panel, I have a whole series of statements that were in the
press, reports dating back to 1986 with the Los Angeles Times,
the Washington Post, the New York Times, really spanning about
15 years, talking about abuse with the IOC members with regard
to gifts, trips, and I suppose you could say cash as well,
bribery. It is mentioned a number of times.
I want to make certain that this new Ethics Committee that
is being established in fact will have the authority when they
see, if they see press accounts like these in the future, that
they will have the independence and authority to investigate
fully these reports and that those investigations in fact will
be made public once they are complete.
Mr. Samaranch. As I said before, the Ethics Commission has
full powers and full independence. In fact, even their budget
will be separated. And, as such, they are empowered to conduct
all kinds of investigations.
Mr. Upton. So that in fact if these appear again in major
newspapers across the world, they will have the authority to
pursue it?
Mr. Samaranch. Fully.
Mr. Upton. Terrific. I yield to the gentlelady from
Colorado.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Samaranch. I noted with
interest Mr. Bryant's question and your response regarding
whether the United States will be punished in some way for
pushing for these reforms. I would like to ask the question in
a slightly different way.
I look in the second row and I see the athletes who are
here with us today. The American athletes who are not here and
were not in the Olympics because of any kind of special bribery
or special favors or anything, but simply because of their
athletic committee--I would like to ask you directly in the
spirit of the Olympics, do you believe the United States
athletes will suffer in any way because of the United States'
efforts to aggressively push these reforms?
Mr. Samaranch. I don't think so. Sports in the United
States is an area that has the highest respect. The U.S. is a
very important member in the Olympic movement and that is why I
am here.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Samaranch. And I am more than certain that the U.S.
team will get tremendous results in Sidney and they will be
treated with the same fair play that we devote to other
countries, or all other countries.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much. Another question: What do
you think the United States' role should be in monitoring the
progress of implementation of these reforms?
Mr. Samaranch. It is actually up to you, madam, because we
have two members from the United States in the IOC, Anita
DeFrantz and Mr. Jim Easton. We will be more than happy to
report regularly to you, if you so desire, through these two
members who sit at the IOC.
Ms. DeGette. I think we would like to hear regular reports,
probably on a quarterly basis, and in particular the thing we
will be interested in knowing, as soon as possible, is the
progress of the Ethics Committee in promulgating its
regulations.
Mr. Samaranch. You will receive that if you so desire. Mr.
Chairman, if I might, I would like to correct one thing. I said
that there were two IOC members from the United States. As of
last Sunday, we have three; the third one being Mr. Ctvrlik,
Gold Medalist in the Olympic Games, and we take great pride in
having him with us.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much for clarifying. Senator
Mitchell and Mr. Duberstein conducted a very thorough review of
the Salt Lake City bid, and because of that review, we were
able to make very specific recommendations to our own National
Olympic Committee, the USOC. Have the other former bid
countries conducted similar reviews to see if they have got
problems and to see if they can improve the function?
Mr. Samaranch. My Director General points out that there
was an inquiry in Berlin.
Ms. DeGette. And do you think it would be worthwhile for
the other countries to conduct such an audit to see how their
experience can lend to the promulgation of the regulations?
Mr. Samaranch. I have always been in favor of whenever you
can make things clear, you should do so.
Ms. DeGette. So to be clear, your answer would be yes?
Mr. Samaranch. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Samaranch. There is also another inquiry in Sidney, I
have just been advised.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is
critical to recognize that none of the reforms that were voted
on last weekend were actually designed to detect and sanction
the sorts of ethical lapses have undermined the credibility of
the IOC. That effort is going to remain the task of the ethics
program. But since the details have not yet been defined, the
important reform is incomplete.
I guess I would say, simply put, as long as this Commission
remains a work in progress, the IOC cannot be considered
reformed.
Mr. Chairman, an ugly storm has engulfed the IOC over the
past year, but I do believe--and I want to join you in thanking
Mr. Samaranch for coming--the IOC has made progress toward
substantial reform but significant work remains. 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 look forward
to hearing the rest of the testimony. The thing I look forward
to seeing most of all is the regulations that are promulgated
by the Ethics Committee, and until I see that, I guess what I
would have to say is I am going to have to keep my camel
tethered.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Samaranch. Thank you very much for your kind words, and
I can assure you that many of the decisions we have made late
last week are already part of the Olympic charter. As to the
others, with regard to the others, we will have them clearly
decided and included by the time that we hold the preparatory
meetings in Sidney next year, in 2000.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. Mr. Samaranch, you said that the United States
plays an important role in the Olympic movement. Let me ask you
if you think that Congress has a role in this process?
Mr. Samaranch. Given the tremendous importance of sports in
any society, agencies of that society should also take an
interest in sports, and in this case the International Olympic
Committee, and we can only thank you for that.
Mr. Burr. I thank you for your willingness to testify in
front of us.
Let me ask you, have you accomplished all the changes you
personally feel need to be made?
Mr. Samaranch. I believe so. I believe we have already
adopted the most important changes, and in all candor I might
say that we might not have succeeded in including these changes
unless we had had this crisis.
Mr. Burr. Let me ask the same question a different way: If
changes did not require a vote of the IOC membership, are there
any additional reforms that you personally would have liked to
have adopted?
Mr. Samaranch. I think we are speaking frankly. I believe
that we should, for instance, have the bidding and the
selection of host cities to be made by the executive board, not
by the plenary. But I think this would be the job of the next
President.
Mr. Burr. Let me again take this opportunity to thank you
for your willingness to be here, for your openness with this
committee. I thank the Chairman and yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Burr. Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the
first round of my questions we established, according to the
answers that President Samaranch gave, that the reforms that
are being implemented for the IOC members, committeemen, do not
apply to him, because in his own words they are not necessary
that they apply to him. We established that they haven't
investigated past reports of improprieties in the site
selection process because no names were provided by those
reports that were given to the IOC Committee and that as
President, he apparently made no attempt to try to document any
of those prior charges. We established that the Sports
Illustrated report that a half-a-million-dollar-a-year hotel
suite is kept for his personal use in Lausanne, Switzerland on
the top of the Palace hotel, is a lie, in his own words,
because the dollar amount reported in the Sports Illustrated
report is incorrect.
I am not going to go over any of that in this round. I am
going to concentrate on a trip that his wife and a friend of
his wife took to the Atlanta area in the spring of 1990.
My first question to President Samaranch: Is he aware that
his wife did in fact travel to Atlanta at the expense of the
Atlanta host city organization in the spring of 1990?
Mr. Samaranch. This took place many years ago, but I
expected something like that to arise, so I would like to give
you a brief rundown of events.
Mr. Barton. My first question is simply is he aware that
his wife did visit the Atlanta area?
Mr. Samaranch. Not only did I know it, but I also advised
her to go.
Mr. Barton. I would be happy to let him elaborate on that
visit before I ask some more questions.
Mr. Samaranch. In 1989 I went to Atlanta to attend the
opening ceremony of the organizing committee, the officers of
this organizing committee presided over, with Mr. Billy Payne.
We were good friends and we had worked together well. At that
point I was alone, and they regretted the fact that my wife had
not been able to come to Atlanta with me.
They insisted on inviting her and they did so, and I felt
that she should accept the invitation and visit Atlanta.
My wife was already advanced in years and she cannot travel
on her own. I am not going to tell you how old she is because
she might be angry at me.
Mr. Barton. I respect that.
Mr. Samaranch. But she attended the invitation, she was
very well treated. I wouldn't call it an official visit, but it
was a visit by the wife of the IOC's President.
With your permission, I have in hand a letter that is very
significant. I will ask that it be read.
The Vice President, Washington, April 6, 1999, addressed
Mrs. Juan Antonio Samaranch, International Olympic Committee,
Chateau de Vidy, 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland: Dear Mrs.
Samaranch, it was a pleasure to meet with you in Atlanta. I
hope you were able to sample the warm hospitality for which the
American South is famous and that you enjoyed your stay there.
Should the city of Atlanta receive the honor of hosting the
1996 Games, I know its people and all Americans would ensure
that these games are among the best ever. Best wishes as you
plan this tremendous event. Sincerely. Signature, Dan Quayle.
Mr. Barton. I will stipulate that Dan Quayle was Vice
President of the United States at the time that letter was
written, if the president will allow me to add that to the
document.
Mr. Samaranch. Yes.
Mr. Barton. Can I ask a question now that I have heard his
response?
Mr. Upton. Yes.
Mr. Barton. What formal purpose, if any, was served for the
good of the Olympic movement by having the Atlanta organization
spend at least $13,000 to host your wife on her visit to
Atlanta, Charleston, and I believe Orlando on that trip?
Mr. Samaranch. Perhaps this is part of what the letter
says, which is the American--the South is famous for its
hospitality.
Mr. Barton. I will agree with that. I am from Texas. I
understand we are famous for our hospitality. But my question
is----
Mr. Samaranch. She was invited and they felt they should
defray the costs. But I don't think this point is really that
important.
Mr. Barton. It is not important that your lovely wife, who
I am sure is a lovely lady--and I don't mean that
sarcastically--she has no formal vote in the proceeding; we
have documents that show she was not interested in even looking
at any of the venues, she just wanted to go to artsy-craftsy
places and participate in high society. So I think it is well
and good if she wants to visit the South and have that
hospitality, but I don't think the Olympic movement and the
host cities bidding to host Olympics should have to pay her
expenses.
Mr. Samaranch. You are probably right, sir. This is a
problem of the organizing committee. This was an invitation
based on friendship.
Mr. Barton. I understand.
Mr. Samaranch. And this is all I can advance.
Mr. Barton. My final question, and I want to read one
statement from the Sports Illustrated article and see if this
too is a lie. This again is from the February article of Sports
Illustrated, and I quote: It says, ``Before Samaranch took over
the presidency in 1980, IOC representatives had to pay their
own way to cities bidding for the games. Within a year, they
were getting not one but two first class tickets from
prospective cities, plus all expenses. In 1983 spending money
of $100 a day was added to the package required of bid
cities.''
Is that a true statement?
Mr. Samaranch. I think your question has to do with what
members of the IOC received----
Mr. Barton. No. According to Sports Illustrated, before Mr.
Samaranch became President in 1980, IOC representatives had to
pay their own way to cities bidding for the games. Within a
year after he became President, members of IOC representatives
were required to give two first class tickets, and by 1983,
$100 a day for expenses. That would appear to me that President
Samaranch suggested to the IOC membership board or at least
acquiesced when this change was made. So that bid cities had to
pay these expenses before 1980, before he became the President,
IOC representatives had to pay their own way. So that is my
question. Is this one of the reforms he instigated when he
became President in 1980?
Mr. Samaranch. I don't think there were visits scheduled
before 1980, none. So perhaps there is some degree of
confusion.
Mr. Barton. So this is something if we again send a
specific letter asking specific questions, he can check his
files and see what caused this particular change in policy to
be made?
Mr. Samaranch. With your permission, I would like to give
you my version. No visits were organized prior to 1980 to the
bidding cities. IOC members were expected, and did pay for
their own expenses when they attended meetings. I thought this
was unfair. During the first IOC session that I presided over
in 1981, we adopted the decision to pay members of the IOC all
expenses, transportation, hotel, for all members. But alone,
not with second or a companion.
Mr. Barton. Who paid that? The IOC was going to pay it or
you were going to require the host city to pay it?
Mr. Samaranch. No, I am talking about the sessions of the
IOC. They were paid by the IOC. But, Mr. Congressman, if you
are really interested, we will be more than glad to respond to
a request in writing from you.
Mr. Barton. I understand. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Barton.
Mr. Samaranch, we appreciate very much your willingness to
come here today, and in particular we thank the interpreters,
who we expect gave us the right answers back and forth. But we
also want to thank Mr. Carrard, who spent a number of trips, a
number of many hours, communicating with members of the
committee and keeping us posted on the developments. We
appreciated his openness and his willingness in every which
way.
Mr. Samaranch, we thank you for your testimony. As I
indicated in my opening statement, we expect to continue
oversight to make sure that this new Ethics Commission does
have the teeth so it can look into possible abuses. We want the
Olympic rings to be free from tarnish and we know and hope that
you are on our side as well. You are now, as we might say,
formally excused. We appreciate very much the time you spent
with us today.
At this point we will have the second panel, which includes
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Senator Howard Baker, and because of
flight troubles, for the time being we also now have Mr. Ken
Duberstein, who is the vice chair with Mr. Mitchell, chair, in
compiling the Mitchell-Duberstein report.
If folks that are visiting the committee would take their
seats so we can continue, we have a number of pressing
commitments yet today. We appreciate the willingness of the
panel and, obviously, the ability of Mr. Duberstein to step in
the big shoes of Mr. Mitchell again. For purposes of
introduction, we will yield to Mr. Bryant.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to introduce one of our very distinguished
witness and home State friend from Tennessee, former Senator
Howard Baker, Jr. I can take about 3 hours and adequately
introduce him, but given the nature of the time we have here, I
am going to give just a short, very, very abbreviated
introduction of our Senator Baker.
After serving in the U.S. Senate from 1967 until 1985 and
as President Reagan's Chief of Staff from February, 1987, until
July 1988, Howard Baker has returned to private life and the
practice of law.
Following undergraduate studies at the University of the
South and Tulane University, Senator Baker received his law
degree from the University of Tennessee. He served 3 years in
the United States Navy during World War II.
Senator Baker first won national recognition in 1973 as the
Vice Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee. He was the
keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention in 1976
and was a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination
in 1980. He concluded his Senate career by serving two terms as
minority leader and two terms as majority leader.
Senator Baker has received many awards, including the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, our Nation's highest civilian
award, and the Jefferson Award for the greatest public service
performed by an elected or appointed official.
Senator Baker is currently an original member of the
International Olympic Committee Ethics Commission, which was
established this past March to strengthen the IOC's ethical
guidelines and provide a clear standard of conduct for all
members of the Olympic family.
I welcome you, Senator Baker, my friend from Huntsville,
Tennessee, and look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Leader, welcome back to the better side of
the capitol, and we will begin with you.
As for all three, your testimony will be made, in its
entirety, as part of the record. We would like to limit your
remarks to 5 minutes. I know Dr. Kissinger needs to catch a
train back by 1:30. And I do have to swear you in.
As you know, we have a long-standing practice in this
committee of swearing in our witnesses. Do any of you have
objection to that? Do any of you need counsel, as provided in
the committee rules?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Upton. You are now under oath.
Mr. Leader, we will begin with you.
TESTIMONY OF HON. HOWARD H. BAKER
Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, may I assert the privilege of
going first for the purpose of saying that while I served in
the other body I was aware of this body. It was brought to my
attention forcefully from time to time.
I also would point out that both my father and mother
served in this branch of the Congress. So I am a third-going
congressional brat.
My thanks to my friend Ed Bryant for the generosity of his
introduction. You covered everything I can think of, except
that my grandmother was sheriff of Roane County, Tennessee,
just for the record.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here to
speak on the creation and implementation of an ethics code and
an Ethics Commission for the IOC. As you say, while I can
submit the statement, which I do herewith for inclusion in the
record, I will abbreviate it and cover the principal points
that I think are relevant to your inquiry.
First of all, it is a pleasure to serve on this commission.
It is a distinguished commission made up of former United
Nations Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar of Peru; the
former president of Switzerland; the former president of the
French Constitution Court, Robert Badinter of France; and five-
time Olympian Charmaine Crooks of Canada. The three current IOC
members appointed to the commission are Judge Keba Mbaye of
Senegal, who is chairman and former vice president of the Court
of Justice; Kevan Gosper of Australia, who is an IOC vice
president and former chairman and chief executive officer of
Shell Australia; and also an Olympic silver medalist, Chiharu
Igaya of Japan.
Mr. Chairman, when I was asked to accept this position,
frankly, it came as a surprise, and I inquired why I might be
asked to do this job. It was pointed out that I had had
experience as an attorney in constructing an ethics code, more
than one ethics code, for major U.S. and international
corporations. So I went into this job hoping that I could
bring, and I believe I have had an opportunity to bring, some
insight into how others construct Olympic codes, how they are
put in place, how they are made useful, how the provisions of
the code are enforced, and how you go about determining that
violations of the code have occurred.
And also, Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the most important
part of any ethics undertaking is to make sure that the
membership involved, in this case country committees seeking
the presence of the Olympics and those involved in the Olympic
movement, fully understand that the leadership of the
International Olympic Committee is committed to these
statements of ethical conduct. And for that purpose, the Ethics
Commission has adopted a code, has adopted bylaws, and has made
it clear that the education of the membership of the IOC is one
of the essential and first elements of a successful program.
We are in the process now, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, of choosing a ``special representative.'' Special
representative is the word chosen by the commission. My own
description of that person is an ethics officer in the context
of an American corporation or an American enterprise who would
choose someone to implement that code, to administer its
provisions and to ascertain that action must be taken or should
be taken by the body itself.
The Ethics Commission of the IOC is roughly comparable in
U.S. corporate terms to perhaps a committee of the board of
directors, an audit committee perhaps, who has the stated
responsibility to see that the code is fully complied with and
to investigate allegations and charges that violations have
occurred, and also to see that there is an appropriate
education of those who will be affected by and involved with
the ethics program.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I feel
optimistic about the progress we have made so far. There have
been lively, sometimes enthusiastic debates within the
commission on the terms of the code itself and on the terms of
the bylaws. The commission charged Kevan Gosper and I with
writing those bylaws, and we believe that we have successfully
provided for the implementation and the general principles
established in the code itself. But, as I said earlier, we are
now involved in the business of choosing an administrative
officer, an ethics officer, if you please, designated here as a
special representative.
Now, in deference to my friends on the committee, I am
going to abbreviate the rest of these remarks and make three
points.
The first is, Secretary Kissinger has made a major
contribution to setting the stage for a new era in ethical
conduct for the IOC. Senator Mitchell--my friend Senator
Mitchell and my friend Ken Duberstein have taken the next step
and made a major contribution to the furtherance of that
purpose. It is my hope that the Ethics Commission now can
complete the structural arrangements that will provide the
oversight, the investigatory authority and the education
necessary to have a successful ethics program for the IOC.
The three points I would make, Mr. Chairman, are these:
First, the IOC is worth saving. It is a great institution
with a great history. It has most recently been involved in
conduct that has brought criticism and difficulty for the
organization itself, but it is worth saving. It is a great
institution and has a great future.
The second point I would make is, I believe by and large
the members of the Olympic Committee, the Executive Committee,
and all those I have been associated with are men and women of
goodwill, and they are willing to accept a code or standards of
conduct that will rectify the apparent difficulties of the
past.
I have already covered the third point, that the essence of
any ethical program is education, to make sure that those who
are involved and may be impacted by this code understand that
management, so-called, at the very highest level, is committed
to the enforcement of these provisions. And in my view that
means not only investigating charges that may be brought by
people in writing or otherwise about the conduct of particular
people or groups or countries but rather to make sure that
there is a positive requirement that those involved have a
responsibility to report violations as they occur. Because it
is virtually impossible for an ethics officer, and certainly
for an Ethics Commission, to ascertain every misfeasance, every
violation of this code that is likely to occur.
And there will be violations. We do not live in a perfect
world. And the best we can do is to set up a mechanism that can
sense out and understand the charges as they are made and find
evidence of misconduct and bring it to the attention of the
commission itself to make a judgment.
Now, the commission itself, under this setup, does not
impose sanctions. Rather, it makes recommendations to the
Executive Committee. And I think that is appropriate. Once
again, the parallelism between an audit committee and a
national board or a U.S. board of directors is not
inappropriate. Because in that case, while the audit committee
might have the responsibility and often does have the
responsibility for administering the code and supervising its
application, it is the board itself and the management of the
company that finally must determine what to do about it.
So here the sequence of events is that the ethics officer,
in this case designated as a special representative, will seek
out evidence of misconduct, will respond to charges of
misconduct, and will make recommendation to the Ethics
Commission. The Ethics Commission will then inquire into those
matters and will decide whether or not to make a recommendation
to the Executive Committee on what should be done. That is the
chain of events.
It is not dissimilar to those that have been adopted by
major international corporations. I think it is appropriate to
the IOC model. I think there is a high likelihood that it can
work. I think the atmosphere is appropriate to the
circumstance. And I believe that we have a good opportunity to
see that the blemishes against the reputation of the IOC will
be erased and that the future will be improved.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Howard H. Baker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator 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
International Olympic Committee reform and the role of its Ethics
Commission.
The IOC Ethics Commission was established this past March to
strengthen the IOC's ethical guidelines and provide a clear standard of
conduct for all members of the Olympic Family, as well as ensuring that
these guidelines are reflected in the policies and practices of the
IOC, the National Olympic Committees and organizations associated with
efforts to host the Olympic Games. The Commission takes responsibility
for considering and acting upon all ethical matters affecting the
Olympic Movement.
I was invited to join former United Nations Secretary General
Xavier Perez de Cuellar of Peru; former Swiss President Kurt Furgler of
Switzerland; former President of the French Constitution Court Robert
Badinter of France; and five-time Olympian Charmaine Crooks of Canada,
in serving as outside members of the Commission. 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 Olympic silver medalist Chiharu Igaya of Japan.
When I was invited to join this group, I assumed that it was based
on my prior experience in constructing and applying ethics codes in the
U.S. corporate context and I believe that the work product that I have
advocated for the Commission is generally in keeping with the
philosophy of recognized codes of ethics in this country and elsewhere.
In May, the Ethics Commission adopted Code of Ethics that 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. By adopting the Code during its June session in
Seoul, the full IOC made a firm commitment to its letter and spirit.
I am pleased that in addition to the Statutes and Rules of
Procedure, the Ethics Commission adopted my recommendation that we
create a specific set of guidelines to govern the implementation,
monitoring and enforcement of the Code. The Commission asked that I
work with a fellow Commission member (Kevan Gosper of Australia) to
develop bylaws to the Code that would accomplish this purpose. We felt
that the IOC should establish a permanent ethics office that would be
responsible for the day-to-day management of a comprehensive ethics
program modeled after some of the more successful corporate programs,
but tailored to fit the unique needs of the IOC.
As a result of that effort, bylaws to the Code were adopted by the
Ethics Commission this past Friday which I believe materially assist in
its definition and enforcement. The Commission voted to appoint a
Special Representative who will be given the resources necessary to
develop and manage a comprehensive Ethics Program for the IOC. This
will facilitate the full implementation of the Code of Ethics, as well
as the monitoring of its application and the enforcement thereof. As I
previously urged, the Special Representative will consider other ethics
programs successfully established by corporations and organizations
from around the world and the Commission has authorized the Special
Representative to engage private experts to assist in this effort.
I expect the Commission to immediately begin the process of
selecting a qualified candidate for this most important position and I
look forward to being an active participant in this process.
In terms of the overall management of the Ethics Program, the
Special Representative and requisite staff will be charged to educate
all Olympic Parties about their obligations under the letter and spirit
of the Code of Ethics; serve as a permanent resource in connection with
the application of the Code; monitor such application; investigate
alleged breaches of conduct; regularly report to the Commission on the
results of any investigation; and make ongoing suggestions about how
the Ethics Program can be improved.
The Special Representative will report to, and consult with, the
Ethics Commission on a regular basis, particularly during the first
year, when the Ethics Program is in its developmental stages. This
reporting is in additional to the Special Representative's regular
monthly reporting equirements.
In general, the Special Representative works at the direction of
the Ethics Commission, pursuant to its objectives and priorities, and
in a manner consistent with the Ethics Commission's Rules and
Procedures. In this context, the Ethics Commission will ensure that the
Special Representative has sufficient autonomy, consistent with best
business and governmental practice.
I am satisfied that this action by the Ethics Commission is a major
step toward the development of a credible, comprehensive and effective
system for promoting positive ethics and addressing breaches of the
Code where they occur.
To encourage the Special Representative to move as quickly as
possible in developing the Ethics Program, I am encouraging the
Commission to specifically require the Special Representative to
accomplish the following objectives during the first year of his or her
tenure:
The development of an organizational chart for the IOC Ethics
Program that will clarify its size and scope, as well as fully
describe its functionality;
The creation of an IOC Ethics Program Handbook that clearly
and comprehensively sets forth the standards of conduct that
all Olympic Parties will be expected to uphold. This Handbook
will consolidate and clarify all relevant rules and guidelines
from the Olympic Charter, as amended, the Code of Ethics and
attendant Rules and Statutes, and the pertinent new reforms
adopted this past weekend;
The crafting of recommendations to the Ethics Commission
suggesting ways to more fully develop the applicable procedures
for the Ethics Commission and the Ethics Program to ensure
fairness and efficiency in the investigation and processing of
breach of conduct allegations. These recommendations will
reflect careful consideration of the kinds of cases that have
previously been considered by the IOC and the Ethics Commission
and those that are reasonably foreseeable; and
Establishing a comprehensive education and training program
for the Ethics Program that will ensure that all Olympic
Parties are made fully aware of the goals, standards,
procedures and resources of the Ethics Program. To facilitate
this objective, the Special Representative will work closely
with, and encourage the active participation of, Olympic
Organizations.
To encourage transparency, I am also urging that the Special
Representative work closely with the Ethics Commission to determine, on
a regular basis, the extent to which non-confidential information about
the Ethics Program's activities can be made available to the public.
Mr. Chairman, I know that some confusion has arisen over the last
few days regarding the scope of the Ethics Commission's jurisdiction
and its overall mandate. I would like to briefly give the Committee my
views on this issue, which I believe are fully consistent with those of
my fellow Commission members and the IOC.
In establishing the Ethics Commission this past March, the IOC
intended that it would become the principal entity within the IOC's
organization responsible for considering and acting upon all ethical
matters affecting the Olympic Movement. Although the Commission did
defer to the IOC Executive Board with respect to the cases involving
IOC members Kim and Coles, it only did so because the Executive Board
had already launched an investigation into those matters prior to
creation of the Commission and it didn't make sense to begin a
concurrent investigation. I do believe that the Commission has the
authority and mandate to consider any new allegations arising out of
matters previously investigated and acted upon by the Executive Board.
In any event, the deferral on those two cases should be considered
as an exception, not the rule, and it was not intended to set a
precedent that the Commission would not consider any matter involving
circumstances occurring prior to its creation. I do agree with my
friend and fellow Commission member Mr. Perez de Cuellar that the
Commission must ultimately be focused on promoting positive ethics and
preventing scandals of the magnitude we have seen over the past year
from occurring again.
A fair question has also been raised about the willingness of the
Commission to take the initiative to look into allegations of unethical
conduct that are not supported by a written Complaint, as required in
the Commission's Rules. While I believe the requirement of a written
Complaint may have some merit in terms of minimizing the number of
frivolous complaints that the Commission will have to consider, I also
know that it is entirely possible for meritorious claims to be made in
other ways. I would hope that when the Special Representative makes
recommendations to the Commission regarding the efficacy of its Rules
and Procedures, they will reflect a careful examination of this issue.
At that time I am certain that the Commission will consider modifying
its procedures if necessary to ensure that we achieve our broad mandate
to fully address ethical matters within the Olympic Movement.
I am also happy that the IOC voted this past weekend in support of
the major reforms developed by the IOC 2000 Reform Commission, which
counts Dr. Henry Kissinger among its members. These reforms--which were
strongly influenced by the good work done by the Special Bid Oversight
Commission chaired by Senator Mitchell and Vice-Chairman Ken
Duberstein--will bring about permanent and positive change to the way
the IOC operates. Some of these reforms will be critically important to
the Ethics Commission's effort to fully implement and enforce the Code
of Ethics, such as the inclusion in the Olympic Oath of a commitment to
compliance with the Code of Ethics; requiring a contract with all bid
cities that stipulates adherence to the Code; allowing the Ethics
Commission to appoint three members to the newly-established
Nominations Commission, which will screen prospective candidates for
IOC membership; and, of course, the banning of travel to bid cities.
The adoption of broad reforms by the IOC is indeed a watershed moment
in its long history and I applaud the huge effort required to make this
a reality.
While I was initially skeptical about whether the IOC would
undertake serious ethical and structural reforms in a fairly short
period of time, it is now my distinct impression that the IOC--its
leaders and its members--fully recognize the need to restore the
Movement's credibility. And, as evidenced by the actions taken this
past weekend, I believe that they are willing to make the tough
decisions necessary to do so. The entire Olympic Movement must now join
with the IOC in accepting shared responsibility for preserving the
integrity of the Movement for generations to come and ensuring that the
Olympics and the spirit of Olympism will rise above the difficulties of
the past year. Ultimately, we all want the Olympics to be about the
athletes and the competition, not about ethical scandals.
Thank you for allowing me to express my views and I will be happy
to entertain your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Leader.
Mr. Upton. Dr. Kissinger, welcome back.
TESTIMONY OF HON. HENRY KISSINGER
Mr. Kissinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When I was asked to join the reform commission, I had the
same reaction as Senator Baker. I did not know much about the
organization of the IOC. Frankly, I didn't know the difference
between the IOC and the national committees and the various
groups composing it. But I did have an experience as a boy in
Germany when the Olympic Games were held there in 1936 and
brought about for a brief period an easing of pressure on the
community to which I belonged.
And so from this early time on, I have associated the
Olympic movement with humanitarian purposes, with contributing
to a world in which people can compete on the basis of merit
and excellence and not on the basis of any other consideration.
So I was honored to have an opportunity to contribute to the
charge that was given to us, which was to reform the
International Olympic Committee so that it would be
transparent, its actions predictable, and on the highest
ethical level.
I know all the members of the Ethics Commission--or almost
all the members of the Ethics Commission. I know all the
outside members well. Senator Baker has been a close friend of
mine for decades and needs no introduction here. But also the
French member and also Perez de Cuellar, a man of extraordinary
distinction.
I happened to work on the committee in which I participated
in the reform commission with the judge from Senegal who is
chairman, and I want to assure the members who have raised very
justified concerns whether the vice chairman of the IOC could
be relied upon to be scrupulous, he is one of the most
distinguished individuals that I have met, and he was a driving
force in the reforms that were actually adopted. And Senator
Baker has already referred to Kevan Gosper from Australia. So I
have enormous confidence in the Ethics Commission. And it is of
course true that the Ethics Commission, as a continuing
supervisory body, will have a major responsibility for the
spirit in which the other reforms are carried out.
We were organized in three groups, and I was particularly
familiar with the organization of the Olympic Commission and
somewhat, through Paul Allaire, with the requirements for
auditing of regular reports and procedures which parallel those
of major American and international corporations.
Our purpose in addressing the issue of organization was to
set up a system where this election of members, their conduct
and their organization, would be transparent and would be open
to the outside world. So we proposed a selection committee of
seven members, three of whom are outsiders, one of whom is an
athlete, and three members of the IOC. So a majority of the
members of the selection committee are outsiders. We proposed
an age limit of 70 in order to make possible a rotation and
various limitations on terms of office for the President and
for the Executive Committee.
We believe that, coupled with the creation of an Ethics
Commission, insofar as any organization can guarantee a
behavior that is widely understood and generally accepted, we
have come as close to achieving this as we were able to. I must
stress that on the commission on which I serve we were never
aware of any particular views that Mr. Samaranch might have,
and I can think of no proposal that was made that was not
accepted.
The basic guidance toward which I tried to orbit the
activities of the commission was the Mitchell report. I met
with Senator Mitchell, Mr. Duberstein and their associates at
great length, before I even met with any member of the IOC. I
did talk with Ken Duberstein because Senator Mitchell was
otherwise engaged. I talked to Ken Duberstein at least once a
week as we were progressing on our work, and I have the
impression--of course, he can speak for himself--that what we
proposed is consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell
Commission and could not have been achieved without the work
that the Mitchell Commission had done.
I also stayed in close touch with the athletes and with
General McCaffrey in the White House in order to bring about a
reconciliation between the approach of the IOC to the drug
problem and the view of the White House to the drug problem,
and I believe that this problem has been solved to the
satisfaction of both sides by creating an independent
commission.
These were the basic thrusts of our effort. I think we owe
it to the members of the IOC to say that there were of course
some bad apples. But the vast majority of the IOC members are
trying to serve the ideals of the Olympic movement. And
certainly all the ones that I met that were actually engaged in
the reform program were actively supporting the effort that was
being made. And I believe that after a very short period of
time enough fresh blood is going to be introduced to achieve
the objectives that we all share and to which this committee
has so greatly contributed.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Duberstein. Welcome back, particularly in
light of your pinch-hitting role for former Leader Mitchell,
who is stuck in Michigan.
TESTIMONY OF HON. KEN DUBERSTEIN
Mr. Duberstein. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to appear
before this subcommittee yet again. Senator Mitchell, as you
stated, was supposed to testify. He was detained by the fog in
Michigan, certainly not by the fog in Washington.
I am honored to be in a program with two gold medal winner
Americans, Henry Kissinger and Howard Baker. They are the best
in American public service.
I am appearing today as the vice chairman, pinch-hitting
for George Mitchell, of the special commission appointed by the
U.S. Olympic Committee President Bill Hybl in December, a year
ago, to review the circumstance surrounding the selection of
Salt Lake City to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Serving
with me on the commission were Chairman George Mitchell, my
other Vice Chairman Don Fehr, and members Roberta Cooper Ramo
and Jeff Benz.
We made public our recommendations on March 1, which seems
like a long time ago. As we reported to the Senate Commerce
Committee in April, and to you in October, we concluded that
the activity of the Salt Lake City bid committee was not
isolated. Rather, it was part of a broader culture in which
candidate cities provided items of value to International
Olympic Committee members as a way of influencing their votes.
This culture, we concluded, was made possible in part by the
closed nature of the IOC and by the absence of transparency and
accountability.
We also concluded that some of the actions of the USOC in
support of the Salt Lake City bid effort were inappropriate,
and we made a series of recommendations in this regard. The
USOC's response was quick and decisive, and by the time of the
Senate hearing in April, I was able to report that the USOC had
implemented all of our recommendations.
We made 15 recommendations to the IOC. They largely fell
into three categories: financial transparency, site selection,
and IOC structure and accountability.
The actions taken by the IOC last weekend, we believe,
represent real progress in all three categories. We commend
President Samaranch, Henry Kissinger, Howard Baker, Paul
Allaire, Dick Ebersol, Peter Ueberroth, Bill Hybl, and the
others, all of whom participated in the reform effort. Let me
underscore, we believe that progress has been made.
In the first two categories, financial transparency and
site selection, the IOC's actions were significant. They
generally were consistent with the recommendations of our
commission. In one important respect, on the matter which
sparked the controversy, visits to bid cities by IOC members,
the ban adopted by the IOC goes even further than we
recommended.
In the third category, structure and accountability, the
actions taken by the IOC, while positive, may need a bit
further refinement and certainly continued scrutiny.
We recommended changes in the method of electing IOC
members. We felt that one source of its problems was its
closed, self-perpetuating nature. Although recent changes
provides for representation of athletes, national Olympic
committee presidents, and sports federation leaders, they will
be chosen by the IOC itself after being submitted by the IOC
executive board. But, importantly, athletes will be selected by
athletes.
In addition, we recommended that representatives of these
constituencies comprise a substantial majority of the IOC. They
are not quite there. We recommended term limits. Although a
mandatory retirement age of 70 was adopted, there is no limit
on the number of 8-year terms that an IOC member can serve.
They must, however, go through a process of being renominated
and reelected, and we think that is a significant step in the
right direction.
We recommended the discontinuation of the practice of
interlocking directorates between an IOC member and the NOC or
the OCOG of that member's home country. The IOC referred that
matter for further study.
The IOC did recommend that the IOC members retain automatic
entitlement to membership on the national NOC, although the 45
IOC members drawn from the athletes, the International
Federations, and the National Olympic Committees would not be
permitted to vote.
We recommended the creation of an independent Office of
Compliance. This has been referred to the independent IOC
Ethics Committee on which Senator Baker serves for their
consideration.
So with respect to structure and accountability, there were
many positive changes. But, in our view, they were not as
finalized as were the changes in financial transparency and
site selection, and the new reforms need to be fully
implemented and carefully scrutinized.
One other subject deserves mention. Our commission regarded
as important our recommendation that the IOC require
prospective host countries to designate the IOC as a public
international organization under its laws pursuant to the OECD
Convention on Combating Bribery on International Business
Transactions. In the U.S., this would mean coming under the
coverage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The IOC petitioned the Secretariat of the OECD to have the
IOC so designated, although as Congressman Oxley and others
have stated, to date, because of procedural reasons, this has
not been done. Nevertheless, we applaud Mr. Samaranch for the
IOC effort in this regard. We hope that the IOC, the OECD
Secretariat, and the Olympic Games' bidding and host countries
will continue to work toward implementing the convention's
provisions.
Of course, the test of the effectiveness of the measures
adopted by the IOC will be in their implementation and
enforcement. A mechanism to ensure compliance must be fully
constructed. Without one, lasting reform will be difficult to
achieve. I understand, however, that the development of a
strong enforcement program is at least partly the
responsibility of the IOC Ethics Commission. We hope that they
will ensure a strong code of ethics that is effectively
enforced. One of its members, Senator Baker, let us just make
it clear, his judgment and his integrity speaks volumes about
the IOC appointment and asking Senator Baker to undertake those
serious responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, a scandal has focused attention on a
situation in which reform was long overdue. President Samaranch
and his colleagues have responded to the challenge. They have
taken important steps in the right direction. The IOC needs
close monitoring and frequent checkups. The real test lies
ahead in implementation and enforcement. They need to manage
effectively what they have promised, and we need to ensure they
continue on the reform course they have so finally established.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. George Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George J. Mitchell, Chairman of the Special
Bid Oversight Commission, United States Olympic Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appear today as the
chairman of the special commission appointed by U.S. Olympic Committee
President Bill Hybl in December 1998 to review the circumstances
surrounding the selection of Salt Lake City to host the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games. Serving with me on the Commission were Vice-Chairmen
Kenneth Duberstein and Donald Fehr, and members Roberta Cooper Ramo and
Jeffrey Benz.
We made public our recommendations on March 1, 1999. As I reported
to the Senate Commerce Committee on April 14th, we concluded that the
activity of the Salt Lake City Bid Committee was not isolated. Rather,
it was part of a broader culture in which candidate cities provided
items of value to International Olympic Committee members as a way of
influencing their votes. This culture, we concluded, was made possible
in part by the closed nature of the IOC and by the absence of
transparency and accountability.
We also concluded that some of the actions of the USOC in support
of Salt Lake City's bid effort were inappropriate, and we made a series
of recommendations in this regard. The USOC's response was quick and
decisive, and by the time of the Senate hearing in April I was able to
report that the USOC had implemented all of our recommendations.
We made fifteen recommendations to the IOC. They largely fell into
three categories: financial transparency; site selection; and IOC
structure and accountability.
The actions taken by the IOC last weekend represent progress in all
three categories. I commend President Samaranch, Dr. Kissinger, Senator
Baker, and all those who participated in the reform effort.
In the first two categories--financial transparency and site
selection--the IOC's actions were significant. They generally were
consistent with the recommendations of our commission. In one important
respect, on the matter which sparked this controversy--visits to
bidding cities by IOC members--the ban adopted by the IOC goes even
further than we recommended.
In the third category, structure and accountability, the actions
taken by the IOC, while positive, fell short of our recommendations.
We recommended changes in the method of electing IOC members.
We felt that one source of its problems was its closed, self-
perpetuating nature. Although the recent changes provide for
representation of athletes, National Olympic Committee
presidents, and sports federation leaders, they are not to be
elected or appointed by their respective constituencies.
Rather, ultimately they will be chosen by the IOC itself, after
being submitted by the IOC Executive Board. In addition, we
recommended that representatives of these constituencies
comprise a substantial majority of the IOC, but the IOC has
only provided for 45 of its 115 members to be drawn from these
groups.
We recommended term limits. Although a mandatory retirement
age of 70 was adopted, there is no limit on the number of
eight-year terms that an IOC member can serve. Those current
IOC members who would be affected by the new mandatory 70-year
retirement age are ``grandfathered'' in to the age of 80.
We recommended the discontinuation of the practice of
interlocking directorates between an IOC member and the NOC or
OCOG of that member's home country. The IOC did not adopt that
recommendation, but referred the matter for further study. The
IOC did recommend that IOC members retain automatic entitlement
to membership on the national Olympic committees though the 45
IOC members drawn from the athletes, international federations,
and national Olympic committees would not be permitted to vote.
We recommended creation of an independent Office of
Compliance. This apparently has been referred to the IOC Ethics
Committee for consideration.
So with respect to structure and accountability, there were some
positive changes. But, in our view, they were not as complete or as
meaningful as we had recommended or as were the changes in financial
transparency and site selection.
One other subject deserves mention. Our commission regarded as
important our recommendation that the IOC require prospective host
countries to designate the IOC as a public international organization
under its laws pursuant to the OECD Convention on Combatting Bribery on
International Business Transactions. In the U.S. this would mean coming
under the coverage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The IOC has
petitioned the Secretariat of the OECD to have the IOC so designated,
although I have been advised that to date this has not occurred for
procedural reasons. Nevertheless, we applaud the IOC for its effort. We
hope that the IOC, the OECD Secretariat, and the Olympic Games bidding
and host countries will continue to work toward implementing the
Convention's provisions.
Of course, the test of the effectiveness of the measures adopted by
the IOC will be in their implementation and enforcement. A mechanism to
ensure compliance has yet to be constructed. Without one, lasting
reform will be difficult to achieve. I understand, however, that the
development of a strong enforcement program is at least partly the
responsibility of the IOC Ethics Commission. We hope that they will
ensure that a strong Code of Ethics is developed and enforced. One of
its members is our distinguished former colleague, Senator Baker, whose
judgement and integrity should serve this important part of the process
well. Mr. Chairman, a scandal has focused attention on a situation in
which reform was long overdue. President Samaranch and his colleagues
have responded to the challenge. But the real test lies ahead, in
implementation and enforcement. These are important steps in the right
direction but the IOC needs close monitoring and frequent checkups.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
I know that Dr. Kissinger has a train to catch shortly, so
I am going to deviate from the normal practice.
I have one question for you, Dr. Kissinger, and we may have
a couple of members that may have specific questions for you,
so we will take that time out of turn.
When you were here in October and testified you made the
point very clear, and that of course was before the reform
commission had reported out and, obviously, the vote this last
weekend, you made it very clear that if for some reason those
reforms failed, and in fact at the hearing some thought that
the chance then was only 50-50 that it would pass, that you
would be the first one back to criticize the IOC for not making
the necessary reforms.
As we look ahead and obviously focus on the enforcement of
those reforms, the testimony by you and Mr. Baker and Mr.
Duberstein, the implementation and enforcement of that is so
important. Will you make that same commitment to us again,
knowing full well that in fact the reports will be public by
the Ethics Committee, that if in fact they do fail to enforce
that, at any point along the line, that you will--in fact will
take that same responsibility to tell not only us but the world
and the IOC members that they are off the track again?
Mr. Kissinger. Well, I have no formal right to do this, but
as an individual--and I have no formal function with respect to
a supervisory role at the IOC--but if it should come to my
attention, and I certainly will continue to take an interest in
the Olympic movement, if they are not living up not only to the
letter but also to the spirit of what has been done here, I
would certainly be very vocal about it and I would surely come
back to this committee.
May I make one point about term limits that my friend Ken
Duberstein made? I am a professor of political science, and
endless Ph.D. Theses have been written on the subject of how
you create organizations, and you can find plausible arguments
in either direction. I know of no corporation that prevents
reelection, other than age.
And, actually, this was not a matter where the IOC objected
to the proposal. It was the considered judgment of our
committee, right or wrong, that in light of an age limit of 70
and of the need for some continuity of the need for reelection
through this election committee so that you didn't come up
automatically for reelection that that met the needs of the
Mitchell proposals.
But this is one of those issues about which political
scientists and experts in organizations will argue forever. I
just want to make clear this was not a failure of a reform
proposal, this was a judgment that all of us outsiders made,
and we were certainly free to come to a different conclusion.
Mr. Duberstein. And the key was that each member would be
renominated and have to go through a reelection.
Mr. Kissinger. First he has to be renominated, then he has
to go through the seven-member selection committee, four of
whom are outsiders. So it is not an automatic reelection.
If you will forgive me, I must catch a train.
Mr. Upton. Does anyone have just a brief question for Dr.
Kissinger before he leaves?
Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. I want to just extend to Secretary Kissinger the
same question that I gave to Mr. Samaranch; and that is, of the
reforms that took place, are there others that you would have
liked to have seen that you found through your participation in
this that were not included in the package? And, if so, what
were they?
Mr. Kissinger. Except for the term limit one, I really
don't know any, and I did not push for the term limit one, I
believe that the essential recommendations were adopted.
I also would like to say that the chairman of the USOC,
Bill Hybl, was an invaluable contributor to the reform process
and gave tremendous support to all of us.
Mr. Burr. I thank the chairman, and I thank Mr. Kissinger.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will ask this to Senator Baker, too, but, Secretary
Kissinger, what is your opinion on the reforms that are being
implemented for the IOC members also applying to the office of
the presidency of the IOC?
Mr. Kissinger. On the what?
Mr. Barton. That the reforms that have been voted on for
the members of the IOC, those same reforms apply to the office
of the presidency of the IOC. Because currently none of these
reforms actually apply to the office of the president of the
IOC.
Mr. Kissinger. Well, I frankly had not focused on that, but
I would assume that the premise is that the President of the
IOC will want to carry out these reforms without being
technically compelled to do so as far as his own office is
concerned. I would certainly expect that the President of the
IOC would set an example to the rest of the organization for
meticulous adherence to the letter and the spirit of the
reforms.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Dr. Kissinger.
When we were here last, when Mr. Duberstein testified, and,
Mr. Baker, we also had transportation trouble that day as well,
as I recall, as you had an event in North Carolina that sent
you off from our second panel, a lot was said. In fact, it was
Mr. Duberstein's testimony of trust but verify, and that is
exactly what we want to see come about here.
I would like to share your optimism and your confidence in
the new system. I am not quite there yet. We are anxious to see
that the code of ethics, as it is drafted up--we are anxious to
see that perhaps the first number of cases and how they are
dealt with--we are interested to see, obviously, the full
implementation and the progress that is made and perhaps
further refinement with the scrutiny that comes about.
But there was something that did come about, and I do not
know if you saw this, I guess it was in Sports Illustrated this
last week, posted from Switzerland, and I just want to run
through with you some of the events that take place that sort
of adds to our not full confidence. It adds to our skepticism
in terms of being fully effective, the new Ethics Committee.
I read, ``John Kim was indicted in September on Federal
charges that he lied to investigators and entered the U.S. with
a fraudulently obtained green card.'' Mr. Kim, a member of the
IOC--his son, I'm sorry.
``Kim received a severe warning from the IOC earlier this
year for alleged ethics violations.
``Asked last Wednesday whether Kim's status was under
review as a result of his son's indictment, Director-General
Francois Carrard said, `There are no facts as far as we are
concerned. It would be a matter for the Ethics Commission'.''
Sent to the right place. Those are my words.
The story reads, ``Commission members, however, said they
have no power to initiate further investigations on the case,
which IOC spokesman Franklin Servan-Schreiber said is `closed
until there is new proof'.''
``Ethics commissioner member Robert Badinter said that `we
will not be Scotland Yard'.''
It goes on.
How does that comport with the power that the Ethics
Committee has on obviously a case that is pretty recent versus
back in the 1980's or even earlier in this decade?
Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, I would say a few things.
No. 1, the commission is still very much a work in
progress. As I said in my earlier testimony, in the summation
of my testimony, while we have adopted the code, we have
adopted the bylaws, we are now in the process of writing rules
and regulations and finding an administrative officer, an
ethics officer, a special representative.
And, by the way, it is my view that we ought to pick that
person, the administrative officer, before we finish the
drafting of the rules and regulations, because he or she should
have some role to play there.
On the question of whether or not we go into matters that
are in the past and prior to the creation of the commission or
prior to the perfection of the commission's activities, it is a
very thorny issue. My friend, Mr. Badinter, also said at one
point, or one of my fellow members did, that we are a forward-
looking commission, and indeed we are.
And you finally then get to the question, where do you
close a matter? Do you go all the way back to the very earliest
selection process and review the whole thing? I don't think so.
Do you take a look at new allegations and new charges that were
not considered? I certainly do think so. Is the commission a
self-starter? Yes, in my view it is.
And without any allegation of misconduct, it seems to me
that if the administrative officer or his staff or the
commission or any member of the commission ascertains that
there is a reason to believe that there has been an infraction
of the code or of appropriate conduct, that they should be a
self-starter and go forward with it.
But there has to be a dividing line someplace. And while we
cannot go back and review everything that has ever happened, I
do think that the commission, that the administrative officer,
should be open to taking a look at anything that looks like it
ought to be looked at and that perhaps may not have been looked
into before. But it is like prior jeopardy in the legal
parlance. You have to stop someplace.
Mr. Upton. You would not necessarily close the door on this
investigation, which is pretty recent?
Mr. Baker. I would not close the door on that or any other
investigation. If something new comes up that is clear it was
not considered, then I think it is entirely appropriate for the
Ethics Commission to take a look at it.
Mr. Upton. Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Well, Senator, I really agree with what you
have just said in terms of independent investigatory authority.
Because something that I am very concerned about hearing in the
testimony today so far is this testimony about, well, we never
investigated abuses because no one reported them to us. And of
course, as we know, if any organization is going to engage in a
culture of corruption, you are not going to have reporting
because everybody is going to back each other up.
So I guess I would like to hear from you what you think
that the Ethics Committee will be doing in its regulations to
empower it to have this independent investigatory authority. I
never got what I considered to be a very clear answer from Mr.
Samaranch as to how we are going to break this cycle that has
built up and how we are actually going to investigate whether
it is happening, whether or not we have a specific allegation
of abuse by a specific individual.
Mr. Baker. Well, I think, first of all, you might like to
have a little insight into how we finally derived the wording
of the ethics code. One of the most energetic debates we had
within the commission was whether or not there is a positive
requirement for those who participate in Olympic activities to
report a violation. Some said, well, you know, we just cannot
do that. We would turn ourselves into, as one member said, into
a bunch of McCarthyites. I said, well, in my view, you cannot
have an effective ethics code unless you have a corresponding
requirement that you report what you find.
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Baker. And while that is not dealt with directly in the
ethics code, I think finally there is a unanimous view that the
Ethics Commission has the positive responsibility to
investigate whatever comes to their attention in whatever way.
Ms. DeGette. But no proactive responsibility was put on IOC
members to report, is what you are saying, and that kind of
disturbs me.
Mr. Baker. It is not spelled out in the code itself. But I
say now, in my view, not only does the Ethics Commission have
that responsibility, but I believe the Executive Committee has
that responsibility, the IOC has that responsibility, and I
think anybody involved, including national committees, should
have, and I believe does have, the responsibility under the
code to tell us if they see a violation of provisions of the
code.
Ms. DeGette. I understand what you are saying. I saw Mr.
Duberstein nod. Do you think it will be possible, as we flush
out these committee rules, to have some kind of affirmative
responsibility to report any gifts that are received or trips
that are taken or so on?
Mr. Baker. Well, I hope so. Yes, on trips that are taken, I
certainly think so.
Ms. DeGette. Well, to follow up on the gifts, Mr. Samaranch
just said a few minutes ago that he thinks the gifts should
just be banned since they are an adjunct to the trips, and the
trips are bad. So I will look forward to that change.
Mr. Baker. By the way, I have a view of that. I don't think
you ought to ban the trips. I think the trips are useful. I
think what ought to happen, and I have said this, but it is not
incorporated in the policy directives, I think what ought to
happen is the IOC itself should pay for those trips.
Mr. Duberstein. Which is, in fact, the recommendation of
our commission.
Mr. Baker. Exactly.
Mr. Duberstein. But the IOC went----
Ms. DeGette. So is that going to lead to another change in
the rules, do you think? I might happen to think the trips
would be useful, too, but the IOC should pay. But that is not
what the IOC did.
Mr. Baker. No. It is not in the rules and, really, it is a
matter of policy, I think, absent any specific provision. What
I am saying is I would feel better if it were done that way.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Duberstein, feel free to jump in. Do you
feel it would be helpful to have some kind of hotline, where
people could report some kind of potential abuses?
Mr. Baker. That was discussed also, as we debated and
finally adopted the ethics code. Many corporations do have
that. They have a hotline not only to make it easier for people
to report allegations of misconduct and violations of the code,
but also so they can do it anonymously.
Ms. DeGette. Right. Well, do you think a hotline will
happen? We are talking about all these ideas, and maybe they
are good ideas, but I do not hear this happening.
Mr. Baker. We are still a work in progress, and that is my
view, but I guess I have not given up on that yet.
Ms. DeGette. All right. Just one last question, if I may.
And by the way, we have enormous respect for you, for the other
members of the panel, everybody who is working on this. We know
you are all very diligent, and you are all very well respected.
The concern I have got, and someone I think on the other side
mentioned this in the previous questioning, what happens when
you are all gone?
How can we institutionalize an Ethics Committee that will
not be primarily or even solely reliant on personalities and
the goodwill of the vice chairman and of you good folks?
Mr. Baker. Well, I appreciate the compliment, and I usually
decline to think about what happens after I disappear.
Ms. DeGette. Just after you leave the committee.
Mr. Upton. We will use the John McCain example. We will
give you some dark glasses and prop you up like he is going to
do with Alan Greenspan.
Mr. Baker. I would agree. But you are doing here the best
thing you can do, and that is to ventilate these issues, to
call public attention and to the attention of the IOC
apparatus. Believe me, I know firsthand the IOC is listening to
this and the Executive Committee is listening to it, and they
are taking to heart the suggestions that you have made, that
the Ethics Committee makes. This is the most effective thing
that can be done.
The Congress of the United States has no jurisdiction over
the IOC. Maybe we can get at it in some indirect ways. But the
surest way to deal with this, in my view, is to make sure it is
a prominent, well-ventilated issue.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And given as much time
as you spent with Senator Thurmond, Senator Baker, I don't
expect you to go anywhere anytime soon.
Let me set the record straight. And I don't think Mr.
Kissinger meant specifically what he said, but I have
questioned individuals, the chairman of the Ethics Committee,
who is the vice president of the Executive Committee, and I
have not questioned his character or his integrity, I question
structurally whether the ability to serve as the chairman of an
Ethics Committee and the responsibility he then had as a vice
chair or vice president of the Executive Committee could in
fact be performed by the same individual. Clearly, if you
believe that that works, then I can accept that.
I think the question that we all have about this process is
structure. Is the structure in place that outlasts all of us
and is one that the IOC can turn to in troubling times?
So let me get to maybe not what the Ethics Committee is
doing but how you envision the Ethics Committee handling
certain things. Do you envision the Ethics Committee
recommendations to be transparent or will they be closed at the
Executive Committee level?
Mr. Baker. Let me take them in reverse order. Should the
deliberations of the ethics committee be totally transparent?
Mr. Burr. Maybe not the deliberations but the findings of
the Ethics Committee.
Mr. Baker. The findings certainly should be transparent.
The deliberations, you may have cases where you would want to
protect the innocent or make sure that you protect sources or
for other reasons that you would want to hold in confidence
some of the deliberations of the commission.
Mr. Burr. But you would expect the findings of the Ethics
Committee that you turn over, based upon the structure that I
understand, to the Executive Committee of the IOC to be open,
those recommendations?
Mr. Baker. I don't believe it is dealt with anyplace in our
bylaws or our proposals, but I would expect that to be so, yes.
Mr. Burr. Do you envision the Ethics Committee having the
capabilities of disciplining IOC members or can that only be
done under the structure by the Executive Committee?
Mr. Baker. I don't think the Ethics Commission actually
will have any authority to sanction or punish anyone. What we
do is act as a fact-finding group, make a recommendation to the
Executive Committee, and perhaps then from the Executive
Committee to the full IOC. But we have no authority as an
Ethics Commission to do that.
Could I say a word about Judge Mbaye?
Mr. Burr. Yes, sir.
Mr. Baker. I met Judge Mbaye before I agreed to be on this
commission, but I must tell you I am mightily impressed by him.
He is careful, and he is deliberate, but he is also determined,
and he is determined to see this undertaking works. And the
fact that he is also a member of the Executive Committee does
not really bother me at all. Perhaps it might at some future
time, but I really am not really concerned about that, and I am
certainly not concerned with Judge Mbaye.
Mr. Burr. If this were not the IOC and this was a
corporation that you served on the board of and that
corporation set up an Ethics Committee within its company and
the Chair of the Ethics Committee was in fact the vice
president of the board, would you have a problem with that?
Mr. Baker. Well, I was on a board, and before I went on the
board I was asked to draw a code of ethics. And then after I
got there, I became a member of the audit committee, which had
responsibility for overseeing the performance of the ethics
code. We had no chairman. We were a committee. But had we had a
chairman, and were it a member of management, I don't think it
would have bothered me. Because we had a majority of directors,
outside directors. As a matter of fact, all but one was an
outside director on the audit committee. And it never occurred
to me that there was anything wrong with that.
And, honestly, I don't think I will worry about this.
Mr. Burr. Again, my question is not toward the integrity or
capabilities of Mr. Mbaye, it is more toward the structure. Is
that the structure we want for the future?
Let me go on. Do you envision that the Ethics Committee can
investigate charges on their own, or would they have to be
directed by the Ethics Committee?
Mr. Baker. Well, that is a very good question. I have heard
expressions of several variations on that subject. My own
personal view is that the Ethics Commission, and more likely
the ethics officer, should have free rein to investigate
anything that comes to their attention or that they suspect.
And if it is in writing, that is fine, but they might even
require it to be in writing. But I don't think there should be
any restriction on the scope of the permissible inquiry that
the Ethics Commission can make.
Mr. Burr. According to an IOC press release dated October
28, 1999, it stated that the Ethics Committee plans to develop
within 12 months a process by which the Olympic parties will
certify that they will comply with the letter and spirit of the
IOC code of ethics. Let me just ask you, why will it take so
long to develop?
Mr. Baker. Well, I am not so sure it will. But I do think,
as I said earlier, that it is as important that we have an
educational program as it is that we have a code. Because those
who are potentially impacted by this code or by the rules and
regulations must be aware of the fact that not only the
commission itself is behind these provisions but so is the top
management, so to speak, of the IOC.
I have no view on how long it will take. It has taken us a
long time to get as far as we are, and it is still very much a
work in progress.
Mr. Burr. But you do see that as a vital part of the
compliance by bid cities?
Mr. Baker. The compliance part is important, and it is
going to take awhile. And to be absolutely honest and candid,
you don't get instant agreement within this commission on every
item that comes up. It takes awhile for it to percolate through
and to develop a consensus.
Mr. Burr. That must be odd for you, after leaving the
legislative branch up here, not to have full agreement?
Mr. Baker. Absolutely unheard of.
Mr. Burr. Last question. Is the Ethics Committee currently
investigating any allegations of wrongdoing? Not asking for
specifics, I am just asking in general.
Mr. Baker. If I may, Mr. Burr, I think I will reserve on
that for the moment.
Mr. Burr. The gentleman certainly has the right to do that,
and I respect that.
I thank the Senator, and I thank Mr. Duberstein.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Upton. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. I thank the chairman.
I want to comment on something that Senator Baker said in
response to an earlier question, that the U.S. Congress does
not have direct jurisdiction over the International Olympic
Committee. That is very true. I am told, though, that the U.S.
Government directly gives several hundred million tax dollars
every Olympic cycle to the IOC, or USOC, indirectly through our
Tax Code another several hundred million, and then U.S.
corporations through sponsorship and commercial dealings
several billion dollars. So I think there is a reasonable right
of the Congress to be concerned about this, and I know that you
share that.
Senator Baker, I may not have this quote exactly right, and
I would beg your excuse before the fact. But when I was a lad
watching the House and the Senate growing up in Texas, I
remember a certain Senator on a certain committee saying
something to the effect, ``What did he know and when did he
know it?'' Do you recollect who said that and when that person
said that?
Mr. Baker. I also recall that at lunch, on the day before I
said it, with my press secretary Ron MacNamy, where I said we
have to summarize this thing some way. It is drifting away. And
I am going to ask what did the President know and when did he
know it. And my press secretary said, ``No, don't use that, it
doesn't have any clout.'' And I was about half convinced.
But I do think it summarized the whole thing, and I don't
think it is inappropriate to this inquiry. And it should be
extended beyond just the President. It should be extended as
well to the management of the IOC and specifically to the
Ethics Commission. As long as I stay on the Ethics Commission,
I intend to make sure that everything is possible for me to
know about appearances of impropriety or about allegations of
impropriety. That may be very difficult, but I feel that is the
responsibility of the management and of the commission to do.
Mr. Barton. Well, I want to commend you, Senator Baker, for
having the courage in the early 1970's, as part of the Select
Committee on what was commonly called the Watergate
Investigative Committee, as a member of the minority party in
the House and the Senate, to make that statement, to stick to
your guns. Ultimately, the fact that a person of your
commission and your eminence asked that question led to the
resignation of the President of the United States. And I think
President Samaranch, who is still in the room, is to be
commended for appointing, for lack of a better term, what we in
Texas would call a posse that puts people of your eminence and
Dr. Kissinger and Senator Mitchell and some of the
international community on it.
But I would point out that, to use that analogy a little
further, if the sheriff or President Samaranch sends the posse
in the wrong direction, you can look all day and have the best
sharpshooters and bloodhounds and troubleshooters and not find
anything. So I am a little concerned about the responsibility
for implementation, as the other members are, and I have a few
questions for you in that regard.
Sports Illustrated reports that of the 112 members on the
IOC board as of February, 90 were appointed by President
Samaranch. Is that concurrent with what your understanding is
of the current make-up of the IOC?
Mr. Baker. I have no reason to dispute that at this point.
Mr. Barton. If that is in fact true, how independent do you
think the current IOC board membership can be in implementing
all of these various reform measures, given the fact that the
incumbent president intends to remain in office?
Mr. Baker. Let me regress for a minute and say that
throughout my participation in this inquiry and the
construction of the ethics code, I could not have asked for
more cooperation than I have had from President Samaranch. I
have talked to him privately, I have talked to him in groups,
and I came away convinced that he was fully dedicated in a
manner of trying to clean this up, so to speak, and that he
fully supported our effort to draft a code that would
institutionalize this new regime. So I have a very high regard
for President Samaranch. I know that he testified effectively
this morning, but I wanted to add that.
Now, on the independence of the IOC, the very best way that
you could do that, I think, is the way that we talked about a
moment ago, and that is to make sure that the deliberations the
IOC, of the Ethics Commission, the executive committee are all
transparent to the maximum appropriate extent, and that as you
point out, the Congress--in particular this committee--keep
track of the evolution and development of this work in progress
so that you can publish, so that you can call the country's
attention to the successes and perhaps the failures of our
efforts to institute a new day at the IOC. I really don't have
any fear of undue influence by President Samaranch. I think he
is well meaning and dedicated, I think he has given
distinguished service, and I really have no reason to think
that that would change.
Mr. Barton. Are we going to have a second round, Mr.
Chairman, on this panel?
Mr. Bryant [presiding]. I have been told that it's up to
me. That could be dangerous.
Mr. Baker. Would the chairman accept a suggestion that if
we have a second round, that we have sandwiches?
Mr. Bryant. Only Mr. Upton might think on it. The chairman,
the real chairman will be back here shortly. I will certainly
leave it to his discretion. I suspect he will, if there are----
Mr. Barton. Let me ask you one more question, and then I
will defer my other series for the second round, if we have a
second round.
Why should not the reforms that are being implemented for
the IOC board members not also be applied to the office of the
presidency and the other executive offices?
Mr. Baker. Well, I have listened to that question and Dr.
Kissinger's answers. To tell you the truth, I haven't thought
about that. But part of the reason I haven't thought about it,
I guess, is because I have become such an admirer of President
Samaranch. But I will think about it, and I will see that the
matter is addressed and properly debated in the Ethics
Commission. I am not----
Mr. Barton. Dr. Kissinger's basic response was that he
hadn't thought about it too much either, and he just assumed
that whoever assumed the presidency would honor the spirit and
the letter of the reforms to the rest of the membership. I
would simply offer suggestions to your committee that the
reforms on travel and acceptance of gifts and reporting and
transparency be formalized for the Office of the Presidency and
the other executive offices if for no other reason than to
assure congruity and conformity.
Mr. Baker. I thank you for the suggestion and I will see
that it is passed on. I will promise to pursue the matter. I
might also say, Mr. Barton, that my dad, who was in Congress
years ago, taught me that if I ever testified before a
congressional committee to always make sure that I didn't speak
more clearly than I thought.
Mr. Barton. We appreciate this panel testifying without the
benefit of interpreters. That helps us. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Upton. We have a little problem with the time because I
know that--we are going combine Panel III and IV together. I
know that some of those athletes will not be able to stay much
longer because of transportation. So if we can, I would like to
conclude with this round. If we have a passing question, come
see me. Let me go to Mr. Bryant first.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you. Mr. Duberstein and Senator, I would
like, if either one of you have opinions on two questions that
I have, if you could maybe express those rather succinctly, and
we will try to move this along. I think we probably took a
little longer than we anticipated with our first panel. But in
terms of this Ethics Commission, is it too early to determine
whether or not the members of the IOC--I don't know, perhaps I
am assuming there has been some feedback--are taking this
seriously, because I mentioned the culture that we feel. We
heard a lot about that in the first hearing, that is sort of
out there. In addition to that--this is not my second question,
but in addition--are they going to take it seriously; are there
powers that this commission will have, the special
representative will have to get their attention?
Mr. Baker. Mr. Bryant, I think that the IOC itself and the
staff of the IOC and perhaps those who know of our
deliberations, country committees and the like, do take it very
seriously indeed; and there have been lots of suggestions about
what should or should not be included in the code or the bylaws
or the implementation plan.
Once again, I think the surest way to make certain that the
reforms survive and endure beyond the life of this commission
or even this executive committee is to make sure that groups
like this committee continue to have an interest in it. I know
it is intrusive and unpleasant and an inconvenience to the IOC
to have hearings like this, but it is the surest guarantee that
these issues will be addressed and they will persevere in their
effort to create a new day.
Mr. Bryant. Mr. Duberstein, do you want to add anything to
that?
Mr. Duberstein. The only thing that I would add is our
commission and Senator Mitchell and I had concerns, until the
time that we traveled to London to meet with Mr. Samaranch, Mr.
Carrard. We spent a good bit of time with them. Subsequently,
we have talked with one or both of them on a number of
occasions and became convinced of their not only dedication to
reform, but to the transparency of the IOC and to the more full
participation and representation at the IOC. I think it is
significant that Mr. Samaranch came here today to appear before
this committee. I agree with Congressman Barton as far as
jurisdiction, but the fact is that Mr. Samaranch came here and
testified and took all the questions that were asked. I think
that should suggest to you that the commitment to reform on Mr.
Samaranch is something that he is now living every day. I think
that is reassuring.
Mr. Baker. Could I add to that just for one moment? I am
talking a little out of school, but I could tell you that there
are many people on the IOC structure who thought it was
inappropriate and unwise for President Samaranch to appear
here. He persisted from the beginning, saying that he felt he
should, and he did, and I am glad he came.
Mr. Duberstein. I agree.
Mr. Bryant. This will call for a short answer one way or
the other, but both of you if you could answer this, both
members of the panel, based on your experiences thus far as a
member of the IOC Ethics Commission, are you satisfied with the
progress that has been made to implement the necessary
procedures to ensure the Ethics Commission will be successful
in overseeing compliance with IOC rules and the ethics code?
Mr. Baker. Yes, I am. There is always many a slip between
the cup and the lip, but--I will repeat what I said earlier.
This was not a cut-and-dried deal. There was a lot of
controversy about the provisions of the code. It was finally
unanimously adopted. I think the commission is fully on board
and enthusiastic. I think the executive committee is. I believe
that President Samaranch is, and that's way down the road. That
is coming along.
Mr. Duberstein. I do agree with what I observed and my
conversations with Senator Baker.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Oxley.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first thank both
of you for excellent work on behalf of the International
Olympic Movement. It has been spectacular and I think your
presence here today points that out.
This whole issue has become one that the press has focused
in on essentially because of bribery or at least alleged
bribery and as a result of trying to get a bid for a particular
city. And I suspect that had that not happened, we wouldn't be
here today and a lot of the allegations that floated around for
years probably would have continued to go unnoticed. But as a
result of that, the bribery allegations, a lot of good reforms
have come out of it.
As I mentioned to the other panel, to President Samaranch,
Congress last year passed a bill that I introduced with
Chairman Bliley to implement the OECD convention against
bribery of foreign public officials. We have had in this
country a history of legislation dealing with foreign corrupt
practices. Senator Baker, you are well aware of that. Mr.
Duberstein, you are as well. In many cases we took the lead. In
many cases we were the only country that had a similar type of
legislation. And it was in many ways a disadvantage for our
companies insomuch that we lost billions of dollars in
contracts overseas over the years as a result of our strict
adherence to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Finally over the OECD leadership and the convention, the
anti-bribery convention gives an opportunity for all of the
countries to essentially sign on to that and put us on the same
level that everybody else is. As a matter of fact, as many of
you know, the laws in some countries actually rewarded
companies for providing bribes, actually allowed companies to
write it off on their taxes.
So we have come a long way and I think the U.S. has taken
that leadership and part of that was this anti-bribery statute
that we were able to pass last session. One of the provisions
in the legislation said that for the first time, briberies of
officials of international organizations would be illegal under
our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The IOC was not on the list
of organizations covered because it was simply not covered by
the International Organization Immunities Act. In drafting the
bill, it did take into account the possibility that other
organizations might need to be added to those subject to the
FCPA. This provision allows the President to designate new
organizations as subject to the FCPA by executive order. I,
along with Chairman Bliley, wrote to the President in March--
March 26, as a matter of fact--raising the issue. I understand
that the Mitchell commission also raised that issue.
Mr. Chairman, I will just quote briefly from the letter
that Chairman Bliley and I sent to the President in March. ``We
made it clear during this process that we expected prompt
action by the administration to implement the treaty, including
encouraging other nations to expand their own anti-bribery
laws. The implementing legislation gave you the specific
authority to add international organizations such as the IOC
via executive order to the list of organizations covered by the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, our Nation's tough anti-bribery
law.''
We go on to quote USOC president William J. Hybl in which
he wrote to the president asking that you take this step
recommended by the commission. In making this request, Mr. Hybl
states, ``The United States Olympic Committee fully supports
this recommendation by the Special Bid Oversight Commission and
respectfully requests that you issue such an order.''
As Mr. Hybl points out in his letter, issuing such a
Presidential executive order would make it illegal to bribe an
IOC official under the FPCA.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
this letter to the President be made a part of the record.
Mr. Upton. Without objection.
[The letter follows:]
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Commerce
March 26, 1999
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20502
Dear Mr. President: The recent events regarding the ethical lapses
concerning the International Olympic Committee (``IOC'') raise serious
issues that must be addressed promptly. Like all Americans, we were
shocked and discouraged to learn that bribery and other illicit
inducements may not only be common in the Olympic site selection bid
process, but also that these practices allegedly were employed by some
members of the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for the Olympic
Winter Games of 2002 (``SLOC''). The very notion of IOC members
profiting through their association with the Olympics is anathema to
the diligence and dedication the world's athletes show in preparing for
Olympic competition.
We worked together last year to successfully pass the implementing
legislation necessary for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (``OECD'') Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign
Officials in International Business Transactions. We made it clear
during this process that we expected prompt action by the
Administration to implement this treaty, including encouraging other
nations to expand their own anti-bribery laws. The implementing
legislation gave you the specific authority to add international
organizations, such as the IOC, via Executive Order, to the list of
organizations covered by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (``FCPA''),
our nation's tough anti-bribery law. We did this so you could act
promptly, without seeking additional legislation, in a circumstance
just like this. Given that you signed our legislation into law last
fall, we are interested in learning why you have not exercised your
authority in this regard in the four months since the scandal first
broke.
Furthermore, on March 1, 1999, Senator George Mitchell presented
the Report of the Special Bid Oversight Commission to the United States
Olympic Committee (``USOC''). This Report reviewed the circumstances
surrounding Salt Lake City's bid to host the Olympic Winter Games and
recommended improving the policies and procedures associated with the
Olympic bidding process. Addressing the need for the IOC to make
fundamental changes to increase its accountability, the Commission
encouraged ``the USOC to consider requesting the issuance of a
presidential Executive Order that names the IOC `a public international
organization' within the meaning of FCPA.''
Accordingly, on March 3, 1999, USOC President William J. Hybl wrote
you, asking that you take this step recommended by the Commission. In
making this request, Hybl states: ``[t]he United States Olympic
Committee fully supports this recommendation by the Special Bid
Oversight Commission, and respectfully requests that you issue such an
Order.'' As Mr. Hybl points out in his letter, issuing such a
Presidential Executive Order would make it illegal to bribe an IOC
official under the FCPA.
In light of the foregoing, namely that you now possess the specific
authority to take action and a recommendation to do so from this
nation's own Olympic Committee, do you intend to issue an Executive
Order designating the IOC as subject to the FCPA? If you do not plan to
issue such an Order, please include an explanation of your decision not
to act.
During our consideration of the implementing legislation, we made
it clear that convincing other nations to ratify and implement the
Convention was critical to its success. If we want to return integrity
to the Olympics, we urge you to encourage as many nations as possible
not only to ratify and implement the OECD Convention, but do so in a
way that specifically makes bribery of IOC members illegal under their
own anti-corruption laws. We are interested in learning what you have
done in this regard. Accordingly, please describe the steps taken by
the Administration, if any, to encourage other nations to implement the
OECD Convention in a manner so as to make bribery of an IOC official
illegal. Also, please identify, as of the date of this letter, the
nations the Administration has contacted to urge them to implement the
OECD Convention in such a manner as to specifically make the bribery of
IOC officials illegal. We would greatly appreciate your response to our
questions by April 13, 1999.
Fairness, clear rules and objectivity are critical in the sporting
world. The Olympic spirit reflects the highest ideals in this respect,
or at least it should. Athletes spend years of hard work in training in
order to pursue the Olympic dream. Their tireless dedication to
excellence should not be sullied by corruption, or by acquiescence to
corruption.
If you have any questions about this request, please contact us or
have your staff contact Mr. Edward Hearst of the House Commerce
Committee staff at (202) 226-2424. We look forward to hearing from you
on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley, Chairman
Committee on Commerce
Michael G. Oxley, Chairman
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask
both of the you, Mr. Duberstein and Senator Baker, do you think
the President should designate the IOC as an organization
subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?
Mr. Duberstein. Yes.
Mr. Baker. So do I.
Mr. Oxley. Mr. Duberstein, would you require a host nation
to be made part of the OECD Anti-bribery Convention and make
illegal bribery of the IOC members illegal?
Mr. Duberstein. I think that would be quite useful,
Congressman.
Mr. Oxley. Senator Baker.
Mr. Baker. I have a different view. I have no objection to
that, but I feel like before a country can be considered as a
host country, a host committee, that they should make a
positive affirmation of their commitment to comply with the
code of ethics, and the code of ethics will also cover that
point.
Mr. Oxley. The idea would be that there would be at least
an incentive there for any prospective host country to adopt
the Anti-bribery Convention as a means of assuring that the
bribery would not take place. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Mr. Baker. I think so. I have no objection to it. But once
again, my experience in this context is with the ethics code.
We considered that in the ethics code, whether or not
subscribing to the provisions of the ethics code ought to be a
condition precedent to considering a country as a host country.
Mr. Oxley. Mr. Chairman, we still await responses by the
administration to our letter regarding any positive movement
toward including the IOC under the anti-bribery statute. And
perhaps we could work together to make certain that the
administration understands how serious this committee is and, I
am sure, how serious these gentlemen are about following
through on that idea.
Mr. Upton. I would just like to say that I would like to
work with you on that. Though I thought the administration was
trying to seek, though, in a little different form, but they
were in fact trying to get the IOC underneath the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act. I thought they had sent that signal as
poorly written.
Mr. Oxley. Under the legislation, as I indicated, the
President by executive order could do that today, and it has
not been forthcoming. I think it is important that we make the
administration understand how serious we are about that issue.
I thank the Chairman for his indulgence in allowing me to sit
in on the subcommittee and I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much. I would like to say that a
number of us will have additional questions that we will submit
in writing.
A couple of us have questions that we would like to pursue
in person, and I will first recognize Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I
just have two questions.
Senator, you testified a few minutes ago, at least I
thought that you testified that the Special Representative can
conduct or can gather evidence and conduct investigations on
his or her initiative. But as I read the minutes adopted this
weekend, they note that the Special Representative proceeds
with the approval of the Commission, or if it's not meeting, of
the Chairman. So I read those minutes that they could be
interpreted in a slightly different way than your testimony.
This raises the whole issue we have been talking about today,
which is that these minutes really need to be fleshed out a lot
more clearly. I think that you have got a lot of work cut out
for you.
Based on that, I have two questions. First of all, do you
think that the IOC should consider elevating the Special
Representative to a higher status than it is now, so in fact
that office can have independent investigative authority?
Mr. Baker. I don't think there is any doubt but that the
fair intendment of the ethics code in the bylaws is that the
Special Representatives--Special Representative should be
independent and should have the budget and the staff to carry
out his or her duties.
I guess I would verse that a little different on the
question of whether or not they could proceed with the
concurrence of the Executive Committee or Ethics Commission. I
said earlier, and I believe and I hope that my fellow
commissioners believe, that the Special Representatives--
Special Representative has the full authority to follow
whatever leads occur to him or her. They require no
authorization from the Ethics Commission or anyone else to
pursue them. The Special Representative has no authority to
sanction. The Ethics Commission has no authority to sanction,
but I think the Special Representative should be fully
empowered and I believe is fully empowered to pursue any lead
that occurs to him.
Ms. DeGette. Following up on that. I know your staff, in
particular Kevin Jones, has been very helpful to our staff in
trying to work this through. This just points out to me we are
seeing confusion in the minutes adopted this weekend. We are
seeing clarifications that are needed. I am wondering if we can
try to have a series of follow-up conversations to see how the
details are really being fleshed out with the first one of them
to occur the first week of February of next year.
Mr. Baker. Sure, I would be glad to. Thank you for your
remarks about Kevin, who has been very helpful to me in this
whole matter. He does it as I do it without any employment with
the IOC.
May I reiterate, this is still a work in progress. We are
still trying to create a structure here and I welcome your
observations and we will take account of them.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very quick.
I just have three questions.
First of all, I heard your complimentary comments on
President Samaranch. I am sure those are sincere and well
taken. But I would assume that Senator Baker and Mr. Duberstein
would agree that there are other men and women of eminence and
integrity in the world that could also serve as President of
the IOC. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Baker. Certainly so.
Mr. Barton. The second question deals with independent
spousal and family travel and recipient of gifts. Are some of
these reforms that are going to be put in place, do they deal
with that issue which would be separate from the IOC membership
itself, or is that still an open question?
Mr. Baker. No, I think they will be dealt with as a matter
of policy as well as a matter of structure. I reiterate what I
said before. It was not adopted as policy by the Executive
Committee or the Commission, but my own view is that country
visits are great but they ought to be paid for by the IOC. I
must tell you, having your wife along is a major advantage. If
the IOC will pay for it, I have no objection to it.
Mr. Barton. My question, Senator, is not on a spouse or
family member attending an official visit. My question is on an
independent spousal or family visit, which has occurred
repeatedly from the Office of the Presidency on down the IOC.
These are independent visits where the IOC member or the
executive officer is not there. The example that I alluded to
was the president's wife attending Atlanta and making no bones
about the fact that she wasn't interested in looking at the
potential venues. She wanted to go shopping and wanted to see
some of the cultural sites of the South. My question is
independent family/spousal visits, not attending or an official
visit.
Mr. Baker. I know trouble when I see it. I am not about to
talk about a wife attending these meetings. I take your point
and I understand.
Mr. Barton. It is something that needs to be looked at. I
am just bringing to it to your attention.
Mr. Baker. I will adhere to that.
Mr. Barton. There are a number of reports over the years
that have alluded to that.
My last of my questions is somewhat more complicated. If
you want to cogitate on it and present a formal response for
the record because of time, I understand that. But I am told
when you attended your first IOC either Executive Committee
meeting or maybe preliminary session that you appeared--you
came back and were appalled at the lack of any regular order. I
know you are from the Senate and we sometimes in the House
think that the Senate doesn't have any regular order, but we
have a Rules Committee and a Jefferson's Manual, and we adhere
to certain procedural rules. Apparently when the IOC conducts a
meeting, there are no rules, as in whatever the presiding
officer makes them at that meeting.
Should it be made in order that you actually recommend a
set of procedural rules so that the way votes are taken, the
way items are put on the agenda, the way things are brought up
for consideration, all of the things that we take for granted
in a democracy, but appear to be done, if at all, very murkily
in the IOC hierarchy?
Mr. Baker. It is a pretty informal group, at least the
Ethics Commission is. I will acknowledge to you that after my
first meeting I was tempted to resign. But then I thought
better of the whole thing and made my recommendations and many
of them were adopted. I think that it is a worthwhile endeavor.
But I have no--I see no crying need for a formal code of
procedure for the Commission. I have never been to an IOC
meeting or Executive Committee meeting so I can't speak to
that. But I think the Commission works okay. Judge Mbaye runs
it in a very effective manner.
As I repeat, in the first meeting I certainly got off to a
rough start. We had some pretty enthusiastic disagreements on
some points. But it all came together, it is working as a
group. I think it is effective. I think the code they have
adopted is good, perhaps even excellent. I think that the
bylaws that have been adopted are good and relevant and I think
that our next big challenge is to find the right Special
Representative, our administrative officer. But I have come a
long way since that first meeting when I was sort of nonplused
by the way that it went. But I think things are going well and
I think they will continue.
Mr. Barton. I was told that at last week's meeting, one of
the motions was made on a particular reform measure, and there
were 90 members present who were allowed to vote and the vote
was called and 10 voted for it and it was moved that it was
adopted. In the U.S. Senate, if the vote were 10 to 80, the
nays would have it. I think there is work to be done in that
area and I would commend that to your Commission to look into.
Mr. Baker. One of my law partners who is chairman of the
firm, always at firm meetings says, I perceive a consensus.
Mr. Barton. I thank the panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you again, both of you, and Dr. Kissinger
has left early to catch his transportation. We appreciate very
much your testimony. I just want to say that we look forward to
hearing both your frustrations and the words of success as this
moves forward in the future. I know that you will be willing
and able to communicate it to this panel. We appreciate very
much your time and wish you a very happy holiday season. Thank
you. Good to see you.
If we could have the third and fourth panels assemble. I
know that in particular Bonnie Blair has a 3 o'clock plane that
I am told is on time. I made it to National in 6 minutes, so
that may be an Olympic record, and you are supposed to be
faster than me. But if at this time we could have the remaining
two panels together, Mr. John Naber, Mr. Bill Stapleton, Mr.
Robert Ctvrtlik, Ms. Bonnie Blair, Mr. Kerrie Strug, Mr. Kevin
Szott, Mr. Billy Mills, and Mr. Peter Westbrook come to the
table.
As you know, our process is taking testimony under oath. If
you raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Upton. We will start with Ms. Blair who still has a
chance to catch the flight. You can take any chair. We know who
you are, you have been identified. We need that mike.
Your statement in its entirety will be made a part of the
record. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF BONNIE BLAIR; JOHN NABER; BILL STAPLETON,
CHAIRMAN, USOC ATHLETES ADVISORY COUNCIL; ROBERT CTVRTLIK;
BILLY MILLS; KERRIE STRUG; PETER WESTBROOK; AND KEVIN SZOTT
Ms. Blair. Can everybody hear me? Obviously, it kind of
seems already that everybody knows who I am. In my original
statement, I said good morning but I think now it is afternoon.
We do appreciate and, I guess, on behalf of the all of the
athletes, you letting us be here and in a sense kind of speak
our minds as well.
I am Bonnie Blair. I have been in four winter Olympics,
consecutive Olympics, starting in Sarajevo in 1984 and going on
through Lillehammer in 1994. I was able to have the, I think,
the great fortune to be able to win 5 Olympic gold medals and
one bronze for myself as well as the United States. As of right
now, that's the record for the most medals for a female
American, which that is something I am still proud of.
During the course of the Olympics, being able to be up on
the medal stand is something that is difficult to express in
words what that feeling is like. Having that medal draped
around your neck, hearing the Star Spangled Banner played,
there is nothing quite like it ever in my wildest dreams. I was
lucky enough to be able to do that five times.
But through all of that and the great victories that I have
had, one of the most greatest victories that I felt was a race
where I actually didn't receive a medal, where I actually
placed fourth in the 1500 in Lillehammer. That was a personal
best for me.
So I think a lot of times for us, especially as athletes,
when you achieve something that is beyond your wildest dreams,
that is success. I think success comes from a lot of different
areas in life; in the Olympics, in everything that we do.
Sometimes success just doesn't always mean finishing first. But
for sure as an athlete, as an Olympian, I didn't go to the
Olympics not thinking of gold. That was something that was
obvious in all of our minds. Like I said, success comes on a
lot of different levels. To me, striving for a personal best
was something that I was just as proud of achieving as it was
the Olympic medals that I received as well.
I think also as a competitor, as an Olympian, you can't be
afraid to compete. Whatever the level, whatever the race, you
go out there and give it everything that you have got. And
maybe sometimes people think of being scared of something. It's
kind of iffy. But I guess part of that also has to come with
the possibility of knowing that you might have to accept change
and risk. Because, for sure, as athletes a lot of things can
change: your age, your health, your condition. But you always
have to be willing to be up to the challenge of the change, of
taking that risk.
I think that's one of the things where the IOC has come up
against something. They know that they have had to make a
change. They have had to make something different, to do
something different, to try to always be the best that you can
be. And that's what is happening.
I know as an Olympian, I have been just as disappointed as
a lot of you have of the things that have happened over the
course of the last year. But they know that they have to make
change. They are having to do something different. In my eyes,
what has gone on over the last year, especially over this last
weekend, they are taking those steps to make the change. I
think all of us here were the ones that were going to keep
backing then. We are going to keep supporting them and
challenging them to keep making it better and to be the best
that they can be.
I have definitely been proud of my relationship with the
Olympic Committee, starting off with speed skating as a whole
here in the United States with our Olympic Committee and being
a part of the Olympic Movement worldwide. It is definitely a
position in my life that I know is going to carry on for a
lifetime. And I want to continue to work with them, hopefully
try to keep making things better so that they can be the best
that they can be for the future of what our Olympians are going
to be. I know that they are going to make the change. To me it
has been obvious and I think that we have to stick with them
and try to help them as best we can. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Bonnie Blair follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bonnie Blair
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Bonnie Blair. I am a recently-retired Olympic speedskater and I am
pleased to appear before this committee.
I have had the tremendous good fortune and the high honor of
representing the United States at four consecutive Winter Olympics:
Sarajevo in 1984, Calgary in 1988, Albertville in 1992, and Lillehammer
in 1994. During the course of my Olympic competition I won five gold
medals which, I understand, is a record for an American female
Olympian.
It was a thrill each time I stepped up on the platform and heard
the Star Spangled Banner play as the gold medal I won was placed around
my neck. But to me, ``winning'' is a relative term. The greatest
victory I ever experienced was my finish in a race in which I did not
receive a medal, but in which my performance far exceeded any of my
previous competitions in that event. That, to me, was a victory because
I had achieved something I never dreamed I was capable of achieving,
although I had been working hard to prepare.
Don't get me wrong, as an athlete, and as an Olympian, I always
skated for the gold. But I am saying that there are other measures of
success--in life as in sport. Being the best that you can be, without
fear of failure. We have to recognize and honor even our smallest
triumphs, the personal-best-goals that we set for ourselves, even if
they seem less than noteworthy to others. That is the Olympic ideal,
and is at the base of what motivates all of us as we prepare for
competition, whether in the Olympic Games or in life.
The successful athlete knows that you can't be afraid to compete,
whatever the pressure, whatever the race. This brings me to a bit of a
contradiction and that is, in order to be successful consistently, we
need to be flexible enough to change and risk. For an athlete,
conditions change. Age, experience, health and conditioning change.
Equipment and technique change, too. If I had resisted change as a
competitor, I would have been left behind long before I experienced the
success I did. We see this element of change manifesting itself in the
global environment, too. Attitudes change, policies change, even
governments. Why? Because the bottom-line goal is to make things
better.
I have personally been troubled by the events surrounding the
International Olympic Committee as they have unfolded over the last
year. I believe these problems have served as a detrimental distraction
from the Olympic ideals of competition and personal excellence, and
have forced the concentration of the athletes onto matters unrelated to
their quest and pursuit of excellence.
The way I see things, the International Olympic Movement is on the
cusp of great and much-needed change. It must not fear change, but
welcome it as a competitive challenge to make it a better organization;
responsive to athlete interests and respectful of the ideals it has
always represented. The athletes, who are the backbone and reason for
the Olympic Games deserve to have the honor and nobility restored to
the great tradition that is the Olympic Movement. For that matter, so
do the world citizens who make up the audience that cheers for the
victors, weeps for the tragic figures and ultimately exalts in every
athlete's participation in the Games.
From what I have read over the weekend, the IOC has taken the first
steps toward restoring the integrity of the Olympic Movement and I
encourage them to continue their progress. In this we, the Olympic
athletes, want to be a part of the process because we truly care. We
will not let you fail because we will bring the same energy toward the
restoration of the Olympic ideal that we brought to our preparation for
competition as Olympians and Olympic Hopefuls.
My association with the Olympic Movement is a major factor in who I
am and I am proud of my association with it. The current difficulties,
I believe, are only temporary, and we are now on the road back. Let all
of us who really care about the Olympic Movement be part of the
restoration process, applaud the successes, however seemingly
insignificant, and help the IOC be the best that it can be. That is the
Olympic spirit, the Olympic way, and I know that a characteristic
Olympic effort will yield a result that will make everyone involved a
winner.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent to
ask Ms. Blair one question before she leaves?
Mr. Upton. Sure.
Ms. DeGette. Ms. Blair, as you have heard, sitting through
the whole testimony today, our real concern is that the IOC be
as good as it can be also, and that's why Congress has really
been trying to pressure for these reforms for a long time. What
I would like to ask you is, is there concern--I might ask the
rest of the athletes this later--is there concern among the
athlete community that Congress's efforts to clean up the IOC
is going to somehow result in retaliation against the U.S.
athletes?
Ms. Blair. I certainly hope not. I think one way to look at
it is that everybody is trying to make the steps to make it
better. I think John Naber will talk a little bit more on his
end and what he has been involved in. I think that's been a big
forefront on the athlete part. But I think it is coming from
all different areas as well as from the sponsorships, those
people taking a stand, too. But I think in a sense it is kind
of like everybody coming together to make that wheel spin in a
perfect circle so that we can be the best that we can be in all
different areas.
Ms. DeGette. So you think that the athletes support this
effort to make the IOC reform?
Ms. Blair. I think the athletes always want to have
whatever is best. I think as far as the athletes go, a lot of
the things that happened, you never really touch them
specifically. We go to the Olympic Games and we compete. We are
kind of like in tunnel vision. A lot of the things that happen
on the outskirts beforehand, we don't have a lot of anything to
do with that. So our main focus was always to go out there and
strive to be the best that we can be. I think for anything, you
always wanted to be the best that you can be, whatever the
circumstances. Obviously, we have been hit with a battle of a
lot of frustrating circumstances. I think in the long run it is
going to make it bigger, better, and stronger.
Mr. Upton. I don't mean to cut you off, but if you are
going to make your flight, you better go.
Ms. Blair. I guess I will try.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Again, I regret that we needed to put these panels
together, but as you all know, we had some starting problems
this morning because of the airport trouble and whatnot. I
think really at this point, because of the time constraints,
even though a wonderful video was prepared and certainly I
intend to watch it, we will not do it at the liberty of
everybody else that has been waiting.
Oh, do you want to watch it? All right. We will roll the
videotape as they say. But I do want to say, too, in putting
this panel together when the video was made, I know that John
Naber is not shown on the video and he on his own has received
5 gold medals and 1 silver and that needs to be certainly
recognized. But let's roll the tape. Thank you.
[Videotape shown.]
Mr. Upton. We appreciate the USOC doing that. I only wish
it was about a couple of hours longer. It was really terrific
and I appreciate your efforts on behalf of this country. We
appreciate your willingness to come today as well. We are sorry
about the schedule. Those things happen. At least we didn't
have 10 votes today that would have required us to get up and
back. We appreciate your willingness to appear as one panel as
that will save a little bit of time.
At this point all of your statements will be made part of
the record in their entirety. If you could limit your remarks
to no more than 5 minutes, hopefully a little bit shorter, that
would be terrific. We will start with Mr. Naber. Thank you very
much.
You need to pass those mikes down as well. And also we want
to make a unanimous consent request that the report, which you
had a large degree in helping to write, of your organization is
now made a part of the record as well, by unanimous consent.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN NABER
Mr. Naber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my
remarks, I want to acknowledge that although I won my gold
medals underneath the flag of the U.S. Olympic Committee and
the USA, I am also a member of Character Counts Sports. I am
also a member of OATH, Olympic Advocates Together Honorably,
and the Healthy Competition Foundation which are a lot of
different organizations that care about what is good in sport.
As part of that I want to acknowledge that the Olympic
motto is ``Citius, Altius, Fortius,'' which is swifter, higher,
stronger. Not swiftest, highest, strongest. It is not about
winning, it is about getting better. As Bonnie Blair just said,
her losing race was one of the ones she was most proud of.
It is because of that philosophy of personal improvement
that I offer my remarks and it is in that spirit which I hope
they are received. I know we are limited on time so I just want
to cover four quick points and one underlying commonality that
goes through them all.
First of all, whenever I watch professional sporting events
on television, football, basketball, baseball, it makes me wish
I was a better athlete. Whenever I watch the Olympics, it makes
me wish I was a better person. It is the stories of individuals
overcoming obstacles and trying their best, not just about
winning. It is that that I love about the Olympics. Even the
International Olympic Committee's own stated fundamental
principles say, and I quote, ``that the Olympic Movement is a
philosophy which seeks to create a way of life based on the joy
found in effort, the educational value of good example, and
respect for fundamental ethical principles.''
``The goal of the movement is'' and I continue quoting ``to
contribute to building a better world by educating youth
through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind
which requires mutual understanding and the spirit of
friendship, solidarity, and fair play.''
I think everybody on this panel would be perfectly happy if
the IOC merely lived up to its own statement of fundamental
principles. Now, with the commitment of fair play and
sportsmanship, the Olympic Games, currently five wonderful
gifts from this community: significant government funding for
host city infrastructure; generous availability and access over
the public airwaves; vast tax-deductible corporate
sponsorships; the unbridled enthusiasm of wide-eyed spectators
and young kids; and the undying affection of those of us who
are the focus of the games, the athletes themselves.
With so many stakeholders, surely you have to call the
Olympic Movement a public trust. It should be protected by the
public for the good of all humanity. Now, the report, as
recently suggested by the IOC Commission, the IOC 2000
Commission, that were unanimously accepted are wonderful. The
abuses that brought those things to light, the bid city
scandal, frankly was like an iceberg that rips out the side of
the ship. But though it did make the changes possible, it would
have been unthinkable 13 months ago.
So it is without any sarcasm that I join the rest of the
speakers when I say congratulations to Juan Antonio Samaranch,
IOC Executive Board, and the 110th council, the Congress in
Lausanne, for accepting all of these responsibilities. In my
view, it turned this 105-year-old luxury liner a full 15
degrees to port. They made a big change in the last year for a
luxury liner.
While many of the accepted reforms have the promise of
potential change, they are still vulnerable to manipulation and
abuse. If the reforms are not both implemented and enforced in
a manner that is in keeping with those fundamental principles,
the ship is destined to spring a leak and sink once again.
Let me begin with the first of four issues, the ethics. If
we pretend that all people who ever hold or will hold an IOC
post are always ethical and always make good decisions, perhaps
you don't need a fully functioning, ever vigilant proactive
investigator. Presumably, the number of lifeboats on the
Titanic were perfectly adequate for the trip they intended to
take. In sport, however, accidental violations of a rule are as
common as ethical lapses are in life. At the Olympic Games, the
athletes enjoy a clearly defined set of rules and well-trained
officials whose only job it is to bring those transgressions to
light.
Well, though the scandal has precipitated the creation of
the Ethics Commission, the measure of their efficiency or
efficacy is not their credentials--they are all above reproach,
they are all fabulous people--but rather, the method by which
they were chosen, the independence of their thinking, the
transparency of their process, and the binding authority of
their decision. Maybe the word ``independence'' has lost
something in the translation, but I didn't see clear
independence reflected by some of these reforms. If each member
of the Ethics Committee is hand-picked behind closed doors, has
no authority to root out ethical lapses but only makes
suggestions that must be ratified by the Executive Board, then
this group will be no more successful than the individual
conscience of each IOC member. Giving the Ethics Commission the
responsibility to eliminate the perception of IOC misconduct
without giving them the power to do so, it is like finding a
man drowning 20 feet from shore, tossing him a 15-foot rope and
saying that you have met him more than halfway.
The creation of their Special Representative post is a
great first step. But his or her selection process and
responsibilities and the independence and the loyalties are
still unclear.
Let's move on to the second area, performance enhancing
drugs, which has the ability to be the single greatest thorn in
the Olympic Movement's side because it attacks the very
validity of the gold medals themselves. The great Norwegian
speed skater and humanitarian, Johann Olav Koss, was approached
by a pre-teen Olympic hopeful who said, Mr. Koss, what kind of
drugs did you have to take in order to win the gold medals?
That skepticism affects the winners and the cheaters alike.
Sadly, any critics of the IOC can now add to their complaints
any dissatisfaction they may have with the results of pending
drug testing, and it needs pointing out that many of the
international federations have indicated their unwillingness to
play along with the international drug testing programs. The
difficulties are substantial, with unproven new testing
protocols, sophisticated drug users remaining one step ahead of
the authorities, even the rumor of concealed positive drug
tests for fear of offending or in any way embarrassing the
Olympic Movement. In the aquatic vernacular, I would say either
the net is too loose, the fish are too smart, or somebody is
playing catch and release.
It's a wonder to me then why the IOC wants to remain in the
word's cross-hairs with this responsibility. For the results of
all drug testing to be universally believable, we have to
remove the impression that there might be any incentive to
conceal a guilty person's guilt. A zero tolerance additive is
believable only from a truly independent body.
No. three, the third area of concern is the duration of the
IOC terms--the two are frequently used to curtail the runaway
power of entrenched position--is the application of term
limits. This method allows any organization the opportunity to
gradually build into the system a polite way of allowing new
blood onto the committee and encouraging those with decades to
leave service without a hint of rancor of scandal. The current
new members, however, will be elected to 8-year terms with the
possibility of unlimited reelections by their fellow members.
Unlike U.S. corporations or other groups, they not accountable
to the vast body. They only have to receive their votes from
their own brothers and sisters. Since the votes are cast by IOC
members, the possibility of the same group electing itself over
and over again is real and frightening. Furthermore, since all
of their 8-year terms begin January 1, they all come up for
renewal at the same time, eliciting the possibility of a votes-
for-votes scandal, and that's also frightening.
In the Olympic Games, the defending champion or current
world record holder doesn't get a bye into the finals or a head
start into the race. He or she is not automatically to return
to the games 4 years later. Each victory must be fairly earned
and each battle won on the merits on that date. The chance of
an upset is what keeps the challengers working so hard and at
the same time keeps the veteran on his toes.
Here is the fundamental truth. There is no room for
entitlement at the Olympics and there shouldn't be in IOC
membership.
My final area of concern is athlete representation, pretty
much moot at this point, I am delighted to say. Recent rules
allow for these new athletes to join the IOC, but they have to
leave the IOC 8 years after their most recent Olympic
appearance, which ties their athletic ability to their term,
and it is in fact a de facto term limit. I don't mind getting
new blood on the committee. I think it is unfair to issue term
limits to the athletes while not issuing term limits to the
rest of the IOC. We want a level playing field.
The criteria to serve as a representative of the active
Olympians, also, I should note, the election timing stinks. To
hold an election in the middle of the Olympic Games when
athletes are at their most heightened critical moment in their
life, it is really unfair. It seems a bit flawed, and each
election could easily be a popularity contest with the public
name of the medalists as opposed to their legitimate desires to
serve the good of the movement.
Last is their voice on the Executive Board. If you are
going to put these athletes on, let them vote and choose their
representative to the Executive Board right now. That has to be
approved by the IOC president, although perhaps that may change
in the near future.
The overriding concern, the fundamental common flaw in all
of these four areas, in my opinion it is called the lack of IOC
accountability. While they created the Ethics Commission, I
don't know that they have agreed to abide by every decision
that the Commission makes. While they have reduced the age
limit, they have put no limit on their own terms, thereby
indicating a reluctance to let go of the positions until the
last possible moment. They have created an international drug
testing program. They seem reluctant to let it loose to allow
the system to work without their influence. And while they have
added seats for athletes, they have limited the pool of the
athletes they can choose from, and in fact, limited the length
of the athletes' terms to frankly their most athletically
fruitful years.
Though they have shown a recent willingness to be
inclusive, the system is still stacked in their favor because
there is no authority to which they willingly hold themselves
accountable. There is no system of checks and balances and far
too many decisions seem to be made behind closed doors and by
claim.
Olympians may be the finest athletic specimens on the
planet, but even they are held accountable to the rules of
support, the official decisions, the governing bodies, the
testers for drugs, and, of course, the IOC.
After accepting all 50 reforms, though, I have to say the
IOC bought my vote. At least they bought the benefit of my
doubt. I am willing to trust the IOC to be genuine in their
call for democracy, transparency, and responsibility. I know
many IOC members personally and I can vouch for their motives
always being for the benefit of the movement without seeking
personal glory or gain. We must remember that every IOC member
is in fact a volunteer. They are giving of their time.
Juan Antonio Samaranch did concern me, though, by his
comments earlier in the day when he said, ``My first
responsibility is to the IOC members.'' He said that today.
Even so, we must remember that without accountability to
others, unprincipled and expeditious choices become easier to
make and, sadly, easier to overlook. Leaders need to be
accountable to someone other than themselves, not just in word
but in deed. There must be an ongoing means for an independent
review of the IOC and an occasional inspection of this luxury
liner's moral compass to maintain her true heading.
By announcing this area well in advance, Mr. Chairman, you
put all of the players on notice that their decisions will be
made public, that their critics will be heard, and that their
deeds will have to stand up to the scrutiny of media attention.
I won't repeat the phrase that Reagan said before--okay, I
will: Trust, but verify.
[The prepared statement of John Naber follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Naber
Before I begin my remarks, I want to make clear that though I won
my medals for the United States of America, and am the democratically
elected president of the US Olympians (our nation's Olympic Alumni),
and serve on the CHARACTER COUNTS! Sports Advisory Board, I sit before
you today as one of many members of OATH (Olympic Advocates, Together
Honorably), the only truly independent, international, athlete-led
organization of Olympians in the world. I am grateful for this
opportunity to share thoughts and observations that I've gathered
during my over twenty three years in the Olympic movement.
Because we are limited for time, today, I'll be focusing my remarks
on four areas of discussion, as they pertain to the recently adopted
IOC reforms, and the one common bond they seem to share. But let me
begin by calling attention to the reason I am glad to be here.
The Olympic Motto of ``Citius, Altius, Fortius'' means ``Swifter,
Higher, Stronger''. . . not ``Swiftest, Highest, Strongest''. The
Olympic Games should be about personal and professional improvement,
not about winning at all costs. This quest for improvement reflects the
athlete's desire to set new records, to enhance performance, to improve
themselves while following the ideals of sportsmanship and fair play.
It is in that spirit that I seek to point out any imperfections or
suggestions for the purpose of improving the Olympic movement and I
hope my remarks will be delivered for the future benefit of all
Olympians and stakeholders.
the olympic games as a public trust:
When I watch professional sporting events on television, (the Super
Bowl, NBA Playoffs or World Series), it makes me wish I was a better
athlete. But when I watch the Olympics, it makes me wish I was a better
person, because of its collection of young men and women trying to work
hard and overcome obstacles to reach their personal potential and
dreams, without any realistic hope for financial security.
The International Olympic Committee's own Charter includes a
statement of Fundamental Principles, in which the purpose of the
Olympic movement is described as (and I quote) ``a philosophy . . .
(which) seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort,
the educational value of good example and respect for fundamental
ethical principles.'' The goal of this movement is (and I quote again)
``to contribute to building a . . . better world, by educating youth
through sport, practiced without discrimination of any kind . . . which
requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity
and fair play.''
With its commitment to fair play and sportsmanship and all that is
best in the world of sport, the Olympic Games enjoy significant
government funding for host city infrastructure, generous availability
and access over the public airwaves, vast tax-deductible corporate
sponsorships, the unbridled enthusiasm of wide eyed spectators and
children from around the world, and of course the undying affection of
the focus of the Games, the athletes themselves. With so many
``stakeholders'' surely the Olympics can be called a ``public trust,''
one that needs to be protected by the public for the good of all
humanity.
The reforms recommended by the IOC 2000 Commission, and recently
accepted by the IOC General Session last week are a remarkable
testament to the disinfectant power of sunlight. The abuses that were
brought to light by the ``Bid City Scandal,'' like an iceberg that rips
out the side of the ship, have made changes possible that would have
been unthinkable a mere 13 months ago.
Had these changes come about on their own, without public pressure,
I would have been among the first to champion the IOC for its
progressive stance, and forward thinking leadership.
Even so, it is without any sarcasm that I now sincerely applaud
Juan Antonio Samaranch, the IOC Executive Board and the 110th Session
Congress for overhauling this 105 year old ``luxury liner'' called the
International Olympic Committee, and steering her a full fifteen
degrees to port in little more than a year.
The reforms suggested by the IOC 2000 Commission go a long way
towards making sure the ship never hits that same iceberg again, but
historically, the people at the helm have shown little evidence of
their willingness to be accountable to the concerns of the ship's
investors, passengers or crew. It's for that reason that I am now
cautiously optimistic when I am told that the gash in the hull has been
patched, and we're ready to resume full speed, without at the same time
receiving adequate guarantees of the craft's future safe passage.
While many of the accepted reforms have the promise and potential
of great positive change, the structure of those reforms is still
vulnerable to manipulation and abuse, and, if the reforms are not
implemented and enforced in a manner that is in keeping with the IOC's
own Fundamental Principles, the ship is destined to spring a leak, and
sink once again.
ethics commission:
The first area of my concern is potentially the most far-reaching
reform, which was made in the creation of the Ethics Commission and the
new position of the Special Representative. While their work is not yet
done, I want to share my enthusiasm for their task ahead. Mr. Samaranch
himself noted ``There has been a breach of trust between the IOC and
the public, and it will take time to heal.'' We should not expect
immediate results, but I am looking forward to the prompt and adequate
resolution to any remaining cases pertaining to the ``votes-for-
bribes'' issue or any other ethical lapses as well.
If we assume that all people who hold or ever will hold a seat on
the IOC are fundamentally good and wise, and will always follow each
and every rule, ethical or otherwise, then there's probably not going
to be a need for a fully functioning, ever vigilant, proactive
investigator. Presumably, the number of lifeboats on the Titanic was
perfectly adequate for the smooth voyage that was anticipated.
In sport, however, accidental violations of a rule are as common as
ethical lapses are in life. Sometimes ignorance of the rules is to
blame, or perhaps the strength of the temptation is also too much to
bear. At the Olympic Games, the athletes enjoy a clearly defined set of
rules, and well trained officials whose only job is to bring any
transgressions to light.
In my Olympic swimming races, eight competitors performed in front
of about 20 trained officials. The officials were not there because the
IOC expected someone to break the rules, but rather to give everyone
another reason not to. Their presence also insured that the eventual
winners would not have to see their victories disputed.
The existing Ethics Commission members each have reputations that
are impeccable and beyond reproach, but to blindly trust that all
ethical lapses will disappear because the IOC put really ethical people
on a commission, is like entrusting the repair of four cavities, three
partial crowns and a root canal to someone who has good teeth, instead
of a dentist's diploma.
Though the scandal has precipitated the creation of the Ethics
Commission, the measure of its efficacy is not the credentials of the
members, but rather the method by which they were chosen, the
independence of their thinking, the transparency of the process and the
binding authority of their decisions.
If each member is hand-picked behind closed doors, and has no
authority to root out ethical lapses but only to make suggestions for
further ratification, this group will be no more successful than the
conscience of each IOC member. Giving the Ethics Commission the
responsibility to eliminate the perception of IOC misconduct, without
giving them the power to do so is like finding a man drowning twenty
feet from shore, tossing him a fifteen foot rope, proudly claiming
you've met him more than half way.
The primary responsibility of the Ethics Commission should be to
create a lasting document, an ``Honor Code,'' with a clear and specific
definition of appropriate (and inappropriate) conduct, with remedies
attached. The USOC has a similar document already in place for its
various coaches. Only after we understand this document, can we begin
to measure it's likely impact. Rules have been in place before, but the
people also must follow them. Just as the liberty of a nation can be
traced to its citizens' adherence to well written laws, so too, the
reputation of the IOC will depend on its members' willingness to follow
these guidelines.
Naturally, this document must be made easily available to the
public.
I also commend the IOC on the creation of the ``Special
Representative'' post. It is a great first step, but his/her selection
process, job responsibilities, independence, powers and loyalties are
currently unclear.
Early in my swimming career, I was caught and disqualified for
doing an illegal turn. I never made that same mistake again, for two
reasons. 1) the prompt execution of appropriate punishment made me a
better person (I learned my lesson), and 2) I knew the ``stroke & turn
judge'' would still be watching over me the next time I swam. The
ongoing threat of being caught put me on my best behavior, and
eventually helped me earn a reputation for honesty as well as
excellence.
world anti-doping agency (wada):
Now, let's move on to the second area of my concern, the use of
performance enhancing drugs which is the single greatest threat to the
Olympic Games, because it attacks the very validity of the gold medals
themselves.
The great Norwegian speed skater and humanitarian, Johann Olaf
Koss, was approached by a pre-teen Olympic hopeful, who asked ``What
kind of drugs did you have to take in order to win your gold medals?''
This attitude of skepticism affects the ``clean'' and ``dirty''
champions alike.
I am delighted to see the progress made on this issue by the IOC.
Their commitment of financial ($25 million) and other resources has not
gone unnoticed or unappreciated. The decision to create the World Anti-
Doping Agency (WADA) is long overdue.
Sadly, any critics of the IOC can now add to their complaints any
dissatisfaction they may have with the results of the pending drug
testing, and it needs pointing out that some of the International
Sports Federations have indicated a reluctance to ``play along.''
The difficulties are substantial, with unproved or new testing
protocols, sophisticated drug users remaining one step ahead of the
authorities, or even the rumor of concealed positive results so as to
avoid official embarrassment. In the aquatic vernacular, either the net
is too loose, the fish are too smart or someone is practicing ``catch
and release.''
Even so, for the results of all drug testing to be universally
believable, we have to remove the impression that there might be any
incentive to conceal an athlete's guilt. A ``zero tolerance'' attitude
is believable only from a truly independent testing body.
I've had a life-long admiration for IOC member and fellow Olympic
swimmer, Richard Pound. His work on WADA has been relentless and
perhaps thankless as well, and yet, even so, I still believe that it is
in the Agency's best interest to be completely independent,
transparent, and accountable to all the passengers on board, where
there can be no suspicion about the fairness of the testing or the
reliability of the published results.
ioc term limits:
The third area of concern to me is the duration of the IOC terms.
When it comes to IOC membership, I believe that someone's age is
irrelevant to their ability to serve the Olympic cause so therefore the
IOC's established age limits are irrelevant, but limiting the length of
time someone may sit on the IOC is not.
A tool frequently used to curtail the runaway power of entrenched
position is the application of term limits. This method allows any
organization the opportunity to gradually build into the system a
polite way of allowing ``new blood'' onto the Committee, and
encouraging those with decades of service to leave without a hint of
rancor or scandal.
Though the IOC 2000 recommendations included regular elections for
all members, (one eight year term allows members to attend four Olympic
Games, two summer and two winter), but the reforms did not go far
enough.
Current and new members, however, will be elected to eight year
terms, with the possibility of unlimited re-elections, by their fellow
members.
Since the votes are cast by other IOC members, the possibility of
the same group voting for each other year after year, is both
disturbing and real. Further, all existing members will be up for
renewal at the same time, and without staggered terms, the likelihood
of a ``votes-for-votes'' scandal is frightening. Besides, for an
organization like the IOC, it is the addition of new members, added
regularly, that will allow it to keep on top of the significant issues
that concern all stakeholders. If the IOC decided that it's wise to
give their own President a limit to the number of years he/she may
serve, why not then make the General Membership also subject to this
same restriction?
In the Olympic Games, the defending champion or current world
record holder doesn't get a ``bye'' into the finals, or a head start in
the race. He or she is not automatically invited to return to the Games
four years later. Each victory must be fairly earned, each battle won
on its merits on that day. The chance of an upset is what keeps the
challengers working so hard, and at the same time, keeps the veterans
``on their toes.''
There is no room for ``entitlement'' at the Olympics, and there
shouldn't be in the IOC membership.
``active athlete'' representation:
My final area of concern is also my favorite issue, athlete
representation.
Much of the progress made in the allocation of power to the
athletes themselves is due to the work by members of the IOC's Athletes
Advisory Council (AAC). Their professional behavior and devotion to the
movement has made it possible for a greater role for athletes in the
future of the IOC. In fact, ten AAC members were recently placed on the
IOC, a clear step towards a spirit of inclusiveness and cooperation.
The recent change in the rules now allows for fifteen (15) seats on
the IOC to be reserved for ``active athletes'' (as defined as someone
who participated in the Olympics during the past four years) to be
elected (by other Olympians), but also must resign eight years after
their last Olympic competition. This is a de-facto term limit to which
the other IOC members are not subject.
Though I'm told it's a mere formality, those that are elected by
their peers still have three more hurdles to cross. This ``potential
gauntlet'' includes the new IOC ``Selection Committee'' which must
approve their qualifications, followed by a review by the IOC Executive
Board, and finally the election by the IOC General Session.
While I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that seeks to
include the opinions of today's competitors, this particular reform
falls short in providing true accountability on a level playing field
in three areas.
ioc interference:
First, if the IOC truly seeks to have the unvarnished opinions of
the athletes included in discussions, the athletes should also be
trusted to elect someone with their own best interests in mind, without
fear of being overruled or edited by the IOC.
Criteria to serve as the representative of the active Olympians
should not be limited by current athletic prowess, but rather the
ability to gather the confidence of the various Olympic performers. If
they have to leave the IOC, let it be for term limits (shared by all
members) and not the falling off of their athletic skills.
The athletes' concerns might be better addressed by someone with
years of experience, someone like a Donna de Varona, who swam to gold
in 1964, served as an Olympic television announcer for years, lobbied
on the Hill for the Amateur Sports Act and Title IX, Co-Founded the
Women's Sports Foundation and recently was Chairperson for the Women's
World Cup of Soccer. Under current rules, the Olympic athletes would
not be allowed to elect her as their representative.
Let the athletes elect whom they want, and then they'll get the
representation they deserve.
election timing:
Secondly, the election process is sadly ill timed.
For most competitors, the Olympic Games symbolize more than a
sporting contest. It's a Mecca for personal dreams and ambitions.
Living in the village and meeting the international cast, seeing the
sights and hearing the sounds, all of it is to be relished for a
lifetime.
To hold a campaign and election in the midst of the Olympic Games
themselves, when the athletes' minds must necessarily be on more
pressing issues, seems a bit flawed, and can easily result in a
popularity contest instead of an election.
To put it another way, making the ship's passengers themselves
stand the midnight watch in the rain, just might take a bit of fun out
of the cruise.
Voters need to listen to the candidates articulate their positions,
and clearly affirm their willingness to devote the time and energy
necessary to serve. And without a recall option, those elected are not
accountable to their athletic peers, but only to their new brotherhood,
the IOC.
athlete on ioc executive board:
Thirdly, the concerns of the ``active athletes'' should be
addressed at the Executive Board by a representative chosen by the
``active athletes,'' not appointed (or even approved) by the IOC
President.
Good governance should not be measured by the possibility of having
a contrary point of view reach the IOC Executive Board, but rather the
impossibility of the IOC to prevent such conflicting opinions from
being heard.
To discover the openness and accountability of this ``overhauled
organization,'' we only have to ask ourselves, ``What response might we
expect if the IOC doesn't like the contrary opinions of a potential
member?'' and ``What can they do about it under this new system?''
While I'm not suggesting that opposition to the IOC's policies
should serve as an automatic qualification for membership. Most
responsible organizations don't avoid, but rather seek the dissenting
point of view.
the overriding concern:
What do these four areas have in common? In my opinion it's the
lack of IOC accountability. While they created the Ethics Commission, I
don't know that they've agreed to abide by every decision the
Commission makes. While they've reduced the age limit, they've put no
limits on their own terms, indicating a reluctance to let go of their
positions until the last possible moment. While they've created an
international drug testing program, they seem reluctant to set it loose
to allow the system to work without their influence. While they've
added seats for the athletes, they've limited the pool the athletes can
choose from, and in fact limited the length of the athletes' terms to
their most athletically fruitful years.
Though they have shown a recent willingness to be inclusive, the
system is still stacked in their favor, because there is no authority
to which they willingly hold themselves accountable. There is no system
of checks and balances, and far too many decisions seem to be made
behind closed doors, or by ``acclaim.''
Olympians may be the finest athletic specimens on the planet, but
even they are held accountable to the rules of their sport, the
officials, their governing bodies, the drug testers, their coaches, and
of course the IOC.
If I wanted to be cynical, I might see these reforms as a way for
the IOC to give lip-service to the outrage of public opinion, but in
fact, I am trusting the IOC to be genuine in their call for democracy,
transparency and responsibility. I know many IOC members personally,
and their motives have always been for the betterment of the movement,
without seeking personal glory or gain.
I shared membership on the 1976 Olympic Team with Anita DeFrantz,
and rejoiced at her election to the IOC. I served with Jim Easton on
the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee, and I know Dick Pound has
always tried to make each decision with the best interest of the
athletes in mind, I've seen no duplicity there.
But even so, we must remember that without accountability to
others, unprincipled and expeditious choices become easier to make and
easier to overlook. The leaders need to be accountable to someone other
than themselves, not just in word, but deed.
There must be an ongoing means for an independent review of the
IOC, an occasional inspection of the ship's ``moral compass'' to
maintain her true heading.
The ``danger radar'' needs to be on alert for potential ``crises on
the high seas,'' and most importantly, the passengers on board (those
who paid for their ticket with years of athletic effort and personal
sacrifice) deserve the service one might expect on such a well
traveled, historically significant and world renowned vessel.
We realize that for these reforms to be effective, they need time
to work. New members have recently been added to the IOC, and I have
faith that changes are (or soon will be) on the horizon. After the
IOC's overwhelming endorsement of all fifty IOC 2000 recommendations,
the IOC leadership is entitled to my cautious but optimistic support.
Rest assured, I will not be the only person keeping a close eye on the
goings on in Lausanne.
By announcing this hearing well in advance, Mr. Chairman, you put
all the players on notice that their decisions will be made public,
that their critics will be heard, and that their deeds will have to
stand up to the scrutiny of media attention. In your action, I can see
the wisdom of Ronald Reagan's quote of the Russian idiom, ``Trust but
verify.''
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stapleton.
TESTIMONY OF BILL STAPLETON
Mr. Stapleton. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, I am a former Olympic swimmer. I competed in the
1988 Olympic Games in Seoul, South Korea. In my professional
life I'm a lawyer and represent Olympic and professional
athletes, one of whom, Lance Armstrong, this year's winner of
the Tour de France, recently testified here on Capitol Hill
regarding government funding of cancer research. In my role as
a sports attorney and agent, I hear the views of actively
engaged world class athletes every day, and I am here to share
their thoughts with you.
Most importantly, I am also here today in my capacity as
the Chairman of the United States Olympic Committee's Athletes
Advisory Council, a duly elected body within the USOC, which
represents the interests and perspectives of current and
recently former athletes who, presumably, are or at least
should be the foundation of the Olympic Movement. As you can
imagine, I have heard quite a bit of feedback from athletes
around the world in the past year. I am happy to report that
athletes like Lance Armstrong are much more concerned about
preparing to win Olympic medals and repeat Tour de France
victories than they are about corruption in the IOC. However, I
am disappointed to report that most athletes that I have talked
to consider what happened in Salt Lake to be business as usual
within the IOC, and they have little faith in reform.
This is the first of what are now three hearings into the
International Olympic Committee bid scandal in which athletes
have had a prominent presence. While I appreciate this
opportunity to be here, this emphasis on Olympic sport
officials is appropriate because the controversy is not about
Olympic athletes, but about those who may have abused an
athlete support institution for self-aggrandizement. In doing
so, they have damaged the reputation and image of the formal
institutions they represented.
But fortunately, the image of the Olympic Movement and the
athletes who are at its heart have been left unscathed. Indeed
I have seen survey results that confirm that the support and
respect for America's Olympic athletes is at its highest point
ever. Frankly, most athletes who train for Olympic competition
don't care that much about the scandal because they are too
busy preparing to represent their country in the Olympic Games
in Sidney and in Salt Lake.
But for those of us whose careers are behind us, such as
many of those on this panel, who are committed to preserving
the tradition of excellence of the Olympic Games and increasing
opportunities for tomorrow's Olympians, we are furious with
what has been done in the name of and at the expense of the
world's Olympic athletes and their noble aspirations. Perhaps
the problem is that athletes have not been permitted to be
involved in the process to the extent that we should, and that
we must be permitted to be more visible and active in setting
the course for the governance of the Olympic Movement. This
scandal might end up being the best thing that could happen to
the IOC and the International Olympic Movement because it has
forced an examination, not just of the IOC's processes but also
of its culture, and has revealed serious deficiencies.
Action to correct these deficiencies was initiated by the
IOC this path weekend. We applaud what they accomplished and
the spirit in which the IOC membership dealt with this
difficult matter. But I submit that the corrective process has
just begun and that there is much still to be addressed and
remedied before meaningful progress is realized.
When this scandal was first revealed, the USOC commissioned
its own investigative body, headed by Senator George Mitchell,
to examine the USOC practices and to make a series of
recommendations, a number of which relate to the IOC. The USOC
Athletes' Advisory Council considers the Mitchell Commission's
recommendations to be extremely important to ensuring that the
scandal does not repeat itself.
We are disappointed with the IOC's disposition of some of
these Mitchell Commission recommendations. Significant athlete
participation in the governance of Olympic institutions is, in
my view, a necessity. What constitutes significant is open to
debate, but in the United States, by both Federal statute and
USOC policy, a minimum 20 percent participation of athletes of
all Olympic sports governing bodies is required.
In this country, the Congress, with the leadership of
Senator Stevens and certain important Members of the House,
passed the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, which was recently
amended in 1998. That statute requires the U.S. Olympic
Committee and the national governing bodies it recognizes to
set aside 20 percent of the membership or voting power of their
governing boards and committees for actively engaged or
recently competed world-class athletes elected by athletes.
As I am certain no one from the USOC or national governing
bodies will dispute, these athlete representatives have
fundamentally and positively impacted the governance of Olympic
sports in this country. These athlete representatives bring
with them to the board room the knowledge gained from having
recently competed at an elite level in their sport. In
addition, these athletes are directly accountable to the
athletes that elected them.
The IOC has finally recognized the athletes who participate
in its governance, but I believe the athlete quota on the newly
configured IOC, a mere 15 out of a board comprised of 115
people, is insufficient and suggests tokenism. Further, these
athlete representatives, some are not elected by their peers,
but are selected through an undemocratic process which I would
phrase as co-optation, whereby an elite panel, appointed by the
IOC leadership, selects and recommends candidates for
membership.
Finally, given that an individual is only eligible to serve
as athlete representatives in the IOC for the period of 4 years
after they compete in the Olympic Games, given that few, if
any, athletes have time available to both compete at an elite
level and serve as an IOC member, this limit effectively limits
athlete participation to the 4-year period after they last
competed. This limit does not allow time for an athlete IOC
member to come up to speed on the relevant issues and to become
politically viable.
As a result, I suspect the athlete voice will be tolerated,
but it cannot be completely effective. I believe this is a
recipe for maintaining the status quo and is a significant
obstacle to the realization of true reform.
Further, it appears that the concept of limits is the most
elusive, if not nonexistent, quality to the term limits
proposal adopted this past weekend. I find this provision in
the reforms to be the most offensive. First, the effect of the
new provision is minimal on current IOC members, so it may be
decades before the current membership is appreciably altered.
The provision adopted merely substitutes a renewable 8-year
term for a much longer term that lasted until the IOC member
turned 80 and imposes a mandatory retirement age of 70, but, as
noted, exempts current members.
Under this system, it is unlikely that entrenched interests
will continue to dominate unchecked as they always have. It is
these entrenched interests and failure by these IOC members to
enforce self-control that contributed significantly to the mess
we are in today. More importantly, when this infinitely
renewable term limit is viewed alongside the clearly defined
term limit for athlete representatives, it is clear that the
only IOC members with true term limits are athletes.
The Mitchell Commission made a number of recommendations
that would make the IOC more transparent and accountable, such
as annual audits, disclosure policies and the creation of an
enforcement mechanism. In so many of these areas, the reforms
that were adopted partially addressed a deficiency, but did not
go far enough. The audit provision, for example, prescribes
annual audits of IOC finances, but allows public disclosure
only quadrennially. Rather, in addition, the need for an Office
of Compliance was confirmed, but was not established.
The most important question, however, is how will these
reforms be implemented? I encourage this committee to continue
its oversight. The IOC could put anything down on paper, but
unless these provisions are translated into practice in a
manner consistent with the spirit in which they were adopted,
they are just words. The key to effective implementation is a
formal mechanism for enforcement and the will of the current
IOC membership whose tenures have been protected to enforce
proposals that may be contrary to the individual interests of
some. I seriously question whether that will exists, but am
willing at the moment to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Nevertheless, I encourage its new athlete IOC members, although
small in number, to bring to their jobs the same dedication to
vigilance in this process that they brought to their own
preparation for Olympic competition. I think the future of the
IOC is somewhat in their hands, and I urge them to strive for
meaningful reform.
I am thankful that this Congress has opted to insert itself
into this important issue, and I believe that if it had not
done so, we would not be confronted with a reformed IOC today.
However, I urge the members of this committee to study very
carefully the impact of any legislation currently pending or
that might be introduced that would negatively impact the IOC
as this legislation might have a serious impact on America's
athletes who are training for Sidney and Salt Lake City
Olympics.
Thank you for being willing to take your time on this
issue, which is important to all the American athletes who have
realized or hope to realize their Olympic dreams.
[The prepared statement of William J. Stapleton follows:]
Prepared Statement of William J. Stapleton, Chairman, USOC Athletes'
Advisory Council
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I myself am an
Olympian, having competed in the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul, South
Korea in swimming. In my professional life, I am a lawyer and represent
Olympic and professional athletes, one of whom, Lance Armstrong, this
year's winner of the Tour de France, recently testified here on Capitol
Hill regarding government funding of cancer research. In my role as a
sports attorney and agent, I hear the views of actively engaged world-
class athletes every day and I am hear to share their thoughts with
you. Most importantly, I am also here today in my capacity as the
Chairman of the United States Olympic Committee's (``USOC'') Athletes'
Advisory Council (``AAC''), the duly elected body within the USOC which
represents the interests and perspectives of the current and recently
former athletes who, presumably, are, or at least should be, the
foundation of the Olympic Movement. As you can imagine, I have heard
quite a bit of feedback from athletes around the world in the past
year. I am happy to report that athletes like Lance Armstrong are much
more concerned about preparing to win Olympic medals and Tour de
France's than they are about corruption in the IOC. However, I am
disappointed to report that most athletes I have talked to consider
what happened in Salt Lake to be business as usual within the IOC and
they have little faith in reform.
This is the first of what are now three hearings into the
International Olympic Committee (``IOC'') bid scandal in which athletes
have had a prominent presence. While I appreciate this opportunity to
be here, this emphasis on Olympic sport officials is appropriate
because this controversy is not about Olympic athletes, but about those
who may have abused an athlete support institution for self-
aggrandizement. In so doing they have damaged the reputation and image
of the formal institutions they represented, but fortunately, the image
of the Olympic Movement and the athletes who are at its heart have been
left unscathed. Indeed, I have seen survey results that confirm that
the support and respect for America's Olympic athletes is at its
highest point ever.
Frankly, most athletes training for Olympic competition don't care
that much about this scandal because they are too busy preparing to
represent their country in the Olympic Games in Sydney next September.
But for those whose careers are behind them, such as many of those on
this panel, who are committed to preserving the tradition of excellence
of the Olympic Games and increasing opportunities for tomorrow's
Olympians, we are furious with what has been done in the name, and at
the expense of the world's Olympic athletes and their noble
aspirations. Perhaps the problem is that the athletes have not been
permitted to be involved in the process to the extent that we should,
and that we must be permitted to be more visible and active in setting
the course for the governance of the Olympic Movement.
This scandal might end up being the best thing that could have
happened to the IOC and the international Olympic movement because it
has forced an examination not just of the IOC's processes, but also of
its culture, and has revealed serious deficiencies. Action to correct
these deficiencies was initiated by the IOC this past weekend; we
applaud what they accomplished and the spirit in which the IOC
membership dealt with this difficult matter. But I submit that the
corrective process has just begun, and there is much that must still be
addressed and remedied before meaningful progress is realized.
When this scandal was first revealed, the USOC commissioned its own
investigative body, headed by Senator George Mitchell, to examine USOC
practices and to make a series of recommendations, a number of which
relate to the IOC. The USOC AAC considers the Mitchell Commission's
recommendations to be extremely important to ensuring that this scandal
does not repeat itself. We are disappointed with the IOC's disposition
of some of these Mitchell Commission recommendations.
Significant athlete participation in the governance of Olympic
institutions is, in my view, a necessity. What constitutes
``significant'' is open to debate, but in the United States, by both
federal statute and USOC policy, a minimum twenty percent participation
of athletes on all Olympic sport governance bodies is required. In this
country, the Congress, with the leadership of Senator Stevens and
certain important members of the House, passed the Amateur Sports Act
of 1978, which was amended in 1998. That statute requires the U.S.
Olympic Committee and the national governing bodies it recognizes to
set aside 20% of the membership or voting power of their governing
boards and committees for actively engaged or recently active athletes
who are elected by athletes. As I am certain no one from the USOC or
the national governing bodies will dispute, these athlete
representatives have fundamentally and positively impacted the
governance of Olympic sports in this country. These athlete
representatives bring with them to the board room table the knowledge
gained from having recently competed at an elite level in their sport.
In addition, these athletes are directly accountable to the athletes
that elected them.
The IOC has finally recognized that athletes should participate in
its governance, but I believe that the athlete quota on the newly-
configured IOC--a mere fifteen out of a board comprised of one hundred
and fifteen people--is insufficient, and suggests tokenism. Further,
these athlete representatives are not elected by athletes, but are
selected through an undemocratic process known as ``cooptation,''
whereby an elite panel appointed by the IOC leadership selects and
recommends candidates for IOC membership. Finally, given that
individuals are only eligible to serve as athlete representatives in
the IOC for the period of four years after they compete in the Olympic
Games; given that few if any athletes have time available to both
compete at an elite level and serve as an IOC member while still
actively competing, this limit effectively limits athlete participation
to the four year period after they last competed. This limit does not
allow time for an athlete IOC member to come up to speed on the
relevant issues and to become politically viable; as a result, I
suspect the athlete voice will be tolerated but it cannot be effective.
I believe that this is a recipe for maintaining the status quo, and is
a significant obstacle to the realization of true reform.
It appears that the concept of ``limits'' is the most elusive, if
not non-existent, quality of the term limits proposal adopted this past
weekend. First, the effect of the new provision is minimal on current
IOC members, so it may be decades before the IOC's current membership
is appreciably altered. The provision that was adopted merely
substitutes a renewable eight-year term for a much longer term that
lasted until the IOC member turned 80, and imposes a mandatory
retirement age of seventy, but, as noted, exempts current members.
Under this system it is likely that entrenched interests will continue
to dominate unchecked, as they always have; it is these entrenched
interests, and failure by these IOC members to enforce self control,
that contributed significantly to the mess that has brought all of us
here today. More importantly, when this infinitely renewable term limit
is viewed alongside the clearly defined term limit for athlete
representatives, it is clear that the only IOC members with true term
limits are the athletes.
The Mitchell Commission made a number of recommendations that would
make the IOC more transparent and accountable, such as annual audits,
disclosure policies, and the creation of an enforcement mechanism. In
so many of these areas the reforms that were adopted partially
addressed a deficiency, but didn't go far enough. The audit provision,
for example, prescribes annual audits of IOC finances, but allows
public disclosure only quadrennially. In addition, the need for an
Office of Compliance was confirmed, but was not established. Rather, it
was turned over to the newly-created Ethics Commission for study and
possible future action, and that Ethics Commission has apparently
adopted the position that it will not investigate allegations that
arise in the future about bid-related misconduct affecting Salt Lake
City or earlier bids.
The most important question, however, is how will these reforms be
implemented? The IOC could put anything down on paper, but unless these
provisions are translated into practice in a manner consistent with the
spirit in which they were adopted they are just words.
The key to effective implementation is a formal mechanism for
enforcement and the will of the current IOC membership, whose tenures
have been protected, to enforce proposals that may be contrary to the
individual interests of some. I seriously question whether that will
exists, but am willing, at the moment, to give them the benefit of the
doubt. Nevertheless, I encourage the new athlete IOC members, although
small in number, to bring to their jobs the same dedication to
vigilance in this process that they brought to their own preparation
for Olympic competition. I think the future of the IOC is somewhat in
their hands, and I urge them to strive for meaningful reform in the
same way that they sought in their competitive endeavors the glory of
sport and the pursuit of excellence.
I am thankful that this Congress has opted to insert itself into
this important issue and I believe that if it had not done so we would
not be confronted with a reformed IOC today. However, I urge the
members of this committee to study very carefully the impact of any
legislation currently pending or that might be introduced that would
negatively impact the IOC, as this legislation will have a serious
negative impact on America's athletes who are training for the Sydney
and Salt Lake City Olympics and beyond.
Thank you for being willing to take up this issue, which is
important to all of America's athletes who have realized or hope to
realize their Olympic dreams.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ctvrtlik. Did I say it right? I listened to that tape.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CTVRTLIK
Mr. Ctvrtlik. Excellent, and I submitted a written report
that maybe you can make an official record, and I will try to
stay within your 5-minute time limit. Your stamina and
endurance is amazing.
Chairman Upton, members, thank you for inviting me here
today. As the tape did show, I am a three-time Olympian, two-
time medalist, representing the United States of America. I am
sorry that I didn't have time to relay what has really happened
this last weekend over in Lausanne to the prior two speakers,
because I think their testimony might have been a little bit
different. But, as you know, we all are volunteers, and we can
only be in so many places at one time.
I accepted your invitation a few days ago to testify as an
elected member of the IOC Athletes Commission. What that means,
that is elected at the Olympic Games by all the athletes of the
world. I have also recently been named to the IOC session as of
36 hours ago.
For the last 14 years, I represented the United States on
the volleyball court. In 1988, I was fortunate enough to win a
gold medal, and in 1992 I was unfortunate enough to shave off
all my hair when we won the bronze medal. And in 1996 I saw the
Olympics from a completely different light, when we lost by one
point before we made it to the medal stand. So I feel
competitively I know what the Olympics brings to athletes.
But in the last 2\1/2\ years, since I was elected by the
athletes to the IOC as a representative, I began to see the
sports administration side of the movement. I have served on
the IOC Sports Environment Commission, the IOC 2000 Reform
Commission this whole year, and I just recently was nominated
or appointed to the World Antidoping Agency.
But today we want to talk about what reforms--to talk about
the reforms in taking care of the Olympic Games, which, as John
mentioned, I do consider as well to be a public trust. But I,
as opposed to the previous two speakers, have every confidence
that what was enacted over these last days will be the first
step in regaining that trust.
Not too many people realize that President Samaranch was
the one that was instrumental in getting all 10 elected
athletes on the IOC 2000 Reform Commission. We weren't just
wallflowers on the Commission. We were on the plenary session,
we were in on the executive board, as well as in every working
group.
We were allowed the microphone alongside Dr. Kissinger, Mr.
Bhoutros Bhoutros-Ghalli, some of the American representatives,
Mr. Peter Uebberroth and Mr. Dick Ebersol, and there was
something somewhat magical that happened when athletes took the
floor as opposed to sleeping, some of the members; it seemed
like everyone seemed to sit up and really listen to what the
athletes had to say.
In consultation with members of the Mitchell Commission and
the United States Olympic Commission athlete representatives,
we came up, as the IOC Athlete Commission representatives in
the Reform Commission--on the Reform Commission, we came up
with five major recommendations that we would like the IOC
Commission to enact. The first, we wanted to make all of the
active athlete commission members IOC members for the length of
their term. Second, we definitely wanted to have one athlete
elected to the executive board, the highest governing body
within the IOC Movement. Third, we wanted to give the athletes
power to elect their own chairman, because as we have heard
earlier today, the chairman within the IOC has quite a bit of
sway on how the meetings are conducted. We also wanted our own
budget, and we wanted to lengthen the terms from the present 4
years to 8 years so that we can make the relationships that you
need within the IOC to compete and put forth ideas against
powerful international federation presidents, as well as the
different NOC representatives.
Once again, this was a wish list. We put these things
forward; we presented them in our different commissions. What
happened this last weekend, after some small negotiated
changes, we achieved major victories in every one of the five
categories, the recommendations that we put forward.
Now, you might say, as Bill Stapleton just alluded to,
maybe we should have 20 percent as opposed to 15 percent, or
have two people on the executive board as opposed to one. But
the propositions and recommendations we put forward were
accepted with almost unanimous vote by the IOC members.
Personally, I can say I am very proud to have been a part
of this throughout this last year, as I think it is going to go
back in the history as one of the most pivotal weekends in the
history of the IOC.
But just to conclude, 10 active athletes have been elected
to the IOC no less than 3 days ago, and these 10 were very
symbolic of the Olympic Movement. Just like the Olympic
Movement itself, we have stories of our highs and lows as well
as the obstacles that we had to overcome to achieve our
excellence. But within the 60,000 living Olympians, the stories
that all of us have, they are just typical of the sacrifice and
dedication that we have put forth. But on behalf of the nine
elected active athletes on the IOC Athletes Commission that
were present through all of the reforms this entire year, I can
say we fully, 100 percent, unanimously supported the findings
that have been passed this last week during the 110th IOC
session. We have been pleased and honored to be equal
participants, not on the outside of the IOC, but we were
inside, being able to talk to anyone we wanted, make the
arguments that we wanted, and, as was done by Hassiba Boulmerka
in one of the sessions, she took 20 to 25 minutes of everyone's
time to make one argument.
We are not resting on the laurels of what they just passed.
We understand this is not the conclusion, the end of the race,
but as athlete members who are now on the inside, we will be
extremely vigilant. All the future sessions are on television.
It will be very difficult for the IOC members not to heed
publicly what the IOC athlete elected representatives want to
put forth.
So, rest assured we will be very vigilant to safeguard the
Olympic ideals that all of us here have worked to embody and
just thank you for your time. I will answer any questions at
the end that you have. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Robert Ctvrtlik follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Ctvrtlik, Member, IOC Athletes Commission
Chairman Upton, Congressman Klink, Members of the Committee, thank
you for inviting me here today. I am Bob Ctvrtlik, a newly-elected
member of the International Olympic Committee, three-time Olympian, and
two-time medal winner representing the United States of America.
I accepted your invitation some days ago to testify as an elected
member of the IOC Athletes Commission who was actively working on IOC
reform. Today, I am one of the first active athletes ever elected to
the IOC. As a result of the fundamental reforms passed this weekend,
all 10 elected members of the Athletes Commission are now voting
members of the IOC.
For 14 years, I represented the United States of America on the
volleyball court, competing in the Olympic Games of 1988, 1992, and
1996. I have been blessed to have experienced Olympic competition from
different perspectives: from the Gold medal platform in 88, the Bronze
medal platform in 92, and from the floor when in 1996 I left my heart
on the court when we lost our last match before the medal round--by one
point.
Since my playing career ended 2\1/2\ years ago, I have been working
on the sports administration side of the Olympic Movement. This started
at the 96 Olympic Games, where I was one of the seven Summer sport
athletes elected to serve on the IOC Athlete's Commission. Since my
election to the IOC, I have served as the athlete representative on the
IOC Environmental Commission and the important IOC 2000 reform
commission that reviewed the IOC's structures and policies and
recommended the 50 reforms passed this past weekend in Lausanne. I
should also mention that a couple of weeks ago, I was appointed to the
World Anti-Doping Agency--another major achievement of the Olympic
Movement.
We're here today to talk about the reforms and taking care of the
Olympic Games. I consider them to be a public trust. I have every
confidence that the reforms enacted by the International Olympic
Committee will go a long way to restore this trust. I would like to
share with you my impression of the process that has occurred over the
last year.
President Samaranch, who during my years on the Commission has
always supported the rights of the athlete, maneuvered around
opposition to have all elected members of our commission placed on the
IOC reform commission. We were included at all levels, in the plenary
session, in the working groups, and also on the executive board.
We were allowed the microphone alongside world leaders such as Dr.
Henry Kissinger, Mr. Bhoutros Bhoutros-Ghalli, Mr. Peter Uebberroth and
Mr. Dick Ebersol. If we had a view it was not only tolerated, but
encouraged. From day one, I had the feeling that the world leaders and
the IOC members seemed to pay special attention when one of the
athletes would take the floor.
Through consultation with other athlete leaders, we came up with a
list of five reforms we felt were critical to making the athletes a
permanent and effective part of the governing structure:
Making all of the Athlete's commission members IOC members
with full voting rights;
Electing at least one athlete to the executive board;
Giving the Athlete's Commission the power to elect our own
chairman;
Providing the Athlete's Commission our own budget; and
Lengthening the term of the athlete representatives so that
they would have enough time to develop the relationships needed
to effect policy.
Once again, this was a wish list, and we were determined to achieve
as much of this as possible.
Compare this list with the following selection of reforms that were
adopted by the 110th session of the IOC are:
Athletes will elect nominees for the chairman of the Athlete's
Commission and the President of the IOC will appoint someone
from our list.
We will elect a nominee or nominees for the Executive Board,
and the entire session will vote on which of our nominees they
select.
We will be granted a budget to be used to advance the
Athlete's Commissions agenda.
The length of terms for future Athlete Commission Members will
be extended to 8 years from the current 4. (In addition they
will also be staggered)
Most importantly, all elected athletes will become IOC members
with complete voting rights for the length of their terms.
We were able to achieve, after some small-negotiated modifications,
major victories in all of the categories in which we asked the IOC to
change. Now of course, some people might say you should have gotten 17
members instead of 15, or some small change such as that. But in
general, the IOC included us in the process, listened to our ideas,
presented them to the IOC Members, and passed them with a nearly
unanimous vote. We feel these gains are a major victory for the
athletes of the world. And personally, I am very proud to say I was a
part of the commission during this last year.
To conclude, the ten active athletes elected to the IOC four days
ago are very symbolic of the Olympic Movement. Just like the Olympic
Movement itself, we all have stories of our highs and lows, as well as
the obstacles we had to overcome to achieve excellence. But within the
60,000 living Olympians, our stories are just typical of the sacrifice
and dedication that we all have had to put forth. On behalf of the
other nine elected athlete representatives, and as representatives of
the athletes of the world, let me make it clear the majority of
athletes FULLY support the reform measures passed by the 110th IOC
Session.
We have been pleased and honored to be equal participants with the
IOC as we have worked on reform during this last year. Rest assured, we
are not resting on our laurels, and we do not take our new
responsibilities lightly. But in the future we will be vigilant to
safeguard the Olympic Ideals that we have all worked so hard to embody.
Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Mills.
TESTIMONY OF BILLY MILLS
Mr. Mills. Chairman Upton and members, with my colleagues
on my right making the comments they have, I think I would like
to very quickly recapture on October 14th, 1964, dusk was
falling over Tokyo, Japan, and the final lap of the Olympic
10,000-meter race was under way. Mohammed Gamoudi from Tunisia,
Ron Clarke, the world record holder from Australia, and Mills,
an unheralded distance runner from the United States, were
racing shoulder to shoulder, battling for the lead.
The announcer went something to the effect with 100 meters
to go, ``Clarke is passing Gamoudi; no, it is Gamoudi; it is
Clarke, Clarke is in the lead. Gamoudi is refusing to let
Clarke go by. Clarke is in the lead. Here comes Mills, here
comes Mills. He won. He won.''
That one fleeting moment in time for me was magical. I felt
like I had wings on my feet. I was told the moment was
electrifying, and the world had just witnessed one of the
greatest upsets in Olympic history.
However, that moment was not what I took from the Olympic
Games. What I took was the true sense of global unity through
the dignity, through the character, through the beauty of
global diversity, and this sense of unity through diversity is
the true feeling of the Olympic ideal and also the destiny I
seek for mankind.
``Swifter, Higher, Stronger,'' as my colleague said, is the
Olympic motto, not the swiftest, not the highest, not the
strongest.
I will quickly reflect back, as a young Indian boy living
on the reservation, orphaned, poverty, and, for a brief moment
of time, living in the back seat of an old car, I had a dream.
I dreamt constantly of the Olympic Games. At that point I
started taking quotes from Greek mythology, from Native
American values, and truly tried to start living my Olympic
dream.
Socrates said, ``With achievement comes honor, and with
honor comes responsibility.'' That, to me, is our Olympic
ideal.
Being half Sioux Indian, being half white, in a struggle
when I was going into high school, a struggle with Brown v.
Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas, 1954, I felt I did not
belong. The full-blooded Indian called me mixed-blood; the rest
of the world, European ancestry, African ancestry, called me
Indian. Both cultures in a sense rejected me. I found a third
culture that was global, a culture that I call sport, and the
Olympic dream and the Olympic ideals became part of my culture,
part of my life.
I took the Sioux Indian concept of a warrior into sport
with me and truly believed the concept also paralleled the
Olympic ideals, for to a great extent America looked on us as
mascots. But I tried to live the ideals of a warrior.
There are four values the warrior centers his or her life
around. You become responsible for yourself. Then you help
others become responsible. You humble yourself to all creation.
You are no better or no less than one another, or no less than
all of God's creations. You learn the power of giving, and the
first thing you learn here is respect and love yourself, so we
can all respect and love one another. Then the warrior takes
responsibility, humility and the power of giving and centers
that around his or her core of spirituality. Therein
constitutes the definition of a Lakota, a Sioux Indian warrior.
Aristotle said all warriors seek to fulfill four spiritual
steps: The warrior seeks to be unique; the warrior seeks to
belong; the warrior seeks to make a creative difference to
society; the warrior seeks to understand. These are all values
I find represent the true sense of the Olympic ideals.
Greeks have stated that the Olympians in the past were
chosen by the gods. I say if you find your life's passion, and
you live your passion through values, following your own free
will, you will be led down a path to your destiny, and, yes,
your destiny is God-given.
I feel sport without value is meaningless. Sport used to
teach life values is sacred, and that is the true sense of the
Olympic Games to me.
So as an Olympian today, I honor the true values, the true
ideals of the past Olympics. I celebrate what I feel today has
become an intelligent and adaptive program of change in the
Olympic Movement, and I truly imagine, in closing, our future
Olympic Games promoting global unity through the dignity,
through the character, through the beauty of global diversity,
and, yes, perhaps future Olympians will again be chosen by the
gods.
[The prepared statement of Billy Mills follows:]
Prepared Statement of Billy Mills
On October 14, 1964, dusk was falling over Tokyo, Japan and the
final lap of the Olympic 10,000-meter race was underway. Mohammed
Gamoudi from Tunisia, Ron Clarke, the world record holder from
Australia and Billy Mills, an unheralded distance runner from the
United States raced shoulder to shoulder, battling for the lead.
With 100 meters to go, the announcer was shouting, ``Clarke is
passing Gamoudi, no, it's Gamoudi, it's Clarke! Clarke is in the lead .
. . Clarke refuses to let Gamoudi by . . . here comes Mills; here comes
Mills . . . he won! He won!''
That moment was magical for me. I felt like I had wings on my feet.
I was told the moment was electrifying and the world had just
witnessed the greatest upset in Olympic history unfold.
However, that one fleeting period in time was not what I took from
the Olympics.
What I took was the true sense of global unity through the dignity,
the character and beauty of global diversity.
This sense of unity through diversity is the true feeling of the
Olympic ideal and the destiny I seek for mankind. ``Swifter, Higher,
Stronger'' is the Olympic Motto, not, ``Swiftest, Highest, Strongest.''
As an orphaned Indian boy, while living in the back seat of an old
wrecked car several weeks, I dreamed of the Olympic Games. I took
quotes from Greek mythology and Native American values and started
living my Olympic Dream. Socrates said, ``With achievement comes honor
and with honor comes responsibility.'' This to me is our Olympic ideal.
Being half-Sioux Indian and half-white in a country struggling with
``Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas, 1954,'' I felt I did not
belong. The full-blood Indian called me mixed-blood; the white called
me Indian. With both cultures rejecting me, I found a third culture
called sport. The Olympic Dream and the Olympic ideals became my
culture.
I took the Sioux Indian concept of a warrior into sports with me
and truly believed the concept also paralleled the Olympic ideals.
A warrior lives his or her life around four values: 1. You become
responsible for yourself. Then you help others become responsible. 2.
You humble yourself to all creation. We are no better and no less than
all God's living creations. 3. You learn the power of giving and the
first thing you learn to give is respect and love to yourself so you
can respect and love others. 4. Then the warrior takes responsibility,
humility, and the power of giving and centers them on his or her core
of spirituality. Therein constitutes a Sioux Indian Warrior.
Aristotle said all warriors seek to fulfill four spiritual steps.
1. The warrior seeks to be unique. 2. The warrior seeks to belong. 3.
The warrior seeks to make a creative difference to society. 4. The
warrior seeks to understand. The are all values I find in the true
sense of the Olympic Ideals.
Greeks have stated that the Olympians were chosen by the Gods. I
say, if you find your life's passion and live your passion throughout
values following your own free will, you are led down a path to your
destiny and your destiny is God-given.
Sport without value is meaningless. Sport used to teach life values
is sacred. So today, as an Olympian, I honor the true Olympic ideals of
the past and celebrate what I feel are positive attempts to return to
the true Olympic ideals.
I imagine our future Olympic Games promoting global unity through
the dignity, character and beauty of global diversity. Perhaps future
Olympians will once again be chosen by the Gods.
Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Ms. Strug.
TESTIMONY OF KERRI STRUG
Ms. Strug. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am Kerri Strug, and I was a member of the gold
medal women's gymnastics team in Atlanta in the Summer Games of
1996. After listening to the panel of seasoned veterans and
eloquent speakers, perhaps I was asked to come here today to
bring more of a naive, innocent perspective, because as a young
athlete it is hard to understand the scope of the Olympic
Movement. You go through years of training, and your focus is
on yourself and becoming the best you can be and just the
thrill of competition. I think every athlete just fantasizes
about what it would be like to be there, to be in the Olympic
Games, to be surrounded by the greatest international athletes
competing with the world watching. I mean, that is a dream come
true.
Once you are at that Olympic level, your mentality has to
shift from just focusing on you to focusing on your team and
your country. The level of commitment is intense, and the
support you feel from your teammates and countrymen is really
exhilarating.
The Olympic family starts small with getting to know your
national teammates, and then once you are at the game, it
encompasses the entire Olympic Village. I was fortunate to
compete in two Olympics, Barcelona in 1992 and Atlanta in 1996,
and the feelings of friendship and camaraderie that I
experienced there will definitely shape the rest of my life.
It is amazing for me to see that although all of us
competitors have different backgrounds and cultures, and there
is definitely a language barrier, we are able to communicate
and exchange ideas, dreams and goals.
I feel incredibly blessed that I was allowed the
opportunity to participate in the Olympic Games, and I have had
an unbelievable amount of support from my family, my friends
and supporters of the Olympic Movement. I would not trade any
of those experiences for anything in the world.
I know that change in the Olympic structure is inevitable,
but the value of the games should definitely supersede the
politics. I just hope that the world will continue to come
together, and hopefully competition will provide a venue for
dreams to be realized, because that is the most important
thing.
Being here today I think really opened my eyes, because I
have always seen the Olympics through one tunnel, one vision,
one perspective, and I think maybe it would be beneficial if
the rest of us did as well, because it is ultimately about the
athletes. Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Kerri Strug follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kerri Strug
Good Morning Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I am Kerri
Strug and I was a member of the gold-medal Women's Gymnastic Team in
1996 in Atlanta.
As a young athlete, it is hard to understand the scope of the
Olympic Movement. You go through years of training and are focused on
being your best and the thrill of competitions. When you finally make
it to the Olympic level, your feelings are indescribable. I think every
athlete fantasizes about what it would be like to be there. To be
surrounded by the greatest international athletes, competing with the
world watching is a dream come true. Once your are at the Olympic
level, your mentality shifts from you to focusing on your team and
country. The level of commitment is intense and the support you feel
from your teammates and countrymen is exhilarating.
The Olympic Family starts small with getting to know your national
teammates and then grows in scope to encompass the entire Olympic
Village. I was so fortunate to be able to compete in two Olympics,
Barcelona in 1992 and Atlanta in 1996. The feelings of friendship and
camaraderie that I experienced there will shape the rest of my life. It
was amazing to think that although all of the competitors had language
barriers, we were able to communicate and exchange ideas, dreams and
goals.
I feel incredibly blessed that I was allowed the opportunity to
participate in the Olympics. I had an unbelievable amount of support
from my family, friends, and supporters of the Olympic Movment. I
wouldn't trade my experiences for anything in the world. I know that
change in the Olympic structure is inevitable, but the value of the
Games supercedes the politics. I hope that the world will continue to
come together in healthy competition and will continue to provide a
venue for dreams to be realized.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Westbrook.
TESTIMONY OF PETER WESTBROOK
Mr. Westbrook. Good afternoon, Representatives and members
of the committee. I would like to thank this subcommittee for
permitting me to speak before it. I take great pride as a
witness in sharing what the Olympic Movement has done for me
and for the youth of the Peter Westbrook Foundation.
I want to thank you and compliment you on your, I guess,
persistence with reform to the IOC. I really thank you on that.
I would like to share a few statistics with you for a
particular reason. As you know, I am the president of the Peter
Westbrook Foundation. I am a six-time Olympian/bronze medalist
in the Olympic Games. I am a six-time Pan-American team member,
gold medalist in 1983 and 1995. I am a 13-time U.S. national
champion. I was chosen as the flag bearer for the United States
at the Olympic Games at Barcelona at the closing ceremony. I
was also chosen as the flag bearer at the Pan American Games in
1999 at the opening ceremony. I am an Athletes' Advisory
Council member.
I say all this because I was considered to be an at-risk
youth. I was an at-risk inner-city youth. I was raised in a
single-parent home in the housing project of Newark, New
Jersey. There were many times when we didn't have enough food
to eat or have the proper clothing to attend school. Crime and
negative stimuli were running rampant in my community, and
negative stimuli started to affect my life.
I was extremely fortunate to be introduced to the Olympic
sport of fencing at Essex Catholic High School in New Jersey. I
started to excel and was then offered a full fencing
scholarship to attend New York University. There I began my
Olympic training, and my life changed dramatically. I was no
longer considered to be an at-risk youth, but an Olympian and a
bronze medalist of the United States of America.
Were it not for the grace of God and the Olympic sport of
fencing, I would not be here before you today, but rather a
statistic. This is why I and Olympian Robert Cottingham, in the
room now, district representative for Congressman Payne,
started the Peter Westbrook Foundation in February 1991. It is
a nonprofit organization that seeks out high-risk inner-city
youth and teaches them the discipline of fencing.
The Foundation is changing children's lives. The program,
which solicits and relies on private and public funding, has
been in existence for the last 9 years. We operate year-round.
There is a Saturday and an after-school program. There are
approximately 100 boys and girls from the ages of 9 to 19 years
old.
I am pleased to share with you House Members, committee
members, that in the academic area this year, Harvey Miller, an
at-risk youth, was introduced to our program. This high school
junior had nothing but Fs on his report card for the last 2
years. This year in his first tournament in Charlotte, North
Carolina, at the national championships, he took fifth place.
In addition, Harvey is at present an honor roll student and
taking day and night classes and Kaplan's SAT course. He has
his mind set on attending college and on becoming an Olympian.
My last area I would like to share with you
Representatives, I am so proud of their athletic
accomplishments. This year our youth have won men's and women's
Division I NCAA championships and United States men's and
women's national championships in both team and individual
events. For the last 4 years, our athletes have represented the
United States at the junior and senior world championships. One
individual, Akhnaten Spencer-El, was ranked No. 1, I repeat,
No. 1, in the world in the Under 20 category. The youth capped
it off by representing the United States at this year's Pan
American Games in Winnipeg, Canada, by winning a silver and
three bronze medals. It just makes me feel so good inside.
This is a dream come true for me. This is a dream come true
for the youth of our organization and for the youth of America.
I am so proud, as you can tell, and I am so honored. It brings
me great joy to witness all that has taken place before my
eyes.
I must say President Bill Hybl and the United States
Olympic Committee have been instrumental in supporting our work
and our struggle. President Bill Hybl and the USOC have also
been financially supportive of our youth in our struggle for
the last 7 years, and for that I am extremely, extremely
grateful. I am also thankful to the many lives we are able to
change together.
I am confident that the USOC will continue not only to
support the Peter Westbrook Foundation, but similar grass-roots
programs that embrace high-risk inner-city youth through
athletics.
I would like to say I thank God for all of his magnificent
blessings, and I thank Him for giving me the opportunity to
work and touch the lives of so many of our children. I also
thank the USOC for assisting me in achieving my goals and the
goals of so many of our youth.
In closing, I would like to say if you can only change one
person's life, that one person may be able to go out and change
thousands more. I thank you so much, members and
Representatives.
[The prepared statement of Peter Westbrook follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Westbrook, President, Peter Westbrook
Foundation
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.
I would like to thank this Subcommittee for permitting me to speak
before it. I take great pride as a witness in sharing what the Olympic
Movement has done for me and for the youth in the Peter Westbrook
Foundation.
I would at this time like to share a few statistics with you. I am
Peter Westbrook, President, Peter Westbrook Foundation; 6-Time
Olympian/Bronze Medalist, 1984 Games; 6-Time Pan-American Games Team
Member/Gold Medalist, 1983 & 1995; 13-Time United States National
Champion; Flag Bearer--Closing Ceremonies, 1992 Olympic Games,
Barcelona, Spain; Flag Bearer--Opening Ceremonies, 1995 Pan-American
Games, Mar Del Plata, Argentina; and Member, Athlete Advisory Council,
U.S. Olympic Committee1I was considered an at-risk, inner-city youth. I
was raised in a single-parent home in the housing projects of Newark,
New Jersey. There were many times when we didn't have enough food to
ear or have the proper clothing to attend school. Crime and negative
stimuli were running rampant in my community. The negative stimuli
started to affect my life.
I was extremely fortunate to be introduced to the Olympic sport of
fencing in Essex Catholic High School. I started to excel and was then
offered a fencing scholarship to attend New York University. There I
began my Olympic training under Csaba Elthes. My life changed
dramatically and I was no longer considered an at-risk youth, and went
on to become a six-time Olympian and Bronze Medalist for the United
States.
Were it not for the grace of God and the Olympic sport of fencing,
I would not be here before you today, but rather, a statistic.
This is why Olympian Robert Cottingham, Jr., District
Representative for Congressman Donald M. Payne, and I started the Peter
Westbrook Foundation, a non-profit organization that seeks out high-
risk, inner-city youth and teaches them the discipline of fencing.
The Peter Westbrook Foundation is changing children's lives. The
program, which solicits and relies on private and public funding, has
been in existence for the last nine years. The program operates year-
round. There is a Saturday Program and an After School Program. There
are approximately 100 boys and girls from the ages of nine to 19 years
old involved.
In addition, the Peter Westbrook Foundation addresses the academic
arena. This year, Harvey Miller, an at-risk youth was introduced to our
program. This high school junior had nothing but F's on his report card
for the last two years. This year, he attended his first tournament,
held in Charlotte, North Carolina. At this Division II National
Championship, he finished 5th. Harvey is at present an Honor-Roll
student taking day and night classes and taking Kaplan's SAT
preparatory course for college. He has his mind set on attending
college and becoming an Olympian.
This year our youth have won the Men's and Women's Division I NCAA
Championships ad the United States Men's and Women's National
Championships in both team and individual events. For the last four
years our athletes have represented the United States at the Junior and
Senior World Championships. One individual, Akhnaten Spencer-El, was
ranked number one in the world in the Under-20 Division and capped that
off by representing the United States at this year's Pan-American Games
in Winnipeg, Canada, winning a silver and three bronze medals.
Some of our youth will compete in next year's Olympic Games in
Sydney, Australia and we have more targeted for the 2004 Olympic Games
in Athens, Greece.
This is a dream come true for me, for the youth of our
organization, and for the youth of America. I am so proud and honored.
It brings me great joy to witness all that has taken place before me.
U.S. Olympic Committee President Bill Hybl and the U.S. Olympic
Committee as a whole have been instrumental in supporting our work and
struggle. President Hybl and the U.S. Olympic Committee have been
financially supportive of our youth for the last seven years and for
that I am extremely grateful. I am also thankful for the many lives we
are able to change together. I am confident that the U.S. Olympic
Committee will continue not only to support the Peter Westbrook
Foundation, but similar grass roots programs that embrace high-risk,
inner-city youth through athletics.
I thank God for all of His blessings and thank Him for giving me
the opportunity to work and touch the lives of so many of our children.
I also thank the U.S. Olympic Committee for assisting me in achieving
my goals and the goals of so many of our youth.
If you can only change one person's life, that one person may be
able to change thousands.
Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Terrific. Thank you.
Mr. Szott.
TESTIMONY OF KEVIN SZOTT
Mr. Szott. Thank you. Good afternoon to the committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to come here and speak to you.
Being the sole representative of the USABA, which is United
States Association of Blind Athletes, and also USA Judo, I
would like to take the opportunity to explain a little bit
about the Paralympics, for those of you who may not be familiar
with the structure of it.
Basically there are five disabled sports organizations that
represent those with cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury,
amputee, blind, and dwarfs and midgets. These five
organizations compete 10 to 14 days after the Olympic Games.
They will be from October 18 to 29 in Sydney, Australia. There
will be approximately 5,000 athletes and 110 countries
represented. We value the opportunity to compete as much as
anyone does. Able-bodied, disabled-bodied, we go through the
dedications, the struggles, the triumphs, the pitfalls of
competing.
But the other part to our story is that this is a vehicle
that allows us to demonstrate our abilities, and instead of
people looking at what we can't do, they look at what we can
do. Once they get past that, that gives us the opportunity to
really express all our talents and our skills. So especially
with the recent legislation in the United States, the
Disabilities Act and those types of legislation, this a major
vehicle for us to continue that movement ongoing.
So when I hear of what occurred in Salt Lake City, me, as a
citizen of the United States, I was embarrassed. As an athlete
I was angered that someone would try to taint what is such a
pure message of just competition in athletes and athletics.
The saying goes, don't shoot the messenger for the message.
In this case I would love to be able to shoot the messenger for
tainting the message. Unfortunately, I don't see how we can do
that without affecting the athletes. I hope that this
committee--you are here looking out for our best interests.
As an athlete, unfortunately, you know, the President was
here answering to you. As an athlete, I wish that I could sit
him down so he could answer to me, because we are what the
games are all about, and when the show starts, when the whistle
blows and the bell goes off, it is all about the athletes, and
that is where the focus is, not in the organization.
So I appreciate your efforts, and I would just ask as you
go through this process to please remember that anything that
may occur at the IOC level, the USOC level, will eventually
trickle down to the end user, which is us, so I wish you would
please keep that in mind as you go along.
I started to dream back when I was basically in seventh
grade to be an Olympian. I chose track and field. I wasn't able
to excel high enough in that particular sport to pursue my
Olympic dream, and at the age of 30 I picked up the sport of
judo, basically to try to be competitive at the Paralympic
level. I never thought I would be in the position I am now at
36 to be fighting for an Olympic spot, trying to become the
first blind athlete in the history of the Olympic Games.
The Olympics has always been the purest of ideals to me,
and it really upsets me as an individual to see it turned the
way it has been turned.
I just want to thank you for your time. I want to wish you
a good holiday, and God bless the USA.
[The prepared statement of Kevin Szott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin Szott
Hello and good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee
and all guests and dignitaries. My name is Kevin Szott and I represent
the United States Association of Blind Athletes and USA Judo. I am here
today to talk to you about my experience as a Paralympian.
I would first like to take this opportunity to explain the
Paralympic format. The Paralympics consists of five disabled sports
organizations dealing with physical limitations including: people who
are blind, amputees, people with spinal cord injuries, dwarfs, and
cerebral palsy. These five groups compete in nineteen different sports.
The competition is fierce and as intense as any of you have ever
seen before. There are five thousand athletes from over one hundred
countries, all having two things in mind: winning a gold medal and
changing people's perceptions.
I have been a disabled athlete for twenty-two years and in this
time I have seen many changes. The number and quality of the athletes
has grown exponentially. The changes, however, did not end there. The
abilities of the athletes began to overshadow the disabilities. People
are looking at disabled persons in a whole new light. They have started
to ask questions about our disabilities and have begun to wonder about
their own limitations. In my life and in the lives of other disabled
athletes, the Paralympics have played a major role in effecting this
epiphany. The games continue to help us gain momentum toward the
understanding and acceptance by today's society. This is what makes the
Paralympics different from the Olympic Games: the triumph of the human
spirit, in life and in sport.
This is why I ask you, when making decisions about the IOC, to
remember the message. The message is still pure and untainted by money
or greed. The competition and the athletes are what the games are all
about: we train for years, not for money or political gain, but for
pride and to be the best, period. This is the purity of the message and
is why millions of people watch the games every four years. Who will be
the heroes and who will overcome the greatest odds to win the gold?
Greed and money have allowed the messengers to forget about the
message. They took the athletes' hard work and dedication and made
financial gain for themselves. The worst part of this insult is that
these same people were entrusted to govern our games. The messengers
are guilty of reckless disregard of the message they were entrusted to
maintain.
If you could punish the messenger without harming the message, I
would be behind it one hundred percent. I can not see a way for this
governing body to accomplish this objective. The USA has been
embarrassed and internationally ridiculed, and we can not change that
fact. We will only make it worse if we try to punish the messengers.
The only people who will suffer are your own American athletes. Please
remember that if you punish the messenger, that you will ultimately
punish the message. Protect your athletes, do not repeat previous
mistakes and punish American athletes for something in which they had
no part.
Thank you for your time and patience. Have a great day and God
Bless the USA.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you very much.
I have to say that when I came downstairs this morning
about--it seems like about 12 hours ago, but it wasn't, I
didn't really want to leave the room next door when I got to
meet all of you, knowing certainly a little bit about your
struggle and usual great success in the field. As we tell you a
little bit about us and our subcommittee action, you know, this
subcommittee has been here a long time, and this is a terrific
committee for all of us to serve on because we have so much
jurisdiction.
As chairman of this subcommittee, and my predecessors, I
know, would say that, Joe Barton was one of them who was here
earlier, our job is to go after fraud and abuse and
mismanagement wherever we can find it, to identify it and then
work with chairmen like Mr. Oxley, who is not here just to pick
up tips as a coach-player of the Republican versus Democrat
teams, whether they be baseball or basketball, but to really
seek the legislative change so that we don't have to have
further hearings on it, so it is done, so that it is finished
and we can move on.
This year we have looked at Medicare fraud, we have looked
at Medicaid, we have looked at banking irregularities,
insurance, Department of Energy problems with the release of
secret information to the Chinese, a whole host of things over
the year. We have had literally a hearing every week. It is
quite unusual for any committee in the Congress to actually
conduct a hearing when Congress is out of session. But when we
began these questions last spring, we were actually hoping not
to have a hearing. We were hoping that the Atlanta folks were
straight and narrow, and it was only Salt Lake City, of which
John McCain and the good work that the committee over in the
Senate pursued would be the end of it.
But, alas, it wasn't, and, in fact, we did find enormous
irregularities, with a credit to the staff on both sides,
Republican and Democrat, who spent Memorial Day weekend
traveling down to Atlanta, looking through literally 6,000
boxes, correcting misinformation that was given to the
committee. A former Attorney General, Griffin Bell, came back
to us with a report admitting there were mistakes, big
mistakes. And in a hearing in October that we had, in essence
we decided we are not really here to slam people's fingers in
the drawer, that the period of discovery was over, we wanted to
look at the next challenge, that of reforming the committee and
to make sure that the enforcement mechanism was in place.
That is really what our job is today, to ask some very
tough questions. We don't have all the answers yet. That is
clear. The work has not been done. But as we listened to your
story, I just want to give you the assurance we are going to
continue our oversight. Mr. Waxman on the Democratic side and
others--it was too bad Mr. Klink was not able to be here, but
his plane never did leave Pittsburgh this morning. But
Republicans and Democrats want to get to the bottom of this.
Whether it takes legislation or not, we are going to get to the
bottom of this. We are going to have continuing hearings. We
accept and embrace your constructive criticism of what might go
on. We have a number of questions.
For me, you heard some other members ask this question a
little earlier today, but we have heard some rumblings about
penalties to the American athletes. We saw that--at least I
read about that, and I can remember watching the Olympics in
Korea, and though I was never a boxer, I know a few points
about that, and I thought, in fact, our athletes were
discriminated against. I couldn't imagine that some of our
athletes there weren't on the top rung of the stage when that
anthem, when the wrong anthem, I guess, was played.
As I read some literature about that since these hearings
were held, and though we have heard good comments from people
that have testified, no, we haven't heard any rumblings, what
the Congress has done has been pretty good, you are on the
right track, thank goodness things began to move, I guess I
would like to know what you have heard as athletes from your
peers, whether they be from this country or any other, about
the actions that we took.
We are not afraid to go after fraud and abuse, because it
has got to be corrected. And I have to say that if the Olympics
had not moved on the track that they did, that they would be in
real jeopardy in the future. We heard that from advertisers, we
heard that from corporate sponsors that began to think about
and did pull the plug on future sites. But as you are here, I
would be interested to know what you have heard about the
actions of this committee and trying to seek the truth and to
correct it.
Mr. Szott, I guess we will just go down the list. Since my
red light is on, I will pass the baton to my colleagues. Maybe
just some quick answers yes or no, what you have heard or
haven't.
Mr. Szott. For the most part I think what the athletes here
have said is accurate. Most of the athletes right now are more
concerned about themselves. And as long as the games are going
on, they don't involve themselves in a whole lot of the
politics of what is going on with the IOC. For me personally in
the sport of judo, the athletes at the Olympic training center
where I train, they were offended, embarrassed about what
happened here on our soil. What we heard from around the
different countries was really not too much as far as ridicule
or criticism about what went on. I guess some people had
commented before, some people assume it is just the way the
business goes. So in the long run, as far as the short term, a
lot of the athletes haven't really commented.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Westbrook.
Mr. Westbrook. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I as an athlete haven't
heard too much about reverberations against the athletes. But,
for sure, I am so happy that you are looking into it, because
the athletes would inevitably suffer because of the funding and
the sponsorship. So I think we are all quite aware that if this
was not looked upon and dealt with immediately, as you are
doing, it would have just--I can't even think about the
effects, the sponsorship, the Olympic Games, maybe no funding
for the athletes whatsoever. I just thank you for that.
Mr. Upton. Ms. Strug.
Ms. Strug. I think obviously like everyone else has said, I
don't know if I need to kind of go over it again, but we were
kind of disappointed, and it is definitely a reflection on the
athletes. And hopefully I think obviously with the objective
sports, is not the athletes, they cannot suffer, but subjective
perhaps. So I am glad you are getting down to it.
Mr. Upton. But to rephrase my question, have you heard
about any possible retribution that may be out there toward
American athletes by judges or whatever?
Ms. Strug. I have not.
Mr. Upton. From your peers?
Ms. Strug. No, I have not.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills. I have not either, but what I have heard and it
is also part of my very strong feeling, is that it was to be
expected what, eventually happened with the International
Olympic Committee, because I feel strongly and other athletes
have shared this with me, as we go global with our free
enterprise system, there is only one downside to the beautiful
system we have, and that has been somewhat profit at all costs.
In the beginning profit polluted the streams, the air, the
soil. Environmental scientists have corrected that. Profit went
into politics, profit at all costs. Character assassination,
McCarthyism. Profit at all costs has gone into sport. It is
okay for an athlete to abuse their spouse because they are a
multimillion-dollar athlete, or it is okay to take steroids or
performance enhancing drugs to win gold medals. So then the
logical thing was it is okay to take bribes to award the game
somewhere. And as we discussed that as athletes, we felt that
true responsibility got back into America. As we go global with
our free enterprise system, we have to monitor our own
downside, our only downside, and we are doing that, and for
that I am thankful.
The other comment I will make is with John Naber we were at
the World Association of Olympic Winners, and the concern of
the athletes I talked to there was not so much the
International Olympic committee, but how within our own world
as athletes we monitor ourselves so we can eliminate drug
abuse, we can eliminate sexual abuse among coaching, et cetera.
I think all of it is for the better of the sport, to get back
to the Olympic ideals that I expressed in my comments.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Ctvrtlik.
Mr. Ctvrtlik. Thank you. I would just say that from what I
have heard, and I fortunately or unfortunately am dealing with
athletes that are not just Americans but from all around the
world, they are concentrated on athletics. They want to win a
gold medal. They are training, just like most of our stories
here. That was our goal in our life and that is what we
concentrated on. They are not worried about the politics of
sport. I can say athletes are very appreciative of the work you
have done up to this point.
I just want to kind of reiterate that the charter was
changed. Athletes now have a mechanism to have a voice. The
Olympic Games do not control world sports. For some reason, the
public has this idea that the IOC is all powerful, and they are
not. International federations control sports. The National
Olympic Committees, they control the sports. So if you are
talking about retribution against American athletes, then we
have to talk about the people picking the judges that control
sports. That is the international federations.
None of the athletes, this is not a concern for them. But
it is a very valid concern, and you bring it up. But the IOC is
not the body that controls the sports. They are just trying to
keep all the different factions together. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Stapleton.
Mr. Stapleton. Well, I won't enter into a debate with Bob
with the IOC athlete representation and its effect, but my
comments did not go to fraud, they went to lack of financing.
When you say the Olympics were going to be in a world of hurt,
that is what I was referring to when I said American athletes
could suffer. I am not paranoid enough to believe there are
judges out there that are going to punish Americans, at least
on the playing field, and I hope that is not the case.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Naber.
Mr. Naber. One of the good things about our system in this
country is that you get to hear dissenting points of view. I
think good governance is not measured by having the right or
the ability to hear a dissenting point of view, but it is the
impossibility of keeping that viewpoint out of it.
So what I guess I am saying is I am going to say something
the Olympic Committee will not like to hear. That is, you asked
have I heard is there a possibility of retribution? Come on. Of
course. The election to choose Italy over Switzerland for the
20006 Olympics has been disputed in the media as a reaction to
Hodler's commentary at the Olympic Committee level.
Is that saying that the IOC has it out for the United
States? Not necessarily. But how can we not think that somebody
out there is not going to hold this discussion or others like
it against us? I don't know if we are going to see an American
elected to the presidency of an international sports federation
for years. Does that matter? Yes, to some people. There could
easily be repercussions.
But we are talking ethics, folks, and the measure of ethics
is the ability or the willingness to do the right thing, even
if it costs more than you are willing to pay.
Don't back off. Don't let any possible repercussions have
any bearing in this issue. Do what is right and get it done
with.
Mr. Upton. Well, we certainly intend to do that. I know my
5 minutes has expired, so I will re-turn on the light. Ms.
DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thanks you, Mr. Chairman. Most especially I
thank all of you. You inspire all of us. Frankly, to us you may
be the last committee on the agenda, but to us you are really
the first committee, because several of you said this: The
games are what it is about and the athletes are what it is
about, and we need to make sure that the Olympics can continue
untarnished, and that is to express the purpose of
international competition and all of the good things that you
so articulately talked about much more so than myself.
I will tell the chairman, certainly Mr. Waxman and all of
us on the committee, Mr. Klink and myself included, intend to
work very hard to make sure that the rules that were
promulgated by the IOC, which are a good first step, will
actually be carried out. So I will work with you too on this.
Mr. Upton. Absolutely.
Ms. DeGette. Let me start out, Mr. Naber, by asking you, I
think I hear what you are saying, that this committee should
continue even if there are repercussions, because it is the
right thing to do.
Let me ask you and then any of the rest of you who would
like to participate, I would love to hear your view too. If you
could make one recommendation to the IOC about some change they
could make in how they have been operated, what would that one
recommendation be?
Mr. Naber. Well, the one recommendation I would make to us
is to not make it personal. The IOC members are good
intentioned. They are good in integrity, it is hard to measure
perhaps, but they don't mean ill will to the Olympic Movement.
But if I were to advise them, it is strictly on the issue
of the appearance of impropriety. Doing anything that might
look suspicious, whether it looks like the decision is made
behind closed doors and we declare it by acclaim, whether it be
the appointment of a relative of an IOC member for any
position, whatever it may be, stop it. Term limits goes a long
way to addressing the appearance of a good old boy's club.
Mr. Stapleton. I would just say, if I could change one
thing that I think they really got wrong was the term limits
issue. You know, it is like every 8 years having a vote at my
country club about whether they are going to kick me out or
not, and there is a group of people, and 3 outside people, and
they are going to decide; but actually 4 of those 7 are from
the inside, and it is unlikely unless I do something really
ridiculous that I am going to get thrown out. I think that is
at the root of the corruption of the IOC. That is why they got
off track.
Mr. Upton. Any other thoughts? Mr. Mills?
Mr. Mills. Term limits. But also what bothered me, I think,
was when they grandfathered in people and also whether or not
there was the commitment to--I know you have to stop somewhere,
but if there was some indication of corruption and fraud, will
they still go back and investigate it?
Ms. DeGette. Anyone else? Yes?
Mr. Ctvrtlik. I would like to say, I have been there for
every meeting and I have volunteered I don't want to know how
many days this year, and my wife is going to kill me when I get
home, as a matter of fact, but we were there. I don't have
anything to add. Everything that bubbled up from the athletes
around the world, we presented and they passed. I don't know,
there is always something more you could want, a little bit
more, or you could ask for this or that. Sure, the athletes, we
could be 200 members and take over the whole IOC, but we have
asked for reasonable things and they were very responsive all
throughout the entire year. Personally as a representative, you
can't ask for anything more. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. Let me turn the tables a little bit then. What
one piece of advice would you give to us as Members of Congress
and this Oversight Committee as we proceed with our dealings
with the IOC? What is the one thing you think we should do? Mr.
Stapleton?
Mr. Stapleton. I think you should continue to schedule
hearings, and I think that is the best thing you can do. I
think the threat of legislation is a bad thing. They understand
in Lausanne that you can take away tax deductions and all of
the things we could do to disrupt the Olympics. In my
experience over there, sitting in IOC meetings, is the last
thing they wanted is Americans reminding them about how much
power we have. So I think inserting yourselves in a meaningful
oversight role by scheduling regular hearings is a very
positive step. As a former athlete and one who represents
athletes, I would feel good about that.
I think when we start rattling our saber is when we get in
trouble, and when they put us in at arm's length and don't want
to listen.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Westbrook is nodding in agreement.
Mr. Westbrook. Yes.
Mr. Mills. I also would encourage the committee to
encourage the major Olympic sponsors to come back into the
fold: The corporate America save the Olympic Games, corporate
America could destroy the Olympic Games. I think a lot of the
problems we are facing within the International Olympic
Movement is the only downfall of the free enterprise system. In
a free world, how do we monitor profit at all costs, what is a
bribe? So I think we need at this point the major corporate
Olympic sponsors stepping forward and endorsing the change and
going forward together.
Mr. Naber. If I could just supplement, there are some
stakeholders that were not represented in this room today. At
least they didn't speak at the microphones. I would go out of
your way to find a representative from the sponsor community.
You did well to select somebody from both, because they are an
independent international athlete-led organization. But the
sponsors, the IAFs, the NOCs, they have a legitimate right to
be heard.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. I would just like to say we actually, when we
began to formulate our thoughts about the hearing, we were
going to have the sponsors, but then they at the last minute
were not able to come. Because of the size and the time
element, we decided we would save it for another day.
Coach Oxley.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Excuse me. ``All Star'' Oxley.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you. I will have to brag, since the
Republicans won the baseball game 17 to 1 and won the
basketball game by 31 points.
Let me first of all thank all of you for being here. I have
been a huge Olympic fan for years. I guess the first one I can
remember is the Helsinki games in 1952. Mr. Mills, I think you
were on the team with Bob Shuel in Tokyo. Bob was a Miami
university graduate, my alma mater, in Dayton. And Kerrie
Strug, you might be tiny, but you are my hero. You are
terrific. John Naber, maybe they didn't have a tape old enough
to cover your exploits. I don't know. But I enjoy watching all
of you. I think that it is shared by all the members.
I had a question, and it may be premature, but I am
wondering exactly how the athletes from other countries are
looking at this issue. Is it perceived by those athletes as a
unique problem with Salt Lake City or Atlanta, or is it
perceived as a real problem with the entire Olympic Movement? I
know that some of the athletes, including Koss from Norway, is
on the committee. Maybe Bob would best answer that. What is
your sense about what the other athletes from other countries
are feeling about this?
Mr. Ctvrtlik. Just feeling about the reforms?
Mr. Oxley. Not only about the reforms, but what brought us
to the reforms.
Mr. Ctvrtlik. One thing that is fairly interesting on the
Athletes Committee, the meetings we have, when we are
discussing an issue, there is something, it is just interesting
that I might be talking to one of our representatives from
China or Johann Koss from Norway or anywhere around the world,
and we have quite a bit of discussion, but we don't have that
much trouble coming to consensus, because we have all
sacrificed and all given so much to this movement that we think
very similarly.
So I think that the comments that you have heard as far as
what the athletes feel, it is amazingly representative of what
you have heard today.
Mr. Oxley. Let me change the subject just briefly, because
someone had mentioned performance-enhancing drugs. It seems to
me we have come a long way in trying to deal with that issue.
For those of you who have gone through that, and I assume it is
virtually all--I am not sure, Mr. Mills, you probably had to go
through it back in 1964--it was not a problem. But those of you
who had to go through with it, let me ask, are you comfortable
with the accuracy of the drug testing, and, if not, are there
changes you would recommend? I know that General McCaffrey has
been involved in some of our issues, our so-called drug czar.
He has been active in taking the lead in that. I think
particularly about the Butch Reynolds situation. I don't want
to necessarily single him out, but there was some question as
to the accuracy of the testing in that regard.
Just kind of give me an idea about where we are and maybe
where we ought to be in terms of enhancement and the drug
testing area.
Mr. Szott. Being in a sport, especially in my division as
heavyweight where it is a big issue, unfortunately my
background is in physiology, and I think the problem with the
testing innately is it is always behind the drug user. I mean,
by the time they are able to test something, the drug user has
found a way around it, so they are always playing catch-up.
I really can't foresee a paradigm in which you can control
or anticipate every opportunity. If a person is willing to
cheat, to me it has always been a moral decision. If a person
is willing to cheat, they will always find a way. I think you
can only clear out so much of it, but there will always be some
of it in the sport.
Mr. Naber. There are a lot of examples of athletes who win
races 1 year and get caught with drugs the next, and that
immediately casts suspicion on how on Earth did they pass the
test the year before. There is a swimmer from Ireland who won
three gold medals in Los Angeles, and rumors were rampant, but
everyone called those rumors sour grapes, because well,
obviously you lost and she won. A year later she turns out with
an amount of alcohol in her system as a masking agent that
would have killed an ox. So everyone says aw, maybe we didn't
catch her and consequently maybe the rumors have a lot more
credence.
So, yes, I think there is no question the opinion of the
athletes is we are testing, we are looking, we are just not
catching enough of them, and how are they getting away? It goes
back to my analogy of smart fish, a loose net, or catch and
release.
In any case, unless it is purely independent, there is
always going to be an incentive to conceal positive results or
just not to catch them. If I can say I tested everybody on the
Olympic team and they all tested clean, then I am no longer
culpable. Well, that is only good until one of the guys gets a
positive test a year later and now your whole system is
culpable.
So by making it independent, I suggest that we put it out
to bid, and now the integrity of the lab is on the line, not
the integrity of the ethics of the Organizing Committee. I am a
real believer in the need, and though I trust and love Richard
Pound, a wonderful guy doing a great job, but I think we have
to make it beyond suspect. Many of the athletes are very
suspect.
Mr. Oxley. Just briefly, if you could educate me, what is
the regime now of testing? How soon before the Olympics? Does
this go on constantly, or is it just during the Olympics? How
does that work?
Mr. Ctvrtlik. Like I mentioned earlier, the international
federations, what happened in February there was--the IOC
convened world governments and all the international
federations and athlete representatives. There was a World Drug
Conference over in Lausanne, because what--it was ridiculous
how it was happening in the past. Each federation had their own
list of banned subject substances. These international
federations are extremely strong and the IOC does not tell an
international federation what to do. They ask and they
negotiate and try to work it out.
So the major breakthrough happened at this conference. All
of the international federations signed on to this same drug
ban list, which was the first step. Then the International
Olympic Committee, they tried to keep working. They are putting
money behind different labs. They just put another $1.75
million for research for the drug for EPO.
But the next step is the World Anti-doping Agency, which
they have--it has been created, it is going to be up and
running by Sydney. But as far as catching people using drugs,
the only way, and I think everyone on this panel will agree, is
out-of-competition testing. There is no mechanism yet to do
that around the world. So this World Anti-doping Agency, one of
the major goals is consistency, as John Naber just said, but it
is also to have an African runner know that when he is tested,
he is getting the same test as a volleyball player in Long
Beach, it is being recorded the same and being tested the same.
And I think that is the biggest goal, and as athletes, if we
feel comfortable that this is occurring, that will be a huge
step in combating the proliferation of drug use.
Thank you.
Mr. Naber. You asked the protocol of testing. A drug
doesn't have to be in your system on the day of the Olympics to
have benefited you and given you a gold medal. You can use a
drug in January. It helps you train really well for 6 months.
By the end of the 6 months, you come off the drug, it is no
longer in your system and you don't test positive. So just
testing at the Olympics or just testing a month before, in and
of itself does not catch all the cheaters. So you have to have
random, out-of-competition testing. The IOC has just introduced
this drug passport. So once you become eligible to be
considered for the Olympics, you have to have this passport and
make sure you get tested regularly. A lot more detail than you
need today, but there is a big process.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have made us all
proud. We are glad to have you here.
Mr. Upton. We are really glad to have you here. I know that
I speak for the entire committee and Chairman Bliley as well.
Again, just to piggyback a little bit on Mr. Oxley's
comments, I am very interested in pursuing the drug policy, not
only in the Olympics, but in sports, whether it be the NCAA or
major league baseball, football, tennis, I don't care. We are
going to go and take a look at it. In fact, it is one of nine
things I talked to Mr. Samaranch about. I know he met with
former General McCaffrey yesterday, and I would look to have
him come up, General McCaffrey come up and testify as well.
That is one of our potential hearings next year. So we may be
getting some thoughts there, too.
Again, I want to compliment all of you on your testimony
and your willingness to come at your own expense today and
really spend a considerable amount of time.
I also want to again thank the staff, not only the staff
that is behind us here on the dais but on the other sides of
these walls, that have really done an outstanding job for a
number of months making sure that we are prepared and that we,
in fact, had terrific witnesses and allowed us to interact.
Jan tells me I am chairing the last hearing of the century.
Maybe. We will see. Thank you, Jan.
But, again, we appreciate it. You are excused. We look
forward to your input and your thoughts certainly in the months
ahead. And for those of you that are still hoping to be a
future Olympian, Mr. Westbrook, since 1976, I don't know if you
are intending to be there again.
Mr. Westbrook. No.
Mr. Upton. No? Kevin, best of luck to you, for sure. God
bless all.
[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]