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

(

HE OLYMPICS SITE SELECTION PROCESS

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

60–363CC WASHINGTON : 2000

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

(

2

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

Vice Chairman

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma

RICK LAZIO, New York

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

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

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

Vice Chairman

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

TOM BLILEY, Virginia,

(Ex Officio)

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

3

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, Franc ̧ois, 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 Franc ̧ois 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)

(1)

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 GrifVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
2

fin 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 Franc ̧ois 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.

3

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

4

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.

5

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

6

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

7

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 inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
8

tense 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

9

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.

10

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

11

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.

12

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 worldclass 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 conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
13

done 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

14

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.

15

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.

16

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.

17

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.

18

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.

19

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

20

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

21

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 21⁄2 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

22

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.

23

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

24

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.

25

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 underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
26

stand 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 welltrained 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.

27

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 coopted 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

28

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

29

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.

30

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 monVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
31

itored 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

32

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

33

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.

34

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.

35

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.

36

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

37

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

38

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:]

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

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.

Franc ̧ois 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

104

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?

105

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

106

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

107

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?

108

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,

109

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?

110

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 handpicked 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

111

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.

112

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

113

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

114

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.

115

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 fulltime 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.

116

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?

117

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?

118

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.

119

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 &

120

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

121

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, 51⁄2, 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,

122

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,

123

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.

124

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

125

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.

126

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

127

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?

128

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

129

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.

130

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

131

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?

132

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.

133

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 OlymVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
134

pics 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. Franc ̧ois 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 Franco ̧is 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.

135

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 indepth 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

136

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 Franc ̧ois Carrard follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANC ̧ OIS CARRARD, DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL

OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Franc ̧ois 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

137

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;

138

• 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.

139

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

140

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

141

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

142

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 worldwide 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

143

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

144

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:]

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

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

153

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.

154

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.

155

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 Franco ̧is Carrard, from Madam Zheifel, from

Mr. Gafner who wrote to the bidding cities always attempting to

156

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

157

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

158

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?

159

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.

160

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

161

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

162

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.

163

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

164

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 anticorruption 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.

165

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

166

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 toVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
167

gether 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

168

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

169

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

170

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

171

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?

172

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——

173

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.’’

174

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.

175

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

176

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.

177

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 Franco ̧is 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

178

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 Ke ́ba 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.

179

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

180

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?

181

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

182

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 antiAmerican 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 antiAmerican 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 nonIOC 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.

183

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

184

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,

185

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

186

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

187

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.

188

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

189

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?

190

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

191

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 Pe ́rez de Cue ́llar 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,

192

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 enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
193

courage 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.

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

(451)

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.

452

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

453

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.

454

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

455

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.

456

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.

457

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

458

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

459

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

460

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

461

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.

462

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

463

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.

464

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.

465

[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

466

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.

467

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.

468

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

469

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.

470

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,

471

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

472

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.

473

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

474

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

475

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.

476

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 comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00482 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
477

mittees 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

478

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 eightyears. 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 imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00484 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
479

portant 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

480

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.

481

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

482

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?

483

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.

484

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.

485

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.

486

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

487

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.

488

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 OlymVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00494 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
489

pic 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 Sid- ney, 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

490

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.

491

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 reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00497 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
492

quest 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,

493

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.

494

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

495

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?

496

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

497

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:]

498

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.

499

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.

500

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?

501

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.

502

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 atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00508 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
503

tempt 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?

504

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?

505

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

506

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 ConstituVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00512 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
507

tion 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.

508

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

509

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 Pe ́rez de

Cue ́llar 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

Ke ́ba 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.

510

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. Pe ́

rez de

Cue ́llar 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 recommendaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00516 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
511

tions 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 jusVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00517 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
512

tified 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

513

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.

514

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, selfperpetuating 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

515

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 counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00521 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
516

try. 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

517

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 comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00523 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
518

pelled 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

519

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

520

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 allegaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00526 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
521

tions 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?

522

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?

523

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

524

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?

525

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,

526

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 commitVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00532 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
527

ment 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 antibribery 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.

528

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 legisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00534 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
529

lation 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?

530

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 Antibribery 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

531

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.

532

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

533

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

534

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:]

535

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

536

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

537

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 taxdeductible 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

538

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 testVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00544 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
539

ing, 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 votesfor-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

540

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:]

541

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

542

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.

543

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 commit- ment 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

544

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

545

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

546

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 selfaggrandizement. 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 particiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00552 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
547

pation 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

548

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 worldclass 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

549

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

550

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

551

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 21⁄2 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 comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00557 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
552

pete 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

553

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 21⁄2 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

554

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,

555

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 Godgiven.

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

556

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

557

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

558

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 atrisk 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

559

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 PanAmerican 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 atrisk 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 nonprofit 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 HonorRoll 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,

560

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

561

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

562

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

563

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.

564

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. InterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:06 Jul 14, 2000 Jkt 062884 PO 00000 Frm 00570 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60363 pfrm07 PsN: 60363
565

national 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

566

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

567

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

568

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

569

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

570

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.]