OLYMPIC GAMES

Federal Government

Provides Significant

Funding and Support

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2000

GAO/GGD-00-183

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

B-282746

September 8, 2000

The Honorable John D. Dingell

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on

Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

Science and Transportation

United States Senate

In response to your requests, this report provides information on (1) the amount of federal

funding and support provided to the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and planned for

the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, and the types of projects and activities that were funded and

supported and (2) the federal policies, legislative authorizations, and agency controls in place

for providing the federal funds and support to the Olympic Games. In addition, as you

requested, this report provides the results of our evaluation of the following five projects: (1)

development of the Ocoee Whitewater Rapids Slalom venue for the 1996 Summer Olympic

Games, (2) use of federal employees to provide security during the 1996 Games, (3) payment

of Atlanta Paralympic Organizing Committee staff salaries, (4) payment of Paralympic Games’

opening ceremony entertainers costs, and (5) veterans assistance during the Paralympic

Games.

This report contains matters for congressional consideration and recommendations to the

Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Administrator of the General

Services Administration, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

As agreed, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution

of this report until 15 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report

to Senator Ernest Hollings, Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and Representative Tom Bliley, Chairman of the

House Committee on Commerce. We are also sending copies of this report to Senators Orrin

Hatch and Robert Bennett and Representatives James Hansen, Merrill Cook, and Chris

Cannon of Utah. Copies of this report will also be made available to the Director of OMB; the

Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy,

Health and Human Services, the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, State,

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; and the U.S. Attorney General. We are
B-282746

Page 2 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

also sending copies to the Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Services,

Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, Federal

Emergency Management Administration, General Services Administration, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, Social Security Administration, Tennessee Valley

Authority, and U.S. Information Agency and the U.S. Postmaster General. We will make

copies available to others upon request.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8387 or

ungarb.ggd@gao.gov. Key contributors to this assignment were Tammy R. Conquest,

Michael Rives, John Parulis, David Bennett, Alan Belkin, Jessica Botsford, and Syrene

Mitchell.

Bernard L. Ungar

Director, Government Business

 Operations Issues
Page 3 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Executive Summary

Page 4 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

The federal government has provided increasingly significant funding and

support for the Olympic Games when held in the United States. Concerned

about this rising cost and the appropriateness of the federal funding and

support for certain Olympic-related projects and activities, you requested

that GAO review federal funding and support for the 1984 Summer

Olympic Games held in Los Angeles, CA; the 1996 Summer Olympic Games

held in Atlanta, GA; and the planned 2002 Winter Olympic Games held in

Salt Lake City, UT. In response, this report answers the following

questions:

• What were the amounts of federal funding and support provided to the

1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and planned for the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games,1

 and the types of projects and activities that were

funded and supported?

• What are the federal policies, legislative authorizations, and agency

controls in place for providing federal funds and support for the

Olympic Games?

In addition, you asked GAO to use its professional judgment to select and

review some of the Olympic-related projects and activities to determine if

federal funding and support were provided in accordance with the

underlying laws and applicable requirements. Accordingly, GAO selected

and evaluated the following five projects: (1) development of the Ocoee

Whitewater Slalom venue for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, (2) use of

federal employees to provide security during the 1996 Summer Olympic

Games, (3) payment of Atlanta Paralympic Organizing Committee (APOC)

staff salaries, (4) payment of Paralympic Games’ opening ceremony

entertainer costs, and (5) veterans assistance during the Paralympic

Games. GAO’s specific reasons for selecting these projects are discussed

in the objectives, scope, and methodology section of chapter 1.

The Olympic Games take place every 4 years, with the Summer Games and

Winter Games alternating on a 2-year cycle. Each of these Games is

awarded by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)2

 to a host city, not

to its country. Since 1904, cities in the United States have been selected to

host the Olympic Games eight times—more than those of any other

country. In the United States, unlike in other countries, the host city, not

 

1

 The 1996 Olympic Games and the planned 2002 Winter Olympic Games also include the Paralympic

Games. The Paralympic Games were not a part of the 1984 Olympic Games.

2

 The IOC is an international, nongovernmental, nonprofit organization that is primarily responsible for

supervising the organization of the Olympic Games.

Purpose

Background
Executive Summary

Page 5 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

the federal government, is generally responsible for hosting the Olympic

Games.

The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (Amateur Sports Act),

36 U.S.C. 220501 et. seq., which was originally enacted in 1978 as the

Amateur Sports Act, gives the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC),3

 among

other things, exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the

participation of the United States in the Olympic Games, including the

representation of the United States in such Games and the organization of

the Games when held in the United States.

The Amateur Sports Act was amended in 1998 to incorporate the

Paralympic Games under the umbrella of USOC. The Paralympic Games

are for disabled athletes and are held immediately following the Olympic

Games. Although organized separately, the 1996 Summer Olympic Games

marked the first time that the Paralympic Games were held in conjunction

with Olympic Games in the United States.

The federal government provides significant funding and support for the

Olympic Games when they are held in the United States. At least 24 federal

agencies reported providing or planning to provide a combined total of

almost $2 billion, in 1999 dollars,4

 for Olympic-related projects and

activities for the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the 2002

Winter Olympic Games. Specifically, the federal government provided

about $75 million in funding and support for the 1984 Summer Olympic

Games in Los Angeles and about $609 million for the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games in Atlanta, and has provided or plans to provide about $1.3

billion for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.5

 This is in

addition to the Olympic organizing committee’s costs to host the Games.

According to data obtained from Olympic organizing committee officials, it

cost or is expected to cost the organizers about $602 million to stage the

1984 Summer Olympic Games; $2 billion for the 1996 Summer Olympic

Games; and an estimated $1.4 billion for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

Of the almost $2 billion of funding and support from the federal

government, about $513 million was provided or planned to be provided

for projects or activities related to planning and staging the Olympic

 

3

 USOC is a federally chartered private organization that is primarily responsible for coordinating and

developing amateur athletic activities in the United States.

4

 All financial information presented in this report is in constant 1999 dollars, except where noted.

5

 Each Olympic Game varied widely in terms of size, scope, and location, thus making it difficult to

make comparisons.

Results in Brief
Executive Summary

Page 6 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Games, such as providing security or transporting spectators; these funds

would not have been provided if the Games were not held in the United

States. The remaining $1.4 billion has been provided or planned to be

provided for infrastructure projects, such as highway, transit, and capital

improvements, that are related to preparing the cities of Atlanta and Salt

Lake City to host the Olympic Games, as shown in figure 1. These projects

will also benefit the host city and state after the Games are held. According

to federal officials, most of these funds would have been awarded to these

cities or states even if they had not hosted the Olympic Games, although

the funds could have been provided later if the Games were not held.

Source: OMB and various other federal agencies.

However, no governmentwide law or policy exists that defines the federal

government’s overall role in funding and supporting the Olympic Games

when hosted in the United States. Nor is there a single federal agency that

has the responsibility to oversee and monitor the federal funding and

support provided for the Olympic Games. Nonetheless, federal agencies

have helped and continue to help fund and support various aspects of the

Olympic Games, in response to requests for federal assistance from state

and local governments and Olympic organizing committees. Federal

Figure 1: Proportion of Federal Funding

and Support Provided to Prepare Host

Cities for Olympic Games
Executive Summary

Page 7 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

assistance has been requested because these entities have not had enough

resources to provide for the infrastructure improvements necessary to

prepare the host city or to plan and stage all aspects of the Olympic Games

when hosted in the United States.

In some cases, Olympic-related expenditures by federal agencies were

made using funds specifically designated by Congress in agencies’

authorizing and/or appropriations legislation. In other cases, Olympicrelated expenditures were not specifically designated by Congress but

were approved by the agencies, generally, in accordance with their normal

funding procedures. However, in some cases it was difficult to determine

the amount of federal funding and support because federal agencies

generally did not track or report their funding and support for the Olympic

Games, except when they were specifically requested to do so by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB began requesting federal

agencies to report to it regarding how much federal funding and support

they had provided after the 1984 Summer Olympic Games. Although GAO

found this reported information to be helpful, in some cases the

information that the agencies provided to OMB for the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games was not always complete or reported in a consistent

manner.

Federal funding and support were used in accordance with statutory

authority and applicable requirements for three of the five 1996 Summer

Olympic Games projects that GAO specifically reviewed for this purpose.

Of the remaining two projects reviewed, the expenditures for one were not

in accordance with the underlying statutory authority and expenditures for

the other did not comply with all applicable administratively imposed

requirements.

This report contains matters for congressional consideration and

recommendations to the Director of OMB, the Administrator of the

General Services Administration (GSA), and the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs (VA) to address these issues. Most of the agencies that provided

comments on a draft of this report provided technical changes that we

incorporated where appropriate. However, GSA, VA, and the U.S. Disabled

Athletes Fund, Inc., disagreed with our conclusion that GSA’s and VA’s use

of federal funds for Paralympic-related activities was not in accordance

with statutory or administratively imposed requirements. GSA also

disagreed with our recommendation that it take action to ensure the

appropriate use of federal funds for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Executive Summary

Page 8 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

The federal government provided about $75 million in funding and support

for the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles; the majority of this

funding was used to help provide safety- and security-related services

during the Games. The $75 million in federal funding and support would

not have been provided if the 1984 Summer Olympic Games had not been

held in the United States.

In contrast, the majority of the federal funding and support that were

provided for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, which were held in

Atlanta, and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City,

is reported to be for infrastructure projects in preparing the host cities for

the Olympic Games—-projects that did or will benefit the host cities and

their states after the Games. For example, the federal government

provided about $609 million for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in

Atlanta, of which about $424 million was spent for highway, transit, public

housing, and other capital improvements. Similarly, the federal

government has provided or plans to provide about $1.3 billion for the 2002

Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, of which about $1 billion has

been provided or is planned for highway and transit projects that Utah and

Salt Lake City officials wanted to have completed in time for the Games.

According to federal officials, the majority of the funds would have been

provided to the host cities and states for infrastructure projects, such as

highways and transit systems, regardless of the Olympic Games because

many of the projects had been planned long before the cities were selected

to host the Games. However, some federal officials were not always able

to document which of the specific infrastructure projects would or would

not have been funded if the Olympic Games were not held.

No governmentwide law or policy exists that defines the federal

government’s overall role in funding and supporting the Olympic Games

when hosted in the United States. Nonetheless, many federal agencies

have been involved in helping to fund and support various aspects of the

Olympic Games when hosted in the United States. Historically, the state

and local governments and Olympic organizing committees have not had

enough resources to provide the infrastructure improvements necessary to

prepare the host city or to plan and stage all aspects of the Olympic

Games; thus, requests for federal assistance have been made.

Principal Findings

Almost $2 Billion in Federal

Funding and Support

Provided or Planned for Los

Angeles, Atlanta, and Salt

Lake City Olympic Games

No Governmentwide

Law or Policy on

Federal Funding and

Support for the

Olympic Games
Executive Summary

Page 9 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

In some cases, Congress has specifically designated funds for the Olympic

Games. For example, Congress specifically designated about $690 million

of the almost $2 billion in federal funding and support provided for the

1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games and planned for the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games. The remaining $1.3 billion was approved by federal

agencies, generally in accordance with their normal funding procedures.

Although decisions regarding federal funding and support have generally

been made by Congress or federal agencies on a project-by-project basis,

for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic and

Paralympic Games, the President established a White House task force

chaired by the Vice President and co-chaired by the Assistant to the

President and Cabinet Secretary and the Assistant to the President and

Director of Intergovernmental Affairs to coordinate federal involvement in

the Olympic Games. The Task Force comprises representatives from OMB

and various other federal agencies. There is no statutory requirement for a

single federal agency to oversee and monitor the appropriateness of

federal funding and support for the Olympic Games. In addition, GAO

found that federal agencies generally did not track or report their funding

and support for the Olympic Games, except when they were specifically

requested to do so by OMB. After the 1984 Summer Olympic Games, OMB

began requesting federal agencies to report to it regarding how much

federal funding and support they provided for the Olympic Games when

hosted in the United States.

Although this reported information was helpful, in some cases, the

information that the agencies provided to OMB for the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games was not complete or provided in a consistent manner. For

example, OMB reported federal expenditures of about $329 million for the

1996 Summer Olympic Games. However, information GAO collected from

the agencies after these Olympic Games showed that the federal

government spent about $609 million, which is a difference of $280 million.

One reason for the difference is that OMB’s request for data was made

before the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and OMB did not collect

additional information after the Games.

As agreed with its requesters, GAO evaluated five projects that were part

of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games and determined that three of the five

projects were carried out in accordance with the underlying statutory

authority and were consistent with applicable requirements. These three

projects were the development of the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue, use

of federal employees to provide security, and payment of Paralympic

Games’ opening ceremony entertainer costs. Although GAO determined

Federal Agencies Did Not

Use Funds Appropriately

for Two of Five OlympicRelated Projects GAO

Reviewed
Executive Summary

Page 10 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

that the Ocoee project was funded in accordance with the law, there are

no studies or evaluations showing that the expenditures to build the Ocoee

Whitewater Slalom venue would have benefited or did benefit public use

after the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.

For the remaining two projects, GAO determined that one did not comply

with the applicable administratively imposed requirements, and that the

other was not in accordance with the underlying statutory authority.

Specifically, GAO determined that GSA’s use of about $2 million to pay the

salaries of APOC staff was not consistent with the express language of the

Memorandum of Agreement that stated GSA would not pay the salaries of

APOC employees. In the case of the other project, GAO determined that

VA’s use of a $2 million special purpose grant for veterans that was used to

largely assist nonveterans during the 1996 Paralympic Games was not

consistent with a provision in the conference report that was incorporated

into the Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995. This provision stated that

the $2 million was “for the assistance of veterans who are participating in

the 1996 Paralympic Games.”

Despite the lack of a specifically authorized governmentwide role in the

Olympic Games, the federal government has, in effect, become a

significant supporter of the Games when hosted in the United States.

Accordingly, Congress may want to consider enacting legislation to

establish a formal role for the federal government and a governmentwide

policy regarding federal funding and support for Olympic Games when

hosted in the United States.

GAO recommends that OMB (1) track and periodically report to Congress

federal agencies’ planned and actual funding and support for the Olympic

Games hosted in the United States, beginning when a U.S. city is awarded

the right to host the Games through the completion of the Games and (2)

provide guidance to agencies on what data should be compiled to ensure

consistency and completeness, and request all federal agencies to provide

information, including those that do not normally report to OMB. GAO

also recommends that GSA and VA implement policies and controls to

ensure the appropriate use of federal funds for the Olympic and

Paralympic Games hosted in the United States.

GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to the heads of the federal

agencies that provided federal funding and support for the Olympic

Games; OMB; the White House Task Force on the 2002 Winter Olympic

and Paralympic Games; the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee;

the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee; the U.S. Olympic

Matters for

Congressional

Consideration

Recommendations

Agency Comments
Executive Summary

Page 11 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Committee; and the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., for comment. GAO’s

summary of the comments it received and its evaluation of these

comments are included at the end of chapter 5.

Most of the agencies and organizations with comments provided technical

changes regarding the amount of federal funding and support provided to

the Olympic Games, which GAO made where appropriate. OMB concurred

with GAO’s recommendations to it. However, GSA disagreed with GAO’s

conclusion that its use of federal funds to pay the salaries of APOC staff

was not consistent with the express language of the Memorandum of

Agreement, which stated that GSA would not pay the salaries of APOC

staff. GSA did not provide any additional information or explanation that

would cause GAO to change its conclusion.

VA agreed with GAO’s recommendation but believed that its use of federal

funds designated for veterans, which were used to assist nonveterans

during the 1996 Paralympic Games, was consistent with congressional

intent. GAO believes that there is no legal basis for changing its conclusion

that VA’s use of these funds was inconsistent with the applicable statutory

provision.

The U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., also expressed concern regarding

how GAO addressed several issues associated with the Paralympic Games.

However, it did not provide a basis for changing any of GAO’s conclusions.
Page 12 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Contents

Executive Summary 4

16

Background 17

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 20

Chapter 1

Introduction

24

About $75 Million in Federal Funding and Support Used

to Help Plan and Stage the 1984 Summer Olympic

Games in Los Angeles

25

About $609 Million in Federal Funding and Support

Provided for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in

Atlanta

28

Almost $1.3 Billion of Federal Funding and Support

Planned or Provided for the 2002 Olympic Games in

Salt Lake City

36

Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in

Federal Funding and

Support Provided or

Planned for 1984 and

1996 Summer and 2002

Winter Olympic Games

43

Federal Government Encourages Support of Olympic

Games, but No Governmentwide Policy Exists

44

Congress Designated Some Federal Funding and Support

for Olympic-Related Projects and Activities

46

Agency Officials Made Decisions to Fund and Support

Most Olympic-Related Projects and Activities

49

Federal Funding and Support Generally Provided

Through Agencies’ Normal Funding Procedures

55

Chapter 3

No Governmentwide

Policy on Federal

Funding and Support

of the Olympic Games

When They Are Hosted

in the United States

61

Ocoee Whitewater Slalom Venue Funding Was

Authorized, but Report of Benefits Appears to Have

Been Incomplete

61

Use of Federal Employees to Provide Security During the

1996 Summer Olympic Games Was Within the Scope of

Justice’s Authority

63

Use of Federal Funds for Entertainers at the Paralympic

Games’ Opening Ceremony Was Authorized

63

GSA Inappropriately Used Funds for APOC Employee

Salaries

64

Chapter 4

Federal Agencies Did

Not Use Funds

Appropriately for Two

of Five OlympicRelated Projects

VA’s Use of Funding Designated for Veterans Was Not

Consistent With Provision in the Appropriations Act

65
Contents

Page 13 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

68

Matters for Congressional Consideration 70

Recommendations 70

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 71

Chapter 5

Conclusions and

Recommendations

Appendix I: Federal Funding and Support Provided to the

1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles

76

Appendix II: Federal Funding and Support Provided to

the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta

77

Appendix III: Federal Funding and Support Planned and

Provided to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt

Lake City

81

Appendix IV: Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget

85

Appendix V: Comments From the U.S. General Services

Administration

87

Appendix VI: Comments From the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs

89

Appendix VII: Comments From the U.S. Disabled Athletes

Fund, Inc.

91

Appendix VIII: Comments From the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration

95

Appendix IX: Comments From the Salt Lake City Olympic

Organizing Committee

97

Appendixes

Figure 1: Proportion of Federal Funding and Support

Provided to Prepare Host Cities for Olympic Games

6

Figure 2.1: Projects Related to Preparing Host Cities for

Olympic Games Accounted for Most of the $2 Billion in

Federal Funding and Support

25

Figure 2.2: Safety- and Security-Related Services

Accounted for the Majority of the Federal Funding and

Support That Were Provided During the 1984 Summer

Olympic Games

26

Figure 2.3: Projects Related to Preparing Atlanta to Host

the 1996 Summer Olympic Games Accounted for the

Majority of the Federal Funding and Support

29

Figures

Figure 2.4: As of April 2000, Projects Related to

Preparing Salt Lake City to Host the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games Accounted for the Majority of the

Federal Funding and Support

36
Contents

Page 14 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Figure 2.5: Locations of Federally Funded Roads,

Highway, and Transit Projects for the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games in Salt Lake City

41

Abbreviations

ACOG Atlanta Committee for Olympic Games

APOC Atlanta Paralympic Organizing Committee

CNCS Corporation for National and Community Services

CRS Congressional Research Service

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FEB Federal Executive Board

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

IOC International Olympic Committee

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems

LAOC Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee

MARTA Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

OIG Office of Inspector General

OLC Office of Legal Counsel

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSTS Olympic Spectator Transit System

OTS Olympic Transportation System

PDD 62 Presidential Decision Directive 62

SLOC Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee

SSA Social Security Administration

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act of the 21 Century

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USIA U.S. Information Agency

USOC U.S. Olympic Committee

VA Department of Veterans Affairs
Page 15 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 16 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Concerned about the rising costs of federal funding and support for the

Olympic Games over the years and the appropriateness of funding for

certain projects, you requested that we review federal funding and support

for the 1984 Summer Olympic Games held in Los Angeles, CA; the 1996

Summer Olympic Games held in Atlanta, GA; and the planned 2002

Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City, UT. In response, this report

answers the following questions:

• What were the amounts of federal funding and support provided to the

1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and planned for the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games,1

 and the types of projects and activities that were

funded and supported?

• What are the federal policies, legislative authorizations, and agency

controls in place for providing the federal funds and support to the

Olympic Games?

In addition, you requested that we use our professional judgment to select

and review some of the Olympic-related projects and activities to

determine if federal funding and support were provided in accordance

with the underlying laws and applicable requirements. Accordingly, we

selected and evaluated the following five projects: (1) development of the

Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, (2)

use of federal employees to provide security during the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games, (3) payment of Atlanta Paralympic Organizing Committee

(APOC) staff salaries, (4) payment of Paralympic Games’ opening

ceremony entertainer costs, and (5) veterans assistance during the

Paralympic Games.

When reviewing the data in this report, several points need to be

considered. First, it was not possible to precisely calculate the total

amount of federal funding and support for the Games because there is no

requirement nor was there any federal agency that determined or

accounted for this information in a systematic manner.2

 Consequently,

some costs, such as personnel costs, were included by some agencies, but

not included by other agencies in their information. Second, we were

dependent upon the federal agencies to identify and determine how much

 

1

 The 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the planned 2002 Winter Olympic Games also include the

Paralympic Games. The Paralympic Games were not a part of the 1984 Olympic Games.

2

 Although it is beyond the scope of this report, some of the federal spending is likely to be offset by

increased revenue resulting from the Olympic Games being held in the United States. For example,

foreign tourists who otherwise would not have visited the United States could generate additional

revenue for the federal government.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 17 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

of the federal funding and support was provided or planned for the

Olympic Games and how much federal funding and support would have

been provided to the host cities regardless of the Games.

Third, each of the Olympic Games varied widely in terms of size, scope,

and location; thus, comparisons among the events would be difficult.

Fourth, much of the federal funding and support reported for the 2002

Winter Olympic Games is planned and may change between when we

collected our data and 2002. This accounts for some of the changes in

planned, expended, and congressionally designated amounts identified in

this report as compared with the preliminary information in our December

1999 report on federal funding and support provided for the Olympic

Games. 3 Fifth, all financial information presented in this report is reported

in constant 1999 dollars, except where noted.4

The Olympic Games take place every 4 years with the Summer Olympic

Games and the Winter Olympic Games being held on an alternating 2-year

cycle. These Games are competitions between athletes in individual or

team events, not between countries and are the exclusive property of the

International Olympic Committee (IOC). The IOC owns all rights, including

the organization, broadcasting, recording, representation, and

reproduction of the Olympic Games. The rights to host the Olympic Games

are awarded by the IOC to a host city, not to its country. For example, Salt

Lake City will host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, not the U.S.

government.

 In the United States, the Amateur Sports Act gives the U.S. Olympic

Committee (USOC), among other things, exclusive jurisdiction over all

matters pertaining to the participation of the United States in the Olympic

Games, including the representation of the United States in such Games

and the organization of the Olympic Games when they are held in the

United States. The purpose of the Amateur Sports Act was to address

amateur athletic activity in the United States. It was not intended to

address or define the appropriate role of the federal government in

supporting and funding the Olympic Games. Nor is there any other

governmentwide legislation or policy that addresses this issue.

 

3

 Olympic Games: Preliminary Information on Federal Funding and Support (GAO/GGD-00-44, Dec. 21,

1999).

4

 Our conversion to 1999 dollars is less than precise in some cases because the yearly data were not

always available for each of the Olympic Games. Also, in some cases, the numbers may not total

because of rounding.

Background
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 18 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

The federal government has no formal role in the selection of the U.S. city

that is chosen to submit a bid to the IOC to host the Olympic Games.

According to IOC’s charter, only a city that is approved by the National

Olympic Committee5

 can apply to host the Olympic Games. The IOC’s

charter further states that in the event that there are several candidates in

one country that are bidding on the same Olympic Games, the National

Olympic Committee is responsible for determining which city may submit

a bid to host Olympic Games. In the United States, once USOC selects the

city that may submit a bid to the IOC to host the Games, according to

USOC officials, the President of the United States, as a matter of formality,

concurs with that decision and submits a letter to the IOC recommending

that the U.S. city be selected.

Although governments in other nations generally play a major role in

organizing and financing the cost of hosting the Olympic Games when one

of their cities is selected, in the United States, it is generally the

responsibility of the host city, not the federal government. For example,

the New South Wales6

 government is the underwriter for hosting the 2000

Summer Olympic Games in Sydney. As such, the New South Wales

government is to finance the cost of providing venues; facilities;

infrastructures; and government services, such as transportation, security,

and health. According to data obtained from the Salt Lake City Olympic

Organizing Committee (SLOC),7

 the New South Wales government plans to

contribute about 57 percent of the $5.18 billion that is needed to host the

2000 Games in Sydney, and the Japanese government contributed about 58

percent of the estimated $2.84 billion to host the 1998 Winter Olympic

Games in Nagano, Japan. According to SLOC’s data, these cost estimates

do not include the governments’ costs for national security and

transportation.

According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report,8

 significant

U.S. federal funding and support for security-related services and other

projects and activities related to hosting the Olympic Games essentially

began with the 1960 Winter Olympic Games. Before that time, state, local,

and private sources provided all of the financing of the Games, dating back

 

5

 In the United States, USOC is the National Olympic Committee.

6

 New South Wales is one of Australia’s eight states and territories and is home to Sydney, which is the

host city for the 2000 Summer Olympic Games.

7

 SLOC is the private organization established by Salt Lake City and USOC to plan and stage the 2002

Winter Olympic Games.

8

 The Financing of Olympic Games Held in the United States, 1904-1960: A Brief Overview,

Congressional Research Service, Feb. 3, 1997.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 19 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

to when the Olympic Games were first held in the United States in St.

Louis, MO, in 1904.9

 According to the CRS report, two fiscal developments

occurred at the time of the 1960 Winter Olympic Games in Squaw Valley,

CA, that profoundly affected the cost and financing of hosting the Olympic

Games. These developments were the inauguration of the sale of television

broadcast rights in the Olympic Games and the introduction of federal

financing and military assistance for the Games.

The resulting televised, worldwide spotlight and access to federal

assistance encouraged the Squaw Valley Olympic organizers and

subsequent host city organizers to produce bigger, more spectacular, and

more costly Olympic Games than the one before, according to CRS

reports. As a consequence, Olympic- and host city-related planning,

construction, and security costs soon outpaced state, local, and private

resources. To cover the difference, state, local, and private entities relied

increasingly on the federal government for assistance. For example,

according to CRS data, the federal government provided about $20 million,

or about 25 percent, of the approximately $80 million spent to host the

1960 Winter Olympic Games in Squaw Valley. About $16 million in federal

funds was used to construct the Olympic Sports Arena, and almost $4

million was used for armed forces equipment and personnel. Such federal

assistance has continued to this day, as discussed in chapter 2.

The Paralympic Games are held immediately after the Olympic Games and

are for disabled athletes. Although organized separately, the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games marked the first time that the Paralympic Games were

held in conjunction with the Olympic Games in the United States. On

October 21, 1998, the Amateur Sports Act was amended to incorporate the

Paralympic movement under the umbrella of USOC.10 On May 27, 1997,

SLOC was awarded the rights to host the Paralympic Games.

 9

 Since 1904, a U.S. city has been selected to host the Olympic Games eight times—more than any other

country. In 1904, St. Louis, MO, hosted the first Olympic Games held in the United States, followed by

Lake Placid, NY, which held the Winter Olympic Games in 1932. Los Angeles, CA, held the Summer

Olympic Games in 1932; Squaw Valley, CA, held the Winter Olympic Games in 1960; Lake Placid, NY,

held the Winter Olympic Games in 1980; Los Angeles, CA, held the Summer Olympic Games in 1984;

Atlanta, GA, held the Summer Olympic Games in 1996; and Salt Lake City, UT, plans to hold the Winter

Olympic Games in 2002.

10 P. L. 105-277.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 20 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

As you requested, this report discusses the following objectives:

• To determine the amounts of federal funding and support provided to the

1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and planned for the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games; and the types of projects and activities that were funded

and supported.

• To determine the federal policies, legislative authorizations, and agency

controls in place for providing the federal funds and support to the

Olympic Games.

In addition, you requested that we use our professional judgment to select

and review some of the Olympic-related projects and activities to

determine if federal funding and support were provided in accordance

with the underlying laws and applicable requirements. Accordingly, we

selected and evaluated the following five projects: (1) development of the

Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, (2)

use of federal employees to provide security during the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games, (3) GSA’s payment of APOC staff salaries, (4) the

Department of Education’s payment of Paralympic Games’ opening

ceremony entertainer costs, and (5) the Department of Veterans Affairs’

(VA) assistance of nonveterans during the Paralympic Games.

To address the first 2 objectives, we made a governmentwide inquiry by

contacting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 24 other

federal agencies regarding their federal funding and support for the

Olympic Games. Additionally, we researched legislative databases dating

back to 1979; reviewed numerous reports; and interviewed the appropriate

federal, state, and local government officials and representatives of several

private organizations to identify, document, and discuss the federal

government’s involvement with the Olympic Games held in Los Angeles in

1984 and Atlanta in 1996, and planned for Salt Lake City in 2002.

The following federal agencies reported some federal funding and support

for the Olympic Games:

• Corporation for National and Community Services (CNCS)

• Department of Agriculture (USDA)

• Department of Commerce (Commerce)

• Department of Defense (DOD)

• Department of Education (Education)

• Department of Energy (DOE)

• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 21 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

• Department of the Interior (Interior)

• Department of Justice (Justice)

• Department of Labor (DOL)

• Department of State (State)

• Department of Transportation (DOT)

• Department of the Treasury (Treasury)

• Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• Federal Communications Commission(FCC)

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

• Federal Executive Board (FEB)

• General Services Administration (GSA)

• Social Security Administration (SSA)

• Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

• U.S. Information Agency (USIA) 11

• U.S. Postal Service (Postal Service)

At each of these agencies, we obtained, to the extent possible, supporting

information for the agencies’ planned; approved; and actual funding and

expenditures for the Olympic Games as shown in agency records, such as

budget allocations, grant applications and awards, contracts, and

corresponding expenditure reports. We used this information to document

and describe federally funded or supported Olympic-related projects or

activities. Because of the large number of federal agencies and projects

and activities related to the Olympic Games, our verification of the

information provided by the agencies generally consisted of collecting and

reviewing available supporting documentation to determine whether

agency policies and procedures for authorizing, distributing, and

accounting for federal funding and support for Olympic-related projects

and activities were in place. In some cases, such documentation was not

always available. For example, in the case of the 1984 Olympic Games,

OMB data were generally the only information available at the time of our

review. Although information was generally available for the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, some of the

information on federal funding and support for the 2002 Games is

preliminary and, therefore, are, subject to change.

We also interviewed officials from the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los

Angeles,12 the Atlanta Committee for Olympic Games (ACOG), SLOC,

 

11 The U.S. Information Agency was dissolved, and its activities were incorporated into the Department

of State in October 1999.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 22 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

USOC, and the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., regarding any

information that they maintained on federal funding and support for the

Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Salt Lake City Olympic Games and the

Paralympic Games. Further, we interviewed members of the White House

Task Force on the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games regarding

the task force’s role in approving and monitoring the use of federal funds

provided to the Olympic Games. Finally, we contacted CRS staff who had

previously issued several reports13 on federal funding and support for the

Olympic Games. We expanded upon the information that CRS reported by

obtaining additional details and updating the information.

Our third objective was to determine whether the federal funds and

support provided for five Olympic-related projects and activities that were

part of the 1996 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games were actually

used in accordance with the underlying laws and administrative

requirements. Our evaluation included only the five projects discussed

below; we did not evaluate the other Olympic-related projects and

activities discussed in this report. Specifically, we selected the Ocoee

Whitewater Slalom venue because the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service)

paid for the majority of the venue’s construction cost, which is ordinarily

the responsibility of the Olympic organizing committee. We also selected

the use of (1) federal employees to provide security during the Olympic

Games while remaining on their respective agencies payroll and (2) federal

funds by VA to assist nonveterans during the Paralympic Games because

the authority for agencies to use federal resources for these purposes was

unclear and appeared to be somewhat unusual relative to the missions of

the agencies involved. Finally, we selected the payment of Paralympic

Games’ opening ceremony entertainer cost because the use of federal

funds to pay for entertainment can be inconsistent with certain

appropriations law principles. We subsequently reviewed appropriations

statutes; enabling legislation; agency policies, procedures, and regulations;

and the cognizant agency’s financial records and correspondence files to

determine whether the funding and support provided was in accordance

with the underlying laws and applicable requirements.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the heads of the 24

federal agencies previously listed,14 OMB, the White House Task Force on

 12 The Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles is the successor to the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic

organizing committee.

13 For example, CRS Report for Congress: Federal Financing of the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympic

Games, CRS, Sept. 22, 1998.

14 Excluding the U.S. Information Agency, which is now incorporated into the Department of State.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 23 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, SLOC, the Amateur Athletic

Foundation of Los Angeles, USOC, and the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund,

Inc. We received written comments on the substance of the draft from

OMB, VA, GSA, the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., SLOC, and the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Their comments are

discussed in chapter 5 and reprinted in appendixes IV through IX.

We also received written or oral comments of a technical nature from

USDA, DOD, DOE, HHS, the Interior, Justice, DOL, DOT, the Treasury,

EPA, FEMA, TVA, the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles, and

the White House Task Force on the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic

Games. We incorporated these comments in this report as appropriate. In

addition, in August 2000,we were informed orally or in writing that CNCS,

Education, HUD, the State Department, FCC, the Postal Service, SSA, and

USOC had no comments on the report. Regarding Commerce, the GAO

Liaison said, on August 25, 2000, that, with the exception of the National

Weather Service, none of Commerce’s components had comments on the

report. According to this official, the National Weather Service had not

indicated whether or not it had comments.

We conducted our review in Atlanta, GA; Denver, CO; Los Angeles, CA;

Salt Lake City, UT; and Washington, D.C., from April 1999 through August

2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards.
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and

Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and

1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic

Games

Page 24 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Overall, the federal government provided or plans to provide almost $2

billion in federal funding and support, as measured in 1999 constant

dollars, for Olympic-related projects or activities for the 1984 Summer

Olympic Games in Los Angeles, 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta,

and the planned 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. Of the

almost $2 billion, about $75 million was provided for the 1984 Summer

Olympic Games, about $609 million was provided for the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games, and about $1.3 billion has been provided or planned for

the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. In addition, according to data obtained

from Olympic organizing committee officials, it cost the organizers another

$602 million to stage the 1984 Summer Olympic Games; $2 billion for the

1996 Summer Olympic Games; and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games are

expected to cost an estimated additional $1.4 billion.

As shown in figure 2.1, approximately $513 million of the $2 billion in

federal funding and support is planned or was used for projects or

activities related to planning and staging the Olympic Games. These funds

generally would not have been provided if the Games were not hosted in

the United States. Of the $513 million, about $325 million was provided or

is planned for safety- and security-related services during the Olympic

Games; about $93 million has been provided or is planned to help provide

spectator transportation systems during the Games; about $69 million has

been provided or is planned to help build, enhance, or operate various

sporting venues for the Games; and about $26 million has been provided or

is planned for the increase in federal agency services during the Games.

The remaining $1.4 billion of the almost $2 billion in federal funding and

support has been provided or is planned for projects related to preparing

the cities of Atlanta and Salt Lake City to host the Olympic Games, as is

also shown in figure 2.1. Most of the $1.4 billion, about $901 million, has

been provided or is planned for the construction of various highway

projects in Atlanta and Salt Lake City. In addition, about $466 million, of

the $1.4 billion, has been provided or is planned for mass transit projects,

and about $68 million was provided or is planned for other Olympic-related

infrastructure or capital improvement projects that state and local

government officials wanted to have completed in time for the Games.

According to federal officials, the majority of the funds would have been

provided to the host cities and states for infrastructure projects, such as

highways and transit systems, regardless of the Olympic Games because

many of the projects had been planned long before the cities were selected

to host the Games. However, some federal officials were not always able

to document which of the specific infrastructure projects would or would

not have been funded if the Olympic Games were not held.
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 25 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Source: OMB and various other federal agencies.

Eleven federal agencies reported to OMB that they provided about $75

million in federal funding and support (in 1999 dollars) to help plan and

stage the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles. Generally, these

funds would not have been provided if Los Angeles had not hosted the

Games. Most of this funding and support, or about $68 million, was used to

help provide safety- and security-related services during the planning and

staging of the Games, and the remaining $7 million was for non-securityrelated services, as shown in figure 2.2.

Figure 2.1: Projects Related to Preparing Host Cities for Olympic Games Accounted for Most of the $2 Billion in Federal

Funding and Support

About $75 Million in

Federal Funding and

Support Used to Help

Plan and Stage the

1984 Summer Olympic

Games in Los Angeles
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 26 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Source: OMB and various other federal agencies.

According to a DOD official, since the terrorist attack during the 1972

Summer Olympic Games in Munich, providing adequate safety and security

during the Olympic Games has become of paramount importance during

the staging of the Games. It has also become a major logistical and

financial undertaking for the Olympic organizing committees as well as

state and local law enforcement agencies. For the 1984 Summer Olympic

Games, Los Angeles Olympic organizing committee (LAOC) and state and

local law enforcement officials requested assistance from the federal

government, in particular DOD. According to LAOC officials, requests for

federal assistance were made because they did not have the resources to

provide the personnel, expertise, equipment, and supplies to protect the

hundreds of athletes and foreign dignitaries as well as to secure the 3

Olympic villages and 23 venues that were spread over a 500-square-mile

area.

Figure 2.2: Safety- and Security-Related Services Accounted for the Majority of the Federal Funding and Support That Were

Provided During the 1984 Summer Olympic Games
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 27 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

In response to LAOC and state and local officials’ requests, DOD provided

about $47 million of the $68 million in federal funds that were used for

safety- and security-related services. Some of the types of support

provided by DOD included communications equipment; Olympic village

intrusion-detection devices; bomb-detection and disposal services; and

aviation support and equipment, such as helicopters, lights, and flight gear,

that the local law enforcement agencies said they could not provide. Other

federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI), U.S. Customs Service, and U.S. Secret Service also

provided safety- and security-related services for the 1984 Summer

Olympic Games.

The remaining $7 million were provided for non-security-related services

of which about $1 million was used to help enhance or operate selected

Olympic sporting events, and about $6 million was used to cover the

increases in agencies’ workloads caused by the increase in the number of

visitors to Los Angeles during the Games. For example, USDA’s Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service provided inspection and quarantine

services for the horses participating in the Olympic equestrian events. The

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided special

weather forecasting services for all of the events. Other federal agencies,

such as USIA, increased their normal agency services to promote

international understanding and relations among the spectators by

increasing the number, frequency, and distribution of public information

programs during the Olympic Games.

Unlike the Olympic Games in Atlanta and Salt Lake City, federal agencies

did not report any federal funding or support for highway, mass transit, or

other capital improvement projects in Los Angeles as being Olympicrelated. According to former LAOC officials, Los Angeles city officials did

not develop, modify, or accelerate the city’s planned highway, transit, or

other capital improvement projects to prepare the city to host the Games.

According to LAOC officials, Los Angeles city officials believed that host

cities for Olympic Games held before 1984 often overextended themselves

by trying to complete state-of-the-art Olympic venues and related capital

improvement projects. Such action pushed those host cities into debt that

remained long after the Olympic Games were over. As a result, Los

Angeles city officials decided that they (1) would not undertake any new

construction or capital improvements specifically for the Olympic Games

and (2) would encourage spectators to use the transit or bus systems in

place at the time or simply drive their cars to the Olympic events. To

further support their decision, city officials included a clause in their host
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 28 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

city contract with the IOC, stating that the city would not permit any

Olympic-related capital improvement projects, unless each project was

fully and privately funded in advance of its construction.

In addition to the $75 million in federal funding and support, LAOC also

received about $53 million of the $107 million from the sale of Olympic

commemorative coins by the U.S. Mint.1

 In oral comments on a draft of this

report, on August 28, 2000, the President of the Amateur Athletic

Foundation of Los Angeles said that USOC received the remaining $54

million. The Mint earned a profit of $15 million from the Commemorative

Coin Program. Congress authorizes a Commemorative Coin Program

primarily as a means of honoring certain events and individuals and raising

funds for the coins’ sponsors. Under the Commemorative Coin Program in

effect at the time that the Los Angeles Olympic coin was produced, income

from surcharges, which were included in the coin’s price, was paid to

sponsoring agencies, such as the Olympic organizing committees.

According to a Mint official, the $107 million is considered non-taxpayer

funds because the Commemorative Coin Program receives no

appropriated funds. Therefore, we have not included these funds as part of

the $75 million in federal funding and support provided to the 1984

Summer Olympic Games.

Appendix I provides detailed information on the amounts and types of

federal funding and support that the 11 federal agencies provided to the

1984 Summer Olympic Games.

Twenty-four federal agencies reported providing about $609 million in

federal funding and support (in 1999 dollars) for the 1996 Summer Olympic

Games in Atlanta. About $185 million of these funds was for projects and

activities related to planning and staging the Games. The remaining $424

million was provided for projects, such as highways, transit systems, and

other capital improvements, that were related to preparing the host city for

the Games and that state and local government officials wanted to have

completed in time for the Olympics Games (see fig. 2.3).

 

1

 U.S. Mint: Commemorative Coins Could Be More Profitable (GAO/GGD-96-113, Aug. 7, 1996).

About $609 Million in

Federal Funding and

Support Provided for

the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games in

Atlanta
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 29 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Source: OMB and various other federal agencies.

According to DOT and other agency officials, most of the $424 million

provided for highway, transit, and other capital improvement projects

would eventually have been provided, regardless of whether Atlanta was

selected as the host city for the 1996 Olympic Games. However, these

officials identified these specific projects as Olympic-related because their

completion generally had to be accelerated for Atlanta to successfully host

the Games. However, DOT officials stated that the $17 million spent on the

Olympic Transportation System would not have been provided if the

Olympic Games had not been held in the United States. In addition, $22

million provided for the construction of the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom

Figure 2.3: Projects Related to Preparing Atlanta to Host the 1996 Summer Olympic Games Accounted for the Majority of the

Federal Funding and Support
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 30 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

venue for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games also appears to fall into this

category.

Appendix II provides detailed information on the amounts and types of

federal funding and support that 24 federal agencies provided to the 1996

Summer Olympic Games.

The federal government was involved in virtually all aspects of planning

and staging the 1996 Olympics Games in Atlanta. As shown in figure 2.3,

about $185 million of the $609 million in federal funding and support was

used to help (1) provide safety- and security-related services during the

Games; (2) build, enhance, and operate venues for the Games; (3)

transport spectators to and from the sporting venues; and (4) meet the

increase in agencies’ workloads caused by an increase in the number of

visitors to Atlanta during the Olympics.

The federal government spent about $96 million to help provide safety- and

security-related services during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. As with

the Games in Los Angeles, safety and security issues related to the

Olympic Games in Atlanta were of significant concern to the federal

government, particularly because of the size, scope, and magnitude of the

event. The 1996 Summer Olympic Games were the largest Olympic event at

that time, with (1) 31 venues located in 8 cities from Miami, FL, to

Washington D.C.; (2) more than 10,700 athletes from 197 countries; and (3)

daily visitors to the Games reaching a high of more than 750,000 people.

Consequently, according to federal law enforcement officials, federal

funding and support were needed because ACOG and the state and local

jurisdictions did not have the resources or expertise to adequately plan

and implement the necessary security requirements.

Among the federal agency officials, DOD officials reported providing the

largest amount of funds and support—$36 million—for safety- and

security-related services for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. Included in

the $36 million were the incremental costs associated with providing about

15,000 military personnel from 45 states and territories. Incremental costs

were those incurred above the usual personnel salary, benefits, and related

expenses and included costs such as extra travel, per diem, supplies, and

equipment to support the Games. At the peak of the Olympic Games, about

6,500 troops were involved with providing security at the venues.

According to a DOD report,2

 this was the first time that DOD had provided

 

2

 FORSCOM and the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, DOD, May 1999.

About $185 Million in

Federal Funding and

Support Provided for

Projects and Activities

Related to Planning and

Staging the Games

Federal Agencies Provided

About $96 Million for Safety- and

Security-Related Services During

the Games
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 31 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

military forces to supplement the local security forces supporting the

Olympic Games.

Another 1,000 troops were also used as bus drivers to transport athletes,

coaches, officials, and military and law enforcement personnel to various

Olympic venues. According to DOD officials, military personnel were used

as bus drivers because ACOG and local law enforcement agencies could

not provide them. The estimated cost to provide the military bus and van

drivers was $978,450, including $105,800 for commercial drivers’ licenses

and $300,000 for training.

In addition to the military personnel, DOD assisted in the following areas:

• aviation,

• communications,

• explosive ordnance,

• emergency response,

• facilities,

• physical security, and

• training.

Because local sources were not adequate, several federal law enforcement

agencies were also requested to provide personnel to help perform safetyand security-related services that normally would have been done by local

law enforcement agencies. For example,

• Customs Service officers were used to patrol the Atlanta rapid transit

system,

• Deputy U.S. Marshals provided security on selected buses carrying athletes

from selected countries or teams considered more at risk, and

• Drug Enforcement Administration officers were used to perform security

functions at sporting venues.

Federal law enforcement agencies also increased their staffing levels in

carrying out their mission-related responsibilities, such as preventing

terrorism and drug interdiction.

Other federal civilian agencies were also called upon to provide safety- and

security-related services for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games at a cost of

almost $1.8 million. For example, ACOG requested federal assistance to

meet a shortage in security personnel that was identified about 2 months

before the Olympic Games were scheduled to start. In response to ACOG’s

request, the U.S. Attorney General on May 17, 1996, exercised her authority
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 32 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

under 18 U.S.C. sections 112, 1116, and 1201 to request that up to 1,000

federal civilian agency employees in Atlanta help ACOG provide security at

the Games. These volunteers were to monitor and operate magnetometers

(metal detectors) and assist with the movement of athletes and spectators

while they continued to receive their federal salaries.

In addition to providing security personnel, federal funds were also used to

support other local law enforcement responsibilities. For example, two

grants totaling about $5.6 million from Justice’s Office of Justice Programs

were awarded to the Georgia Criminal Justice Coordinating Counsel for

Olympic-related activities. One grant for $1.4 million was for security

planning, and the other grant for $4.2 million was used to pay the overtime

costs of the Atlanta Police Department.

The federal government provided about $56 million to help build, enhance,

and operate several Olympic venues. Most notably, the Forest Service and

TVA provided about $22 million of the approximately $33 million needed to

help build and operate the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue, which was

located in the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee. The remaining $11

million included about $4 million from the Tennessee Ocoee Development

Agency for planning and construction of the venue, about $2 million from

ACOG for television broadcast, and almost $5 million from Tennessee for

venue operations.

According to Forest Service officials, the whitewater rafting event was not

on the original list of Olympic sporting events. However, after Tennessee

state and local officials approached ACOG and asked that it be included,

ACOG agreed to do so, provided it did not have to finance the development

and operation of the venue. The state and local officials subsequently

approached the Forest Service, TVA, and others to obtain the requisite

funding and approvals.

Forest Service officials chose a section of the Ocoee River that was

normally not used for whitewater rafting because TVA diverted the water

to a power-generating station. The Forest Service then provided about $17

million to reengineer the riverbed to meet Olympic Games requirements.

Specifically, the Forest Service awarded construction contracts to make

irreversible changes to the riverbed to (1) reduce the river’s width by

about one-half, (2) modify the water flow, and (3) make the river “cableready” by implanting cables and connections for the media’s use during the

Games. TVA provided about $3 million to build the scale model that was

used for the venue’s overall development and to upgrade facilities at the

venue site. TVA then released the required amount of water during the

About $56 Million in Federal

Funding and Support Provided

to Help Build, Enhance, and

Operate Olympic Venues
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 33 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

time of Olympic trials and the Games. To release the water during the 1996

Summer Olympic Games cost TVA an additional approximately $2 million

in lost power-generation revenue.

In addition to the Forest Service and TVA, other federal agencies provided

funding and support to help complete, enhance, or operate other venues

during the Olympic Games in Atlanta. For example,

• The Natural Resources Conservation Service provided about $331,000 to

purchase flowers, shrubs, and grass for Olympic venues and city parks.

• DOE provided about $3.5 million for projects associated with energy

efficiency and renewable energy. Some of those projects included the

installation of solar electrical systems at the Olympic swimming venue

and geothermal heat pumps at two Georgia Institute of Technology

dormitories in the Olympic village.

• EPA provided about $313,000 to build a bike path to access the Olympic

Centennial Park area and about $7 million for sewer system

construction related to the Olympic stadium.

• The Economic Development Administration provided grants totaling

about $1.2 million for the city to develop sewer and related

infrastructure improvements for the area around the Olympic Stadium

and grants totaling about $1.3 million for economic studies and business

promotions related to the Olympic Games.

• DOT prepared and posted highway, bridge, and related signs directing

traffic to Olympic venues and other Olympic-related locations at a cost

of about $1.6 million.

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided

weather forecasting services for all of the events during the staging of

the Games at a cost of about $1.1 million.

Finally, 10 federal agencies provided about $23 million, or about onefourth, of the $84 million required to plan and stage the Paralympic Games,

which immediately followed the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. About $17

million of the approximately $23 million in funding and support was used

to help pay for organizing committee administration costs; opening,

closing, and award ceremonies; and other related costs associated with

staging the Paralympic Games.
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 34 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

According to DOT officials, during the 1996 Summer Olympic and

Paralympic Games in Atlanta, an estimated 11 million spectators made an

estimated 25 million transit trips on a transportation system that was

principally funded and supported by the federal government. Specifically,

DOT provided approximately $17 million to state and local transit and

transit planning agencies to pay for the delivery, operation, and return of

the 1,500 buses, which were borrowed from communities throughout the

United States. These buses were used as the principal transportation

system for Olympic spectators and Paralympic athletes. The local transit

agencies allocated and used about $11 million for the regular Olympic

Games and about $6 million for the Paralympics Games.

Seven federal agencies provided about $16 million for increased services

during the Olympic Games. Most notable, USIA reported spending almost

$8 million to provide information about the Games. In addition, the Postal

Service provided about $4 million to increase the number of (1) clerks

available at post offices close to the venues and (2) deliveries to the

Olympic village during the Games. Other agencies, such as the National

Park Service, State Department, Federal Aviation Administration, EPA,

and Justice, also reported providing a combined total of about $4 million to

increase their normal agency services (see app. II).

With the worldwide focus on Atlanta, federal, state, and local government

officials sought to ensure that highways, transit systems, and other capital

improvement projects—especially those critical to supporting the

Olympics—were completed before the Games began. Highway, transit, and

capital improvement projects, which cost the federal government about

$424 million, accounted for most of the federal funding provided to the

1996 Summer Olympic Games. Federal, state, and local officials told us

that these projects were planned to be built regardless of the Olympic

Games, but the projects were identified as Olympic-related because they

generally received priority funding considerations or accelerated

completion schedules.

Specifically, the federal government provided about $256 million to

Georgia to build and repair highways, bridges, and roads and make

infrastructure improvements in and around Atlanta in anticipation of the

Olympic Games. According to Georgia transportation officials, as soon as

Atlanta was selected as the host city for the 1996 Olympic Games, the

officials immediately reviewed highway-related projects in the state’s 20-

year transportation improvement program and identified those projects

that would impact on the city’s capability to host the Games. They said

they made the Olympic-related projects a priority and accelerated their

About $17 Million in Federal

Funds Used to Help Provide the

Spectator Transportation System

During the Games

About $16 Million Provided to

Increase Agency Services During

the Games

About $424 Million in

Federal Funding and

Support Used for Projects

Related to Preparing Atlanta

for the Games
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 35 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

construction schedules, as needed, to complete them in time for the

Games.

In addition, the federal government provided about $114 million so that

three transit projects in Atlanta would be completed in time for the 1996

Olympics Games. The three transit projects were the North Line Rail

Extension, the Atlanta University Center Pedestrian Walkway, and the

Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority Intelligent Transportation

System. The North Line Rail Extension assisted in bringing spectators from

areas north of Atlanta to the Olympic Circle in downtown Atlanta; the

Atlanta University Center Pedestrian Walkway enabled athletes and

spectators to more easily reach the Olympic village, venues, and rapid

transit system from downtown; and the Metropolitan Atlanta Regional

Transit Authority Intelligent Transportation System allowed the

administrators to track the use of transit buses during the Olympic Games

and provided automated transit information to visitors during and after the

Games.

The federal government also provided $55 million to revitalize, rejuvenate,

and restore commercial, residential, and historical areas of Atlanta in time

for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. These projects included revitalizing

the portion of the business district leading to the Olympic Centennial Park

area; rejuvenating an area containing a dilapidated low-income housing

project; and restoring Martin Luther King’s residence, including completing

the development of a park in his honor. Additionally, during an 18-month

period before the Olympic Games, the Postal Service made major

renovations to 39 postal facilities at a cost of over $16 million.

In addition to the $609 million in federal funding and support, the Mint also

provided about $27 million from the sale of Olympic commemorative coins

to ACOG. Unlike the Commemorative Coin Program for the 1984 Summer

Olympics, the Mint did not earn a profit from the sale of Olympic

commemorative coins to support the 1996 Summer Olympic Games but

reported a loss of $3 million. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation stating

that the Mint must first recover all of its costs before any income

surcharge can be provided to the designated sponsoring agency.3

 

3

 P.L. 104-208.
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 36 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

As of April 2000, federal funding and support provided or planned for the

2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City is estimated to be almost

$1.3 billion (in 1999 dollars). Of this amount, about $254 million has been

planned or provided for activities related to planning and staging the

Games. The remaining $1 billion is planned or has been used mostly for

highway and transit projects that Utah and Salt Lake City officials wanted

to have completed in time for the Olympic Games (see fig. 2.4).

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Source: OMB and various other federal agencies.

Almost $1.3 Billion of

Federal Funding and

Support Planned or

Provided for the 2002

Olympic Games in Salt

Lake City

Figure 2.4: As of April 2000, Projects Related to Preparing Salt Lake City to Host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games Accounted

for the Majority of the Federal Funding and Support
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 37 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

As was the case for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, the federal

government continues to be involved in the planning and staging for the

2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. Federal agencies have spent

or plan to spend about $254 million in federal funding and support to help

(1) provide safety- and security-related services during the Games, (2)

transport spectators to the sporting venues, and (3) meet the increased

demand for routine federal agency services.

As with previous Olympic Games held in the United States, ensuring

adequate safety and security continues to be of primary importance to

federal, state, and local officials. About 15 federal agencies have spent or

plan to spend about $161 million to ensure the safety and security of the

Olympic spectators, officials, and athletes during the 2002 Winter Olympic

Games. However, this figure may change because, as of April 2000, final

security planning for the Games had not been completed.

The federal government’s ability to provide safety- and security-related

services to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games will also be affected by Public

Law 104-201 and Presidential Decision Directive 62 (PDD 62), which

became effective after the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. In past Olympics,

DOD was able to provide both security and logistical services as long as

these services were within DOD guidelines. However, on September 23,

1996, shortly after the close of the 1996 Summer Olympics, Public Law 104-

201 was enacted. The public law included a provision that changed the way

in which DOD could provide support for sporting events. Specifically, that

provision, found at 10 U.S.C. section 2554, states that

“at the request of a federal, state, or local government agency responsible for providing law

enforcement services, security services, or safety services, the Secretary of Defense may

authorize the commander of a military installation...to provide assistance for...the

Olympics, and any other civilian sporting event in support of essential security and safety at

such event, but only if the Attorney General certifies that such assistance is necessary to

meet essential security and safety needs.”

Section 2554 further provides that the Secretary of Defense may authorize

a commander to provide other assistance for a sporting event, provided

that

• the needs cannot be reasonably met by a source other than DOD,

• providing such services does not adversely affect the military

preparedness of the armed forces, and

• the agency requesting such services agrees to reimburse DOD for

providing the assistance.

About $254 Million in

Federal Funding and

Support Is for Projects and

Activities Related to

Planning and Staging the

2002 Winter Olympic Games

About $161 Million in Federal

Funding and Support Provided

or Planned for Safety- and

Security-Related Services
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 38 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

During our review, the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command4 had

submitted its initial request for DOD support in nine categories. On July 8,

1999, the Attorney General certified five of the nine categories of support

requested. The five certified categories, which were subsequently

approved by the Secretary of the Army on August 20, 1999, included

• aviation for deployment of emergency tactical teams,

• communications for law enforcement and public safety,

• explosive ordnance disposal,

• physical security equipment, and

• temporary facilities.

The Attorney General did not certify the request for

• technical experts and training;

• personnel;

• transportation; and

• fire services, emergency medical services, and public works.

These four categories were rejected for various reasons. For example,

according to DOD and Justice officials, the transportation category was

rejected, in part, because vehicles were available from sources other than

DOD. After review by the Attorney General, a letter was sent from Justice

to DOD stating which categories were certified and which were not.

According to a Justice official, not certifying a category does not mean that

no support will be provided. The official stated that an individual request

for a specific item or service could still be authorized if it meets the

criteria stated in section 2554. As of February 2000, DOD had not received

any request for services from any of the certified categories.

The second change affecting the manner in which some federal law

enforcement agencies could provide security support was the issuance of

PDD-62 on May 22, 1998. PDD-62, a classified document, reaffirms the

United States’ counter-terrorism policy. According to an unclassified

summary of PDD-62, the President directed an integrated approach among

federal law enforcement agencies to effectively manage terroristic threats

and the consequence of such attacks against U.S. citizens or infrastructure.

In addition, regarding security for special events, such as the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games, PDD-62 states that the Secret Service has lead agency

 4

 The Utah Olympic Public Safety Command was established in 1998 by Utah state law and has primary

and overall responsibility for public safety planning and operations for the 2002 Winter Olympic and

Paralympic Games.
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 39 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

responsibility for security planning for some events; the FBI has lead

agency responsibility for counter-terrorism; and FEMA has lead agency

responsibility for consequence management of terrorist incidents.

As of April 2000, the federal government planned to provide about $77

million to assist with providing spectator transportation to the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games and to help enhance the access or use of venues for the

Games. Specifically, federal transit officials plan to request $47 million in

federal funding and support from Congress for a spectator transportation

system, park and ride lots, and other infrastructure improvements

associated with the 2002 Winter Olympics. As of April 2000, DOT had

provided about $3 million for the spectator transportation system.

Although the planned Olympic transportation system is to principally

consist of borrowed transit buses, which was the case for the 1996

Olympic Games in Atlanta, the Salt Lake City system is estimated to cost 5

times as much. In total, SLOC plans to request about $91 million from the

federal government for the spectator transportation system to be used

during the Games. This funding would be used to pay for transporting the

borrowed buses to and from Salt Lake City, additional bus drivers, bus

maintenance, construction and operation of park and ride lots, and loading

and unloading facilities that are planned to service four of the Olympic

venues located in rural, difficult-to-reach areas.

In addition to supporting the spectator transportation system, DOT also

plans to provide almost $20 million to build two access roads to Olympic

venues. Specifically, the federal government plans to provide about $15

million to build the Snowbasin/Trappers Loop Road to provide access to

the Alpine and Biathlon Arenas, and about $5 million for the Winter Sports

Park roads, which are to provide access to the bobsled, luge, and ski jump

events. Utah transportation officials said that these roads were not on

Utah’s long-range transportation improvement plan before Salt Lake City

was chosen as the host city. DOT also planned to provide about $10 million

to develop an overall Olympic transportation plan.

As of April 2000, nine federal agencies expected to increase their services

or provide enhancements to Olympic venues in support of the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games at an expected cost of almost $16 million. For example,

• The Forest Service plans to spend over $7 million for Olympic-related

planning to address environmental issues concerning national forest land

that is adjacent to many of the 2002 Olympic venues, as well as to deal

with the expected increase in visitors due to the 2002 Winter Olympic

Games.

About $77 Million in Federal

Funding and Support Provided

or Planned for Spectator

Transportation to the Games and

to Enhance Access to Olympic

Venues

Several Agencies Plan to Provide

Almost $16 Million to Enhance

Venues and Increase Services to

Support 2002 Winter Olympic

Games
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 40 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

• The Postal Service plans to spend about $2 million during the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games to cover personnel costs, including overtime resulting

from the increase in services during the Games.

• HUD plans to provide about $2 million, which SLOC plans to use to help

finance the construction of a mixed-income housing project, to house the

media during the Games. According to a Salt Lake City housing official,

any money SLOC receives from rental fees would be used by the city to

subsidize the subsequent purchase of these housing units by low-income

families.

• EPA expects to provide over $2 million to fund sewer construction for

several Olympic venues in and outside of Salt Lake City. According to EPA

officials, this construction would not have been necessary if the Games

had not been planned.

• USDA, Justice, the State Department, Interior, EPA, FCC, and the National

Oceanic Atmospheric Administration also reported additional costs due to

the 2002 Winter Olympic Games that totaled about $2 million.

As of April 2000, the federal government planned to provide about $1

billion in federal funding and support to prepare Salt Lake City for the 2002

Winter Olympic Games. Most of the $1 billion in federal funding and

support was provided primarily to develop, build, and complete major

highway and transit improvement projects—especially those projects

whose completions were considered critical to the success of the Olympic

Games. State and local officials identified these projects as “Olympicrelated” because they either received priority consideration or were put on

an accelerated completion schedule.

DOT planned to provide over $645 million to Utah’s Department of

Transportation for highway, road, and bridge transportation infrastructure

projects related to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Figure 2.5 shows the

locations of the some of the highways, roads, and interchanges, along with

the amounts of federal funds that have been provided or have been

planned to be provided to Utah and Salt Lake City for them.

About $1 Billion in Federal

Funding and Support

Planned or Provided for

Projects and Activities

Related to Preparing Salt

Lake City for the Games

DOT Planned to Provide Almost

$1 Billion to Help Build

Highways, Bridges,

Interchanges, and Transit

Systems in Time for the 2002

Winter Olympic Games
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 41 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Great Salt

Lake

15

15

15

80

80

80 80

215

2

6

7

10

8

9

189

40

40

89

189

248

Provo

Salt Lake

City

Salt Lake City

International

Airport

Light rail

Ogden

Park City

1

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Legend Road and highway projects

Utah

Lake

Olympic venues

Major interstate highways

Light rail

Denotes a project to help

plan or stage the 2002 

Winter Olympic Games.

Not a part of the

20-year plan.

Snow Basin: 

Access road $14.96 M

US 89 and I-84: 

Interchange $12.40 M

Winter Sports Park:

Access road $4.11 M

Soldier Hollow:

Access road $11.17 M

SR 248:

Reconstruction $11.84 M

Silver Creek and

Kimball Junction:

Interchanges $42.42 M

*

*

*

*

*

Kimball Juct.

Silver Creek

West Valley I-215 and

3500 South Ramp: $1.66 M 

I-15: 

Reconstruction $426.14 M

Olympic ITS: 

Expansion $27.96 M 

University of Utah: 

Pedestrian land bridge

$3.79 M 

5

4

Source: DOT officials.

Figure 2.5: Locations of Federally

Funded Roads, Highway, and Transit

Projects for the 2002 Winter Olympic

Games in Salt Lake City
Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for 1984 and 1996

Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Page 42 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

According to state officials, these road and highway projects were part of

Utah’s long-range transportation improvement plan, but the projects

received priority consideration to ensure that they were completed before

the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. As shown in figure 2.5, the largest and

most costly of the projects is the reconstruction of a 15-mile stretch of U.S.

Interstate I-15 that runs through Salt Lake City. The total cost to rebuild I15 is estimated at $1.4 billion, with the estimated federal share totaling

about $426 million. The other projects include widening of roads that lead

to Olympic venues, the reconstruction of bridges to enhance venue access

and safety, and the installation of an automated traffic management

system.

In addition, DOT officials also reported about $353 million in federal

funding and support for Salt Lake City’s surface and air transportationrelated systems as being Olympic-related. Specifically, approximately $229

million of federal funding was used for the development and construction

of Salt Lake City’s North-South light-rail transit system, which, according

to Utah officials, forms the backbone of the planned, downtown-portion of

the Olympic spectator transportation system, (see fig. 2.5). This system

was recently completed, and the Utah Transit Authority recently obtained

approval for an additional $91 million in federal funding to extend this

system to the University of Utah, which will house the Olympic athletes.

Additionally, local transit agencies are planning to use about $9 million in

federal funding to construct intermodal centers, about $4 million in federal

funding to improve commuter rail service, and about $4 million for an

Intelligent Transportation System upgrade. These local transit agencies

have already spent over $5 million on transit studies. Moreover, the

Federal Aviation Administration plans to spend about $16 million to

purchase and upgrade facilities at the airport in preparation for the Games.

As of April 2000, two other federal agencies, the Forest Service and the

Postal Service, planned major capital improvements to be completed in

time for the 2002 Winter Olympics Games. Specifically, the Forest Service

plans to spend about $8.9 million for capital improvements in

campgrounds and trails in the national forest recreational areas to better

serve the expected increase in the number of visitors to the Utah national

forests during and following the Games. The Postal Service also plans to

spend about $4.7 million to improve its postal facilities to better serve the

public during the Games.

Similar to when the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games were held in

the United States, legislation has been introduced authorizing a

Commemorative Coin Program for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

About $14 Million Planned

for Other Capital

Improvement Projects
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal

Funding and Support of the Olympic Games

When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 43 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

No governmentwide law or policy exists that defines the federal

government’s overall role in funding or supporting the Olympic Games

when they are hosted in the United States. Nor is there a requirement for a

single agency to oversee and monitor the appropriateness of federal

funding and support provided to the Olympic Games. However, in reality,

many federal agencies have been involved in helping to fund and support

various aspects of planning and staging the Olympic Games and in helping

to prepare the selected city when the Games are hosted in the United

States.

In some cases, Congress has specifically designated funds for projects or

activities related to the Olympic Games in agencies’ authorizing and/or

appropriations legislation or in committee reports accompanying

legislation. In other cases, federal agencies have assisted Olympic

organizing committee, state, and local officials by providing funding and

support for projects and activities, such as security, that are part of their

normal missions. State and local governments and Olympic organizing

committees often request assistance from the federal government because

they do not have enough resources to provide the infrastructure

improvements necessary to prepare the host city or to plan and stage all

aspects of the Olympic Games.

Congress and federal agencies have made funding and support decisions

for the Games on a project-by-project basis, and agencies generally have

used their normal processes and procedures for approving and monitoring

funding and support for the Olympic Games. However, for the 1996

Summer Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the

President established a White House task force to coordinate federal

involvement in the Games. The task force is chaired by the Vice-President

and co-chaired by the Assistant to the President and Cabinet Secretary and

the Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

and includes representatives from OMB and other federal agencies. In

addition, starting with the1984 Summer Olympic Games, OMB began

requesting federal agencies to report to it regarding how much funding and

support they provided for the Olympic Games when they are hosted in the

United States. Although this reported information was helpful, the

information that the agencies provided to OMB for the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games was not always complete or provided in a consistent

manner.
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 44 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Although the federal government has historically supported the hosting of

Olympic Games by a U.S. city, a governmentwide policy on the role of the

federal government in terms of funding and supporting the Games does not

exist. The Amateur Sports Act, the only governmentwide legislation that

addresses the Olympic Games, was not enacted for this purpose. The

Amateur Sports Act gives USOC, among other things, exclusive jurisdiction

over all matters pertaining to the participation of the United States in the

Olympic Games, including the representation of the United States in such

Games and the organization of the Olympic Games when they are held in

the United States.

In addition, USOC, not the federal government, selects the U.S. city that

may present a bid to host the Olympic Games. Once USOC selects the U.S.

city, as a matter of formality, the President of the United States submits a

letter to the IOC encouraging the selection of the U.S. city to host the

Games. Although the federal government is not formally involved in the

selection process, if the U.S. city is awarded the right to host the Games, it

is likely that requests from state and local governments and Olympic

organizing committees for federal assistance will be forthcoming. Such

federal assistance has been needed because the costs associated with

planning and staging the Olympic Games have far exceeded the financial

resources of these entities.

Under the IOC host city contract for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, Salt

Lake City and USOC, not the federal government, are responsible for

organizing the Games. The contract states, in part, that Salt Lake City,

SLOC, and USOC shall be jointly responsible for all commitments

concerning the organization and staging of the Games, with the exception

of financing the Games. Financing the Games is the responsibility of both

Salt Lake City and SLOC. In addition, organizers of both the 1984 and 1996

Summer Olympic Games stated that they were dedicated to hosting the

Games with revenue from private sources. Specifically, in the case of the

1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, ACOG officials said that

taxpayers would not be asked to pay for the Olympic Games. The

organizers for the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles have also

made similar statements.

The majority of the revenue to organize and finance the Olympic Games is

generated from television broadcast rights, corporate sponsorships, ticket

sales, and proceeds from the sale of Olympic merchandise. Although these

combined sources have produced significant revenue for the Games, it

generally was less than the amount required to host the Games, in part,

because the revenues were to be divided among the Olympic organizing

Federal Government

Encourages Support of

Olympic Games, but

No Governmentwide

Policy Exists
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 45 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

committee, USOC, and the IOC. For example, for the 2002 Winter Olympic

Games, revenue from the sale of television broadcast rights is to be divided

between SLOC and the IOC. SLOC is scheduled to receive 60 percent of the

television broadcast revenue, and the IOC is to receive 40 percent.

To supplement the revenue received from television broadcast rights,

corporate sponsorships, and other sources, the Olympic organizing

committee has historically made requests to the federal government for

assistance. For example, included on SLOC’s staff is a Vice-President of

Federal Government relations who is responsible for contacting officials at

the White House, federal departments and agencies, as well as Members of

Congress, to obtain federal assistance as needed for the Olympic Games.

ACOG also had a similar position on its staff for the 1996 Summer Olympic

Games.

As discussed in chapter 2, the federal government has provided or plans to

provide a combined total of about $2 billion (in 1999 dollars) for the 1984

and 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

However, this funding and support has been provided in an ad hoc manner

by as many as 24 different federal agencies for projects and activities

ranging from safety and security activities to venue construction because

no governmentwide policy exists that specifically governs the overall role

and responsibilities of the federal government with respect to funding and

supporting the Games. Moreover, there is no requirement for any federal

agency to oversee and monitor the appropriateness of the federal funding

and support of the Olympic Games.

In fact, we found that only a few efforts have been made to coordinate the

federal government’s overall involvement with projects and activities

related to hosting the Olympic Games in the United States. One effort

included the establishment of the White House Task Force on the 2002

Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, which was created by the

President on September 25, 1998. This interagency task force includes

representatives from about 27 federal agencies, is chaired by the Vice

President, and was established to essentially coordinate federal activities

involved in helping to prepare Salt Lake City to stage the Games. The

Assistant to the President and Cabinet Secretary and the Assistant to the

President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs serve as vice chairs.

The task force met four times between its inception and June 2000. At

these meetings, representatives from the federal agencies, SLOC, and state

and local officials provided updates on their support of the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games. According to the vice-chairs of the 2002 Winter Olympics

Task Force, although the task force does not have oversight responsibility
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 46 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

for ensuring the appropriateness of federal funding and support for the

Olympic Games, the task force does review all or most of the major

requests for federal funding and support, particularly transportation

requests. A similar task force was established for the 1996 Olympic Games

in Atlanta.

Another effort included the issuance of PDD-62. As discussed in chapter 2,

PDD-62 is a classified document that directs an integrated approach

among federal law enforcement agencies to effectively manage terrorist

threats and the consequences of such attacks against U.S. citizens or

infrastructure. For national special security events, such as the 2002

Winter Olympic Games, PDD-62 provides the Secret Service with lead

agency responsibility for security planning; the FBI with lead agency

responsibility for counter-terrorism; and FEMA with lead agency

responsibility for consequence management following terrorist incidents.

Finally, as discussed later in this chapter, OMB has taken the initiative to

collect information from all of the agencies providing some funding and

support for the Olympic Games.

The authority to provide about $690 million of the combined total of about

$2 billion in federal funding and support provided for the 1984 and 1996

Summer Olympic Games and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games

was designated for the Olympic Games by Congress.1

 Of the approximately

$690 million, Congress designated about $194 million to help plan and

stage the Olympic Games in Los Angeles in 1984, Atlanta in 1996, and Salt

Lake City in 2002. To help prepare the host cities of Atlanta and Salt Lake

City, Congress designated about $496 million to fund and support highway,

transit, and capital improvement projects, as of April 2000.

In addition, with the passage of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21

Century (TEA-21),2

 Congress enhanced Utah’s consideration for

discretionary funding by granting the Secretary of Transportation the

authority to give priority consideration to Olympic host cities. Specifically,

section 1223 of TEA-21 states that the Secretary may give priority

consideration for funding transportation projects relating to an Olympic or

Paralympic event if the project meets the extraordinary needs associated

with such an event and meets the criteria for interstate or bridge

 

1

 Generally, Congress decided whether to fund a particular Olympic-related project or activity on a

case-by-case basis. The decision is usually made as part of the authorization and appropriation process.

In the committee report or the applicable appropriation bill, Congress specified the project or activity

to be funded and the amount of the funding.

2

 TEA-21 was enacted as Public Law 105-178 on June 9, 1998, and reauthorizes the federal surface

transportation programs through fiscal year 2003.

Congress Designated

Some Federal Funding

and Support for

Olympic-Related

Projects and Activities
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 47 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

discretionary funding.3 Since 1998, Utah has received about $97 million of

the approximate $350 million made available in the Federal Highway

Administration bridge and interstate maintenance discretionary funds.

According to LAOC officials, Los Angeles did not receive any federal funds

for highway, transit, or capital improvement projects for the 1984 Summer

Olympic Games.

For the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles, Congress

specifically designated about $47 million of the approximately $75 million

provided by the federal government to DOD to provide safety- and

security-related services. In addition, to help plan and stage the 1996

Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta Congress designated about $90 million

of the approximate $185 million in federal funding and support. For

example, the funding was used to support the following projects or

activities:

• $46 million to DOD, Justice, and Treasury for safety- and security-related

services;

• $6 million to the Forest Service to build the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom

venue;

• $7 million to EPA to complete the Olympic stadium-related sewer system;

and

• $17 million to DOT to fund the spectator transportation system used

during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.

Congress authorized and appropriated about $14 million to seven federal

agencies for the Paralympic Games. These funds were used for office

equipment and supplies; training and support for volunteers; food, lodging,

and receptions for athletes and visiting dignitaries; lodging and airfare to

the United States for the International Paralympic Committee members;

and opening, closing, and award ceremonies’ costs. These costs also

included the $2 million that GSA spent to help cover a part of APOC

administrative staff payroll costs for planning and staging the Paralympic

Games, which is discussed in greater detail in chapter 4.

As of April 2000, Congress had designated about $57 million of the

approximately $254 million that the federal government has provided or

has planned to provide to help plan and stage the 2002 Winter Olympic

 3

 Selection criteria for the discretionary bridge funds include sufficiency rating, average daily traffic,

and the total cost of the project. To be eligible for interstate maintenance discretionary funding,

projects must be on a high-volume route in an urban area or a high-truck-volume route in a rural area.

Congress Designated About

$194 Million for Planning

and Staging the Olympic

Games
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 48 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Games. For example, the funding was appropriated to five federal agencies

to support the following projects or activities:

• $37 million to DOT to build access roads to venues and a temporary

system to transport spectators to and from Olympic venues,

• $17 million to Justice for safety- and security-related services during the

Olympic Games,

• $2.1 million to EPA for sewer construction,

• $92,000 to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to

provide forecasting services during the Games, and

• $876,000 to DOE to help support the Paralympics.

Without congressional support, some of the projects and activities related

to planning and staging the 1996 Summer Olympics Games may not have

been completed in time for the Games. For example, if Congress had not

authorized and appropriated the approximately $6 million to the Forest

Service for the development and construction of the Ocoee Whitewater

Slalom venue, the event may not have been a part of the 1996 Summer

Olympic Games. According to Forest Service officials, ACOG agreed to

include the sport as an Olympic event provided it did not have to fund the

development of the Whitewater Slalom venue. In total, the approximately

$22 million in federal funding accounted for the majority of the estimated

$33 million spent to build the venue and contributed significantly to the

venue’s being developed and completed in time for the 1996 Games.

To help prepare the host city of Atlanta for the 1996 Summer Olympic

Games, Congress specifically designated over $172 million to complete

two transportation and two capital improvement projects in time for the

Games. These funds included about $96 million to DOT for Atlanta’s

downtown rapid transit system, $61 million for an automated highway

information system, $13 million to renovate the Martin Luther King

historical site, and $2 million to reconstruct the Savannah River Walk.

Additionally, DOT officials told us that some federal restrictions were

waived temporarily so that the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit

Authority (MARTA) could obtain the necessary federal assistance

designated by Congress to build its rapid transit system. For example,

Georgia’s Department of Transportation officials told us that Atlanta’s

North Line Extension had been planned for a long period of time, but they

had not been able to use the federal funding approved for the project

because they were not able to meet the federal requirement of providing a

20-percent local match to federal funds provided for the project. However,

after Atlanta had been selected to host the 1996 Summer Olympic Games,

Congress Designated About

$496 Million to Help

Prepare Atlanta and Salt

Lake City for the Olympic

Games
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 49 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

DOT allowed MARTA to defer the local match requirement and begin

receiving the entire available federal share before spending any local

funds.

To help prepare the host city of Salt Lake City for the 2002 Winter Olympic

Games, Congress has designated over $323 million of the approximately $1

billion to complete transit, highway, and capital improvement projects.

These projects include an estimated $300 million for Salt Lake City’s major

light-rail system and supporting projects, $19 million for accelerated road

and bridge projects, and $4.5 million for national forest improvements (see

app. III). Similar to the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, according to DOT

officials, the construction of the Snowbasin and Winter Sports Park access

roads, which are to provide access to the downhill skiing, ski jump,

bobsled, and luge venues for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, would not

have been possible, nor would they have been built, without the

approximately $15 million specifically designated by Congress. Officials in

both Georgia and Utah told us that their rail projects had been planned

long before they were selected as an Olympic host city. However, they did

acknowledge that the approval, funding, and completion of the transit rail

projects were critical to their successfully hosting the Olympic Games in

Atlanta and Salt Lake City.

Federal agency officials approved the use of about $1.3 billion for projects

and activities related to planning and staging and preparing the host cities

for the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter

Olympics Games. Of the approximately $1.3 billion, about $320 million was

for planning and staging the Olympic Games and about $1 billion was

provided to help prepare Atlanta and Salt Lake City to host the Games.

Specifically, to help prepare the host cities, federal agencies approved

about $251 million for Atlanta and plan to approve about $689 million for

Salt Lake City so that highway, transit, and capital improvement projects

could be completed in time for the Olympic Games.

Federal officials said that they generally relied on their existing policies

and procedures to help them make decisions about providing federal funds

and support for the Olympic Games. Agency officials also said that they

generally approved requests for federal funding and support that are

consistent with their mission-related responsibilities, such as providing

safety- and security-related services. With a few exceptions, most federal

agencies do not have specific guidelines on providing federal funding and

support for the Olympic Games. DOD is one of the few agencies that has

specific guidance on supporting the Olympic Games. DOD developed its

own guidelines regarding providing support to special events such as the

Agency Officials Made

Decisions to Fund and

Support Most OlympicRelated Projects and

Activities
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 50 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Olympic Games. Specifically, DOD’s guidelines for national special events

state that

• the primary defense mission could not be adversely affected by supporting

the Olympic Games;

• DOD is the supplier of “last resort,” that is, it provides resources when all

alternative public and private means have been exhausted;

• the use of appropriated funds was limited to security-related and logistical

functions that could not otherwise be accomplished by the public

authorities;

• private organizing committees shall reimburse DOD in advance, for

approved support, with the exception of the Paralympics; and

• support to other federal agencies is to be provided on a reimbursable

basis, under the terms of the Economy Act.4

These guidelines were in effect during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.

In addition, as discussed in chapter 2, DOD now has specific statutory

authority to provide assistance to federal, state, and local governments in

connection with the Olympic Games and other sporting events.

As of April 2000, federal agencies provided or planned to provide about

$320 million to help plan and stage the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic

Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. The funding and support that

were provided generally came from the agencies’ regular operating

budgets, or by reprogramming funds or shifting resources from an existing

program to meet the needs of the Olympic Games. Agencies’ officials

stated that if the Games were not held in the United States, the funds

would have been used to support other mission-related projects.

Specifically, federal agencies provided about $28 million for the 1984

Summer Olympics, provided about $95 million for the 1996 Summer

Olympics, and planned to provide about $197 million for the 2002 Winter

Olympics because agency officials believed that the projects and activities

were consistent with their missions. For example, in the area of safety and

security for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, the Drug Enforcement

Administration reassigned 300 additional agents; the FBI reassigned 1,200

additional staff; the Immigration and Naturalization Services reassigned

130 additional agents; and the U.S. Marshals Service reassigned 150

additional marshals to the Atlanta area during the Games to help provide

safety- and security-related services.

 

4

 The Economy Act, 31 U.S.C. Sections 1535 and 1536, authorizes the inter- and intra-departmental

furnishings of materials or performance of work or services on a reimbursable basis.

Agencies Provided About

$320 Million to Help Plan

and Stage the Olympic

Games
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 51 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Similarly, several other federal agencies provided funding and support to

help plan and stage the 1996 Games in Atlanta. For example,

• The Natural Resources Conservation Service provided about $331,000 to

its regional office responsible for the Atlanta area, for the cost of flowers,

shrubs, and grasses for 3 Olympic venues, 16 city parks, and 14 other city

locations. According to Natural Resources Conservation Service officials,

the purpose of providing this assistance was to test the vitality of native

plants in an urban setting.

• DOE provided about $3.5 million for Olympic-related projects associated

with energy efficiency and renewable energy. Some of those projects

included the installation of solar electrical systems at the Olympic

swimming venue and geothermal heat pumps at two Georgia Institute of

Technology dormitories in the Olympic Village.

• EPA used about $313,000 of its regional discretionary funds to build a bike

path to improve access to various 1996 Olympic events in downtown

Atlanta. EPA justified the support by stating that the bike path was part of

a demonstration project to publicize and promote clean-air transportation

modes. EPA also provided a full-time employee to work for ACOG over a

2-year period to assist in addressing environmental concerns.

• The Economic Development Administration awarded about $3.1 million in

grants for public works projects for the Olympic stadium and other venue

sites as well as funded Olympic-related economic studies to carry out the

Economic Development Administration’s mandate to foster and provide

employment opportunities.

For Salt Lake City, federal officials planned to spend about $197 million of

their regular agency funding for activities related to planning and staging

the games. This funding includes the following:

• $21 million in additional security costs to bring in FBI agents and special

response teams as well as to construct a command post that is to be used

to coordinate federal, state, and local responses to any security threat.

• $3.1 million in HUD funding for housing projects to be used during the

games to house media and federal security personnel. After the Olympics,

this housing is to become subsidized housing for low-income residents.

• $2 million in increased postal services, including bringing in equipment and

postal inspectors to ensure the safety of mail going to the Olympic Village.
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 52 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

To help prepare Atlanta and Salt Lake City to host their respective Olympic

Games, federal agencies provided or plan to provide about $1 billion

because they believed most of the projects and activities were missionrelated. Of the approximately $1 billion, about $251 million was provided

to Atlanta and about $689 million was provided or planned to be provided

to Salt Lake City for highway, transit, and capital improvement projects.

According to federal and state transportation officials, these projects

principally involved highway and transit projects that Georgia and Utah

planned on building regardless of the Olympic Games. However, according

to federal and state transportation officials, hosting the Olympic Games

influenced to some extent the decisions as to which projects to initiate,

complete, and fund with their formula-driven federal funds5

 and may have

influenced DOT’s decisions to approve certain highway discretionary

funds for Olympic-related projects.

For example, Georgia’s State Department of Transportation used about

$195 million of its federal highway formula funds—funds the State would

have received regardless of the Olympic Games—on infrastructure

improvements to highways in and around Atlanta in anticipation of the

Olympic Games. According to state transportation officials, as soon as

Atlanta was selected as the host city for the 1996 Olympic Games, they

immediately reviewed highway-related projects in the state’s 20-year

transportation improvement program and identified those projects that

would affect the city’s ability to host the Games. These officials said they

then made those projects a priority and accelerated their construction

schedules to ensure that they were completed in time for the Games.

Georgia also received about $17 million from DOT discretionary funding,

which was in addition to both the state formula and the discretionary

funding specifically designated by Congress. These projects included the

MARTA Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and the University

Pedestrian Walkway projects, which were specifically approved by the

Secretary of DOT. For the discretionary funding, federal and state officials

told us that they believed the State may have received some priority

approval considerations for these projects, but it did not necessarily

receive the funding solely because of the Olympic Games. The remaining

$39 million was spent on capital improvements, such as the $3 million

spent by the Economic Development Administration to revitalize Atlanta’s

business district.

 

5

 The term “formula-driven federal funds” refers to a statutory distribution of funds providing certain

funding levels to the states on the basis of formulas prescribed by law.

 Agencies Provided or Plan

to Provide About $1 Billion

to Help Prepare Host Cities

for the Olympic Games
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 53 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Similarly, the majority of funds that federal agencies plan to provide to Salt

Lake City are for transportation infrastructure. Once Salt Lake City was

selected to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, Utah transportation

officials (1) surveyed their highway and infrastructure-related needs in

anticipation of the Games and (2) identified projects that were to receive

priority from their annual federal highway formula funds and any

discretionary funding they could receive from the Secretary of DOT. From

this survey, they found that an extensive amount of work needed to be

completed in the Salt Lake City area, especially the reconstruction of a 15-

mile stretch of Interstate 15 (I-15) in time for the Winter Olympic Games.

Although planned before Salt Lake City was selected to host the Winter

Olympic Games, the reconstruction of I-15, at an estimated total cost of

about $1.4 billion, had to be accelerated. Of the $1.4 billion, $426 million,

or 30 percent, is to be funded by the federal government and the remaining

$974 million, or 70 percent, is to be funded by state and local resources.

To finance the I-15 project and 43 other highway projects, the Utah State

legislature established a special fund, called the Centennial Highway Fund

(Centennial Fund). The Centennial Fund receives money through the

state’s allocations of federal funds and various other sources of revenue,

including a state fuel tax, state bonds, and state general funds. The

Centennial Fund projects, including I-15, are in addition to Utah’s regular

highway program, which also uses federal funds to pay for projects.

According to Utah Transportation officials, under the Centennial Fund,

locations outside of Salt Lake City would be assured that their needs

would eventually be met, while at the same time, projects critical to

successfully hosting the Olympic Games would be funded and completed

in time for the Games.

Since the passage of TEA-21, the 1998 federal highway bill, Utah has used

about $96 million of the state’s approximate $576 million highway formula

funds for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 on the specific projects that it

wanted completed in time for the Olympic Games. In addition, section

1223 of TEA-21 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to give priority

to projects relating to the Olympic or Paralympic Games, provided the

projects meet the criteria for interstate or bridge discretionary funding. As

shown in table 3.1, the Secretary of Transportation awarded Utah almost

$88 million in discretionary funds for the various projects Utah wanted to

have completed in time for the Olympic Games. This was the first time

Utah had received any of the discretionary funding available from DOT’s

Interstate Highway Maintenance and Bridge Improvement discretionary
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 54 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

funds.6 Moreover, since 1998, Utah has received about $97 million—of the

approximately $350 million of DOT’s Interstate Highway Maintenance and

Bridge Improvement discretionary funds available.

As of May 2000, only about $224 million of the planned $675 million in

federal funding for transportation projects has been approved. According

to a federal highway official, to obtain the remaining $451 million in federal

assistance needed to complete the projects on time, Utah will have to use

most of its annual formula funds—about $200 million each year—plus

obtain another $100 million in federal discretionary funds from the

Secretary of Transportation. Otherwise, according to a federal highway

official, Utah may have to withdraw additional funds from the Centennial

Fund, thus delaying the other Centennial Fund projects, to meet its goals

to have the Olympic-related projects completed before the Games in 2002.

 6

 DOT’s Interstate Highway Maintenance and Bridge Improvement discretionary funds include

discretionary funds set-aside for use by the Secretary of Transportation to replace or rehabilitate

deficient, high-cost highway bridges and to resurface, restore, or reconstruct interstate system routes.
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 55 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Dollars in thousands

Source of federal highway funding

Discretionary funds

Projects and activities for the

2002 Winter Olympic Games

Estimated

total project

cost

Estimated

total federal

share

Formula

funds

Designated

by Congress

Approved by the

Secretary of

Transportation

Total federal

funds

approved

Planning and staging

Snowbasin/Trappers Loop Road $15,530 $14,962 $0 $14,962 $0 $14,962

Winter Sports Park Access Road 5,208 4,106 3,162 0 0 3,162

Olympic Transportation Planning 10,227 10,227 88 5,682 15 5,785

 Subtotal $30,965 $29,295 $3,250 $20,644 $15 $23,909

Preparing host city (Salt Lake City)

Soldier Hollow Road $11,174 $11,174 $376 $0 $7,528 $7,904

SR248 Reconstruction 12,027 11,837 1,458 1,799 5,682 8,939

Silver Creek Junction 25,568 20,445 4,735 0 9,470 14,205

Kimball Junction 27,462 21,970 8,220 0 5,682 13,902

I-215/3500 South 1,894 1,657 142 0 1,515 1,657

SR173 Bridge 4,545 0 0 0 0 0

I-84/US89 Interchange 18,939 12,399 10,505 0 1,894 12,399

ITS Olympic Expansion 34,943 27,955 0 0 0 0

I-15 ITS & ATMS 75,758 60,606 9,934 14,678 0 24,612

University Pedestrian Bridge 4,735 3,788 76 0 0 76

I-15 Reconstruction 1,429,924 426,136 56,837 2,064 57,083 115,985

Regional Mobility Improvements 59,186 47,348 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal $1,706,155 $645,315 $92,283 $18,541 $88,854 $199,678

Total $1,737,120 $674,610 $95,533 $39,185 $88,869 $223,587

Source: DOT officials and GAO analysis.

We found that, in general, once the federal funding and support were

specifically designated by Congress or approved by agencies officials for

the particular Olympic-related project or activity, the funds or support

were provided through the agencies’ normal appropriation or budgeting

process and distributed to the recipients through the agencies’ normal

funding procedures. Federal agencies generally did not track or report

their expenditures on the Olympic Games, except when they were

specifically requested to do so by OMB. According to agencies officials,

they generally did not set up special monitoring or auditing programs

specifically for Olympic-related funding and support, although some

exceptions to this did occur.

The agencies’ normal funding procedures that we generally found in place

for providing the federal funds for the Olympic-related projects included,

in part, the use of Memorandums of Agreement (MOA); grant awards;

Table 3.1: Federal Highway Projects and Activities Designated by Congress or Funded by Federal Agencies for the 2002 Winter

Olympic Games

Federal Funding and

Support Generally

Provided Through

Agencies’ Normal

Funding Procedures
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 56 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

contract awards; or apportionments, which are a statutory distribution of

funds at certain funding levels to states on the basis of formulas prescribed

in law. For example, most of the transportation funding discussed in

chapter 2, consisted of various types of mass transit grant awards or

federal apportionments for highway-related projects. Other examples

include the Department of Education, as discussed in chapter 4, which

used a MOA to transfer to USIA about $7.3 million specifically designated

by Congress for the Paralympic Games. USIA then provided the funds to

APOC through the use of a federal grant award. DOL also followed the

same procedures, using a MOA to transfer about $2.6 million to USIA that

were also specifically designated by Congress for the Paralympic Games.

USIA then added this amount to the grant it had awarded to APOC. In

another example, GSA, as discussed in chapter 4, awarded a contract that

eventually amounted to about $2 million to assist APOC for the Paralympic

Games. Additionally, the Forest Service awarded contracts to various

organizations to construct the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue.

Federal agencies also supported the Olympic Games by providing the

services of a number of their employees to carry out Olympic-related tasks

or by providing or loaning agency equipment and supplies. For example,

DOD and the other law enforcement agencies used their own personnel

directly to provide safety- and security-related services for the Olympic

Games and accounted for this activity as part of their normal personnel

costs. In addition to personnel services, DOD also provided or loaned

equipment, such as aircraft and other surveillance equipment, to provide

security-related services. In another example, the Natural Resources

Conservation Service, as discussed in chapter 2, used about $331,000 that

was approved by agency officials to purchase native plants and then gave

the plants to a nonprofit organization to plant at Olympic venues and city

parks.

Federal grant and contract awards to governmental and nonprofit

organizations for Olympic-related projects and activities were subject to

typical audit procedures that generally govern such awards. For example,

OMB Circular A-133 sets forth (1) standards for obtaining consistency and

uniformity among federal agencies for the audit of states, local

governments, and nonprofit organizations expending federal awards and

(2) audit requirements for the expenditure of federal funds. In addition,

according to agencies officials, federal funding and support provided for

Olympic-related projects and activities are subject to typical agency

monitoring and audit procedures, including the audits performed by the

Offices of Inspectors General (OIG). We have also reviewed certain

Olympic-related projects in the past. In some instances, agencies or their
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 57 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

OIGs have specifically assessed and reported on Olympic-related projects

or activities.

We requested copies from each of the agencies covered by our review of

all available audits of Olympic-related projects or activities that were

prepared by OIGs or other third-party entities. In general, we found that

these audits or evaluations focused on whether the funds or support were

spent or used according to the particular MOA, grant agreement, contract

award, or other requirement; but did not evaluate the appropriateness of

the use of the funds or support for the Olympic Games. For example,

• DOL awarded a federal grant in the amount of $835,000 to the Georgia

State Department of Technical Adult Education Program to use for

Olympic-related job training and employment opportunities for those

qualifying individuals in the neighborhoods close to Olympic venues or

facilities. The grant funds were passed on to ACOG, which implemented

the grant requirements, accounted for the expenditures, and reported

the financial and program results to the State Department, which then

reported the results to DOL. In this case, DOL’s OIG reviewed the

reported results and evaluated the use of the grant funds. The OIG

concluded that the grant objectives were not achieved and

recommended that all federal funds spent, or about $427,000 of the

$835,000 awarded, should be returned to DOL. As of April 2000, DOL

disagreed with the OIG and allowed the entire amount questioned. The

OIG continues to believe the questioned costs were spent

inappropriately.

• The Postal Service in Atlanta reported that it had spent an estimated

$16.4 million through various construction contracts to improve its

postal facilities in time for the Olympic Games. In March 1999, the

Postal Service’s OIG reviewed the Postal Service’s management and

financial controls, federal contracting procedures, and accounting

records for these contracts. In this instance, the OIG concluded that the

expedited construction time employed by the Postal Service to complete

the facilities in time for the Olympic Games, caused the Service to incur

an estimated $2.5 million in excess costs. Although the Postal Service

disagreed with many of the OIG findings, Postal officials did concede

that completing the projects in time for the Olympic Games may have

increased the cost to the government because of the tight labor

environment that existed before the Games.
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 58 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

• Similarly, DOT’s OIG reviewed the I-15 Reconstruction Project in Salt

Lake City where the design-build contracting method7

 was being used.

According to the OIG, Utah was using this method to complete the I-15

project in time for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. In its November

1998 report, the OIG found that the (1) estimated cost of $1.6 billion was

reasonable; (2) project was on schedule; and (3) federal government

was planning to provide about $281 million, or about 17 percent, and

state and local sources were responsible for providing the remaining

approximate $1.3 billion, or about 83 percent, of the total cost of the

project. The OIG recommended that if the requested funds were not

received as planned, the Utah Department of Transportation should

report to DOT how it plans to make up the shortfalls in funding.

• Applicable OIG offices for each of the federal agencies listed in

appendix I reported to OMB that they audited their respective agencies’

financial contributions to the 1984 Summer Olympic Games. However,

from the few OIG reports still available, it appeared that these financial

audits verified only the reported figures.

We have also done some other work related to federal funding and support

for the Olympic Games. For example, in June 1996, we reported on the

participation of U.S. soldiers in (1) assisting with security, (2) spectator

transportation system, and (3) Olympic field hockey venue preparation

during the 1996 Olympic Games. 8 This report described DOD’s

participation but did not evaluate the appropriateness of the activities. In

August 1996, we issued a report on the Commemorative Coin Program9

 and

reported that regarding the Olympic Commemorative Coin Program for the

1996 Summer Olympic Games, the Mint reported a loss of over $3 million,

while ACOG received about $27 million, as discussed in chapter 2 of this

report.

 

7

 The “design-build” contracting method allows for both design and construction of a project using a

singe contract. Under this method, the design and construction phases are combined and are the

responsibilities of the prime contractor.

8

 DOD Olympic Support (GAO/NSIAD-96-189R, June 14, 1996).

9

 GAO/GGD-96-113.
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 59 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Federal agencies generally did not report their Olympic-related activities to

Congress. However, OMB initiated attempts to collect Olympic-related

information from all federal agencies in June 1985 after the 1984 Summer

Olympic Games, in May 1996 before the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and

in December1999 and February 2000 for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

OMB requested the federal agencies to provide (1) information on the

levels of federal funding, (2) a brief narrative explanation of the purpose of

the funds, and (3) information on whether the funds were for projects and

activities that were solely in support of the Games or related to the Games,

but that would have been done even if the Games were not held. According

to OMB officials, they often do such special reports when there is or they

believe will be a topic of interest to the President, Congress, or the general

public. OMB officials said that unlike the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic

Games, they plan to collect information on both funding and support

planned before the 2002 Winter Olympic Games and actual funding and

support provided after the Games. According to these officials, the

information on the 1996 Summer Olympic Games was used to develop

responses to congressional inquiries and in press releases issued by the

Office of the Vice President. OMB officials also stated that as part of their

budget responsibilities they review agency program funding requests

before they are submitted to Congress; however, they do not review

congressional earmarks of approved funds for specific projects.

Although we found the information OMB had collected to be very helpful

in our review, we noted that the information on the 1996 Summer Olympic

Games was not complete, and that agencies had not always reported

information to OMB in a consistent manner. For example, on the basis of

information collected in response to its May 1996 request, OMB reported

total federal expenditures of about $329 million for Atlanta Olympicrelated projects and activities. Information we collected from the agencies

after the Atlanta Olympic Games showed that the agencies spent about

$608 million, which is a difference of about $279 million.

Several factors contributed to this difference. First, OMB’s request for data

was made before the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and OMB did not

collect additional information after the Games. As a case in point, none of

the agencies reported the use of their employees as security guards during

the 1996 Olympic Games, which cost about $1.8 million.

Second, OMB’s figures included only about $8 million of the approximately

$17 million that the Forest Service used for the Whitewater Slalom venue;

it did not include any of the funds specifically designated by Congress for

the Ocoee project. According to Forest Service officials, no after-action or

Incomplete and

Inconsistent Reporting of

Olympic-Related Federal

Funding and Support
Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games When

They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 60 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

other financial summary report was prepared to show the Forest Service’s

total cost of the venue development. Finally, since the Postal Service does

not normally report to OMB, its funding and support of about $20 million

for Olympic-related projects and activities were also excluded from OMB’s

data.

Additionally, some agencies reported some costs inconsistently. For

example, some agencies included personnel salaries and benefits as part of

their Olympic-related involvement, while other agencies, such as DOD,

included only incremental costs—those that would not otherwise have

incurred—as being Olympic-related. For example, according to DOD

officials, their reported Olympic-related costs for security-related services

only included the incremental costs associated with providing the service

during the Games. However, the Forest Service reported salary costs for

its personnel who participated in developing the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom

venue and in planning for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake

City.
Chapter 4

Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds

Appropriately for Two of Five OlympicRelated Projects

Page 61 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

As agreed with you, we evaluated five Olympic-related projects that were

part of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games for which the authority was

somewhat unclear to determine whether they were funded and supported

in accordance with the underlying statutory authority and applicable

requirements. We determined that three of these projects were carried out

in accordance with the underlying statutory authority and were consistent

with applicable requirements. These three projects were the funding of the

Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue, use of federal employees to provide

security, and payment of Paralympic Games’ opening ceremony

entertainer costs. Of the remaining two projects, we determined that the

use of a special purpose grant for veterans to largely assist nonveterans

during the Paralympic Games was not in accordance with the underlying

statute and that the payment of the salaries of APOC staff did not comply

with all applicable administratively imposed requirements.

Generally, the Olympic organizing committee, not the federal government,

was responsible for developing and constructing the Olympic venues.

However, we found that the federal government provided about $22

million of the approximately $33 million needed to build the Ocoee

Whitewater Slalom venue for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. Of the $22

million, the Forest Service provided about $17 million and TVA provided

$5 million. As discussed in chapter 2, the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue,

which is located in the Cherokee National Park in Tennessee, was not on

the original list of Olympic sporting events.

We found that the $17 million provided by the Forest Service that was used

to plan, develop, and build the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue was within

the scope of Congress’ authorization and the Forest Service program

authority. For the project, Congress specifically designated about $1

million of fiscal year 1993 appropriations for the Forest Service and $5

million of fiscal year 1994 Forest Service appropriations for recreational

developments associated with the 1996 Summer Olympic Games

Whitewater Rafting events. As stated in the Senate Appropriations

Committee Report for fiscal year 1993, funds provided to the Forest

Service in fiscal year 1993 for this purpose were to be used only for

improvements in the Olympic venue site area that would benefit the public

use of the Ocoee River area in the post-Olympic years.1

 Funding for the

Olympic-specific requirements were to be provided by the Olympic

organizing committee or Tennessee. Accordingly these funds, as well as

the remaining approximately $11 million of additional funds approved by

the Forest Service for the project, all came from the Forest Service’s

 

1

 S. Rep. No. 102-345.

Ocoee Whitewater

Slalom Venue Funding

Was Authorized, but

Report of Benefits

Appears to Have Been

Incomplete
Chapter 4

Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five Olympic-Related Projects

Page 62 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

construction program funds meant for projects designed to improve the

recreational uses of national forests by the public.

Although, as previously stated, there is no basis for us to question the legal

authority of the Forest Service to spend the $17 million involved here, we

believe that the Forest Service could have done a better job in

documenting how these expenditures would enhance the public’s postOlympic use of the venue. For example, none of the available economic

analyses regarding the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue—which supported

its development—looked beyond the Olympic Games to subsequent

potential use and no follow-up analysis of this use has been performed.

According to the Forest Service’s Project Director for the Ocoee

development project, no reports of benefits associated with the postOlympic period were prepared because (1) the project team was

disbanded 3 days after the Olympic competitions in 1996 and (2) the longterm impact of the Whitewater River venue had to be assessed with other

biophysical impacts of the other uses in the area, which were not going to

be evaluated until after the Olympic Games. Thus, Forest Service officials

provided no documentation showing whether the expenditures to improve

the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue benefited public use of the site in the

post-Olympic period.

The Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue receives limited use now that the

Olympic Games are over. According to a TVA official, TVA continued its

pre-venue development practice of diverting the water in this section of

the river to the power-generating facility to meet the electrical needs of the

area. However, TVA does release the water from time-to-time for pleasure

and competitive canoeing, kayaking, and rafting use. However, the

scheduled use of the Olympic venue section of the river is far below that of

previously existing canoeing, kayaking, and rafting sections of the river.

Specifically, recreational use of the Olympic venue section of the river was

scheduled for 13 days in 1997, 14 days in 1998, and 20 days in 1999, which

can be compared with 113 days in 1997, 112 days in 1998, and 112 days in

1999, for the other sections of the river. Moreover, the Olympic venue

section of the river that was reengineered for the Olympic Games

competitions, has hosted eight 2- to 3-day competitive events since the

1996 Games. On the other hand, according to Forest Service officials,

hundreds of people have used the visitor’s center facility, which was built

as part of the venue.
Chapter 4

Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five Olympic-Related Projects

Page 63 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

About 2 months before the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, the

U.S. Attorney General made the decision, in a response to a request from

ACOG, to request federal employees to provide security during the Games.

Specifically, Justice asked for about 1,000 federal employee volunteers

from federal agencies, such as GSA, DOL, HUD, and SSA, to provide

security service during the Olympic period of July 1 through August 4,

1996. The cost of providing the security services totaled about $1.8 million.

Although the federal employees remained on their respective agency’s

payroll, they wore ACOG uniforms and worked directly for ACOG for up to

a 2-week period. Their duties included operating screening devices and

directing tourist traffic outside Olympic sites and game venues.

In a Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum dated May 17,

1996, OLC determined that the U.S. Attorney General had the authority to

ask federal agencies to have their employees assist in security operations

at the Atlanta Olympics. OLC determined that the Attorney General had

such authority pursuant to Title 18 of USC, sections 112, 1116, and 1201,

which state that the Attorney General can call upon federal agencies to

enforce the provisions of these statutes, which are designed to protect

foreign officials and official guests of the United States from murder,

kidnapping, and assault. In light of the OLC memorandum and its

underlying analysis, and since the State Department designated the visiting

Olympic delegations as official guests of the United States, we have no

basis to question the authority of federal agencies, upon request of the

Attorney General, to have their employees assist in providing security at

the Olympic Games.

We have long held that federal funds generally cannot be used for

entertainment expense, unless authorized by statute.2

 We determined that

the $480,000 APOC spent for the Paralympic Games’ opening ceremony

performances was authorized under the terms of the interagency

agreement between the Department of Education and USIA for the

transfer of funds to USIA, the grant agreement between the USIA and

APOC, and the underlying appropriation of $7.3 million to the Department

of Education.

In 1996, APOC contracted with several entertainers to perform or appear

at the opening ceremony for the Paralympic Games. The individual

contracts ranged in price from about $104,000 to $157,000 each. The funds

used to pay these entertainers came from the $7.3 million appropriation to

the Department of Education that Congress specifically designated for the

 

2

 26 Comp. Gen. 281.

Use of Federal

Employees to Provide

Security During the

1996 Summer Olympic

Games Was Within the

Scope of Justice’s

Authority

Use of Federal Funds

for Entertainers at the

Paralympic Games’

Opening Ceremony

Was Authorized
Chapter 4

Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five Olympic-Related Projects

Page 64 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Paralympic Games. These funds were transferred to USIA and used to fund

an USIA grant to APOC. In the MOA that the Department of Education

used to transfer the funds to USIA, the “opening ceremonies” were listed

as one of the purposes for which the Department’s funds were to be used.

Furthermore, USIA’s grant to APOC specifically identified $1.3 million of

grant funds to pay the cost of the opening ceremonies. Thus, since the

opening ceremonies are a recognized component of the Olympic and

Paralympic Games and entertainment is an integral part of the opening

ceremonies, we have concluded that the expenditures for the opening

ceremonies were authorized by the underlying Department of Education

appropriation.

We believe that GSA spent about $2 million in fiscal years 1995 and 1996

funds, that were specifically designated by Congress for logistical support

and personnel services for the 1996 Paralympic Games, in a manner that

was not consistent with the express terms of the MOA under which these

expenditures were made. The conference committee’s report on GSA’s

appropriation for fiscal year 1995 stated that of the amounts appropriated

to GSA, up to $1 million, shall be used for logistical and personnel support

for the Xth Paralympiad on disability. Further, the conferees

recommended GSA’s participation in preparation of public facilities for use

by an unprecedented population of people with disabilities during the 1986

Paralympiad.3

 In fiscal year 1996, GSA’s appropriation earmarked an

additional amount that was not to exceed $1 million “for logistical support

and personnel services...for building operations” for the Paralympic

Games.4

According to information that GSA provided to us, APOC did not need

assistance in the areas of construction and operation of facilities. Instead,

APOC requested that GSA provide the funds to pay the salaries of the

employees already working for APOC. Specifically, APOC officials asked

GSA to place certain APOC employees on the GSA payroll and pay them

biweekly as GSA employees. However, GSA told us that it determined that

it had no authority to convert APOC employees to GSA employees. GSA

said this would violate federal statutes and Office of Personnel

Management regulations concerning the hiring of federal employees. The

MOA GSA entered into with APOC specifically stated that “GSA cannot

hire employees to work directly for APOC nor can GSA pay for the salaries

of APOC employees.”

 

3

 H.R. Rep. No.103-741.

4

 P.L. 104-52.

GSA Inappropriately

Used Funds for APOC

Employee Salaries 
Chapter 4

Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five Olympic-Related Projects

Page 65 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Nevertheless, GSA subsequently entered into a contract with Randstad,

Inc., which was a temporary employment agency, to provide personnel

services to APOC. GSA’s justification for negotiating noncompetitively for

this procurement of temporary staffing services and personnel support for

APOC s included the fact that Randstad expressed a willingness to waive

its normal contracting fee and to “hire” the current APOC employees—

from the President on down to lower level staff—who were already on

APOC’s payroll. Randstad further agreed to use the funds received from

GSA for this contract to pay the APOC salaries. Thus, according to GSA,

Randstad could freely hire the existing APOC employees and “simply

assign them back to APOC in whatever capacity APOC requested.” GSA

determined that this practice would not violate federal statutes or Office of

Personnel Management regulations governing the hiring of federal

employees and was consistent with the language in the agreement that was

designed to prohibit any direct transfer of funds to APOC employees.

In our opinion, use of these funds in this manner is not consistent with the

express language of the MOA, which provided that GSA would not pay the

salaries of APOC employees. In reality, the employees in question

remained as APOC employees and the payment of their salaries by Ranstad

with funds received from GSA was a circumvention of the language in the

MOA.

In 1994, Congress directed HUD in Public Law 103-327 to provide VA with

a special purpose grant in the amount of $2 million for assistance to

veterans who were participating in the 1996 Paralympic games.5

 However,

the Secretary of VA endorsed the use of the special purpose grant to

provide services for nonveterans as well as veterans. In a letter dated May

22, 1995, the Secretary wrote to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on VA,

HUD and Independent Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations, that

“ [w]ith the funds provided by the grant, we plan to supply disability sports equipment,

specialized medical and nursing staff, training of rehabilitation professionals, and

administrative operational support for the Paralympic Games. During the Paralympic

Games, the equipment and services would be available to all Game participants. The Under

Secretary for Health determined that furnishing assistance to all participants, both veteran

and nonveteran, provided veterans with an equal opportunity to compete.”

 

5

 The Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriations Act providing funds for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Public Law 103-327, provides appropriations to HUD for

special purpose grants in accordance with the terms and conditions specified for such grants in the

conference report (H.R. Rep. No. 103-715) accompanying the Appropriations Act. The conference

report provided for a special purpose grant for VA of $2 million “for the assistance of veterans who are

participating in the 1996 Paralympic Games.”

VA’s Use of Funding

Designated for

Veterans Was Not

Consistent With

Provision in the

Appropriations Act
Chapter 4

Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five Olympic-Related Projects

Page 66 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Although we do not have specific information regarding the actual

beneficiaries of the grant expenditures, we obtained a copy of a VA report

dated March 1, 1996, which contains an outline of the spending plan for the

$2 million special purpose grant as follows:

• medical staffing - $551,832;

• sports competition staffing - $730,840;

• medical equipment and supplies - $250,000;

• sports competition equipment - $404,960;

• research and educational activities - $42,368; and

• travel - $20,000.

According to an APOC report, 3,310 athletes participated in the Paralympic

Games. According to a VA official, of those athletes, only about 15, or less

than 1 percent, were U.S. veterans. It appears, on the basis of the letter

from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the explanation contained in the

spending plan about some of the proposed expenditures, that the

Department intended to use the grant funds to furnish assistance to

nonveterans as well as veterans. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that large

portions of the funds were spent on nonveterans. Since in this case the

appropriations provision incorporated the language in the conference

report that the grant funds were to be used to assist veterans participating

in the games, the use of these grant funds for the benefit of nonveterans

would not be consistent with the appropriations language.

When an expenditure not specifically authorized by an appropriation is at

issue, the standard for measuring its propriety is the necessary expense

rule. Under this rule, an expenditure is permissible if it is reasonably

necessary for the execution of the objective, purpose, or program for

which the appropriation was made and is not otherwise prohibited by law.

As previously noted, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs said that furnishing

assistance to all participants would give veterans an equal opportunity to

compete. In our opinion, this statement does not adequately explain the

necessity of making equipment and services available to nonveterans in

order to assist veterans. We see no basis for assuming that Congress’

specific direction to assist veterans meant that it wanted to assist

nonveterans as well to create a “level playing field.” Using these funds to

assist nonveterans was inconsistent with the express language of the

provision in question.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the President of the U.S. Disabled

Athletes Fund, Inc., said that the veterans participating in the Paralympic

Games were direct beneficiaries of not only the $2 million VA grant but
Chapter 4

Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five Olympic-Related Projects

Page 67 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

also of several million dollars of other private and public sector funding

acquired by APOC. In addition, the official said that after the Paralympic

Games, APOC provided the majority of the disability sports equipment

procured for the Games to veterans’ hospitals and recreation programs.

According to the President, the equipment is still in use today in VA

hospitals and in the annual National Veterans Wheelchair Games.
Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 68 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

The federal government has been and continues to be a significant

supporter of Olympic Games held in the United States. Although a U.S. city

does not host the Olympic Games on a periodic cycle, the Games have

been held in the United States eight times since 1904—more than any other

country. However, despite the steady increase in federal funds and

support, no law or governmentwide policy exists that defines the

government’s overall role in funding and supporting the Olympic Games

when they are hosted in the United States, and no single federal agency

has statutory responsibility for overseeing and monitoring federal funding

and support of the Olympic Games when held in the United States.

In some cases, Congress designated funds for the Olympic Games in the

agencies’ authorization and/or appropriation legislation. However, the

majority of the federal funding and support was provided in an ad hoc

manner by as many as 24 federal organizations using their regular funding

procedures. Several federal agencies provided funding and support in

areas that are generally the responsibility of the state and local

governments or the Olympic organizing committees. For example, the

federal government provided $22 million of the $33 million needed to build

the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue. According to the IOC host city

contract, venue development is the responsibility of the Olympic

organizing committee. In addition, we also found that VA’s and GSA’s

justifications for providing federal funds for two Olympic-related activities

were not in accordance with the underlying statute or did not comply with

applicable administratively imposed requirements.

During our review, we did not find any fundamental problem with the

premise behind the federal government’s assistance to the Olympic Games

when they are hosted in the United States. However, there are two areas in

which Congress may want to consider establishing a governmentwide

policy on the federal government’s involvement in the Olympic Games

when they are hosted in the United States. One area is the process for

selecting a U.S. city to bid on hosting the Games. The other area is the

federal government’s role in helping to plan and stage the Olympic Games

and prepare the host cities for the Games.

Consideration of enacting legislation or establishing a governmentwide

policy on the federal government’s involvement in the Olympic Games

when they are hosted in the United States is warranted for several reasons.

First, although the federal government has no formal role in the selection

of the U.S. city that can submit a bid to host the Olympic Games, if that

U.S. city is awarded the Games it is likely that requests for significant

federal assistance will result. Second, regardless of the lack of an overall
Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 69 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

federal policy on the government’s role in Olympic Games when they are

hosted in the United States, the federal government is going to be involved

in several ways. This is because the Olympic Games are a significant

national and international event that require some services, such as

security, that are legitimate functions of the federal government. For

example, some federal agencies have basic statutory missions, such as

ensuring public safety and protecting visiting foreign dignitaries, that

necessitate their participation. Also, given the size and magnitude of the

Olympic Games, it seems unlikely that a U.S. city selected to host the

Games would have enough resources to meet all of the needs associated

with hosting the Games, without the help of the federal government.

Foreign national governments, such as Australia and Japan, have

recognized this situation and appear to play more formal, visible roles in

planning and financing the games when hosted in their countries. Although

the U.S. government may not want to play as active a role as these

governments, it may want to, at a minimum, formally recognize the

expanding role of the federal government in funding and supporting the

Olympic Games.

Third, federal funding and support for the Olympic Games that are hosted

in the United States have been provided in an ad hoc manner, agency-byagency, project-by-project, without the benefit of an overall federal policy

and, until recently, without any systematic means for Congress to get an

overall picture of the amounts and types of federal support being planned

or provided for the Olympics Games that are hosted in the United States.

In addition, OMB did not begin to track and report federal agency support

for the Olympic Games significantly in advance of the Games until the 2002

Winter Olympic Games. Moreover, the data on the games that OMB has

collected from the agencies have not been complete or always consistently

prepared by the agencies.

Finally, it is not always clear how much information Congress has on the

intended use of federal funds for the Olympic Games before they are

appropriated. For example, although Congress expected the funds it

designated for the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue to benefit public use of

the Ocoee River after the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, Forest Service

officials did not provide economic analyses showing what the expected

public benefits would be. Thus, before Congress appropriated these funds

it had limited information about the intended public benefit from the

project after the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.
Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 70 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Congress may want to consider whether a governmentwide policy on the

overall role of the federal government with respect to funding and

supporting U.S.-hosted Olympic Games is warranted. If Congress decides

that a governmentwide policy is warranted, it may want to enact

legislation that sets forth the appropriate role of the federal government in

terms of funding and supporting the Olympic Games when held in the

United States. Possible areas that Congress may want to consider for

specifying a federal role or policy include

• selection of a bid city;

• the amount and type of federal funding and support to be provided;

• information desired before and after funding and support are approved;

and

• the federal government oversight to be exercised and by whom.

To enable Congress, the executive branch, and other interested parties to

identify and monitor the total amount and type of federal funding and

support planned for and provided to the Olympic Games when they are

held in the United States, we recommend that the Director of OMB:

• Track and periodically report to Congress each federal agencies’ planned

and actual funding and support of the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic

Games and any future Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted in the

United States, beginning when a U.S. city is awarded the right to host the

Games through the completion of the Games.

• Provide guidance to agencies identifying how data on funding and support

of Olympic Games should be compiled to ensure consistent and complete

reporting and request all federal entities to provide information, including

those that do not normally report data to OMB.

In addition, we recommend that the Administrator of GSA and the

Secretary of VA direct the appropriate officials at their respective agencies

to effectively implement policies and controls to ensure that federal funds

for the Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted in the United States are

used for the appropriate purposes in accordance with the underlying

appropriations and other statutes and all applicable laws, regulations,

policies, and agreements. In commenting on a draft of this report, the

White House Task Force on the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic

Games suggested that GSA and VA consult with OMB on Olympic-related

funding issues.

Matters for

Congressional

Consideration

Recommendations
Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 71 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Most of the agencies and organizations that provided comments provided

technical changes regarding the amount of federal funding and support

provided to the Olympic Games, which we made where appropriate.

However, GSA, VA, and the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., disagreed

that the GSA and VA Olympic-related projects were not done in

accordance with the statutory or administrative requirements or

congressional intent.

OMB’s Deputy Director concurred with our recommendation that it

periodically track and report federal Olympic-related funding and said that

OMB plans to report to Congress on federal support for the upcoming 2002

Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games as part of its preparation for the

fiscal year 2002 President’s budget. OMB also concurred with our

recommendation aimed at ensuring that it collects complete and

consistent data from agencies and believes that it was already carrying out

that recommendation.

Further, OMB noted it generally collects data from agencies’ central

budgeting offices, which it believes are the best source for Olympic-related

funding information. It believes that we often collected our data from

agency regional or noncentral budget offices. In this regard, we collected

data on planned and actual Olympic-related funding and support from a

variety of sources within federal agencies, including central and

component agency budget offices and headquarters and regional program

offices. Because of the inconsistencies we found from all of these sources,

as OMB proceeds to collect Olympic-related funding and support data

from agencies, we continue to believe that it is important for OMB to

ensure that it is receiving complete and consistent information.

GSA’s Administrator said that GSA appreciates the time and effort that we

expended in developing this most worthwhile report. However, the

Administrator said that GSA takes strong exception with our interpretation

of the MOA language and the services provided by Randstad. According to

the Administrator, the express purpose of the Randstad contract was to

provide the logistical and support services intended by Congress and

promised to APOC by the MOA, while, at the same time, permitting GSA’s

compliance with the MOA. He noted that the MOA provision and the

Randstad contract both operated exactly as intended and did not

circumvent the express language of the MOA.

We continue to believe that this arrangement was an attempt by GSA to

circumvent the language in the MOA and that these expenditures were not

consistent with the MOA. As we point out in this report, the MOA provides

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation
Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 72 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

that GSA would not pay the salaries of APOC employees. GSA

acknowledges that the employees involved continued to be “APOC

employees” even though their salaries were paid by Randstad, using the

funds Randstad received from GSA. GSA has not provided us with any

information to indicate that it contracted with Randstad for any specific

services that APOC was not performing. Rather, it appears that the only

reason GSA entered into this agreement with Randstad was to avoid

violating the prohibition in the MOA.

The Acting Secretary of Veteran Affairs concurred with our

recommendation that VA effectively implement policies and controls to

ensure that federal funds for the Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted in

the United States are used for the appropriate purposes in accordance with

the underlying appropriations and other statutes and all applicable laws,

regulations, policies, and agreements. However, the Acting Secretary said

that VA’s expenditure of these funds was “in accordance with

congressional intent.” He said that VA had determined that assisting all

participants in the Paralympics, both veterans and nonveterans, was

necessary to provide veterans with an equal opportunity to compete and,

therefore, was consistent with the appropriations language. We considered

and rejected this argument in reaching our conclusion. The Acting

Secretary also contends, as we recognize in this report, that VA had

informed the House Subcommittee on Appropriations of its intended use

of these funds to assist nonveterans and that the Subcommittee did not

object. There is no legal basis for concluding that the statutory limitation

in effect was nullified because the Subcommittee did not respond, either

positively or negatively, to the letter informing it of VA’s proposed use of

these funds.

In addition, the Acting Secretary believes that certain language contained

in the House Report accompanying VA’s fiscal year 2000 appropriation act,

which urges VA to use general administration funds to help with

preparations for the 2002 Paralympics and does not limit such assistance

to veterans, supports VA’s position regarding the funding for the 1996

Paralympics. Such post-enactment legislative history has no legal

significance regarding the proper interpretation of appropriation

provisions enacted in 1994. Thus, we continue to believe that VA’s use of

these funds to assist nonveterans was inconsistent with the appropriations

language.

The President of the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., expressed concern

that the draft report did not adequately address the profound impact of the

1996 Paralympic Games and the larger social context in which the Games
Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 73 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

were organized. Although evaluating the specific impacts of the 1996

Paralympics on society was not one of our objectives, we agree in

principle that the Paralympics provides an opportunity to view the

potential performance and aspirations of people with disabilities in a new

light.

In addition, the President of the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund, expressed

concern about three issues in our draft report. First, he said the report

cited the use of federal funds for entertainers at the Paralympic Games’

opening ceremony as questionable. However, we did not question the use

of federal funds for this purpose. On the contrary, we concluded that the

expenditures for the opening ceremonies were authorized by the

Department of Education’s appropriation.

Second, the President of the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund disagreed with

our finding that GSA inappropriately used funds for APOC employee

salaries. He explained that GSA and APOC determined that contracting

with a temporary service met the requirements of the MOA and were in

accordance with both the letter and the spirit of congressional direction.

We recognize in the report that the contract in question was not

inconsistent with the underlying appropriation. Nonetheless, other than

expressing his confidence in GSA, the president did not provide us with

any basis to change our conclusion that the expenditures were not

consistent with the express language of the MOA, which states that the

funds would not be used to pay the salaries of APOC employees.

Third, regarding VA’s use of funding designated for veterans to assist

nonveterans, the President of the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund said that

while it is true that nonveteran athletes benefited from the infrastructure

enhancements afforded by the VA funding, the acquisition of specialized

equipment, creation of operational infrastructure, and provision of

appropriately trained personnel for this complex, world-class sport event

far exceeded the $2 million special purpose grant provided through VA.

Therefore, veterans participating in the Paralympic Games were

beneficiaries of not only the $2 million grant but also several million

dollars of other private and public sector funding acquired by APOC. He

also said, and we have noted in chapter 4, that APOC provided the majority

of the disability sports equipment to veteran hospitals and recreation

programs. However, while we believe it was entirely appropriate for APOC

to donate the equipment as it did, from a legal perspective, we do not

believe that such action or the benefits that veterans received from private

funds justifies VA’s decision to use funds expressly appropriated to assist

veterans participating in the Paralympics to assist nonveterans.
Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 74 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Associate Deputy

Administrator said that the agency (1) did not provide funding and support

for the Olympic Games held in Los Angeles, CA, and Atlanta, GA, and (2)

does not plan to participate in the Games in Salt Lake City, UT. We made

this correction in this report.

The President and CEO of SLOC said that SLOC believes that the issues

raised in the draft report are entirely appropriate for public debate.

However, he believes that the emphasis should be placed on Olympicrequired activities, not on spending that would have otherwise occurred.

He explained that to form the foundation of an effective public debate, the

participants should understand which spending is actually Olympicrequired and Olympic-related. He further said that combining Olympic

funding with funding for projects that otherwise would have been

completed for non-Olympic purposes may tend to hide the very significant

spending that is associated with the Olympic Games.

We agree with SLOC that it is important to distinguish between the types

of federal funding and support that are provided to the Olympic Games

and believe that our report makes this distinction. Our report discusses

federal funding and support provided in terms of two categories (i.e.,

federal funding and support provided for planning and staging the Olympic

Games versus preparing the host city for the Games). While we agree with

SLOC’s view that the amount of federal funding and support required to

plan and stage the games is significant, we also believe that the amount of

federal funding for preparing the host city is significant and should be

reported and available for review and discussion as well.

The Department of Health and Human Services suggested that we adjust

funding data for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 for inflation in a different

manner. However, to maintain consistency among agencies, we adjusted

all agencies’ data in a similar manner.

The Chairman of the Board of Directors of TVA said that TVA agrees in

principle with those aspects of the report involving TVA. TVA also believes

that the $5 million investment in the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue

proved to be a good business investment for Polk County, TN.

The Department of Agriculture’s Chief Financial Officer said that the

Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service; the

Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense Program Integration; and the

Department of the Interior’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife,
Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 75 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

and Parks said that they generally concurred with the information in our

draft report.

In August 2000, the Department of Transportation’s audit liaison; the vicechairs of the White House Task Force on the 2002 Winter Olympic and

Paralympic Games; the Environmental Protection Agency’s GAO Liaison; a

Department of Energy Defense Program Analyst; an official from the

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Office of Financial

Management; an official from the Department of the Treasury’s Office of

Enforcement; and the President of the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los

Angeles provided us with oral technical comments, which were

incorporated where appropriate.
Appendix I

Federal Funding and Support Provided to the

1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles

Page 76 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousandsa

Planning and staging the 1984 Summer Games

Federal organization Project or activity Expenditure

Designated

by Congress

Department of Agriculture $234 $0

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Equestrian event: quarantine horses and

increased agency services

234 0

Department of Commerce 382 0

Economic Development Administration Increased agency services 146 0

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

 Administration

Weather forecasting services for Olympic events 236 0

Department of Defensec Safety and security personnel, equipment, and

services

46,703 72,971

Department of Health and Human Services Safety- and security-related services 309 0

Department of Justice Increased agency services 9,904 0

Drug Enforcement Administration Safety- and security-related services 414 0

Federal Bureau of Investigation Safety- and security-related services 7,536 0

Immigration and Naturalization Service Safety- and security-related services and

increased agency services

1,947 0

U.S. Marshals Serviced Safety- and security-related services 0 0

Interpol Safety- and security-related services 7 0

Department of State Increased agency services 2,865 0

Department of Transportation 3,953 0

U.S. Coast Guard Safety- and security-related services 2,701 0

Federal Aviation Administration Safety- and security-related services and

increased agency services

1,252

Department of the Treasury 7,282 0

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Safety- and security-related services 2,744 0

U.S. Secret Service Safety- and security-related services 2,366 0

U.S. Customs Service Safety- and security-related services 2,172 0

Department of Veterans Affairs Not available 572 0

Federal Communications Commission Communications systems improvements 264 0

U.S. Information Agency Increased agency services 2,186 0

Totale, f $74,654 $72,971

a

1984 dollars were converted to 1999 dollars by dividing 1984 dollars by 0.6852, a conversion factor

derived from chain-type price indexes for gross domestic product.

b

"Designated by Congress" refers to funds that were specifically designated for an Olympic-related

purpose in appropriations acts or committee reports accompanying those acts.

c

Congress appropriated $72,971,000 and DOD spent $46,703,000. The unused funding authority was

returned to the U.S. Treasury.

d

The U.S. Marshals Service reported that it provided $300,642; however, the Department of State

reimbursed it. As such, we have included this amount in the Department’s figures.

e

Personnel costs are generally not included in these amounts, with the exception of the Department of

Justice figures.

f

Totals do not include about $53 million received by the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee

from the U.S. Mint as a result of the sale of Olympic Commemorative Coins.

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by officials from OMB and the listed federal organizations.
Appendix II

Federal Funding and Support Provided to the

1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta

Page 77 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousandsa

Planning and staging the

1996 Summer Games

Preparing the

host city of Atlanta

Federal organization Project or activity Expenditure

Designated

by

Congressb

Expenditure

Designated

by

Congress

Department of Agriculture $19,530 $6,252 $2,059 $522

Animal, Plant, Health, and

 Inspection Service

Equestrian event: quarantine horses and

increased agency services

509 0 0 0

Natural Resources

 Conservation Service

Planted flowers and grasses at Olympic

venues and city parks

331 0 0 0

U.S. Forest Service Whitewater Olympic venue construction 17,252 6,252 0 0

Planted trees throughout the city 0 0 2,059 522

Safety- and security-related services 1,438 0 0 0

Department of Commerce 4,337 0 4,966 0

Economic Development

 Administration

Olympic stadium sewer construction 1,248 0 0 0

Ocoee, Tennessee, sewer construction 0 0 793 0

Funded foreign visitors’ trip to the United

States for Paralympic events

104 0 0 0

Business district revitalization 0 0 3,130 0

Retrofit gym for Paralympic events 492 0 0 0

RDA street development 0 0 1,043 0

Economic studies, business promotions for

Olympic games

1,396 0 0 0

National Oceanic and

 Atmospheric Administration

Weather forecasting services for Olympic

events

1,097 0 0 0

Department of Defensec36,339 36,310 2,434 2,173

Office of Special Events Safety- and security-related services 19,407 19,407 0 0

U.S. Army Forces Command Safety- and security-related services 16,903 16,903 0 0

Corps of Engineers Savannah River Walk construction for

Olympic yachting event

0 0 2,173 2,173

Campground improvements 0 0 261 0

Temporary rangers 29 0 0 0

Department of Education Paralympic Organizing Committee: 7,419 7,304 0 0

Administration and staffing costs 6,115 0 0 0

Opening and closing ceremonies 1,252 0 0 0

Related conference costs 52 0 0 0

Department of Energy 4,686 0 0 0

Swimming pool heating and solar panel

installation for Olympic swimming events

3,495 0 0 0

Safety- and security-related services 1,191 0 0 0

Department of Health and

 Human Services

5,110 0 0 0

Food and Drug Administration Public health safety- and security-related

services

257 0 0 0

Centers for Disease Control Public health safety- and security-related

services

193 0 0 0

Environmental Health Public health safety- and security-related

services

764 0 0 0
Appendix II

Federal Funding and Support Provided to the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta

Page 78 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousandsa

Planning and staging the

1996 Summer Games

Preparing the

host city of Atlanta

Federal organization Project or activity Expenditure

Designated

by

Congressb

Expenditure

Designated

by

Congress

Office of Emergency

Preparedness

Public health safety- and security-related

services

3,896 0 0 0

Social Security

 Administration

Paralympic ceremonies and events videotaping

1,565 1,565 0 0

Department of Housing and

 Urban Development

2,087 0 15,643 0

Pass-through grant for Department of

Veterans Affairs for Paralympic events

2,087 0 0 0

Public housing renovation 0 0 9,965 0

Community planning and development 0 0 5,634 0

Funds for planting trees 0 0 44 0

Department of the Interior 1,562 0 13,019 13,043

National Park Service Safety- and security-related services 689 0 0 0

Martin Luther King historical site

development

0 0 13,019 13,043

Increased park services 873 0 0 0

Department of Justice 22,449 4,174 0 0

Community Relations Service Mitigation of racial conflicts 30 0 0 0

Drug Enforcement

 Administration

300 agents for safety- and security-related

services

2,699 0 0 0

Federal Bureau of

 Investigation

1,200 staff for safety- and security-related

services

11,527 0 0 0

Immigration and Naturalization

 Service

130 additional staff to assist with processing

international passengers

1,535 0 0 0

Civil Rights Division Americans With Disabilities Act 153 0 0 0

Office of Justice Programs Overtime costs for Atlanta police 4,174 4,174 0 0

Safety and security study 1,356 0

Executive Office,

 U.S. Attorneys

Added equipment and four attorneys 600 0 0 0

U.S. Marshals Service 150 Marshals for safety- and security-related

services

375 0 0 0

Department of Labor 3,036 2,609 0 0

Training and employment grants for Olympic

venue construction

427 0 0 0

Training for volunteers at Paralympic events 2,609 2,609 0 0

Department of State Increased agency services 1,044 0 0 0

Department of

 Transportation

22,781 16,694 369,370 157,137

Federal Highway

 Administration

Road signs to Olympic venues 1,624 0 0 0

Accelerated road and bridge projects 0 0 215,028 0

Intelligent transportation system 0 0 40,819 60,622

Federal Transit Administration Accelerated mass transit projects 0 0 113,523 96,515

Olympic Transportation System 16,694 16,694 0 0
Appendix II

Federal Funding and Support Provided to the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta

Page 79 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousandsa

Planning and staging the

1996 Summer Games

Preparing the

host city of Atlanta

Federal organization Project or activity Expenditure

Designated

by

Congressb

Expenditure

Designated

by

Congress

Federal Aviation

 Administration

Temporary facilities and increased services 1,617 0 0 0

Federal Railroad

 Administration

Safety- and security-related services 39 0 0 0

U.S. Coast Guard Safety- and security-related services 2,807 0 0 0

Department of the Treasury 7,082 5,715 0 0

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

 and Firearms

Safety- and security-related services 2,477 2,295 0 0

Internal Revenue Service 100 agents for safety and security related

services

232 0 0 0

U.S. Secret Service Safety- and security-related services 3,548 3,420 0 0

U.S. Customs Service 150 inspectors for increased services 825 0 0 0

Department of Veterans

 Affairs

1,716 0 0 0

Safety- and security-related services 1,617 0 0 0

Donated excess supplies for Paralympics 99 0 0 0

Corporation for National

 and Community Services

Safety- and security-related services for

Paralympic events

3,130 0 0 0

Environmental Protection

 Agency

8,210 7,304 0 0

Olympic stadium-related sewer construction 6,780 7,304 0 0

Olympic venue bike path construction 313 0 0 0

Paralympics: loan of EPA employee 161 0 0 0

Safety- and security-related services 719 0 0 0

Increased agency services 237 0 0 0

Federal Communications

 Commission

Communications systems improvement 39 0 0 0

Federal Emergency

 Management Agency

Safety- and security-related services 11,602 0 0 0

Federal Executive Board Federal employee volunteered salary for

safety- and security-related services

1,821 0 0 0

General Services

 Administration

Paralympic Organizing Committee

administrative and staffing costs

2,086 2,087 0 0

Tennessee Valley Authority Whitewater rapids event venue construction

and water releases

5,118 0 0 0

U.S. Information Agency Olympic information programs 7,551 0 0 0

U.S. Postal Service 4,293 0 16,428 0

Increased postal services 4,293 0 0 0

Building renovations 0 0 16,428 0

Totald, e 184,593 $90,014 $423,919 $172,875

a

1999 dollars were calculated by dividing 1996 dollars by 0.9584, a conversion factor derived from

chain-type price indexes for gross domestic product.

b

"Designated by Congress" refers to funds that were specifically designated for an Olympic-related

purpose in appropriations acts or committee reports accompanying those acts.
Appendix II

Federal Funding and Support Provided to the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta

Page 80 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

c

According to Department of Defense officials, the Department spent about $36 million of the $52

million designated by Congress for the 1996 Olympic Games. The remaining $16 million were

maintained by the Department for future athletic events.

d

Personnel costs are generally not included in these amounts, with the exception of the U.S. Forest

Service figure.

e

Totals do not include about $27.3 million received by ACOG from the U.S. Mint as a result of the sale

of Olympic Commemorative Coins.

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by officials from OMB and the listed federal organizations.
Appendix III

Federal Funding and Support Planned and

Provided to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games

in Salt Lake City

Page 81 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousandsa

Planning and staging the

2002 Winter Games

Preparing the host city of

Salt Lake City

Federal

organization Project or activity PlannedbExpenditure

Designated

by

CongresscPlannedbExpenditure

Designated

by

Congressc

Department of

 Agriculture

$7,242 $2,901 $0 $8,887 $5,473 $4,546

U.S. Forest Service Olympic planning and

increased services

7,242 2,901 0 0 0 0

Forest improvements 0 0 0 8,887 5,473 4,546

Department of

 Commerce

205 0 92 0 0 0

National Oceanic and

 Atmospheric

 Administration

Increased weather

forecasting services for

Olympic events

205 0 92 0 0 0

Department of

 Defense

Safety- and securityrelated services

24,691 45 45 0 0 0

Department of

 Education

Paralympics 876 44 876 0 0 0

Department of

 Energy

Safety- and securityrelated services

1,586 194 0 0 0 0

Department of Health

 and Human Services

9,494 0 0 0 0 0

Food and Drug

Administration

Public health safety- and

security-related services

598 0 0 0 0 0

Centers for Disease

 Control

Safety- and securityrelated services1,923 0 0 0 0 0

Office of Emergency

Preparedness

Public health safety- and

security-related services

6,973 0 0 0 0 0

Department of

 Housing and Urban

 Development

3,172 0 0 0 0 0

Housing for media 1,894 0 0 0 0 0

Housing for security

personnel

1,278 0 0 0 0 0

Department of the

 Interior

1,270 153 0 0 0 0

National Park Service Increased park services 1,252 153 0 0 0 0

Bureau of Land

 Management

Increased Bureau services 5 0 0 0 0 0

Safety- and securityrelated services13 0 0 0 0 0

Department of Justice 47,060 14,960 16,950 0 0 0

Federal Bureau of

 Investigation

Safety- and securityrelated services21,486 767 0 0 0 0

Immigration and

 Naturalization Service

Safety- and securityrelated services2,431 3 0 0 0 0

Office of Community

 Oriented Policing

Grants for safety- and

security-related services

10,417 10,417 10,417 0 0 0
Appendix III

Federal Funding and Support Planned and Provided to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in

Salt Lake City

Page 82 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousandsa

Planning and staging the

2002 Winter Games

Preparing the host city of

Salt Lake City

Federal

organization Project or activity Plannedb

Expenditure

Designated

by

Congressc

PlannedbExpenditure

Designated

by

Congressc

Office of Justice

 Programs

Grants to local law

enforcement

8,806 3,692 3,692 0 0 0

Executive Office of U.S.

 Attorneys

Safety- and securityrelated services1,027 81 0 0 0 0

Community Relations

 Service

Assess racial tensions 52 0 0 0 0 0

Counter terrorism fund Safety- and securityrelated services2,841 0 2,841 0 0 0

Department of State Increased agency services 663 3 0 0 0 0

Department of

 Transportation

83,854 26,838 36,896 998,275 257,318 318,783

Federal Highway

 Administration

Olympic transportation

planning

10,227 5,785 5,682 0 0 0

Accelerated road and

bridge projects

0 0 0 645,315 199,678 18,541

Olympic event access

road: Snow Basin

14,962 14,962 14,962 0 0 0

Olympic event access

road: Winter Sports Park

4,106 3,162 0 0 0 0

Federal Transit

 Administration

Olympic Transportation

System (OTS)d

47,348 1,402 2,788 0 0 0

Olympic infrastructure

Improvements

Included in

above for

OTS

465 9,291 0 0 0

Olympic park and ride

lots

Included in

above for

OTS

1,024 4,173 0 0 0

Light rail : Downtown to

University of Utah line

0 0 0 91,369 5,019 91,369

Light Rail: North/South line 0 0 0 228,598 48,850 202,919

Olympic intelligent

transportation system

deployment

0 0 0 3,788 0 0

Commuter rail 0 0 0 3,788 1,849 3,776

Intermodal centers 0 0 0 9,470 0 2,178

Federal Aviation

 Administration

Safety- and securityrelated services6,098 0 0 0 0 0

Facility improvements 0 0 0 15,947 1,922 0

Federal Railroad

 Administration

Safety- and securityrelated services388 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. Coast Guard Safety- and securityrelated services407 0 0 0 0 0

Office of Secretary of

 Transportation

Safety- and securityrelated services318 38 0 0 0 0
Appendix III

Federal Funding and Support Planned and Provided to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in

Salt Lake City

Page 83 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousandsa

Planning and staging the

2002 Winter Games

Preparing the host city of

Salt Lake City

Federal

organization Project or activity Plannedb

Expenditure

Designated

by

Congressc

PlannedbExpenditure

Designated

by

Congressc

Department of the

 Treasury

58,693 71 0 0 0 0

Bureau of Alcohol,

 Tobacco and Firearms

Safety- and securityrelated services8,811 0 0 0 0 0

Internal Revenue Service Safety- and securityrelated services1,520 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. Secret Service Safety- and securityrelated services13,704 46 0 0 0 0

U.S. Customs Service Safety- and securityrelated services19,320 21 0 0 0 0

Wireless Program Safety- and securityrelated services15,285 0 0 0 0 0

Office of Enforcement Safety- and securityrelated services53 4 0 0 0 0

Department of Veterans

 Affairs

Safety- and securityrelated services

2,746 1 0 0 0 0

Environmental

 Protection Agency

2,961 0 2,083 0 0 0

Olympic venue-related

sewer construction

2,083 0 2,083 0 0 0

Planning and increased

services

473 0 0 0 0 0

Safety- and securityrelated services405 0 0 0 0 0

Federal Communications

 Commission

Communication systems

improvements

137 0 0 0 0 0

Federal Emergency

 Management Agency

Safety- and securityrelated services

6,107 0 0 0 0 0

General Services

 Administration

Safety- and securityrelated services

1,472 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. Information Agency Education, cultural affairs 80 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. Postal Service Increased postal services 1,894 0 0 4,673 0 0

Facilities improvements 0 0 0 4,673 0 0

Increased postal services 1,894 0 0 0 0 0

Totale$254,203 $ 45,210 $56,942 $1,011,835 $262,791 $323,329

a

1999 dollars were calculated by dividing 2002 dollars by 1.056, a conversion factor derived from

chain-type price indexes for gross domestic product.

b

Planned includes funds already expended.

c

"Designated by Congress" refers to funds that were specifically designated for an Olympic-related

purpose in appropriations acts or committee reports accompanying those acts.

d

In July 1998 the SLOC requested $137 million in FTA funds for the Olympic Spectator Transit

System (OSTS). In February 2000, the SLOC revised this request to $91 million. On March 3, 2000,

FTA proposed a maximum contribution of $47.3 million for the 2002 Olympics and Paralympics.

However, a current bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 4475, provides $56.8 million for Olympic

buses and facilities and $9.5 million for the Olympic Infrastructure Investment.
Appendix III

Federal Funding and Support Planned and Provided to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in

Salt Lake City

Page 84 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

e

Personnel costs are generally not included in these amounts, with the exception of the U.S. Forest

Service.

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by officials from OMB and the listed federal organizations.
Appendix IV

Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget

Page 85 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix IV

Comments From the Office of Management and Budget

Page 86 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix V

Comments From the U.S. General Services

Administration

Page 87 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix V

Comments From the U.S. General Services Administration

Page 88 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix VI

Comments From the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs

Page 89 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix VI

Comments From the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Page 90 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix VII

Comments From the U.S. Disabled Athletes

Fund, Inc.

Page 91 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix VII

Comments From the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc.

Page 92 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix VII

Comments From the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc.

Page 93 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix VII

Comments From the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc.

Page 94 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix VIII

Comments From the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration

Page 95 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix VIII

Comments From the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Page 96 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix IX

Comments From the Salt Lake City Olympic

Organizing Committee

Page 97 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Appendix IX

Comments From the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee

Page 98 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Page 99 GAO/GGD-00-183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games
Ordering Copies of GAO Reports

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA

and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or

more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25

percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using

fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to

obtain these lists.

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

To contact GAO FraudNET use:

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-Mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(240348)