    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      THE OLYMPICS SITE SELECTION PROCESS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                   before the

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                          OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                     OCTOBER 14, 1999--THE NEED FOR REFORM
                 DECEMBER 15, 1999--REVIEW OF THE REFORM EFFORT

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. 106-88

                                   ----------

                Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

                      THE OLYMPICS SITE SELECTION PROCESS

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    60-363CC                    WASHINGTON : 2000

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

                         TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman

    W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana     JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio               HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida           EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
    CLIFF STEARNS, Florida               EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Vice Chairman                      SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
    JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania     BART GORDON, Tennessee
    CHRISTOPHER COX, California          PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
    NATHAN DEAL, Georgia                 BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma              ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    RICHARD BURR, North Carolina         RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California         BART STUPAK, Michigan
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG GANSKE, Iowa                    THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
    CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia             ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
    TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma              GENE GREEN, Texas
    RICK LAZIO, New York                 KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
    BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
    JAMES E. ROGAN, California           DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
    HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico           BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona             LOIS CAPPS, California
    CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
    Mississippi
    VITO FOSSELLA, New York
    ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    ED BRYANT, Tennessee
    ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

                       James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff

                       James D. Barnette, General Counsel

          Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

                                     ______

                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                         FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman

    JOE BARTON, Texas                    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
    CHRISTOPHER COX, California          HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    RICHARD BURR, North Carolina         BART STUPAK, Michigan
      Vice Chairman                      GENE GREEN, Texas
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California         KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
    GREG GANSKE, Iowa                    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
    ED BRYANT, Tennessee                   (Ex Officio)
    TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
      (Ex Officio)

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                   __________
                                                                       Page

    Hearings held:
        October 14, 1999.............................................     1
        December 15, 1999............................................   451
    Testimony of:
        Baker, Hon. Howard H.........................................   506
        Blair, Bonnie................................................   533
        Carrard, Francois, Director General, International Olympic
          Committee..................................................   134
        Ctvrtlik, Robert.............................................   550
        DeFrantz, Anita L., Vice President, International Olympic
          Committee..................................................   139
        Duberstein, Kenneth M.:
            October 14, 1999.........................................   176
            December 15, 1999........................................   513
        Easton, James L., Member, International Olympic Committee....   144
        Helmick, Robert H., Former President, U.S. Olympic Committee.    33
        Hybl, William J., President, U.S. Olympic Committee..........    30
        Kissinger, Henry:
            October 14, 1999.........................................   175
            December 15, 1999........................................   511
        Mills, Billy.................................................   554
        Naber, John..................................................   537
        Payne, William P., Cochair, Atlanta Olympic Committee........    20
        Samaranch, Juan Antonio, President, International Olympic
          Committee, accompanied by Francois Carrard, Director
          General, International Olympic Committee, counsel to Mr.
          Samaranch..................................................   468
        Stapleton, Bill, Chairman, USOC Athletes Advisory Council....   545
        Strug, Kerrie................................................   556
        Szott, Kevin.................................................   560
        Westbrook, Peter.............................................   557
        Young, Andrew, Good Works International, Cochair, Atlanta
          Olympic Committee..........................................    25
    Material submitted for the record by:
        Baker, Hon. Howard H., prepared statement of.................   191
        Bell, Griffin B., King & Spalding, letter dated September 16,
          1999, to Hon. Thomas Bliley and Hon. Fred Upton, enclosing
          material for the record....................................   316
        Report of the Special Bid Oversight Commission...............   227
        Report to the International Olympic Committee by the Toronto
          Ontario Olympic Council....................................   193

                                     (iii)

            THE OLYMPICS SITE SELECTION PROCESS: THE NEED FOR REFORM

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1999

                      House of Representatives,
                                 Committee on Commerce,
                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton
    (chairman) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Upton, Barton, Burr,
    Bilbray, Whitfield, Ganske, Bryant, Klink, Waxman, Stupak,
    McCarthy, Strickland, and DeGette.
        Also present: Representatives Hefley and Isakson.
        Staff present: Jan Faiks, majority counsel; Eric Link,
    majority counsel; Clay Alspach, legislative clerk; Chris
    Knauer, minority investigator; and Brendan Kelsay, minority
    investigator.
        Mr. Upton. Good morning. Today the subcommittee is holding
    its first hearing on the site selection process associated with
    the awarding of the International Olympic Games. The purpose of
    the hearing will be to review the conduct of the Atlanta
    Organizing Committee, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and the
    International Olympic Committee in connection with the bidding
    for the 1996 Olympic Summer Games. We also are going to hear
    about the reforms that these organizations are proposing that
    hopefully will guarantee the end of this culture of corruption,
    a culture leading to a system that appears to suggest the host
    city is not judged on its merits, but rather on its gifts.
        This committee started reviewing Atlanta's bid after we
    learned about the outrageous vote buying that occurred in Salt
    Lake City. We are hoping that Salt Lake City's actions were an
    aberration, but sadly, as the Atlanta report so graphically
    confirmed, Salt Lake City was not an aberration. True,
    Atlanta's experience does not rise to the same level as Salt
    Lake City, but it is also true that there is a system or, as I
    have identified, a culture of corruption that exists within the
    bidding for the Olympic Games that encourages the practice of
    excessive lobbying of IOC members. This activity, this culture
    must stop. It is tarnishing the pride and prestige of the
    Olympic Games, and it is not fair to the athletes or the cities
    all over the world who are bidding for the honor of hosting the
    games.
        We are going to hear from the cochairs of the Atlanta
    games. They have been very open and frank in their amended
    report to the committee, and I appreciate very much the effort
    that Judge Griffin Bell has made to present the facts regarding
    the Atlanta bid process to this committee.
        The Atlanta report shows that Atlanta officials and
    volunteers gave many excessive gifts that were expensive;
    travel to OIC members as well; pages and pages of Cabbage Patch
    dolls, shopping sprees, carburetor kits, brake pads, jewelry,
    children's clothes, shoes, golf clubs, Spode china, computer
    parts. The list goes on and on. IOC traveled on Atlanta's
    expense account to Walt Disney World, Miami, Honolulu, New
    York, Sea Island, Georgia, just to name a few of the locations,
    but just as troubling the report shows that IOC members
    themselves asked Atlanta organizers for health care services,
    employment opportunities, athletic training, lavish hospitality
    and first-class travel, political and scholastic assistance.
    Atlanta was eager to accommodate these requests, and based on
    the documents presented to this committee, Atlanta made every
    effort to satisfy virtually every request.
        Is this the price that we want to use to award the Olympic
    Games? No. It's wrong. Integrity and ethics do matter. The end
    does not justify the means.
        Additionally it's disturbing to the committee as the many
    gifts and favors that were offered, Atlanta engaged in a
    comprehensive intelligence gathering to learn details about IOC
    members' likes and dislikes. Consultants, officials from other
    bid cities, members of the press, IOC members themselves, even
    Atlanta hostesses and drivers gathered information on IOC
    members for the Atlanta organizers. The smallest detail or
    nuance was not too insignificant to record in an IOC's member
    profile for later use in choosing a personal gift or arranging
    travel for a member's child. The Atlanta documents list the
    favorite foods and beverages, colors, hobbies, strengths and
    weaknesses of every IOC member. Details as to whose wife needed
    special treatment because she could influence her husband's
    vote were carefully listed.
        The IOC profiles struck me as going too far, too explicit,
    and certainly an invasion of privacy. Is this what is necessary
    to win a vote to be a host city? I certainly hope not.
        Today the committee will hear from Francois Carrard,
    Director General of the IOC; and Anita DeFrantz, one of four
    Vice Presidents on the IOC Executive Committee; and Jim Easton,
    an IOC member from the United States. Mr. Samaranch is
    committed to appear before this committee on December 15, and
    we look forward to his testimony at that time. Ms. DeFrantz was
    personally involved in helping Atlanta win the Olympic Games,
    and I'm anxious to hear her views on the bidding process.
        I would hope that everyone here today knows that the
    culture of corruption that has evolved in the bidding process
    must stop. We have to find ways to reform how cities are
    awarded the right and privilege to host the games.
        Our last panel today is composed of distinguished Americans
    who are working to change the bidding process. Senator Howard
    Baker, Ken Duberstein, and Dr. Henry Kissinger will share with
    the committee their reviews on how this system must be changed,
    and we certainly welcome their testimony.
        In my district I have had the pleasure to have two great
    Olympic heroes live in my home county: Muhammad Ali and Jesse
    Owens. We all remember that Ali lit the Olympic flame to open
    the Atlanta Olympics. Ali represents all that is right with the
    Olympics today. Unfortunately, this hearing represents all that
    is wrong, the painful contrast.
        The Olympics hold a special place on the world stage. They
    are more than a sporting event. They are an exchange of ideas.
    They are a celebration of global cultures. They are a time when
    the world can come together, united in sports and certainly in
    peace.
        Sadly, the organizers of the Atlanta games admitted that
    they had to play a bidding game to win the games. I believe
    that they made a choice to play that game, and it was the wrong
    choice. I am angry at the USOC for not conducting proper
    oversight of both Atlanta and Salt Lake City's efforts. I'm
    also deeply troubled that the IOC has allowed the Olympic rings
    to become tarnished. This system is not fair to great athletes
    like Ali and Owens and all the thousands of people in the world
    who work and practice long hours to become Olympians.
        I will do everything in my power to ensure that the culture
    of corruption is destroyed. I will follow the reform movement
    closely, and I will look forward very much to hearing from Mr.
    Samaranch on the December 15.
        There are those that have suggested that these hearings are
    about trashing the Olympics. They could not be more wrong.
    These hearings are about cleaning up the Olympics, removing the
    stain created by the tawdry behavior of the Atlanta Olympic
    Organizing Committee, the USOC and the IOC. We have a lot of
    work to do. Let's let the process begin.
        I yield to the vice chair, the ranking member of this
    subcommittee, Mr. Klink.
        Mr. Klink. I thank the chairman, and, Mr. Chairman, I would
    tell you in actuality it is with great regret that I find
    myself here today.
        Like most members, I have tremendous respect for the
    Olympic movement and for its athletes, but what has happened in
    Salt Lake City and Atlanta deserves special attention if we're
    really going to concern ourself with the future of the games.
    We would be naive if we had not recognized that the Olympics
    had become big business. For the cities that are lucky enough
    to host the games, its many sponsors, and the IOC itself, the
    Olympics can mean several billion dollars in local revenue and
    infrastructure improvements for a host city. It can also mean
    the city will become the focus of the world community for
    weeks, months, even years, producing both immediate and long-
    term benefits.
        The IOC was awarded nearly $400 million in revenues from
    the Atlanta games. NBC has paid almost $3.5 billion to the IOC
    to broadcast the games until 2008. But it is the process used
    by a host city to bid for those games and the methods used by
    the IOC to award the games that are the focus of today's
    hearing. Both are seriously flawed and in need of reform.
        The countless documents examined by the subcommittee
    suggest that the games aren't automatically awarded to a city
    based on technical merit. Instead today's bid process has
    encouraged a system where lavish gifts and other special favors
    are heaped on IOC members in order to influence their vote.
    This has resulted in a system where the ability to host the
    games based on what's best for the athletes may take a back
    seat to other considerations, such as how ingratiating a bid
    city was to a particular IOC member. Perhaps the 1991 Toronto,
    Ontario, Olympic Council report to the IOC described the bid
    process the best. The council noted that one of the key factors
    needed to win the right to host the Olympic Games was for a
    city to, ``demonstrate why it is in each IOC member's personal
    interest to vote for and to award the games to that city.'' Any
    system where the bid city must prove that it is in the personal
    interest of an IOC member to vote for any city is a system
    that's gone astray.
        Mr. Chairman, many would like to think that the giving of
    lavish gifts and opulent travel and other special favors was
    unknown until the tawdry events of Salt Lake City became
    public, but I have to take exception to that notion. The
    activities reported in the Salt Lake City bid revealed in the
    King & Spalding report on the Atlanta bid appeared to have been
    around for many years.
        Let me quote from a Sports Illustrated article written 13
    years ago back in 1986. This was about a bid for the 1992
    Summer Olympics. This is a quote: ``The tactics of Olympic
    bidders vary somewhat, but they're never very subtle. The most
    popular strategy is simply to shower everyone on the IOC with
    gifts, trips, and parties. No city did this better--did better
    in this area than Paris. Whenever an IOC member felt the need
    to vacation in Paris for a while, he was instantly sent airline
    tickets and given a free room at the elegant Hotel de Crillon
    as well as reserved tables at Maxim's or Tour d'Argent with the
    bill paid in advance. Members traveled everywhere in
    limousines, sometimes with a police escort, and they were given
    perfume, raincoats, jogging suits and discounts at some of
    Paris's finest shops.''
        The 1991 report I cited earlier by the Toronto, Ontario,
    Olympic Council, whose bid to host the Olympics, by the way,
    was unsuccessful, also sounded several alarms. That's nearly a
    decade ago. Some of them dealt with travel. Some dealt with
    excessive gift-giving. Let me quote from what Toronto told the
    IOC in 1991: ``No single issue is so open to abuse as gifts and
    other material inducements to individual IOC members. Perhaps
    no single issue has the power to undermine the integrity of the
    IOC as this particular one. Unfortunately many IOC members
    expect to receive gifts above and beyond what anyone would
    judge to be courteous and gracious. Cash, jewelry or other
    items easily converted to cash were hinted at on several
    occasions. We were surprised to discover on more than one
    shopping trip that the bid city host was expected to pay for
    all purchases made by not only the member, but the guests as
    well.''
        Again, Mr. Chairman, these kinds of reports were not made
    yesterday. They were made nearly a decade ago. Further, as you
    review the various investigations that follow the Salt Lake
    City revelations, it appears that many of those involved during
    the host city bids knew this culture existed. Yet the IOC has
    chosen not to reform and thus to allow a shameful system to
    continue and, in fact, even worsen. It is for those reasons I
    still remain somewhat skeptical that the IOC is serious at this
    time.
        Mr. Chairman, with us today are officials from Atlanta
    responsible for both winning and hosting the 1996 Olympic
    Summer Games. While I'm proud the United States won the right
    to host those games, I'm disappointed with the process that
    Atlanta chose to win that bid. While I agree with those that
    say the Atlanta bid tactics weren't as unrestrained as Salt
    Lake's, I still believe they went too far. Instances of lavish
    travel, gifts and other special favors were given or were
    attempted to be given to IOC members whose vote was critical to
    Atlanta.
        Do these attempts represent an effort to outright buy
    votes? I can't say that. What the evidence does show, however,
    is that numerous gifts and favors were given by Atlanta
    officials that had little or nothing to do with demonstrating
    that city's ability to host the game. What Atlanta officials
    did to win the 1996 bid was at times borderline. Atlanta
    officials claimed they played within the bid system's culture
    as they found it, but one might argue that the Atlanta
    officials did nothing to help stop or to reform an ethically
    bankrupt process. Instead, Atlanta's actions served only to
    reinforce if not to endorse an already tawdry system that
    arguably made future bid efforts for other cities even more
    polluted. One can only wonder if Atlanta or cities before
    Atlanta had blown the whistle on this system, whether Salt Lake
    City would be in the mess it's in today.
        But I'm not here to cast aspersions on Atlanta or anyone
    else. Instead I'm here because I want to work with you, Mr.
    Chairman and the other members of this committee and the many
    witnesses before us today to fix a system that we all agree is
    broken. I'm looking forward to the testimony of the people
    before us today because we need to know what went wrong in
    order to support meaningful corrections to our own systems as
    well as those in the IOC.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, while I'm saddened by the events
    that took place in both Salt Lake City and Atlanta, I must
    point out that it is because of the exposure of those events by
    this country's governmental institutions, including the U.S.
    Congress, the free press, and the public, that reforms are now
    being contemplated by the IOC. I believe good has come out of
    this process, and by throwing open all the files and the
    records of how the bid process worked for two U.S. cities,
    admittedly an often painful and embarrassing experience, we've
    discovered some serious flaws in the IOC system and several of
    our own. Our bid processes will be improved because of what
    we've done over the past year, and hopefully so, too, will the
    final reforms adopted by the IOC. I only wonder if certain
    other former bid countries could also benefit by examining in
    close detail their own bid experiences.
        Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that while some in
    the IOC may have strayed from what the Olympic movement have
    been about and have sadly used the bid process to seek personal
    reward, most have not and are extremely hard-working and are
    very dedicated individuals. In fact, I believe that the vast
    makeup of the IOC care very deeply about the health and the
    integrity of the Olympic Games.
        I look forward to working with all of our friends from
    abroad as well as many outstanding witnesses who are before us
    to build an Olympics that is transparent, accountable, and free
    of the recent activities that have so jeopardized the Olympic
    flame.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Ron Klink follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Klink, a Representative in Congress from
                           the State of Pennsylvania
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, in actuality, it is with great regret that I find
    myself here today. Like most Members, I have tremendous respect for the
    Olympic movement and its athletes. But what has happened in Salt Lake
    City, and now Atlanta, deserves special attention if we really are to
    concern ourselves with the games' future.
        We'd be naive if we didn't recognize that the Olympics have become
    big business for the cities lucky enough to host the games, its many
    sponsors, and the IOC itself. The Olympics can mean several billion
    dollars in local revenue and infrastructure improvement for a host
    city. It can also mean that the city will become a focus of the world
    community for weeks, months--even years, producing both immediate and
    long-term benefits. The IOC was awarded nearly $400 million in revenues
    from the Atlanta games. NBC has paid almost $3.5 billion to the IOC to
    broadcast the games until 2008.
        But it is the process used by a host city to bid for the games and
    the methods used by the IOC to award the games that are the focus of
    today's hearing. Both are seriously flawed and in need of reform. The
    countless documents examined by this subcommittee suggest that the
    games aren't automatically awarded to a city based on technical merit.
    Instead, today's bid process has encouraged a system where lavish gifts
    and other special favors are heaped on IOC members in order to
    influence their vote. This has resulted in a system where the ability
    to host the games (based on what's best for the athletes), may take a
    back seat to other considerations, such as how ingratiating a bid city
    was to a particular IOC member.
        Perhaps the 1991 Toronto Ontario Olympic Council, report to the IOC
    describes the bid process best. The council noted that one of the key
    factors needed to win the right to host the Olympic games, was for a
    bid city to ``demonstrate why it is in each IOC Member's personal
    interest to vote for, and award the Games to that city [emphasis
    added].'' Any system where the bidding city must prove that it is in
    the ``personal interest'' of an IOC member to vote for any city is a
    system that has gone astray.
        Mr. Chairman, many would like to think that the giving of lavish
    gifts, opulent travel, and other special favors was unknown until the
    tawdry events of Salt Lake surfaced. But I might take exception to that
    notion. The activities reported in the Salt Lake City bid, and revealed
    in the King and Spalding report on the Atlanta bid, appear to have been
    around for years. Let me quote from a Sports Illustrated article
    written way back in 1986 about the bid for the 1992 summer Olympic
    games:
            ``The tactics of Olympic bidders vary somewhat, but they are
            never very subtle. The most popular strategy is simply to
            shower everyone on the IOC with gifts, trips and parties . . .
            No city did better in this area than Paris. Whenever an IOC
            member felt the need to vacation in Paris for a while, he was
            instantly sent, airline tickets and given a free room in the
            elegant Hotel de Crilion, as well as reserved tables at Maxim's
            or Tour D'Argent with the bill paid in advance. Members
            traveled everywhere in limousines, sometimes with a police
            escort, and they were given perfume, raincoats, jogging suits
            and discounts at some of Paris's finest shops.''
        The 1991 report I cited earlier by the Toronto Ontario Olympic
    Council (who's bid to host the Olympics was unsuccessful) also sounded
    several alarms, some dealing with travel, some dealing with excessive
    gift giving. Let me quote from what Toronto told the IOC in 1991:
            ``No single issue is so open to abuse as gifts and other
            material inducements to individual IOC members. Perhaps no
            single issue has the power to undermine the integrity of the
            IOC as this particular one. Unfortunately, many IOC members
            expect to receive gifts above and beyond what anyone would
            judge to be courteous and gracious. Cash, jewelry or other
            items easily converted to cash, were hinted at on several
            occasions. We were surprised to discover on more than one
            shopping trip that the bid city host was expected to pay for
            all the purchases made by not only the member, but the guest as
            well.''
        Again, Mr. Chairman, these kinds of reports weren't made yesterday,
    but a decade or more ago. Further, as you review the various
    investigations that followed the Salt Lake City revelations, it appears
    that many of those involved during host-city bids knew this culture
    existed. Yet the IOC chose not to reform, and thus allowed a shameful
    system to continue and even worsen. It is for those reasons that I
    still remain somewhat skeptical that the IOC is serious this time.
        Mr. Chairman, with us today are officials from Atlanta responsible
    for both winning and hosting the 1996 Olympic summer games. While I am
    proud that the United States won the right to host those games, I am
    disappointed with the process Atlanta chose to win that bid. And while
    I'll agree with those that say that the Atlanta bid tactics weren't as
    unrestrained as Salt Lake's, I still believe they went too far.
    Instances of lavish travel, gifts, and other special favors were given
    (or attempted to be given) to IOC members whose vote was critical to
    Atlanta. Do these attempts represent an effort to outright buy votes? I
    can't say. What the evidence does show, however, is that numerous gifts
    and favors were given by Atlanta officials that had little or nothing
    to do with demonstrating the city's ability to host the games.
        Mr. Chairman, what Atlanta officials did to win the 1996 bid was,
    at times, borderline. Atlanta officials claim they played within the
    bid system's culture as they found it. But one might argue that Atlanta
    officials did nothing to help stop or reform an ethically bankrupt
    process. Instead, Atlanta's actions served only to reinforce (if not
    endorse) an already tawdry system that arguably made future bid efforts
    for other cities even more polluted. One can only wonder, if Atlanta,
    or the cities before Atlanta, had blown the whistle on this system,
    whether Salt Lake City would be in this mess today.
        But I'm not here to cast aspersions on Atlanta or anybody else.
    Instead, I'm here because I want to work, with you, Mr. Chairman, the
    other Members of this Committee, and the many witnesses before us to
    fix a system we all agree is broken. I'm looking forward to their
    testimony because we need to know what went wrong in order to support
    meaningful corrections to our own systems, as well as those of the IOC.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, while I am saddened by the events that took
    place in both Salt Lake City and Atlanta, I must point out that it is
    because of the exposure of those events by this country's governmental
    institutions (including the Congress), free press, and the public, that
    reforms are now being contemplated by the IOC.
        I believe good has come out of this process. By throwing open all
    the files and records of how the bid process worked for two U.S.
    cities--admittedly an often painful and embarrassing experience--we've
    discovered some serious flaws in the IOC's system, and in several of
    our own. Our bid processes will improve because of what we've done over
    the past year, and hopefully, so too will the final reforms adopted by
    the IOC. I only wonder if certain other former bid countries could also
    benefit by examining in closer detail their own bid experiences.
        Let me conclude by saying that while some within the IOC have
    strayed from what the Olympic movement should be about, and have sadly
    used the bid process to seek personal reward, most have not and are
    extremely hardworking and dedicated individuals. In fact, I believe
    that the vast makeup of the IOC care very deeply about the health and
    integrity of the games. I look forward to working with our friends from
    abroad, as well as the many outstanding witnesses before us today to
    build an Olympics that is transparent, accountable, and free of the
    recent activities that have so jeopardized the Olympic flame.
        With that, I yield back.

        Mr. Upton. Yield to the vice chairman on the subcommittee
    Mr. Burr.
        Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Before we start, maybe we should ask how your
    son did in football in North Carolina last night.
        Mr. Burr. Twenty-seven to nothing, 5-0. Thank you for
    asking.
        Mr. Upton. The question of putting the real football an
    Olympic team sport is, I know, before the committee. We'll
    pursue that a little bit later.
        Mr. Burr. Clearly you've hit on something of interest to
    me, though, as this is.
        I welcome all of our witnesses. For generations families
    have together watched the majesty and the competition and
    celebration of the Olympic Games. The games make heroes out of
    athletes who have beaten the odds and who have performed
    amazingly under intense pressure. Vivid pictures of triumph are
    forever etched in our minds and in the minds of our children.
    There's nothing more American than watching young children
    being inspired by the stories of these amazing people. These
    athletes represent all that is good in our world, love of a
    skill, and talent, dedication to a goal, the fulfilling of a
    potential destiny.
        We have over the years protected the purity and the
    integrity of the games. Drug testing, professional contract
    arrangements and strict athletic rules are commonplace and
    accepted, all implemented with the intention of keeping our
    games pure.
        Today we are here for no different cause, no lesser motive.
    We're not here to find fault with Atlanta. The culture of the
    International Olympic Committee in a sense left them with no
    options if they wanted to host Olympic Games. Let me be very
    clear. That culture, however pervasive, does not excuse
    Atlanta's choices, and they have found fault themselves with
    their actions. After extensive review, Atlanta has said rules,
    procedures and guidelines in the bidding process did exist. Our
    problem is this: No one abides by these rules. No one enforces
    them. Play the game or lose the process.
        In its response to the committee, Atlanta said of all
    competing cities, it had the best technical bid. And it was
    apparently ranked by the IOC evaluation committee as the best
    bid among competing cities. On its merits alone, Atlanta should
    have won, but that was not the system that votes of IOC members
    were necessarily cast on merit.
        So why are we here? We're here to find out on what basis
    those votes are cast. We're here to find out how the flagrant
    violations of the IOC rules went unnoticed and unquestioned by
    so many. We're here to examine the responsibilities of the USOC
    and whether they endorsed the practice of bidding cities or
    whether they ever raised the questions of violations of IOC
    rules. We're also here to look at the relationship between the
    USOC and the IOC. Last, Mr. Chairman, we're here to look at the
    culture of the governing body in Olympic sports and find the
    answers to the question can they change voluntarily.
        Many here today might ask why Congress doesn't address the
    problem with U.S. cities and leave the IOC alone. It's a fair
    statement. We're not here to dictate policies. Rather we're
    here to question our future involvement and participation in
    the Olympic movement if true reform of the bidding process does
    not take place. Can the Congress continue to allow U.S.
    corporate expenses related to participation in Olympic Games to
    be deductible and supporting a process that allows cities and
    countries to purchase the prestige of hosting an Olympic game?
    We must answer that question.
        Today's hearing is not about the past. It is about the
    future. Because of this scandal, today's hearing is not about
    athletes, it's about ethics. It's not about competition on the
    field, it's about the character of those who write the rules. I
    feel confident I speak for many members of this committee and
    this Congress when I say we want the focus to get back on
    athletes and competition. That's what the Olympics are really
    all about. Until we get to the bottom of this and take steps to
    fix what needs to be fixed, we won't be able to shift that
    focus. In the end we owe it to the athletes, the companies that
    choose to sponsor the games, and the hundreds of thousands of
    Americans that support Olympics through their donations. They
    deserve nothing less than the knowledge that the process they
    are participating in is fair and the money being spent is done
    appropriately.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to a very productive day.
    Thank you for this hearing. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Burr.
        Mr. Waxman from California.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    commend you for holding this hearing today. This is an
    important subject. Since last November, we've been reading
    about how members of the International Olympic Committee
    received cash and expensive gifts from cities that were
    competing to host the Olympics. The individual IOC members who
    solicited and received these gifts clearly deserve blame, but
    so, too, does the system that allows such a culture to develop.
        Sadly, the culture of greed and corruption that led to the
    Salt Lake City scandal has been flourishing for years. This
    scandal is now almost a year old, and yet the IOC has been
    remarkably slow in taking the necessary steps to reform itself.
        Back in March a commission led by Senator Mitchell
    recommended a number of reforms, including the banning of
    expensive gift-giving and the periodic reelection of the IOC
    members. These reforms seemed entirely reasonable, but not
    surprisingly, Mr. Samaranch and others at the IOC did not fully
    embrace them.
        Frustrated by the intransigence of the IOC, Congressman
    Lazio and I introduced a bill in April that would strongly
    encourage the IOC to adopt these reforms. Our bill, H.R. 1370,
    would prohibit American corporations, including the television
    networks, from providing any financial support to the IOC until
    the IOC adopted the Mitchell Commission reforms. I believed
    then, and I still believe now, that only the cutoff of American
    corporate money will get the IOC's attention. Quite simply, the
    IOC could not operate without the hundreds of millions of
    dollars that it receives each year from American corporations.
        Six months have passed since our bill was introduced, and
    we are still waiting for the IOC to reform itself. I have been
    told that Mr. Samaranch has been working hard on convincing
    others at the IOC to approve a package of reforms, and that
    these reforms should be in place by December. I really hope
    this is the case, because if necessary steps are not taken to
    restore the integrity of the Olympic Games, I believe that
    there will be a strong bipartisan sentiment in Congress for
    some time--some type of punitive action against the IOC. I
    would remind the IOC that Congress has been quick to impose
    sanctions in the past when it has disapproved of the activities
    of foreign countries, international organizations, and
    multinational corporations. We will be no less willing to act
    when we feel the integrity of the Olympics is being
    compromised.
        I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses
    today, and I eagerly await the announcement of the reforms by
    the IOC. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Ganske--Dr. Ganske,
    I'm sorry.
        Mr. Ganske. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing. I will be brief because I know our guests want to get
    to their testimony, and I want to take this opportunity to
    welcome all of our distinguished guests, but in particular to
    note the presence of a friend, a fellow Iowan, Mr. Bob Helmick,
    who is a senior law partner at the law firm of Dorsey and
    Whitney, specializing in municipal finance, graduated from
    Drake University Law School with highest honors, and was
    valedictorian. He's received a number of honorary humanitarian
    and law doctorate degrees. He's been active nationally and
    internationally in amateur sport, having served as president of
    three of the largest sports organizations in the world: the
    U.S. Olympic Committee, the International Amateur Swimming
    Federation, and National Amateur Athletic Union. He is a well-
    known civic leader in arts and education organizations. He's
    been instrumental in building a nationally recognized public
    finance practice and in drafting the majority of the laws in
    the State of Iowa which relate to cities. He most recently was
    counsel to the State of Iowa in the creation of its fiberoptic
    network, which has received national recognition.
        But in particular, I think in regards to this hearing, many
    will recall that in 1991, Mr. Helmick was the subject of a lot
    of media attention. What is generally not known is that the
    subsequent facts and disclosures cleared Mr. Helmick of any
    wrongdoing. He is the only IOC member in the history of the
    organization to open up his personal records to public
    scrutiny, and so I look forward to his testimony, as I'm sure
    it will be informative, up-front, and full of good Iowa common
    sense. Welcome. And I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Dr. Ganske.
        Mr. Stupak from Michigan.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
    these hearings.
        Mr. Chairman, the Olympic movement was motivated by the
    idea that Olympic competition between the best athletes from
    around the world would be a unifying force to our globe. The
    Olympics have become more than a mere sporting event. They are
    a testament to the triumph of human spirit. While many of us
    know of Michael Johnson or the Dream Team, there are thousands
    of competitors we will never know who will never win
    endorsement contracts. They compete to honor themselves and
    their country.
        The duty of the ideals underlying the Olympic movement and
    the Olympic Games makes the behavior that is the subject of
    this hearing all the more disappointing. I'm sure many of my
    colleagues will describe the types of activities conducted by
    the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games. These activities
    violated the rules of International Olympic Committee, the U.S.
    Olympic Committee and the Atlanta committee itself.
        Some of the violations are particularly upsetting to me
    because they involve the diversion of money for scholarships to
    foreign athletes with the sole purpose of influencing the IOC
    vote of that country. I've long sought the scholarship program
    for athletes that attend United States Olympic education
    training centers here in this country. Many of these Olympic
    athletes give up the opportunity for an education to represent
    their country. These athletes compete with athletic
    scholarships in boxing, biathlons, ski jumping and many other
    sports.
        Since I have an Olympic education training center in
    northern Michigan where many of these athletes train, I
    personally have contacted sponsors of the USOC to urge them to
    help provide scholarships to these athletes. Unfortunately,
    they tell me while they give out scholarships in the name of
    the player of a game such as the Big Ten basketball tournament
    to the USOC, but they can't give a true scholarship for these
    student athletes for education purposes. Instead, the money
    goes to the USOC.
        So if we can't use the money for true education
    scholarships for our own athletes, what happens then? The USOC
    uses the money that the college athletes generate for the
    Olympics and not for educational scholarships, but then they
    use that money to influence or to buy a vote by giving the
    educational scholarships to foreign athletes while the USOC and
    Olympic training centers struggle financially to remain viable.
        Although Congress has passed legislation authorizing
    Olympic education training scholarship programs, no money has
    ever been appropriated. So to see the resources of a USOC not
    being used for education purposes for our own athletes, but
    instead is being used internally, and some of it even being
    diverted to facilitate the purchase of an IOC member's vote is
    very disturbing to me.
        These hearings will accomplish two purposes: First, we need
    to understand the facts involved with solicitations of the IOC
    members' votes both in this country and abroad. While I can
    understand the pressure put on the Atlanta committee due to
    competition from other host cities, we cannot condone or
    justify their behavior. We need to understand where the line
    should have been drawn. Second, we need to examine the current
    reform proposals pending before the IOC. I've read the Mitchell
    report and wish to hear the views of the IOC on these
    suggestions.
        I believe it's important to work with the IOC to ensure
    these reforms are met. I would say to the Director General of
    the IOC and a witness before this subcommittee that we want to
    compliment the IOC reform efforts. This hearing is neither an
    indictment of the IOC or of many members of the IOC or their
    host countries. As the King & Spalding report states, every
    gift has a giver and a receiver. Certainly in the cases of
    Atlanta and Salt Lake City and possibly others, representatives
    of the United States to the Olympics were willing and active
    participants in the culture of inappropriate gift-giving.
        It's my understanding the IOC is meeting in December to
    discuss these reform proposals. I urge the IOC to do more than
    just adopt new rules or regulations. The IOC must change the
    culture in which these bids are conducted through
    accountability and enforcement; otherwise new rules and
    regulations are worthless. I hope that this subcommittee can
    complement those efforts and help ensure the actions taken by
    members of the Atlanta committee will become a footnote to the
    great and wonderful legacy of the Olympic movement.
        Thank you for holding these hearings, Mr. Chairman. I look
    forward to working with you in the future on this issue.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Stupak.
        Mr. Bryant from Tennessee.
        Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me tell you before
    I start my statement how much I appreciate your efforts and
    your staff's extraordinary efforts, in preparing and holding
    this hearing.
        Like everyone in the room today, I regret that we have to
    be here on this particular subject, as I would much rather be
    talking about Atlanta's superb presentation of the Olympic
    Games and the world-class athletes that participated in those
    Olympics.
        While I am disappointed to learn about the tainted
    selection process where Atlanta was chosen as the host city, in
    some ways I'm sympathetic to their dilemma. Atlanta did not set
    out to buy or improperly influence the IOC committee that
    selected them. Unfortunately, the, ``playing rules,'' of the
    selection game were not up to the high standard of the Olympic
    Games themselves. And just as unfortunate, Atlanta played by
    these rules, which they felt were expected. As a result, the
    Olympic rings had been decidedly tarnished. It will take a
    concerted effort by all the world's nations to restore their
    past luster.
        I agree with the members of the Special Bid Oversight
    Commission that the IOC must be reformed. I realize this cannot
    be done easily given the power it has to literally direct
    billions of dollars and international prestige to potential
    host cities. But the IOC must change the culture of that
    committee. However, for these reforms to succeed, to be
    expected to succeed, it cannot be done without the cooperation
    of other countries vying for the honor of hosting future
    Olympic Games.
        And I suppose as I sit here and listen to our opening
    statements, I know you did not come up here expecting to hear
    these statements. You came up here prepared to give your
    testimony, and we do look forward to that, but I think about
    the other countries out there that will be and have been in
    competition to host the Olympics, and I wonder sometimes if
    they're sitting there thinking, why is this--why are these
    people in Washington telling us about morals and integrity and
    honesty? And I have those thoughts too, sometimes, but we, I
    think, must strive to set those standards, and I think today's
    hearing will further that to some degree by bringing to light,
    I think, of the American public more of--not necessarily
    Atlanta, because, again, I am a friend of Atlanta. I'm from the
    sister State of Tennessee and very much appreciated Tennessee's
    participation in the siting for some of the actual events for
    the Olympics. But, again, I think we all agree in this room
    that the problem has to do with the International Olympic
    Committee and the people who oversee and govern the activities,
    particularly in the selection process.
        But, again, with the moneys that are at stake here and the
    prestige, I'm kind of dubious at this point that we'll see the
    type of change that we need to see in this selection process
    because I don't know that we can get every nation to agree to
    these correct and right and appropriate playing rules. Again, a
    lot of money is at stake, and a lot of prestige is at stake. I
    simply want to be careful, too, today, that we don't exclude
    the United States from further participation in this selection
    process.
        Again, none of this reform is going to be able to be
    accomplished without the cooperation of the IOC, and, again,
    while I don't condone what has happened in Atlanta, I'm
    concerned that the United States at the same time not
    unilaterally disarm ourselves and ensure that the games will
    never be held in the United States again.
        I look about the room and see so many distinguished people
    from Georgia here today, including members of their delegation
    in Congress, former Senator Nunn, former Judge and Attorney
    General Bell, former mayor and U.N. Ambassador Young, and I
    know I'm probably missing somebody here, but I think there is
    concern. I appreciate very much Atlanta's role in this as some
    of these things have come to surface, their willingness to come
    out fully and participate and to disclose what has happened in
    the interest of trying to improve the situation in the future.
        I look forward to hearing from this very distinguished
    panel. I want to especially, though, thank the oversight
    commission that had Mr. Duberstein on it and others for their
    very thoughtful report. I want to thank also Mr. Bell's law
    firm, King & Spalding, which also included some very good
    suggestions on reforms. I hope we can really learn from these
    hearings as well as take to heart their suggestions on how we
    can begin to influence in any way, as a Congress, the reform of
    the IOC selection process. They've got some good ideas. They've
    been there. I'm sure Mr. Payne will be able to contribute a
    great deal as sort of the point man on the Atlanta effort as to
    what can be done to affect this process, to make it better, and
    to bring it up to the standards and ideals and the goals and
    all those good things that we think of when we think about the
    Olympics.
        Again, I thank all of you for taking the time from your
    extremely busy schedules to be here. I look forward to hearing
    your testimony. Thank you.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Ms. McCarthy from Missouri.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    thank the witnesses appearing before us today. While I know
    Senator Nunn won't be testifying, I want to acknowledge that
    his integrity will lend a great deal to this effort.
        The International Olympic Committee is charged with
    monumental responsibility. Every 2 years the IOC brings peace,
    hope, goodwill, sportsmanship, and culture exchange to the
    entire world. And for the city that selects to host the games,
    it brings more. The selection of a city means jobs, economic
    expansion, unique opportunity to capture international
    attention. Selection is a wonderful opportunity. It's an
    awesome responsibility.
        I very much hope that our panel members will speak to
    several issues of grave concern. Current IOC rules regarding
    limitation of candidate cities' financial commitments limit
    gifts, ``to documents or other items intended for information
    and/or souvenir articles. Gifts of a value exceeding U.S. $200
    are not permitted.''
        What kinds of reforms are being proposed that will include
    consequences when rules are broken, consequences such as
    sanctions, which were mentioned by Mr. Waxman? How will the IOC
    implement these reforms, and what kind of oversight measures
    can be taken to ensure the integrity of its process for the
    future?
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing today,
    and I hope that we are able to impress upon the IOC
    representatives who are with us the unacceptability of past
    behavior and the need to implement meaningful reforms for the
    future immediately. Thank you.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Mr. Barton from Texas.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I add my commendation
    to you for holding this hearing. I'm going to be very brief. I
    know we're here today to focus on Atlanta and its effort. I
    want to say that I received a number of very positive character
    references about one of our witnesses, Mr. Payne, from several
    people around the country who have told me what an outstanding
    individual he is.
        The focus of my questions if I'm able to stay for the
    hearing is going to be more on the international committee. I
    think President Samaranch needs to be removed. I think he needs
    to be removed sooner rather than later. I think he's created a
    cesspool at the international level. Until that cyst is
    removed, I see nothing but future trouble for all the other
    cities that want to compete for the international Olympics.
        We hold the Olympics out to be a bright shining star to our
    young people, and it's supposed to be the best about what
    competition and fair play is all about, but anybody who has
    read the Sports Illustrated expose several months ago about the
    way the international committee operates, it amazes me that any
    city that attempts to obtain the games is able to do it in a
    totally fair way.
        So I appreciate your holding these hearings, and I hope
    that we can through our pressure institute some needed reforms
    at the international level.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Ms. DeGette from Colorado.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, I'd like to welcome an old friend of mine
    here today, Bill Hybl, who will be testifying. Bill and I
    served together for 6 years on the Colorado College Board of
    Trustees, our Alma matter. Before Bill had to serve with me for
    those 6 years, his hair used to be dark brown. Now you can see
    it's gray. Hopefully it won't all fall out after the hearing
    today.
        Mr. Chairman, I think that the Atlanta and Salt Lake City
    examples show that the bidding process that has developed
    internationally in recent years has truly tarnished the Olympic
    rings. The bribery that has been catalogued in the reports
    which I have read which were provided to this committee, cast
    dark clouds over the true spirit of the Olympic Games. The
    International Olympic Committee members involved in these
    scandals, frankly in an effort, I believe, to elevate
    themselves to a pseudoroyal status, have forgotten that these
    games are about elite athletes at the pinnacle of their ability
    and about the true triumph of amateur athletics. In an attempt
    to land mega advertising accounts and endorsements, the IOC and
    host cities who fall into this bribery culture forget that
    these games brought together black and white athletes to
    compete for South Africa. They brought the USA and USSR
    together in Seoul in 1988, a year before the Berlin Wall fell,
    and it sees new countries join in the Olympic family every
    year.
        Frankly, we need to get to the bottom of this culture of
    bribery that the IOC has created. While the organization has
    rules, and they seem clear, they are not adhered to in any way.
    In fact, Salt Lake City believed that it lost the 1992 games to
    Nagano because it played by those rules. The culture that has
    developed results in cities and volunteers shelling out
    hundreds of thousands of dollars for IOC officials for shopping
    sprees at Saks, medical treatments for IOC member relatives,
    and college tuition.
        As I said, I've reviewed both the Mitchell report and the
    King & Spalding report. In my view, because of the relatively
    limited scope of the investigation of Atlanta and the fact that
    all witnesses and volunteers were not interviewed, all
    documents were not reviewed, I believe the extent of the
    problem we see in this report is the minimum, and I don't think
    any of us can rule out the conclusion that there were many more
    gifts, bribes, and abuses than have been documented. And
    frankly, I don't think it's worthwhile undertaking a more
    extensive investigation because what we've seen shows that what
    happened was wrong, and we need to work at an international
    level to stop it.
        We're not going to solve this problem today by finger-
    pointing and by raking over these old issues. Instead we need
    to work collectively to decide how the United States is going
    to take the leadership role in convincing the IOC to change its
    rules and to make real reforms that we can stick with. I
    applaud the Mitchell Commission for taking the initiative in
    developing a comprehensive plan for reform. I applaud the USOC
    for taking the lead in trying to implement these reforms. I
    believe while we cannot act in a vacuum, we've got to take the
    lead in insisting that the IOC clean up its act. That's the
    thing I'm going to be most interested in hearing from the panel
    today how they think this can happen.
        Let me just conclude by saying a tennis camp in Florida for
    two teenagers from the Republic of the Congo does not give an
    IOC member the sense that a marathon course is going to be good
    for a marathoner or that the food court layout of the city will
    facilitate families' enjoyment of the games, nor does that type
    of an attempt at direct bribery do anything to provide athletic
    equipment for poor children in the country of the Congo. U.S.
    cities, like cities worldwide, have had to perform like dancing
    ponies, and the USOC has been a victim as much as anyone. On
    the other hand, United States cities have participated in this
    type of conduct, and, therefore, it is incumbent on the cities,
    the USOC, and the U.S. Congress to take the lead in putting
    international pressure in cleaning up these practices.
        Mr. Chairman, I'm looking forward to the testimony today.
    As you may know, several members of this subcommittee also sit
    on the conference committee for the important H.R. 10 financial
    modernization, so I would like to apologize if I have to leave
    if they have recorded votes. I know several other members will
    as well.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Diana DeGette follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress
                           from the State of Colorado
        Thank you Mr. Chairman. Welcome Bill Hybl.
        Mr. Chairman, I think we can all agree that the Olympic rings have
    been tarnished. The bribery that has been catalogued in the reports
    provided to this committee casts dark clouds over the true spirit of
    the Olympic games. The International Olympic Committee members involved
    in these scandals, in an effort to elevate themselves to a sudo-royal
    status, have forgotten that these games are about elite athletes at the
    pinnacle of their ability. In an attempt to land mega-advertising
    accounts and endorsements, the IOC and the host cities who fall into
    this bribery culture, forget that these games brought black and white
    athletes together to compete for South Africa; the USA and the USSR
    together in Seoul in 1988, a year before the Berlin Wall fell; and sees
    new countries joining the Olympic family each year.
        We need to get to the bottom of this culture of bribery that the
    IOC has created. While the organization has rules, they are not adhered
    to--in fact, Salt Lake City believed it lost the 1992 games to Nagano
    because it played by those rules. This culture results in cities
    shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars for IOC officials for
    shopping sprees at Saks, medical treatments and college tuition.
        It is time to stop making excuses and apologies--the US cities
    involved and the USOC know what occurred was wrong. We do not solve
    this problem, and insure that the next US bid city is not subject to
    this culture of bribery, by rehashing past wrongs.
        What we must do is stop the culture that requires cities to perform
    these demeaning acts. I applaud the Mitchell Commission for taking the
    initiative and developing a comprehensive plan of reform. I applaud the
    USOC for taking the lead in implementing these reforms. While the US
    and the USOC cannot act in a vacuum, we must take the lead in insisting
    that the IOC clean up its act, reform its ways and cease to place
    themselves, as IOC members, above common decency. Above all, the US and
    the USOC can and must ensure that the athletes regain their proper
    place as the central focus of the Olympic games.
        By no means does a tennis camp in Florida for two teenagers from
    the Republic of the Congo give any IOC member the sense that a marathon
    course is good for a marathoner, that the food court layout will
    facilitate families enjoyment of the games or that the downhill course
    will facilitate a new world record for Picabo Street.
        US cities, like cities worldwide, have had to perform like dancing
    ponies and the USOC has been just as much a victim as anyone. We must
    clean up our act, as the USOC has expressed it is willing to do, so
    that we may lead by example.
        The culture of bribery must stop. We can itemize all the wrongdoing
    today but unless we act to ensure that this culture ends, those who do
    adhere to the IOC rules and behave ethically will already have three
    strikes against them.
        I hope the IOC will begin to act in the spirit of the games it
    represents and move to eliminate this culture.

        Mr. Upton. I would note that a number of members of the
    subcommittee serve on other subcommittees and conference
    committees and will be coming in and out for most of the day.
        Mr. Whitfield from Kentucky.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I'm
    delighted that we're having this hearing today. Speaking for
    myself, I must say that I do not pretend to be any sort of
    expert or even understand very well the way the IOC works or
    the U.S. part of that commission works, and I'm delighted that
    we have a number of people here today who have personal
    experience in dealing with this issue, and I'm sure all of them
    are quite distinguished. And we're caught up in the culture,
    but I'm hopeful that they can come forth with some
    recommendations.
        I personally think it will be difficult for the U.S. to
    dictate probably to other countries on this issue, but
    hopefully, as Ms. DeGette indicated, we can take the lead in
    working with other countries and come up with a solution to
    this problem. I think that's the spirit we enter these hearings
    with today is to listen to people who have been involved,
    listen to their suggestions, and from that hopefully come up
    with some meaningful solutions and recommendations. So I look
    forward to hearing from the panels.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        [Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        In May of 1999, when the Committee started its inquiry into the
    Atlanta Organizing Committee's 1996 Olympic bid, we wanted to learn
    whether the events surrounding Salt Lake City's Olympic bid were an
    isolated incident, or part of a larger pattern of misconduct. As we
    have learned, Atlanta actively gathered information about IOC members,
    and armed with this information, broke gift and travel rules in order
    to keep its host city bid competitive. And as Atlanta's organizers will
    testify today, it is highly doubtful that Salt Lake City and Atlanta
    were the only bidding cities engaged in improper gift giving to IOC
    members.
        The improper actions surrounding the Olympic bids of Atlanta and
    Salt Lake City are an affront to the Olympic spirit. The IOC and its
    member organizations must not tarnish the years of hard work and
    training athletes spend in pursuit of the Olympic dream.
        Unethical behavior points to a sad contradiction: Olympic athletes
    must prove that they have not gained an unfair advantage, yet, based on
    what we learned as part of our inquiry into Atlanta's Olympic bid, some
    IOC members expected bidding cities to seek the very same unfair
    advantage. The IOC and bidding cities should take a lesson from the
    athletes who succeed or fail on their own merits in front of the entire
    world.
        Because of the events in Atlanta and Salt Lake City, as well as
    questions about other bidding cities, I believe we all can agree that
    there is a pattern of abuse in the Olympic site selection process.
    Indeed, since December 1998 several groups have been formed to study
    the process used to select Olympic host cities. Also, the Department of
    Justice, has an ongoing investigation that has led to two indictments
    to date. Clearly there is a need for reform in the site selection
    process.
        While all of this attention to new ethics standards and proposals
    that aim to overhaul how Olympic host cities are selected is a good
    start, it is not enough. This conduct did not spring up yesterday, and
    it will not simply go away tomorrow.
        This is why we need to ensure that the outcome of all this study
    and work is actual change, and not window dressing. Verification of the
    compliance with new policies will be critical to rebuilding the
    credibility of the Olympics. I am looking forward to hearing from
    today's witnesses about how they think real change can be introduced,
    and--more importantly--maintained.
        Thank you Mr. Upton for your work on this hearing. I want to thank
    all the witnesses for their appearance here today. I look forward to
    their testimony.

        Mr. Upton. Our first panel today consists of the cochairs
    of the Atlanta Olympic Committee, the Honorable Andrew Young as
    well as Mr. Bill Payne. We also have the former president of
    the USOC, Mr. Robert Helmick, and the current president of the
    USOC, Mr. Bill Hybl.
        If the four of you could take--could come to the witness
    stand. I want to note as you may be aware, this subcommittee is
    an investigative subcommittee, and as such we have always had
    the practice of taking testimony under oath. Do any of you have
    objection to that?
        Seeing none, the Chair also advises you that under the
    rules of the House and of this committee, you are entitled to
    be advised by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel
    this morning?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Upton. If you could indicate who your counsel is so the
    clerk can make sure she records it accurately.
        Mr. Bell. Judge Bell and Ted Hester of the law firm of King
    & Spalding, and we're representing Mr. Young and Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Hybl and Mr. Helmick, do you have counsel as
    well?
        Mr. Helmick. No, sir.
        Mr. Hybl. Mr. Chairman, the general counsel of the U.S.
    Olympic Committee is with us for advice today.
        Mr. Upton. If all of you can stand, counsels included, and
    raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Upton. You're now under oath, and we have two members
    asking to introduce a couple of you, and Mr. Hefley, a member
    from Colorado; Mr. Isakson from Georgia. Mr. Hefley, you may
    proceed.
        Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't tell you what
    a thrill it gives me to call you Mr. Chairman. When you and I
    entered Congress here some years ago, we hardly dared to
    imagine this day would come. So it's a great pleasure for that.
        I appreciate your letting me have the honor of introducing
    one of your panelists and also of sitting in on your hearings
    here, which I think are very important.
        I represent the U.S. Olympic Committee. Their headquarters
    are in Colorado Springs. I can't tell you how thrilled I was
    when the Olympic Committee made the decision to come to
    Colorado Springs, because to me the Olympics had always
    represented all that is best in athletics, all that is
    untarnished, all that is good, all that is right. Everyone
    wants to identify with the Olympics. It's a name brand that
    carries a very positive connotation, whether you be Coca-Cola,
    Pepsi, FedEx, the sponsors of the Olympics or whether you be
    other sporting events like the Senior Olympics the Wheelchair
    Olympics the Handicap Olympics, whatever it is you want to
    identify--in fact, the Olympics have problems with that name
    identification sometimes, I know, because everyone wants to get
    in on that. And I was heartsick to learn of the corruption in
    the selection process. At a time when so many institutions are
    tarnished, we can't let that happen with the Olympics. So I am
    delighted to introduce one of the leaders in rooting out that
    corruption.
        Bill Hybl, who in real life is an executive at the
    Broadmoor Hotel and El Pomar Foundation, but his volunteer job
    is as president of the U.S. Olympic Committee. Bill and I have
    been friends for a long, long time. In spite of my indiscretion
    early in our political lives when I supported--Diana, I
    supported Bill's opponent in his race for the State
    legislature. Unfortunately the good sense of the voters of that
    district prevailed, and Bill was elected. They paid no
    attention to me whatsoever.
        Bill was elected to the State legislature, did a wonderful
    job there, although brief, because he went with the Broadmoor
    El Pomar Foundation, and he's doing a magnificent job in his
    volunteer job at the Olympic Movement.
        What you are doing today, Mr. Chairman, is important work,
    and I know that Mr. Hybl stands ready to help you in your
    efforts and, more importantly perhaps, to help in the important
    task of reforming the Olympic movement. So it gives me great
    pleasure this morning to introduce my friend, president of the
    U.S. Olympic Committee, Bill Hybl.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Hefley. I would just note for the
    record that a number of us were glad you stayed out of the race
    when your wife ran for State legislature as well. She was able
    to win despite your handicap.
        Mr. Isakson.
        Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to be
    here today and delighted to be joined by Congressman Chambliss
    and Congressman Bishop with the opportunity to introduce two
    great Georgians, Billy Payne and Andy Young. While my remarks
    today are my own, I am confident I speak for thousands, if not
    millions, of Georgians who admire and respect these two fine
    men. I know the purpose of this meeting is not to lavish praise
    on these men, but neither should it be to condemn them out of
    context or without perspective.
        Billy Payne is my personal friend of more than 40 years. In
    the late 1980's, Mr. Payne and a handful of citizens set out on
    an impossible dream to bring the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games
    to Atlanta, Georgia, and the South. First they had to convince
    the USOC that Atlanta should be America's bid city, and then
    they had to bring the International Olympic Committee and its
    members to the American South to convince them that unpaid
    volunteers could raise $1.5 billion, construct the venues, and
    host over 3 million visitors from around the world.
        The fact that Billy succeeded amazed many, but to those of
    us who have watched him time and again, whether it's to lead a
    successful campaign, to build a new sanctuary for his church,
    or raise scholarships for his beloved University of Georgia, it
    was no surprise at all.
        Andy Young, a former Member of this Congress, former
    Ambassador to the United Nations and former mayor of Atlanta,
    needs no introduction. His ability and integrity are known
    around the world. Andy is also my friend and a man I admire and
    respect. The fact that Andy Young was the only elected official
    to embrace Billy Payne's dream was no surprise, because like
    Billy, Andy knows that dreams can come true if you're willing
    to work and keep the faith.
        The legacy these two men left goes far beyond the memories
    of 16 magic days for the citizens of our city, our State, and
    our country. Today the Olympic Village provides dormitories for
    our students at universities and colleges, the Olympic stadium
    is the home of the Atlanta Braves, and Centennial Olympic Park
    is Atlanta's most significant urban renewal project since
    Sherman's march to the sea. More importantly, the children of
    our State saw firsthand that dreams can come true and that
    regardless of the barriers of language, wealth, or race, the
    world can come together and compete in an environment where
    sportsmanship and mutual respect are the rule and not an
    exception.
        Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of the purpose of this hearing is
    to evaluate Judge Bell's report and the fact that the Atlanta
    committee violated the International Olympic Committee's $200
    gift rule. I do not believe that the end justifies the means or
    the fact that everybody else did it is an excuse or defense. On
    the other hand, I do not believe these men deserve to be
    questioned unless there's the clear understanding that they
    operated in an environment governed and enforced by an
    international committee made up of members who accepted the
    gifts that violated the rules that those members themselves had
    adopted.
        I would hope we would look to the future to determine what,
    if any, oversight this Congress should undertake in the
    governance of future American bid cities rather than dwell on
    what Congress would have done 10 years ago to oversee an
    American bid city competing in an international environment and
    governed by an international committee.
        Mr. Chairman, I'm very grateful of the time you've allowed
    me, and I am honored to introduce two of Georgia's finest
    citizens and my friends, Billy Payne and Andy Young.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
        Gentlemen, your statements will be made part of the record
    in its entirety. We would appreciate if you could limit your
    opening remarks and summary of your testimony to about 5
    minutes. We have a little light here that works, that turns red
    at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Payne, we'll begin with you. Thank you.

        TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM P. PAYNE, COCHAIR, ATLANTA OLYMPIC
      COMMITTEE; ANDREW YOUNG, GOOD WORKS INTERNATIONAL, COCHAIR,
     ATLANTA OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; WILLIAM J. HYBL, PRESIDENT, UNITED
        STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; AND ROBERT H. HELMICK, FORMER
               PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ladies and
    gentlemen of the subcommittee. Judge Bell's report to which you
    referred often already provides a detailed accounting of our
    efforts in Atlanta to win the right to host the 1996 Centennial
    Olympic Games, and I will not attempt to repeat the detail here
    in my brief opening statement.
        At the outset, ladies and gentlemen, let me say that I
    completely agree that the international process for bidding for
    the Olympic Games is dramatically in need of reform. We are
    prepared to assist this subcommittee and the International
    Olympic Committee in any way possible in making that reform a
    reality.
        In fact, as detailed in our written response, Atlanta's
    bidding effort included excessive actions, even thought
    processes, that today seem inappropriate, but at the time we
    believed it represented the prevailing practice in the
    selection process in an extremely competitive environment.
    Those kinds of practices should not be permitted in future
    Olympic bids. In hindsight, we recognize, I recognize, that
    these excesses by those of us in Atlanta and other bidding
    cities were a mistake, but I hope and believe that they should
    not be allowed to overshadow all that is wonderful about the
    Olympic movement and all that was wonderful about the Atlanta
    games.
        I have long believed and still believe passionately in the
    power of the Olympic movement to bring people together in a
    common sense of celebration of humanity as we all honor the
    greatest athletes in the world. We must do everything possible
    to eliminate these excesses, to reform these processes, but not
    forget, please not forget, and certainly never destroy the
    great promise of the Olympic legacy and America's preeminent
    role. That being said, I would like to briefly comment on our
    bidding activities.
        As you have seen, and your staff as well, from reviewing
    our many documents, we received input from virtually anybody
    willing to talk to us about the process as we were learning
    about it and about their assessment of the process. Those
    assessments, those many assessments, painted a convincing
    picture of a culture that existed within the bidding process
    and, importantly, what we would need to do if we wanted to play
    the game, if we wanted to bid and bring the Olympic Games to
    our home city.
        We learned the following about the selection process: The
    IOC culture itself was a culture of some 70 different countries
    that were the resident countries of the IOC members, and that
    culture existed within a closed system that had been
    historically insulated from many external oversight mechanisms.
    It was, in effect, a world unto its own with no apparent
    accountability. Each IOC member had a totally independent,
    totally subjective voting power and a secret ballot system.
    Lobbying the votes of these members throughout the 2\1/2\ years
    of our efforts was intensely competitive and largely
    uncontrolled among the bidding cities with no limits on overall
    spending, no disclosure requirements, and little public
    scrutiny. The process had proven to be a very expensive one for
    cities aspiring to host the Olympic Games.
        Bid cities routinely lobby each IOC member on a
    personalized and targeted basis. Many, though not all, IOC
    members were customarily given such special treatment. Prior
    Olympic bid efforts were characterized by generous gifts,
    frequent international travel, lavish hospitality, and numerous
    favors and personal accommodations for IOC members. Among those
    familiar with the international bidding process, the general
    consensus honestly was the ritual of courting IOC members was
    not only necessary, but an indispensable undertaking in order
    to have a realistic chance of winning the Olympic Games.
        At that time, going back to 1987, we neither defended nor
    rebuked, as the chairman has pointed out, the site selection
    process and dealt with it as we found it. Instead, we simply
    accepted the reality in the process of bidding for the Olympic
    Games. Our objective was to win for Atlanta and the United
    States the right to host the 1996 games, not at that time to
    reform the International Olympic Committee. But make no
    mistake, and we are the first to admit, that the Olympic Games
    are a huge financial undertaking. Our organizing committee
    agreed to shoulder the responsibility, to raise $1.7 billion
    just to put on the games in our city of Atlanta. And at the end
    of the day, we were proud to say that we accomplished our goal
    of breaking even.
        The U.S. Olympic Committee, as Mr. Hybl will point out, and
    the U.S. athletes benefit significantly when the Olympic Games
    are hosted within our great country. The Atlanta Games provided
    U.S. Olympic Committee and its athletes approximately $230
    million from television, marketing, and sponsorship proceeds,
    including their share of the National Olympic Committee
    distributions from the International Olympic Committee. And as
    we all know, the IOC also benefits from the staging of the
    games by taking a share of virtually every dollar raised, some
    of which is distributed back to the U.S. Olympic Committee
    along with other National Olympic Committees. The IOC controls,
    must approve, and shares in the television rights,
    sponsorships, licensed merchandise, commemorative coins and
    sale of memorabilia. For the Atlanta Games, the IOC retained 40
    percent of the television rights, 5 percent of the fee on all
    merchandise and goods sold, and 3 percent of the revenues from
    the federally permitted Olympic coin. All totaled, the IOC
    received approximately $400 million in cash and value from the
    Atlanta Games.
        Undeniably Atlanta and Georgia and, we hope you would
    concur, America benefited enormously from hosting the 1996
    games. The games stimulated hundreds of millions of dollars in
    permanent capital improvement in Georgia.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that we did indeed
    launch and conduct a very aggressive effort as we launched for
    the first time ever really our city's competition in the
    international arena. We generally felt that we had to be
    aggressive in order to prevail. That aggressiveness and our
    inherent enthusiasm contributed to the many excesses which are
    detailed in our report, but we believe honestly that that same
    enthusiasm also contributed to the incredible pulling together
    of the people of Atlanta and America as we together embraced
    the common purpose and shared vision of bringing the Olympic
    Games to our great country.
        I salute once again, Mr. Chairman, your reference to
    safeguard the future of the Olympic movement and importantly
    the opportunity for other American cities to fairly compete for
    the honor of hosting future Olympic Games. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of William P. Payne follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of William Porter Payne
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
    understand that the Subcommittee has reviewed and will include in
    today's hearing record the Georgia Amateur Athletic Foundation's (GAAF)
    September 16, 1999 response to Chairman Bliley and Chairman Upton. That
    response provides a detailed accounting of our efforts to win for
    Atlanta the right to host the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games and I will
    not attempt to repeat that detail in my statement here this morning. I
    would, however, like to briefly share with you my thoughts on some of
    the broader questions and larger issues facing this Subcommittee as
    well as the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
        At the outset, let me say that I completely agree that the
    international process of bidding for the Olympic Games is in need of
    reform. I am prepared to assist this Subcommittee and the IOC in any
    way possible in making that reform a reality.
        It is a fact, as detailed in our written response, that Atlanta's
    bidding effort included excessive actions, and even thought processes,
    that today seem inappropriate but at the time, reflected the prevailing
    practice in the selection process and an extremely competitive
    environment. Those kinds of practices should not be permitted in the
    competition for future Olympic bids.
        In hindsight, I recognize that many of these excesses by those of
    us in Atlanta and by other candidate cities in the bidding process were
    a mistake, but they should not be allowed to erase or overshadow all
    that is good about the Olympic Movement and the Atlanta Games. I have
    long believed and still believe in the power and majesty of the
    Olympics to bring people together in a common sense of celebration of
    humanity as we honor the greatest athletes in the world. We must do
    everything possible to preserve and safeguard that potential for future
    generations. We must eliminate the excesses, reform the processes, but
    not forget, and certainly never destroy, the great promise of the
    Olympic legacy and America's prominent role.
        That being said, let me briefly comment on the Atlanta bidding
    effort. On February 8, 1987, I conceived the idea that Atlanta, Georgia
    and the United States of America should be proposed as a candidate to
    host the Olympic Games. For the next three years and seven months,
    together with my friend and colleague Andy Young, I led the effort that
    presented Atlanta's candidacy first to the U. S. Olympic Committee
    (USOC) and then to the International Olympic Committee.
        After our successful selection as the official U.S. candidate city,
    hundreds, and ultimately thousands, of additional volunteers and
    considerable corporate support began marshalling behind this
    ``impossible dream''. We were increasingly amazed at the intensity and
    passion with which the people of Atlanta and Georgia began embracing
    this quest. While no one was sure we could win, our community rallied
    together behind the magnificence of the Olympic competition.
        When I first proposed the idea of an Olympic bid, I had no idea
    when the next Olympic Games would be available, had never heard of the
    IOC, and was wholly unfamiliar with the Olympic site selection process.
    Our first task was to learn as much as possible about the site
    selection process at both the USOC and IOC levels.
        From February 1987 until September 1990 when Atlanta was selected
    by the IOC to host the 1996 Games, GAAF received input--both solicited
    and unsolicited--from just about anybody willing to give their
    assessment of the selection process. For example, we received advice
    from USOC members; IOC members; sports federation members; national
    Olympic committee members; journalists; corporate sponsors; and
    individuals from other Olympic bid cities including Los Angeles,
    Anchorage, Barcelona, Athens, Melbourne and Toronto. Taken together,
    they painted a convincing picture of the culture that prevailed in the
    bidding process and, most importantly, what Atlanta would need to do to
    bring home the Olympic Games. We learned the following about the IOC
    site selection process:

     The IOC culture was the product of the more than 70 cultures
            of the voting IOC members and existed within a closed system
            that had historically been insulated from any external
            oversight mechanism. It was, in effect, a world unto its own,
            with no apparent accountability;
     Each IOC member had independent, totally subjective voting
            power in a secret ballot system;
     Lobbying for the votes of these members was intensely
            competitive and largely uncontrolled among the bidding cities.
            With no limits on overall spending, no disclosure requirements,
            and little public scrutiny, the process had proven to be an
            extremely expensive one for the bid cities;
     Bid cities routinely lobbied each IOC member on a
            personalized, targeted basis. Many, though not all, IOC members
            were customarily given such special treatment;
     To the extent that the IOC had written rules, they were
            customarily ignored by the bidding cities and were not enforced
            by the IOC; and
     Prior Olympic bid efforts were characterized by generous
            gifts, frequent international travel, lavish hospitality and
            numerous favors and personal accommodations for IOC members.
            Among those familiar with the bidding process, the general
            consensus was that this ritual of ``courting'' IOC members was
            not only acceptable but also necessary for a city to have any
            realistic chance of winning the Olympic bid.
        At the time, GAAF neither defended nor rebuked the site selection
    process as we found it. Instead, we simply accepted it as the reality
    of bidding for the Olympics. Our objective was to win for Atlanta and
    the United States the right to host the 1996 Games, not to reform the
    IOC.
        To accomplish that goal, we developed and implemented a strategy
    that reflected much of what we had learned and continued to hear about
    the site selection process. We set out to win a majority of the IOC
    votes primarily by cultivating close relationships with IOC members. We
    recognized early on not only that Atlanta was an underdog, but that we
    would not be able to out-spend the other candidate cities. Instead, we
    decided that we had to do better than the others at ``personalizing''
    our approaches to IOC members, supported by gifts, travel, and other
    favors tailored to the tastes of the individual IOC members. We
    believed that by doing this, we could create relationships that would
    allow us to gain insight from IOC members regarding our candidacy and
    ultimately increase the level of support for Atlanta among IOC members.
        This strategy, which we first published in our ``Strategic
    Operating And Management Plan'' in December 1988, included plans to:

     Develop an information file on IOC members;
     Visit IOC members in their home country;
     Arrange for IOC members to visit Atlanta;
     Attend all meetings where three or more IOC members are
            gathered;
     Communicate with IOC members on a regular basis; and
     Establish a personalized gift program to IOC members.
        That strategy, along with the efforts of our many volunteers,
    apparently worked. We will never know the relative importance to
    Atlanta's victory of the technical merit of our bid, but it was ranked
    as the best by the official IOC Evaluation Commission; of intangibles,
    such as its civil rights leadership; of the dedication and tremendous
    enthusiasm of our volunteers and our entire community; and of the
    personal relationships we developed with IOC members, which were
    supported by gifts, travel, entertainment, and other accommodations. We
    do know that the amount of money that GAAF spent on IOC members and
    throughout the selection process was not by itself the deciding factor.
    GAAF spent approximately $7.8 million while it was reported that most
    other cities spent considerably more: Athens, Greece--$25 million;
    Melbourne, Australia--$20 million; and Toronto, Canada--$15 million.
    Most of this money was spent after the fall of 1988, when Lillehammer
    was selected to host the Winter Games.
        Despite the difference in spending, GAAF was able to accomplish its
    goal of winning the Olympic bid, and then successfully staged the 1996
    Games through the tireless efforts of thousands of civic-minded
    volunteers and tremendous community, corporate, and governmental
    support. As a result, both Georgia and the IOC were able to reap the
    benefits of the 1996 Games.
        Make no mistake--the Olympic Games are a huge financial
    undertaking. ACOG agreed to shoulder responsibility to raise and spend
    over $1.7 billion dollars just to put on the Olympic Games in Atlanta.
    At the end of the day, ACOG accomplished its goal of breaking even.
        The United States Olympic Committee and U.S. athletes benefit
    significantly when Olympic Games are hosted in the United States. The
    Atlanta Games provided the USOC approximately $230 million from
    television, marketing, and sponsorship proceeds, including moneys
    received through the IOC. The IOC also benefits from staging the Games
    by taking a share of virtually every dollar raised, some of which is
    distributed back to the USOC along with other national organizing
    committees. The IOC controls, must approve, and shares in all
    television rights, sponsorships, licensed merchandise, commemorative
    coins or memorabilia. For Atlanta, the IOC retained 40% of television
    rights fees, 5% of all merchandise or goods sold, and 3% of the
    revenues from the sale of Olympic coins. All totaled, the IOC received
    approximately $400 million in cash and value from the Atlanta Games.
        In our supplemental report, we indicated that the prize of the bid
    competition ``was enormous: hosting the Olympics brought incalculable
    prestige and potentially billions of dollars in economic impact to the
    winning city.'' In fact, this was precisely the impact on Atlanta as
    the result of the 1996 Games.
        The 1996 Games stimulated hundreds of millions of dollars in
    permanent capital investment in Georgia, with a total economic impact
    for Georgia of more than $4 billion. The 1996 Games stimulated
    approximately 2.5 million square feet of new construction and
    installation of more than 2,000 miles of fiber optic cable. Some of
    Georgia's most popular destinations include two primary Olympic
    legacies--Centennial Olympic Park and Turner Field. Much of that
    investment also brought major infrastructure and facility improvements
    to several Georgia academic institutions. Citizens in other Georgia
    cities still enjoy the Georgia International Park in Conyers, the Stone
    Mountain tennis center, the Columbus softball complex and the Lake
    Lanier rowing center. The 1996 Games helped define Atlanta as an
    ``international city'' and dramatically increased domestic and
    international tourism in Atlanta.
        The Olympics clearly have an extraordinary intangible impact as
    well. The 1996 Games allowed Georgia and Americans to experience the
    grandeur of the Olympics first hand. Athletes from all over the world
    visited Atlanta and pushed the very edges of their personal envelopes
    with the whole world watching. Relationships were formed that
    transcended governments and ideologies. We watched Atlanta and Georgia
    learn more about the world, and the world learn more about us. And,
    although the media has recently focused on the negative aspects of the
    Olympic bid process, the media archives are replete with stories
    describing the magnificence of the Olympic spirit so overwhelmingly
    demonstrated in Atlanta and America during the 1996 Games.
        Despite all that is wonderful about the Olympic legacy, I do
    believe that reform is needed in the bidding process, particularly in
    the areas of gifts and travel.
        In the intensely competitive site selection process, the temptation
    is great for bidding cities to offer--and IOC members to accept--
    generous gifts. To eliminate this temptation and potential for abuse, I
    believe that all gifts of any value whatsoever should be prohibited in
    the bidding process. Also, IOC members should be required to report any
    offers of gifts from bid cities and the IOC should create and
    vigorously implement some type of enforcement mechanism for these
    rules.
        Our report, and those reports which have detailed the activities
    relating to recent Olympic bids in Toronto, Sydney, and Salt Lake City
    have identified the entire travel and reimbursement area as one
    particularly susceptible to excesses and abuses by bidding cities or
    members of the international sporting family. This potential for excess
    is increased by the significant international travel costs at issue and
    the reluctance of bid cities to interrogate or challenge IOC members
    about their itineraries or backup documentation. To avoid this problem,
    I believe that all travel of IOC members should be paid for directly by
    the IOC and no reimbursement for travel costs should be required of any
    bidding cities in the competition.
        In closing, let me say that we were indeed aggressive as we
    launched our city's effort for the first time ever into the intensely
    competitive international arena. We genuinely felt we had to be
    aggressive in order to prevail in that arena. That aggressiveness and
    our inherent enthusiasm obviously contributed to the excesses detailed
    in our report. That same enthusiasm also contributed to an incredible
    ``pulling together'' of the people of Atlanta as we embraced this
    common purpose and shared vision of bringing the Olympic Games to our
    home city.
        I salute your efforts to safeguard the future of the Olympic
    movement and the opportunity for other American cities to compete for
    the honor of hosting the Olympic Games.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Mr. Young.

                        TESTIMONY OF ANDREW YOUNG

        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for
    inviting us to testify before this committee.
        I'd like to go back to the time when we first started this,
    because when we went to Seoul in 1988, we were a small group of
    volunteers operating almost totally on our own funds and
    knowing that we were getting into a rough game, but we heard
    the stories of diamonds and furs exchanged in Olympic
    competitions amongst IOC members. We knew we couldn't play that
    game. But knowing that it might be a dirty game like in a dirty
    game of football, you figure you don't have to play dirty, but
    when you get in it, you expect to win. So we got in the game,
    and we were determined to win.
        We learned two things in Seoul. The first was to our shame
    and surprise, nobody really knew Atlanta. They kept getting us
    confused with Atlantic City. And we had to define ourselves,
    and one of the reasons we went out of our way to get people to
    come to Atlanta was nobody knew Atlanta. People know
    Washington. They know New York. They know California. The only
    thing they knew about the South was civil rights, the Civil
    War, and Disney World. One of the reasons why we openly agreed
    to take people to Disney World was that's what they knew about
    the South. That's what they wanted to see.
        The other thing we learned about at Seoul was that this was
    a very complex process. We watched the bidding for the Winter
    Olympics, and all of the conventional wisdom was that the great
    cities and the great nations would win. Anchorage was the U.S.
    bid. Ostersund was Sweden's bid; Sofia was Bulgaria's bid; and
    there were all kinds of theories. Nobody thought Lillehammer,
    including Samaranch, and when Lillehammer won, nobody could
    figure out why. As we went around to the IOC members to try to
    figure out why, we kept hearing they were such nice people. We
    determined that in five secret ballots, one, you can't buy an
    election in five secret ballots. You have a ballot. People
    don't talk to each other. The low person drops out. Then they
    vote on the next one. The lowest vote drops out. Then they vote
    on the next one. You've got to survive five secret ballots with
    no communication. We decided that was, one, a pretty honest
    process, one that, in order to win, you had to capture the
    hearts of the IOC members. And that's why we set out to do such
    detailed analysis of the personalities.
        Most of the people on the IOC are enormously rich, and
    money doesn't matter, but a lot of the subtleties of their egos
    and ambitions and their interests were important in helping
    them to understand Atlanta. It was also necessary for us to
    demonstrate that we had the capacity to put on the games.
        Now, in dealing with the poorer nations and the poorer
    members, we had another problem, and that is we were known to
    be a rich nation. There was a lot of resentment that our
    athletes were well-trained and well-fed. Their athletes had no
    training facilities. Their athletes had no equipment, and yet
    we were expecting them to come and compete. We were constantly
    challenged to show that we had an interest in the developing
    world's athletes.
        We were able to do that in part because we've always done
    that in Atlanta. We had a training camp for athletes before
    coming to Los Angeles when we had no ambitions for the games
    and no interest for the games. Local businessmen put together
    money, and we sponsored a training camp at Emory University,
    and we allowed athletes to come there and train for 2 or 3
    weeks, for a month, before going to Los Angeles. It was simply
    goodwill. We hosted the Angolan team in Atlanta one summer.
    Local citizens did this just to give Angolans a chance to play
    basketball. We also ended up recruiting a couple of their
    basketball players for our junior college, but it's been
    something we've constantly done, and if there were excesses in
    this direction, those excesses were consistent with our
    practices even before we were involved in the Olympics.
        My family has always been involved in helping people from
    other countries get education. It's part of our church
    tradition because our family was educated by missionaries. So
    we feel a responsibility for several generations to make sure
    that anybody who wants a good education in the United States of
    America ought to be able to have it if they're willing to work
    and study, and when we were involved in things like this, it
    wasn't with the intent of bribing IOC members. It's because
    that's the way we've always done business in Atlanta. If we
    took people to Augusta, it's because that's the way we got
    1,100 businesses into Georgia during the time I was mayor of
    Atlanta, because we bring them on the red carpet tour, and we'd
    show them the best that we had to offer, and we would try to
    impress them with the quality of life that we had, because we
    didn't have tax breaks. We couldn't compete with other States
    in terms of the amenities. So we tried to put the emphasis on
    honesty and efficiency and, yes, southern hospitality. We could
    make you feel at home, and we could treat you better in Atlanta
    than anywhere else in the world. That's the way we've done
    business, and that's the way we've been a successful city.
        We didn't want to lose this, and we probably did overextend
    ourselves and our hospitality, but it wasn't with the intention
    of corrupting the system. It was with the intention of
    demonstrating that we with our diversity represented best what
    the Olympic ideal stood for, and we bragged about our
    affirmative action. We bragged that the Hispanic
    representatives could come; and the president of Coca-Cola was
    Robert Goizueta, a Hispanic; that the president of one of our
    larger engineering firms was born in India; that we had a
    Polish community and an Irish community that would entertain
    people, and no matter what language you were or what your
    cultural background was, we found a way to speak your language
    and to introduce you to Atlanta and make you feel at home.
        That's what we thought we were doing. We think we did it
    successfully, and that's why it's been hard for us to think of
    what we did in the context of a culture of corruption and us
    having been co-opted by a culture of corruption. We have
    problems with that, though we admit that in any international
    ethical environment, whether it's the United Nations, the IOC,
    the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, there are
    competing standards of ethics. Ours, I think, are the highest.
    We have a responsibility to uphold those and fight for them,
    but in the meantime, we try to play the game as fairly as we
    can on a level playing field and win, and that's what we think
    we did.
        [The prepared statement of Andrew Young follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Andrew Young, Good Works International
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
    delighted to be here with you to discuss our thoughts and your thoughts
    about the Olympic Games.
        Let me first say that I am enormously proud of Mr. Billy Payne and
    the thousands of volunteers who first helped Atlanta to win, then
    prepared Atlanta to host the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games. These past
    few months of discussion and review of the Olympic bid process have in
    no way diminished the pride that I feel for our efforts.
        In my career, I have been involved with countless activities in
    which people from all walks of life joined together for a brilliant
    cause. During the 1960's, people joined together to fight racial and
    economic oppression under the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
    In the decades that followed, people joined together to fight social
    and cultural oppression in Third World nations across the globe, often
    under the leadership of President Jimmy Carter.
        One common thread that has united and joined people together is the
    Olympic Games. When Atlanta hosted the 1996 Games, nearly 200 countries
    fielded teams, the most participating countries in the history of the
    Games. For nearly three weeks during those Games, virtually every
    country on the planet focused their attention on Atlanta--and on the
    United States--because of one reason: the athletes.
        It is the athletes that embody the deep spirit of the Olympic
    Games. Not the corporate sponsors' Not the Olympic committees or
    federations or the individuals who bid for the Games' Not the
    television producers or commentators. What most excites the athletes
    about competing in the Games? I think it is the chance to experience
    the world, the chance to become friends with their peers from 200
    different countries. And maybe, through their new friendships with
    people who do not share the same language, these athletes can begin to
    understand what they all share--and that is, the diversity of the human
    race.
        Atlanta won its Olympic bid on the strength of its diversity and
    inclusiveness, thus 40 percent of the Olympic related construction
    contracts were awarded to minority- and women-owned firms. Our good job
    of promoting economic diversity led to greatly increased wealth. With
    two billion dollars in spending on the Olympics, Atlanta led the region
    in economic growth during the 1990s. The total economic impact from the
    Olympic Games in 1996 for both Atlanta and Georgia is estimated at more
    than $4 billion.
        As I was about to conclude my second term as mayor of the city of
    Atlanta, things had gone very well for seven years. I had inherited
    from Maynard Jackson a sound base of urban development. We had just
    completed a new terminal at Hartsfield International Airport, the mass
    transit program--which I had helped to start while I served in
    Congress--was moving steadily along and in general, things were in good
    shape.
        I began an effort with the Chamber of Commerce, the Convention and
    Visitors Bureau and the State Commission of Trade and Industry to
    attract new, private investment to the city. In my eight years as
    Mayor, we attracted over seventy billion dollars in private investment.
    This was a city generating wealth not just trying to redistribute
    existing wealth through taxation.
        On the heels of this success, two local attorneys, Horace Sibley
    and Billy Payne, wanted to talk to me about hosting the Olympics in
    1996. Most Atlantans laughed at the notion but I had a vision of the
    Olympics in 1936 in Berlin. I was four years old and my father took me
    to a local theatre to see a Movietone clip of Jesse Owens winning four
    gold medals, defeating in our eyes Hitler's vision of a white master
    race.
        Even so, I hesitated. As Mayor, I was acutely aware of the
    financial debacle inherited by the city of Montreal when it hosted the
    1976 Summer Olympic Games. Jokes were still made about its Olympic
    Stadium, where the Montreal Expos had since played baseball, and that
    for every hot dog the fans bought, another penny went to reducing the
    city's Olympic debt. Many pennies were required--the taxpayer burden
    approached one billion dollars. The Atlanta Games would have to be
    privately funded. I would not allow Atlanta's taxpayers to owe one
    penny.
        But Billy was persistent. Billy and I were both men with a
    religious sense of service. Billy says that he first had the dream of
    bringing the Olympics to Atlanta during dedication services for a $1
    million addition to his church in Dunwoody. He and his wife, Martha,
    spearheaded the capital improvement campaign and he liked the notion of
    public service and wanted to do more on a bigger scale. Bringing the
    Olympics to Atlanta was certainly that and more.
        Atlanta had the airport, transit system, 6,000 hotel rooms, a
    massive convention center, a new domed stadium, and the ideal site for
    the Olympic Village--all needed to win the Olympic bid. However,
    Atlanta's global contribution was--and remains--clearly in the area of
    human rights and the ability of people from many divergent backgrounds
    to live together in harmony.
        More than 1,000 churches offered hospitality to families of
    visiting athletes during the Olympics and thousands upon thousands of
    volunteers helped put on the Games. Volunteers ``made a witness to the
    world'' during the bidding and the preparation of the Games. All of the
    volunteer efforts were strictly volunteer, with no monetary gain.
        Volunteers helped clean up the city beforehand, took tickets and
    drove dignitaries and officials to venues and hotels. Doctors
    volunteered at the Olympic Village, homemakers and students volunteered
    wherever needed, and the city's business community donated time, money
    and goodwill.
        The strategy to promote Atlanta as the host for the Centennial
    Olympic Games was developed largely by local volunteers who understood
    the universal appeal of the American South's reputation for hospitality
    and graciousness. During our bid effort, these volunteers helped
    educate visiting members of the International Olympic Committee about
    the virtues of Atlanta. Rather than entertain the IOC members in fancy
    restaurants, volunteers all over Atlanta invited them into their homes.
    Here, they saw that the top executive of our largest company, Coca-
    Cola, was Hispanic, and Atlanta had business and civic leaders whose
    ethnic backgrounds were as diverse as could be imagined.
        These members of the International Olympic Committee also were
    impressed by Atlanta's, and in particular my own personal experience,
    with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and his courageous leadership of the
    American Civil Rights Movement. I spent many moving hours with the IOC
    representatives from Africa and from other destitute nations around the
    world. What they knew of Dr. King was nothing short of legendary. He
    and his work inspired them in their own countries, even as they were
    faced with unspeakable poverty, ethnic hatred and violence, and
    deplorable living conditions.
        I shared with these IOC members that our Movement began as a
    struggle for freedom. But despite important gains in education and
    economic opportunity, for black Americans without education, political
    power, or wealth, their condition remained as Martin once described,
    ``a lonely island of poverty in an ocean of material wealth and
    affluence.'' The IOC members from Africa and other Third World nations
    understood this perfectly, because their island of poverty was very
    real.
        The people in these countries had nothing. When asked by the IOC
    delegate from the Republic of the Congo if I could help children in the
    Congo get soccer balls and gym shorts, I tried to help them. For this,
    Atlanta's Olympic bid effort has been scrutinized. Mr. Chairman, I have
    dedicated my life to helping children like these, and I am at peace
    with myself that this act of human kindness was appropriate. If I had
    failed to help these children--who even with new soccer balls still
    competed in games in their bare feet--I would not be at peace. The
    issue of whether or not this was within the gift-giving guidelines of
    the Olympic bid process was not my primary concern. Nor was the issue
    of winning a vote for Atlanta. We saw a need to help an impoverished
    people, and we helped them.
        The Atlanta Olympic Organizing Committee donated money to a South
    African anti-apartheid organization. This organization was fighting the
    single greatest obstacle to the African continent and needed help. This
    organization was not even affiliated with any Olympic group, because
    South Africa at that time was banned from Olympic competition. Why?
    Because of apartheid. The issue of whether or not this was a
    questionable gift was not my primary concern. We saw a need to bring
    apartheid to an end, and in a small way, perhaps we helped.
        I cannot tell you how excited I was when the South African athletes
    marched into the Atlanta Olympic Stadium during the Opening Ceremonies
    on July 19, 1996. But my spirit was truly lifted when--on the final day
    of competition on August 4, 1996--a young South African athlete won the
    Gold Medal in the final event of the Olympics, the men's marathon.
        Let me briefly digress: I urge the Subcommittee to remember that in
    determining a city to host the Olympic Games, the selection process by
    the IOC is a series of secret ballots, taken in silence, one at a time.
    The low vote getter is dropped and new ballots are marked until one
    city gets a majority. With Atlanta, it took five secret ballots, and
    from the small number of votes cast by the IOC members for Atlanta in
    the early rounds of balloting, it is apparent that Atlanta did not buy
    the vote. We had determined from the beginning that the only way to win
    was to become the ``emotional'' favorite. With five secret ballots,
    people voted their hearts as well as their heads. The ballots occurred
    as follows:

     Round 1: Athens 23, Atlanta 19, Toronto 14, Melbourne 12,
            Manchester 11, Belgrade 7
     Round 2: Athens 23, Melbourne 21, Atlanta 20, Toronto 15,
            Manchester 5
     Round 3: Athens 26, Atlanta 26, Toronto 18, Melbourne 16
     Round 4: Atlanta 34, Athens 30, Toronto 22
     Round 5: Atlanta 51, Athens 35
        We also believe that Atlanta spent less than one-third as much as
    some of our competitors in our bid process. Since few people--even in
    Atlanta--thought we could win, there was no incentive to spend more.
        As we all discuss ways to make the Olympic bid process more
    transparent and accountable, I hope that wise ideas will be presented.
    The IOC should be applauded for taking its reform efforts. But perhaps
    even bolder and wiser ideas should be considered. For example, one way
    to eliminate excesses in Olympic bid activities is to eliminate the bid
    process--by selecting two cities on each continent to be permanent
    sites for the Games. One city for the Summer Games and one city for the
    Winter Games. Cities wishing to be considered could apply to the
    International Olympic Committee through a streamlined and well-
    supervised process. The Games would rotate to each city, giving each
    city the host responsibilities once every 20 years. This is not unlike
    the way football's Super Bowl goes to small selection of cities each
    January.
        But whatever reforms are enacted, it is incumbent upon this body--
    and all other oversight groups--to let the Games be about the athletes.
    It should not be easy to overlook the athletes. Some will say that the
    Olympic Games are now just a big business, like all other professional
    sports and many amateur sports organizations. However, for the
    athletes--especially the Olympic athletes--it is all about the business
    of athletic competition and human achievement. And through their
    competition and achievement, we as the citizens of the planet are
    touched and inspired to do great deeds ourselves.
        I believe Atlanta has a magical sense of destiny that motivates us
    to excel. Billy Payne's sincerity and my own spiritual faith led us to
    believe deeply in the power of sport to make a change in the world.
        Billy and I shared a dream about the Olympics that went beyond any
    economic gains for the city. We firmly believed that the Olympics could
    help young people to dream, hope and believe in more than the common
    everyday life, which sometimes isn't that fulfilling to them. When you
    look into the heart of the Olympics, you will see a spiritual ideology.
    I believe that, other than the American Civil Rights Movement, which
    counts Atlanta as its birthplace, the campaign for the Olympics was the
    greatest single spiritual experience in Atlanta's history. Sports can
    promote human development, as a means of breaking barriers, racial,
    ethnic, and economic. Sports help nurture and sustain community values.
        In times of greatness in human history, men and women have been
    able to find a way to bring their lives and the lives of their
    generation in tune with the Spirit of God, in harmony. When
    civilizations have made sense, they have somehow found a way to live in
    harmony with a spiritual basis of life.
        What the Olympic Games have contributed to this spiritual basis of
    life is hard to measure, but I know that it has been a great
    contribution. Thank you very much.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Mr. Hybl.

                      TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. HYBL

        Mr. Hybl. Mr. Chairman, I'm Bill Hybl, president of the
    U.S. Olympic Committee. I certainly appreciate the opportunity
    to address the committee today.
        At the outset, let me say that the U.S. Olympic Committee
    is one of 200 National Olympic Committees around the world, and
    in that capacity this particular National Olympic Committee has
    a mission, and our primary mission is to support assistance of
    U.S. athletes who compete in the Olympic Games, summer and
    winter, the Pan American Games, and certainly the para-Olympic
    Games.
        Under the rules the International Olympic Committee has
    currently, an NOC, National Olympic Committee, like the United
    States may put forward one candidate seeking to host the games.
    It's the responsibility of the U.S., just as it did with
    Atlanta, to select one city and then to oversee that particular
    city in terms of what is done after the bid goes on.
        By 1997, it was apparent that the U.S. Olympic Committee
    was going to select a bid city for the 2012 games and also a
    bid city to compete for the 2007 Pan American Games. What we've
    done for the Pan American Games will be obvious this month as
    the U.S. Olympic Committee will select that city on October 23.
    Mr. Chairman, we will provide as we receive today the report,
    some hundred or so pages, of the bid evaluation committee under
    the new procedures that we are using. In fact, we go back to
    February 1997, 33 cities from throughout the United States
    decided that they would like in some form or another to
    participate in what the U.S. Olympic Committee was doing as far
    as a bid city goes. Now, we established a bid city office at
    that time, and that has gone forward.
        We were interrupted, of course, by the bid city scandal
    from Salt Lake City, which occurred in November and December
    1998. The U.S. Olympic Committee reacted on two fronts. Before
    the end of that month, the USOC established the Mitchell
    Commission, which has been alluded to earlier, and great
    membership, individuals who really cared about the Olympic
    movement and making a difference.
        At the same time, USOC also initiated an independent and
    really thorough investigation to review what role the USOC may
    have had in Salt Lake City. In March 1999, the Mitchell
    Commission's recommendations were tendered on the first day of
    the month. The executive committee convened on the second day
    of March 1999 in Washington and adopted all of the
    recommendations by the Mitchell Commission. We felt it was
    important to move quickly and decisively, particularly because
    we had such good guidance from the Mitchell Commission.
        With the issuance of the King & Spalding report on
    September 16, we now have new information revealing that some
    of the excesses of Salt Lake City also occurred in Atlanta.
    USOC has not conducted its own independent investigation, but
    as you can tell from the reading of your report, the issues
    remain the same.
        What we have done in terms of reform within the U.S.
    Olympic Committee is, No. 1, future American bid cities will be
    prohibited from creating or maintaining any sort of
    international assistance program.
        No. 2, the USOC will strictly apply its criteria for grants
    awarded by the International Assistance Fund, and this will be
    monitored by the in-place Office of Compliance of the U.S.
    Olympic Committee.
        The USOC has created this Office of Compliance, and it's
    not only responsible for ensuring compliance with the rules
    applicable to the bid process, but also with a comprehensive
    set of revised conflict of interest proposals.
        Four, the USOC has strengthened its rules and contracts
    that govern that domestic selection process. We've addressed
    all 15 recommendations in this area by the Mitchell Commission.
        The USOC also has strengthened its direct oversight
    policies and its contract with the city so that, in fact, the
    USOC will be a partner ever present for bid cities in the
    future.
        Meetings of the USOC Board of Directors are now open. That
    includes the executive committee, and we're making all of our
    documents, our minutes, public after they're adopted. We think
    this really projects an image of openness and also gives
    everyone an opportunity to see what the USOC is doing.
        We've required a series of other things as set out in the
    testimony which has been submitted.
        We think the USOC has acted decisively in this regard in
    implementing all of the Mitchell Commission reform
    recommendations, but the USOC could have done more. The USOC in
    its effort to oversee Atlanta and Salt Lake City fell short. If
    we had done what we have in place today, we probably wouldn't
    be here before the committee.
        I want to assure the members of the committee, Mr.
    Chairman, that the U.S. Olympic Committee stands ready to
    assist in whatever way possible to ensure that this situation
    does not occur again and, more importantly, we create the sort
    of atmosphere that athletes from the United States and around
    the world can continue to be proud to be an Olympian and
    participate in the game.
        [The prepared statement of William J. Hybl follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Bill Hybl, President, United States Olympic
                                   Committee
        Good morning, I am Bill Hybl, President of the United States
    Olympic Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to address you today.
                    i. bid city selection process background
        Under the rules of the International Olympic Committee, a nation's
    National Olympic Committee may put forward one candidate city seeking
    to host the Olympic Games. It is the responsibility of the USOC to
    first select the U.S. bid city, if any, that will be put forward to the
    IOC and to then oversee that city's candidacy during the selection
    process governed by the IOC.
        By 1997, it was apparent that the United States Olympic Committee
    was going to select a city to bid for the 2012 Olympic Games and the
    2007 Pan American Games. Before those site selection processes
    commenced, and well in advance of any knowledge of the Salt Lake City
    bid scandal, the USOC recognized the need to guide and oversee the
    process for U.S. bid cities for the 2012 Olympic Games and the 2007 Pan
    American Games so that difficulties would not arise. This resulted in a
    February 1997 orientation, in Philadelphia, for 33 potential bid
    cities, the subsequent establishment of a bid cities office within the
    USOC and the creation of a series of undertakings and agreements,
    copies of which, as they existed prior to the eruption of the Salt Lake
    City bid scandal, have been made available to your staff.
        When news of the Salt Lake City bid city scandal broke in December
    1998, the USOC reacted on two fronts. Before the end of the month, the
    USOC established the Special Bid Oversight Commission (the Mitchell
    Commission), chaired by Senator George Mitchell, with vice chairs Ken
    Duberstein and Don Fehr, and members Roberta Cooper Ramo and Jeff Benz,
    to review the circumstances surrounding Salt Lake City's bid to host
    the Olympic Winter Games with a view to improving the policies and
    procedures related to bid processes. At the same time, the USOC also
    initiated an independent and thorough investigation and review of its
    role in the Salt Lake City scandal. In March 1999, the USOC's Executive
    Committee accepted all the recommendations of the Mitchell Commission
    and began the process of reform implementation based upon both the
    Mitchell Report and its own investigative findings.
                             ii. report on atlanta
        With the issuance of the King & Spalding report of September 16,
    1999, we now have new information revealing that some of the excesses
    of Salt Lake City also occurred in Atlanta. The USOC has not conducted
    an investigation of the Atlanta bid and therefore cannot comment on the
    accuracy or completeness of the King & Spalding report. There is
    nothing in the report, however, that would cause us to change our
    response to the bid scandal. If anything, the King & Spalding report
    supports the view of the Mitchell Commission that gifts and excesses
    have increased over time. The lesson of Atlanta is the same as the
    lesson of Salt Lake City, and it is a lesson that we have taken to
    heart.
                       iii. status of usoc reform efforts
        Let me briefly review with you what we have accomplished, to date.
        1. Future American bid cities will be prohibited from creating or
    maintaining international assistance programs. (Authorizing resolution
    approved by the USOC's Executive Committee on March 2, 1999.)
        2. The USOC will strictly apply its criteria for grants awarded by
    the International Assistance Fund, with adherence monitored by an
    office of compliance. (Authorizing resolution approved by the Executive
    Committee on March 2, 1999.)
        3. The USOC has created an office of compliance that is responsible
    for ensuring compliance not only with rules applicable to the bid
    process, but also with a comprehensive set of revised conflict of
    interest policies. (These revised policies will be voted on at the
    USOC's October 23rd Board of Directors Meeting.)
        4. The USOC has strengthened the rules and contracts that govern
    the domestic selection process. These revisions address all 15 of the
    recommendations proposed by the Mitchell Commission. (Authorizing
    resolution approved by the Executive Committee on March 2, 1999.)
        5. The USOC will strengthen its direct oversight policies and its
    contract with the city chosen as the United States' candidate in the
    international selection process. These revisions will also address all
    of the recommendations proposed by the Mitchell Commission.
    (Authorizing resolution approved by the Executive Committee on March 2,
    1999.)
        6. Meetings of the USOC's Board of Directors and Executive
    Committee are now open to the public. Minutes of these meetings are now
    available to the public upon adoption. (Authorizing resolution approved
    by the Executive Committee on March 2, 1999.)
        7. All members of the USOC's Board of Directors and Executive
    Committee will be required to attend 75% of the meetings either in
    person or by telephone, subject to exceptions approved by the President
    or Secretary General. (Resolution approved by the Executive Committee
    on March 2, 1999, with further authorizing action pending.)
        8. The USOC will seek to enhance the participation of athletes in
    its governance at the officer level. (Approved by the Executive
    Committee and currently being reviewed by the USOC's Constitutional
    Review Task Force.)
        9. An independent management study tasked to recommend ways to
    enhance the USOC's governance, including a specific view to encourage
    the participation of athletes, minorities, disabled, and women at the
    Executive Committee level, is now complete. (The recommendations of the
    study have been approved by the Executive Committee, in principle, and
    will be presented for review at the October 23rd Board of Directors
    Meeting and for approval early in 2000.)
        10. The Executive Committee requested the President of the United
    States to issue an Executive Order naming the IOC as a ``public
    international organization'' within the meaning of the Foreign Corrupt
    Practices Act in a March 3, 1999 letter.
        The USOC has acted decisively in an effort to ensure that in the
    future no U.S. city engages in the conduct that has been reported from
    Atlanta and Salt Lake City. The impact of our reforms, however, will be
    reduced if there is not concurrent and meaningful change within the
    IOC. I know that Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Duberstein intend to address
    that subject, Dr. Kissinger in his capacity as a member of the IOC 2000
    Reform Commission and Mr. Duberstein as Vice Chair of the Mitchell
    Commission.
                        iv. assessment of reform efforts
        In reviewing the events and actions that have transpired over the
    past 10 months, I would like to make the following observations:
        1. The USOC could have done more to oversee the Atlanta and Salt
    Lake City bid processes. If we had done so, we would probably not be
    here today.
        2. The establishment of a USOC bid cities office and the
    restructuring of U.S. bid process, both of which occurred well before
    the eruption of the scandal, and the adoption of the Mitchell
    Commission's recommendations, in March 1999, represent a forceful
    response to abuses that took place in the past and a significant
    deterrent to any such activity in the future.
        3. United States efforts within the IOC reform process have been
    productive and, while the results of the December Special IOC Session
    will be the measure of merit, good progress has been made by the IOC to
    date.
        4. In less than a year, the USOC has aggressively implemented its
    own major reforms and will present to its Board of Directors, on
    October 23rd, a design for an independent United States drug-testing
    agency. In early 2000, a complete reorganization of the USOC's basic
    management structure will be presented to the Board of Directors for
    its approval. During this same time period, the USOC has also provided
    significant impetus to the pace and direction of the IOC's reform
    efforts, as reflected in the IOC's positive responses, to date, to the
    Mitchell Commission recommendations.
        5. Overall, significant progress has been made in a short period of
    time and I am confident that we are on the road to constructive reform
    within not only the USOC, but also the entire Olympic Movement.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Helmick.

                     TESTIMONY OF ROBERT H. HELMICK

        Mr. Helmick. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be
    here and provide you with information. It is sad that we must
    be here, but we must be here, and I really applaud your efforts
    and the endeavors which are bringing public attention to this
    situation that must be corrected. It's through efforts like
    this of bringing public attention that we can support and
    expedite the parties that need to make the reforms that we
    need.
        You asked my comments concerning the relationship between
    the U.S. Olympic Committee and Atlanta Bid Committee and also
    of the Atlanta Bid Committee's relationship with USA delegates
    to the IOC. I was the president of the U.S. Olympic Committee
    and IOC member from 1985 through 1991 during this bid process,
    and I've been involved in the organization and administration
    of every Olympics since Munich in 1972, when I was chef de
    mission of our water polo team, which brought home a bronze
    medal. I wish it were gold. A bronze medal to the United
    States.
        First as President Hybl has mentioned, the U.S. Olympic
    Committee is charged with the responsibility of selecting one,
    and only one, city that may present itself as a nominee for
    receiving the Olympic Games. Once the U.S. Olympic Committee
    selects that city, that city puts together a bidding committee,
    which at this time was comprised of leading citizens from the
    city itself. At that point it was the bid committee and not the
    USOC that was responsible for this lobbying effort, but I
    quickly say that--Atlanta called upon our knowledge and
    experience and help to--with their lobbying effort--had to put
    together the technical bid. Atlanta quickly became familiar
    with this process, and pretty much from there on out the
    lobbying effort was theirs and not ours.
        We did support them in some of these areas which you have
    noted. For instance, in the area of training athletes, in 1985,
    the U.S. Olympic Committee adopted an aggressive international
    relations program for what we call the friendship fund, and we
    would have athletes from foreign countries come to the United
    States to train. We felt it was in the hands of the national
    governing bodies; any such exchange had to be approved by the
    national governing body as furthering those sports programs.
    Those triggered in some cases IOC members would ask Atlanta to
    help them train their athletes, and they would come to the
    USOC. We assisted, but I want to tell you with Atlanta's
    concurrence the final decision and those training camps
    supported by the U.S. Olympic Committee went through our
    national governing bodies to be sure there was a valid reason
    for doing that.
        A great deal has been said about the excessive gifts, the
    lavish travel arrangements. I'd like to make a very important
    point, because this has been contested internationally.
    Excessive gifts and extravagant visits were not conceived or
    begun by any American city. This culture developed over a long
    period of time. I personally witnessed it. What happened is we
    had disaster after disaster from Mexico City, the student riots
    in Montreal, the massacre in Munich, the horrible death, and
    finally the awful situation, the political award of the games
    to Moscow in 1980 and the boycott. The games were a shamble.
    Nobody wanted them when Los Angeles bid for them, and nobody
    else would take them.
        Finally Los Angeles came, and we showed that the games
    could be run in a businesslike manner and make a profit, and
    suddenly everybody wanted a piece of the action. Let the games
    begin, because at that point, starting with Barcelona and Paris
    in 1986, the gifts became lavish, and they increased from that
    point until Nagano was awarded the games in 1991 amidst cries
    that the games were bought.
        Atlanta started--came into the scene just at this point,
    before Nagano. The excessiveness had not--the gift creep had
    not increased, as mentioned in the Mitchell report, at that
    time, but what happened, it grew over the years. Atlanta was
    sort of caught in the middle. There were certain rules, certain
    reactions by the IOC like this $200 rule. Please, that was not
    a rule, because it was adopted and yet never enforced. There
    was never any attempt to enforce, and indeed, as one of the
    vice presidents of the IOC said, it was a guideline. So Atlanta
    should not be hung out on whether something cost $300 rather
    than $200. They came in, as they have testified, and said they
    came into this culture, and what they did, frankly, I have to
    say, and not to excuse it at all, it was commonplace, and, in
    fact, they did modestly compared to other cities at that time.
        You asked my comments on the relationship between Atlanta
    and the IOC members. It's customary for bid cities to ask the
    IOC members from a country to assist in the bids to arrange
    meetings, and indeed sometimes to participate in the lobbying
    effort. It is a matter of personal preference to what extent
    the IOC member will actually become involved in the boosterism.
    The IOC member from that country wants to and should help
    support that bid.
        I have to say I think this is something that you will be
    interested in. We, IOC members and leaders, we spend a lot of
    time with a bid committee. Of course we were aware of what was
    going on. You can't spend that amount of time not being aware.
    Of course, this excessiveness was known to everyone in the IOC.
    I'm not here to say we would necessarily know about each
    transaction that occurred or whether a dog was offered that was
    worth $700 or $50, but certainly this whole culture was well
    known at that time, well reported. I think some of the
    attitudes of members, my own, were reported in the press at
    that particular time.
        I'd also like to make a final comment concerning Atlanta.
    Please keep in mind that they did a wonderful thing for this
    country in the bidding process whether they won the games or
    not. The prior Olympics represented entertainment and business.
    This bid committee represented how the United States citizens
    could bridge differences in culture, racial backgrounds and
    come together and do a remarkable thing. I applaud them.
        Likewise, I applaud Bill Hybl, President Hybl's efforts.
    The USOC has a history of reacting appropriately and decisively
    to these types of crises, and they've done a great job.
        Bill, I don't know how you could have done a better job.
        They're to be applauded. That's not to say there's more
    that should be done.
        I would like to end up by saying the true reform will only
    come if we demand a commitment by all the parties, the IOC, the
    Olympic committees, international federations aided by the
    athletes that--that we'll have--that will bring about checks
    and balances. It's only through a true commitment from all
    these parties to reform. It's not making commissions and making
    rules. It's through a true commitment of all parties. I thank
    you very much for your interest.
        [The prepared statement of Robert H. Helmick follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Robert H. Helmick, Past President of the USOC &
                               Former IOC Member
                                  introduction
        My name is Robert H. Helmick. I am an attorney in the City of Des
    Moines, and a senior partner in the international law firm of Dorsey &
    Whitney LLP. You have requested my testimony regarding the relationship
    of the United States Olympic Committee, the International Olympic
    Committee and its delegates, and the Atlanta Bid Committee with respect
    to Atlanta's bid during the period of time that I was president of the
    United States Olympic Committee and a member of the International
    Olympic Committee.
               atlanta's and usoc's procedure to obtain the games
        The IOC Charter and the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act
    set out the USOC's responsibility for the selection of a United States
    city to hold the Olympic Games:
        1. Interested cities go through a bidding process before the USOC
    to prove their capacity and abilities to seek the award of the Olympic
    Games from the IOC.
        2. The USOC then selects one city to be its candidate to the IOC
    for the Olympic Games.
        3. If successful, that city forms a bidding committee comprised of
    individuals from the city which actively bids for the Games.
        4. If the IOC awards the Games to that city, it must form an
    organizing committee comprised of individuals from the city,
    representatives of the USOC and the country's IOC members as required
    by the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act and the IOC.
                   relation of the usoc to the bid committee
        Once selected by the USOC, the Atlanta Bid Committee was in charge
    of the preparation of the complex bid document and the lobbying effort.
    The USOC rules required no representation on the Bid Committee.
    However, the USOC, its officers, sports federation and the IOC members
    played a significant role in Atlanta's bidding procedure.
                              the lobbying effort
        Although the USOC and its sport federations (the ``National
    Governing Bodies'' or ``NGBs'') are highly involved in the technical
    aspects of the preparation of the bid, it was the Bid Committee, and
    not the USOC, that was responsible for the lobbying effort. Because of
    the knowledge and experience of members of the USOC and the NGBs, they
    were called upon by the Bid Committee for assistance. However, the Bid
    Committee very quickly learned what must be done to promote its bid,
    and became familiar with the IOC members who would make the decision.
        In asking the USOC and NGBs for their assistance, the Bid Committee
    was primarily interested in obtaining votes and winning the Games. The
    USOC and NGBs, although keenly supportive of that effort, were focused
    on the long-term effects the assistance would provide for their sport
    and development of our athletes.
        As an example, when an IOC member requested the USOC (through
    Atlanta) to arrange a joint training program with athletes from the IOC
    member's country, our NGBs approved or rejected the program based upon
    whether the program was in the best interest of our athletes, or
    furthered its sports program, while still being supportive of the
    efforts of the Bid Committee.
        In short, the focus of the USOC and the National Governing Bodies
    was primarily on United States athletes, developing a pool of
    international qualified athletes, sports programs and facilities, and
    on the technical aspects of the bid; not on the strategies and
    techniques of Atlanta's lobbying efforts with the IOC members.
                      the olympic environment of 1985-1991
        To better understand the relationship between the USOC and the
    Atlanta Bid Committee it is important to consider the status of Olympic
    sport at that time.
        The Atlanta bid followed a decade of Olympic disasters until the
    success of Los Angeles in 1984.
        Only Los Angeles was interested in holding the 1984 Olympic Games
    (Tehran entered a bid but then withdrew). The reason was clear:
    disaster after disaster had beset the Games. In 1968 Mexico City was
    marred by student riots and demonstrations. Four years later the Munich
    Games were nearly ended because of the massacre of the Israel athletes.
    Then in 1976 Montreal left a devastating financial burden and debt on
    its citizens. The 1980 Moscow Games, clearly a political maneuver
    reminiscent of the Berlin 1936 Olympics, were wrecked by boycotts.
        When in 1984 Los Angeles proved to the world that the Games could
    be run by applying sound business principles and could yield a
    substantial profit, the rest of the world sought a piece of the action.
    Whereas there was only one bidder a few years earlier, as Atlanta
    started its bid process in 1987, dozens of cities started lining up,
    anxious to garner the votes of the IOC members necessary to bring the
    Olympics, with their glamour and profits, to their own country. I
    personally witnessed this development having been involved in the
    organization and administration of each Olympics since Mexico City.
        Except for the required formalities, there was no need for Los
    Angeles to lobby IOC members: the IOC had no choice. Excessive gifts
    and extravagant visits were not conceived or begun by American cities.
    They started to become common place in 1986 as the battle for the 1992
    Games between Paris and Barcelona began. This excess grew over the next
    several years prompting a major United States television news magazine
    to characterize Nagano as having ``bought'' the Games at the IOC
    meeting in 1991 by gifts, perks and multi-million dollar donations to
    the Olympic Museum, a pet project of the IOC's President. This was a
    glaring example of a selection that put athletes last, considering
    Nagano's facilities and the weather. It was at this time the culture of
    excess was getting clearly out of hand.
        But Atlanta entered the international Olympic bidding process in
    the spring of 1988 and was selected in September of 1989 before the
    ``gift creep,'' as Senator Mitchell put it, grew to the extremes
    recently reported in the 1992-1995 campaign by Salt Lake City.
        Simply stated, Atlanta was not under the pressure that subsequent
    cities, such as Salt Lake City felt, following its 1991 loss to Nagano,
    to match and raise the gifts and incentives to win the votes.
    Therefore, Atlanta needed and sought much less assistance from the
    USOC.
              role of the usa ioc delegates in the bidding process
        The IOC members from a bid city's country are expected to, and do,
    support the efforts of the Bid Committee. We United States members, as
    part of the USOC, participated in the USOC's selection of Atlanta and
    became familiar with its merits.
        It is customary for the Bid Committee to request the USA IOC
    members to intervene with arranging meetings and even participate in
    some discussions with their IOC colleagues and the Bid Committee. It is
    a matter of personal preference as to the extent an individual IOC
    member becomes involved in the true ``boosterism'' aspect of the
    lobbying effort.
        Although the American members of the IOC may not have been aware of
    the details, they certainly were aware of the discussions, or at least
    rumors, of the propensity of some of their fellow IOC members and other
    Bid Committees to engage in inappropriate conduct.
        On a personal basis, although I am not surprised that there may
    have been certain technical violations of the IOC rules as written (but
    not followed by the IOC) I was favorably impressed with the efforts of
    Atlanta to abide by the rules even in face of rumors or known instances
    of outrageous abuses by other bid cities. As an example, in one
    conversation with a Bid Committee executive we discussed their effort
    to find a gift that would show a personal concern for the interests of
    an IOC member. The $200 rule was discussed and several suggestions
    eliminated because their cost would have exceeded the rule. In my
    experience, Atlanta seemed to be doing the best they could in this
    climate with respect to the written rules.
                                the atlanta bid
        I would like to take this opportunity to make a comment concerning
    the Atlanta bid and the attention now being given to it.
        Throughout the bid process all of us, as members of the USA Olympic
    family, were proud of Atlanta, what it stood for and the impact it had
    on our colleagues around the world. The Bid Committee came in contact
    not only with international sports leaders but business and political
    leaders around the world. They represented Atlanta and the United
    States. They did it well.
        While the Los Angeles Olympics was known for its entertainment and
    business prowess, Atlanta became known as a community demonstrating the
    American capability of obtaining the unimaginable by the cooperation
    and efforts of a diverse people working without regard to racial,
    cultural or social background.
        Whether they had won the Games or not, we all had reason to be
    proud of the Atlanta bid efforts.
                      response of the usoc to the scandal
        I have carefully reviewed the suggestions from the Mitchell report
    and the actions and the response and actions taken by the USOC under
    Bill Hybl's able leadership. Based on my experiences, I wholeheartedly
    agree with the observations and conclusions of the Report. The USOC is
    on the right track and I applaud it and President Hybl's prompt
    response. Consideration might also be given to whether the Olympic and
    Amateur Sports Act should specifically require oversight by the USOC of
    bid city activities and the USOC's participation and representation
    within any bid committee.
        I would only add an observation based upon my 30 years of
    experience that it will only be through a change of attitude and
    culture within the IOC and the international Olympic movement that
    there will truly be a change. The USOC can be a leading force to bring
    that about. Merely adopting rules and appointing commissions won't do
    the trick. We must demand a commitment by all parties, the IOC, the
    Olympic Committees, the International Federations, and the athletes to
    true reform.
        Thank you for this opportunity to appear.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you all. I would like to note for the
    other members of this subcommittee that we're probably going to
    have at least two rounds of questions. We'll each have 5
    minutes. We'll use that same light. I'll be a little quicker
    with the gavel for us.
        I would note that as part of the committee's investigation,
    we have assembled a group of documents that illustrate the
    process Atlanta followed and the culture in which it competed.
    I'm going to ask unanimous consent that this group of documents
    be entered into the record, and I would note that we will work
    with the Atlanta organizer's law firm to redact any sensitive
    or personal information before the documents are printed in the
    record.
        Mr. Klink. Without objection.
        Mr. Upton. That is so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.065

        Mr. Upton. I will now start my time. I've learned to use
    this clock a little bit. I am going to try to ask all my
    questions shortly and let each of you respond to the questions.
        First of all, I very much appreciate Judge Bell's report.
    We thoroughly went through this report, found that it is chock
    full of lots of different things and did a very good job. I
    appreciate that and also certainly the willingness of both Mr.
    Payne and Mr. Young to agree that this was the proper thing.
        In that report it makes the point, Mr. Helmick, that you
    just mentioned here, and I quote, more significantly within the
    IOC culture, the rules were widely disregarded. There was a
    competition governed by the IOC. The IOC had the responsible--
    had the responsibility to both write and enforce the rules. No
    city or IOC member was disqualified or sanctioned for exceeding
    the written gift or travel rules.
        What I'd like to hear from you, and based on some of the
    other testimony, too, particularly as you relate back to other
    cities--Mr. Young, in particular, you referenced going to Seoul
    and how other cities were giving lavish gifts as well. I'd like
    to know if you can remember specifics that other cities may
    have presented or offered to any of you. I would like to know
    what your sense is of the reforms that are before the reform
    committee, whether they will, in fact, address the situation as
    detailed in both the Bell report as well as the Mitchell-
    Duberstein report, and particularly for you, Mr. Hybl, as you
    are a member of that reform committee and will be voting on it
    later this month in preparation for the recommendations of the
    full IOC, what your sense is of where the votes are. Will that
    reform package be passed both by the subcommittee--by the
    committee, and if so, what standing will that have before the
    full IOC when they vote in December.
        As you know, Mr. Samaranch sent his top deputy here, Mr.
    Francois Carrard, who is here and will testify on the later
    panel. It was Mr. Samaranch's view that he wanted to spend his
    time making sure that the votes were there. He wants to
    cooperate with this committee and will appear once that vote is
    taken, hopefully an affirmative vote. And will that correct the
    abuses that were detailed both in the Mitchell-Duberstein
    report as well as in the Bell report, too?
        Mr. Payne, would you like to start?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir. Thank you. With respect to the first
    portion, Mr. Chairman, about what we know specifically about
    the history of generous gift-giving, lavish entertaining as it
    existed within the Olympic movement, I think Mr. Helmick
    characterized at least the beginning of our knowledge shortly
    following the success of the Los Angeles Games, the Olympic
    Games, for the first time, and perhaps a decade and a half once
    again became an asset of great value to many countries and
    cities around the world. And bidding accelerated to the point
    where the bidding for the 1992 games, which were ultimately
    awarded to Barcelona, came down to a competition principally
    between Paris and Barcelona, and I believe at that time there
    were no rules which governed this.
        The consequence of the nonexistence of any rules
    apparently--and I say apparently because I was not involved in
    the Olympic movement--gave rise to a very straightforward
    competition among those two cities, lavish gifts, incredibly
    expensive receptions, of the things that Mr. Helmick has
    referred to, and I'm sure perhaps he can answer better as he
    was on the IOC at that time.
        During the time of our competition, which followed that, we
    did not pay close attention ourselves to what our competition
    was doing, but we, of course, and as you have seen detailed in
    many of the documents, were told by many people that in the
    process and in being entertained by other cities who were
    candidates, they had received rather excessive gifts.
        Mr. Upton. Will you detail any of those gifts?
        Mr. Payne. I can only detail, sir, that which is part of
    the record that we have submitted to you, which once again is
    what was told to us by third parties. I cannot--in the same
    spirit, I guess, sir, of redacting names, do you want me----
        Mr. Upton. I don't need to know necessarily the countries
    or the cities, but I'd like to know of some of the values of
    the gifts. As we look through this report, Judge Bell prepared
    for us, it is just full of things, whether it be golf clubs,
    trips, it is detailed, but if you were aware of competitions
    with, say, Athens or somebody else that provided a similar type
    thing. Where were you in the ballgame? I've heard that Atlanta
    spent lots of money on some of these gifts, but some of these
    other cities that failed spent considerably more.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, we spent $6.5 million putting our
    bid together. Toronto spent close to $20 million; Melbourne,
    $25 million; Athens, reportedly $35 million.
        Mr. Upton. I've heard those same numbers.
        Mr. Young. So we didn't--we knew we couldn't be in this
    game----
        Mr. Upton. But what were they doing that was more than you?
    That's sort of my question.
        Mr. Young. I'm not sure, but the thing I'd like to point
    out is that we looked at it, and I'm trying to separate the
    corruption of people maybe, and I'm trying to defend the
    process, because, see, Congressman Waxman or somebody said that
    nobody can outspend Paris, but Barcelona won, even though Paris
    was doing the spending and had much more to offer. Seoul beat
    Nagoya and the rich--there was a pattern of the rich cities
    lavishing the gifts, but losing.
        Mr. Upton. What were some of the specifics that you must
    have seen? I'm trying to be fair with my own red light. I'm
    going first. I'll turn it off.
        Mr. Young. I think, Congressman, if you'll forgive me, I
    think that's the wrong question. I shouldn't do that, but what
    I see happening here is a resentment of democracy on the part
    of the IOC. What you had was for the first time all of these
    decisions were influenced mostly by the poor nations, and it
    meant that poor nations had a say, and the little European
    blue-blooded elite couldn't dominate the system anymore. And so
    while the system was corrupt, it was, in fact, democratic, and
    that the five secret ballots where nobody knows is one of the
    ways that you can have a free and fair election.
        Mr. Upton. When you say it was democratic, was it
    democratic because everyone was taking the gifts, and therefore
    it didn't really influence the votes because everyone was
    getting about the same thing?
        Mr. Young. I think it was democratic because the money did
    not make any difference and----
        Mr. Upton. When you talk about Athens, $35 million----
        Mr. Young. We've been in politics, and we know about people
    eating your barbecue and voting for your--it happens all the
    time. That's what's happening in the IOC. What I'm most
    concerned about is that what I think is beginning to evolve
    into a very democratic system, where the checks and balances
    between the rich nations and the poor nations is gradually
    working itself out, that under the pressure from the U.S.
    Congress, we play into the hands of the old European elite and
    do away with some of the democratization that has come with the
    present Olympic movement.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Hybl, since my time is close to expiring, if
    you could just answer the question as to whether you think the
    reforms presently before the reform committee will, in fact,
    end the abuse and the culture of corruption, and whether or not
    you think the votes are there not only to pass it in both
    bodies, the committee and the full IOC. If you could just
    comment briefly, and I will yield to my friend Mr. Klink.
        Mr. Hybl. The current reforms before the IOC which were
    adopted by the executive committee of the reform commission
    will be taken to the full 80-person commission on October 30
    and 31. The fact is that they do provide what you indicated
    earlier, transparency, accountability. They do provide a whole
    series of democratic processes for representatives from the
    athletes, from the National Olympic Committee, and from the
    International Federations. They have age limits. They have
    terms that have to be renewed. The fact is they've come--the
    IOC has done a lot, particularly because of their leadership in
    going forward.
        The fact is, sitting in on those hearings and those
    meetings, there is diverse opinion among the members of the
    IOC. These will be great for the IOC and the Olympic movement
    if they're adopted. I think that the IOC members could probably
    address the question whether they will be, but December 11 and
    12 is the critical time for this and the U.S. Olympic committee
    and our representatives--you'll hear, of course, from Dr.
    Kissinger this afternoon--continue to support the reforms, and
    it's up to the IOC whether they're adopted or not.
        Mr. Upton. Is it your sense that they'll pass if you were a
    betting man?
        Mr. Hybl. Actually, I am a betting man, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. I know Mr. Hefley is not, so I didn't want to
    cast judgment.
        Mr. Hybl. I would give the chance for adoption of the
    reforms as they are currently proposed at something a little
    better than 50 percent.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Mr. Klink.
        Mr. Klink. I thank the chairman for his insight, and I
    would request a little leniency with the red light, if you can,
    because there's a lot to cover here from the chairman's
    questioning.
        Let me start with Mr. Young because I'm a little troubled
    by where we have headed here. What I've heard from the comments
    was this: In deference to Judge Bell, I think you've really
    done a great job in your report. You've helped us a great deal.
    Senator Mitchell has helped us a great deal as well. What I'm
    left to believe here is what we are now being told is, look, we
    took a whole heck of a lot more from a lot of other people, and
    then we stiffed them. We didn't give them what they thought
    they were going to get. So my question is this: Were the
    members of the IOC really taking people in some of these--$35
    million in investment from the Greeks, and how much from the
    people in Paris, and how much from the Canadians, and Toronto
    didn't get the games as well. That's what really remains to be
    told is, A, what were all of those gifts, and were these people
    being taken as rubes, set up to have their barbecue eaten and
    then vote for the opponent? That is just as troublesome as
    anything that might have happened to Salt Lake City, might have
    happened to Atlanta. I would ask that Mr. Payne and Mr. Young
    would respond.
        Mr. Young. Thank you very much, Congressman. I think what
    we're dealing with also is a general gift-giving culture around
    the world; that people are used to receiving gifts wherever
    they go, and those are not considered bribes. So I think that
    while they were generous gifts, I think the members of the IOC
    received those gifts, but did not take it as bribes. They also,
    Mr. Chairman, almost everywhere I went, and we tried to visit
    every IOC member in their home, everywhere I went people
    presented us with some kinds of gifts.
        Mr. Klink. Let me ask Mr. Payne, in terms of ethical
    conduct, what difference do you see in what occurred in the
    Atlanta Bid Committee and their operation and what happened in
    Salt Lake City? Specifically what do you think Salt Lake City
    did that you didn't do? Help me draw the line there.
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir. I'm obviously reluctant to do that
    because I don't have personal knowledge, sir, of what Salt Lake
    did.
        Mr. Klink. I'm asking you to go from public information.
    Things have been published. I'm sure you've read about it.
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir. I think what we did, sir, is evidenced
    in quite extensive detail in the report that Judge Bell
    prepared and submitted, and notwithstanding the fact that there
    were excesses, I believe the scale and scope of those excesses,
    sir, would pale in comparison to what's been reported not only
    at Salt Lake, but perhaps other Olympic cities as well. So I
    think I would be required to say in first response, sir, there
    was quite a significant quantitative difference, which does not
    excuse us getting over $200 at all, but yet----
        Mr. Klink. In other words, we had--I'm sorry to cut you
    off. We're on kind of a timeframe here. What you're saying, Mr.
    Helmick talked about, was gift creep. If anything happened
    between Atlanta and Salt Lake City, it was that the extent of
    the gifts got much larger and much more numerous.
        Mr. Payne. From what has been publicly reported, yes, sir.
        Mr. Klink. The end of your written statement, your remark,
    you believe reform is needed in the bidding process,
    particularly in the areas of gift and travel. When did you
    start to reach that conclusion?
        Mr. Payne. I guess within the last year, sir, when our
    actions, which we had always been so very proud of, came under
    scrutiny and had been criticized. While we had believed that we
    had subjected them somewhat to a sense of reasonableness, all
    of a sudden they were found in great disfavor, and so I guess I
    began concluding that the way to eliminate that problem is to
    eliminate gifts and travel expense reimbursement altogether so
    that no future cities would have to deal with this 10 years
    after the fact like we're doing here today.
        Mr. Klink. What I'm left with is kind of, Mr. Chairman, the
    old saying--and my kids have done it as well, still continue to
    do it because they're young enough--they say, Mommy and Daddy,
    everybody is doing it. The old saying is, well, if they jumped
    off a bridge, would you do that, too? That's really what we're
    left to. No one really wanted to blow the whistle.
        I want to walk you through some of the travel and
    accommodations that you provided to just one IOC member and in
    the end have you explain the logic behind the spending. Page
    21, exhibit K, travel section of the King & Spalding report,
    this is for an IOC official named O'Flanagan. I was going to
    walk through this. Between April 30 and May 5, 1989, checks
    number 540 and 725 went for nearly $5,371 for airfare. For the
    same period, there's a $4,150 hotel charge paid by Atlanta;
    then on May 4, 1989, several more checks cut for an Augusta
    trip totaling $5,291. In March 1990, you then pay $5,420 trip
    for Mr. O'Flanagan that includes the itinerary of Dublin;
    Atlanta; West Palm Beach, Florida; Atlanta; and back to Dublin.
    Then on March 21, 1990, you paid $2,092 for airfare for Mr.
    O'Flanagan that included the itinerary of Atlanta, Zurich,
    Geneva; on March 14, 1990, another hotel charge for Mr.
    O'Flanagan and for a Mr. Hickey for $1,480; and then on March
    16, 1990, you paid $1,100 in Savannah for Mr. O'Flanagan to
    stay in a hotel in Savannah. On March 18, 1990, there's another
    charge for Mr. O'Flanagan, and now Mr. Hickey at Sea Island for
    another $1,790. For the same period there's a hospitality
    charge for Mr. O'Flanagan and a guest and Mr. Hickey for
    $1,655. Then back in May 1989, there appears to be an offer
    made to visit Atlanta and play golf at Peach Tree Country Club.
    It's not clear whether the offer was accepted.
        You spent thousands of dollars on this IOC member, and
    there are many others like this. The question is were you
    trying to buy his vote?
        Mr. Payne. No, sir, we were not. I hope there are not too
    many like this one. It is very extensive. It's evident that he
    was one of the IOC members that came to Atlanta more than once.
        Mr. Klink. Unfortunately there are--let me just run through
    this very quickly, Mr. Chairman. According to the King &
    Spalding report, Atlanta officials paid $11,989 for the IOC
    official from Libya to travel from Tripoli, to Zurich, to
    Geneva, back to Zurich, to Atlanta, then to Chicago, back to
    Atlanta, then to Zurich, then to Malta and back to Tripoli. The
    question is why did Atlanta have to pay for travel to Malta,
    Chicago, Zurich and Geneva? Then you paid a cash reimbursement
    of $12,204 to the IOC official from Morocco to fly from
    Casablanca, Paris, Atlanta, New York, Paris, Casablanca. Why
    did Atlanta have to pay to send this official to New York and
    Paris?
        You also paid $2,649 for the Australian IOC official to
    stay at the Grand Cypress Resort. Other IOC members also
    apparently went to that resort. That's in Florida, not Atlanta.
        What about $1,878 for an IOC official to stay in a hotel in
    Coral Gables? You paid $1,745 on tab K, page 15 to provide
    limousine service in Washington, DC, for an IOC official from
    France. There was another trip for an IOC official from
    Finland. It involved travel from Chicago, to Bloomington, to
    Peoria, to Boston, to Bangor, to Newark and Toronto. Atlanta
    paid for at least part of that trip, yet Atlanta wasn't even on
    the trip. And the question is did this trip also involve the
    use of a vacation home owned by the GAAF member in Maine? We
    need to know why Bangor, Maine, was on that trip.
        I threw a lot at you. These are some questions in the
    limited amount of time I've got to have the answers to them.
    We're going to submit these questions to you. We want you to
    pursue these for us and try to find out why this was done. It's
    puzzling.
        Mr. Upton. A quick response.
        Mr. Payne. The quick response is I believe we have provided
    explanations as best we could to your staff, sir, and I think
    most of them do have explanations. I'm unable, however, with
    the rate at which you enumerated those excesses to come back to
    you with them on a seriatim basis.
        Mr. Klink. Unfortunately, Mr. Payne, we have more excesses.
    It is unfortunate that, our time and your time, that we don't
    have time to get into the details of this. I know that unfairly
    I rushed those by you, but we need to get more of this nailed
    down in writing. We need to find out what has happened.
        I think beyond that we also need to take a look, chairman,
    at what has happened in some of the other cities that did lose
    that were not looked as closely at in some of these reports
    that we have in front of us.
        Mr. Upton. It sounded like you used to work for Federal
    Express with that ad.
        Mr. Klink. I could go faster.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Burr.
        Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Payne, let me ask you, based upon what Mr. Hybl said
    about reforms at the USOC, had the USOC reformed prior to the
    Atlanta bid or to the Salt Lake City bid, and you adhered to
    those changes, would any U.S. city--would either of those U.S.
    cities have won their bid based upon the culture at the IOC
    today?
        Mr. Payne. That's a difficult question, sir. I really don't
    know how to answer it. I think----
        Mr. Burr. I would suggest to you that the answer is
    probably we wouldn't, because that's the assumption I think
    that Atlanta made, and even in the first response by Mr. Bell,
    there were four instances to questions where the answer was
    we're not aware of any IOC guideline and provisions for health
    services, athletic training, covered provisions of athletic
    sporting equipment to disadvantaged people guidelines, and
    provisions of scholarship. I think that somebody perused it
    pretty well, and certainly your follow-up has suggested that
    the culture there--and I'm not faulting Atlanta, I'm a
    businessman, this is just a temporary position--you do it to
    win, you do it to be successful, and I think that Atlanta
    should not be faulted for that.
        I guess I would ask you how many times did the IOC or the
    USOC tell you you were in violation and warn you that you
    shouldn't lobby as aggressively?
        Mr. Payne. I don't believe we were ever specifically
    advised of anything we had done, sir. I have been made aware of
    routine letters that were sent to all bid cities or IOC members
    with respect to adherence to the rules, the very same rules,
    sir, that we did exceed in the times we've enumerate.
        Mr. Burr. Let me read for you and Ambassador Young a
    September statement by an IOC spokesperson who was quoted as
    saying, ``Atlanta pushed those favors and gifts on to IOC
    members under the pretext of friendship, and the delegates were
    not used to this systematic approach to lobbying.''
        Would either of you care to comment on whether that
    statement is accurate based upon----
        Mr. Young. I'll say that we were probably both very guilty
    in that, that we didn't have to push anything on them, but as
    Congressman Klink has said, we were also in a position that
    when somebody wanted--when we asked somebody to visit us, and
    we offered to reimburse them for the travel, if they had reason
    to go to some other places, there are explanations for a lot of
    these, and some of them make sense. Some of them are excessive.
    Libya, because of the boycott, you couldn't go directly here,
    so he had to go a roundabout way. He also--we were trying to
    get him to accept softball, an American sport, so there was a
    softball federation or something meeting in Chicago.
        Mr. Payne. We won the gold medal when we got in.
        Mr. Young. But I'm saying when we wanted people to come to
    visit us, and we extended the invitation, and we knew these
    were people who were not on salaries--and that's one of the
    reforms I would recommend to the IOC, that they put everybody
    on a salary and let them give it back if they don't want it.
    But when people come and they then submit you an excessive
    bill, you really can't reject it.
        Mr. Burr. In the follow-up response from the committee to
    the committee's questions, let me just read on page 3 just out
    of your report, subjective votes of IOC members and a system
    known to welcome generous gifts and travel allowances. It
    doesn't give me the impression as you've gone back that
    anybody's recollection was that it was forced.
        Page 4, same report. In the marketplace Atlanta competed
    according to its understanding of the IOC's expectations. That
    certainly does not give an impression on further review that
    there was any pretext on your part that you had pushed or had
    done something that was not expected of the IOC. No reference
    to the IOC's guidelines or rules.
        Mr. Helmick, you were head of the USOC at the time.
        Mr. Helmick. Yes.
        Mr. Burr. Did you ever counsel Atlanta that there were
    potential violations that were occurring or notified the IOC of
    concerns that you had as the head of USOC?
        Mr. Helmick. I notified the IOC NBG inside the executive
    committee of concerns, as did others, of the excessiveness,
    particularly after Paris and Barcelona. As to Atlanta, please
    keep in mind that personally we spent a great deal of time
    together all over the world. I do remember one occasion I
    believe it was Ginger Watkins and I were going through a list
    of personal gifts to be given. I became very aware that this
    Atlanta bid person was very careful about the so-called $200
    gift rule, frankly excluded a couple of gifts that I had
    suggested, personalized gifts, because of it.
        And so, yes, indeed, they were counseled about it and felt
    that these gifts were appropriate.
        Mr. Burr. Do you know how IOC members are chosen?
        Mr. Helmick. IOC members are basically--they're on the
    surface elected by the IOC. They're--basically a great deal of
    it is hand-picked by the president.
        Mr. Burr. And they serve until death or at 80, whichever
    comes first?
        Mr. Helmick. Whichever comes first.
        Mr. Ganske [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Let's have one last answer.
        Mr. Burr. I think he answered that question. My point, Mr.
    Chairman, is twofold. One, I question in an atmosphere like
    that whether the culture can change voluntarily, and I would
    also say to the Ambassador that though there is a democratic
    vote, I question whether true democracy can work in a system
    that its membership is elected without what seems to be
    accountability, that goes along with it, and with that I yield
    back to the chairman.
        Mr. Ganske. Mr. Waxman.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I've
    listened with a great deal of distress to your presentations
    and this whole--this whole view, this whole business is a
    pretty tawdry business. What I think has to happen is the IOC
    has got to change its ways. It's got to reform itself, and
    we've had recommendations by the panel that Senator Mitchell
    chaired to do exactly that.
        Now the IOC, which basically sounds like a bunch of hand-
    picked people by President Samaranch, is going to meet in
    December, and we've been told that we ought to let them meet,
    we ought not to interfere in any way, let them reform
    themselves. Now, we've been told that already for quite a bit
    of time. But if they come back, Mr. Hybl, in December having
    failed on what you think is basically a 50/50 proposition, I
    proposed legislation, and my legislation would say we would
    prohibit American corporations, including the TV networks, from
    providing any financial support to the IOC until the IOC adopts
    the Mitchell Commission reforms.
        Do you think that legislation would drive the point home to
    them that--their failure to adopt reforms is not going to be
    acceptable in this country, and do you--would you support our
    doing that if they don't reform themselves?
        Mr. Hybl. Congressman, as I indicated earlier, the fact is
    that I'm probably not the best person, not being an IOC member,
    to judge what they're going to do and how they're going to
    react.
        Mr. Waxman. Whatever they do they're going to do. If they
    succeed, fine. We'll hope that things will be better for the
    future. But if they fail, do any of you think we should just
    let it go and say that this is a system that will continue on
    as stinking as it is, or do you think we ought to take action
    in the United States if other countries don't want to do it, at
    least in the United States to make the IOC pay the penalty of
    not getting support from our American corporations?
        Mr. Hybl. I would suggest that from the comments that are
    made to me by IOC members, they are listening to what is being
    said, and not only the Congress, but--well, in the House and
    the Senate. Our job is trying to make sure that we can garner
    the support for the U.S. athletes as--it's all private support.
    We don't receive government funding. And I hope that the
    reforms will be adopted. We're doing everything we can to
    encourage that because we see the danger to the athletes and to
    the movement in the United States if this does not happen, and
    I believe you've made them certainly aware of that, and I
    believe they're going to respond at the IOC level.
        Mr. Waxman. I sure hope so.
        Mayor Young, if they don't respond, don't you think the
    Congress has to act, and at least in the United States we ought
    to say, if you're not going to reform yourself, we're going to
    put sanctions on the IOC, not on the American Olympic
    Committee, but on the International Olympic Committee, that
    they can't come here and get our American corporations and
    networks to give them money?
        Mr. Young. I agree with Mr. Hybl that I think reform is in
    process, and I think you have another panel this afternoon that
    will probably go into that in much more detail.
        Mr. Waxman. Yes. But if they don't adopt reforms, what do
    you suggest we do?
        Mr. Young. Then I think we have to help them adopt reforms
    with some congressional action.
        Mr. Waxman. How about you, Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. I personally am confident, sir, that this
    inquiry, others that have been similar, the Mitchell report,
    the efforts ongoing in USOC will cause reform successfully
    within the IOC, within the time period that's acceptable to
    you.
        Mr. Waxman. And if not, you feel that we in this country
    should take action?
        Mr. Payne. I would defer to your leadership, sir, and that
    of the Congress, but I think it would be important to ensure
    that the integrity would permit future American cities to have
    the same honor that we did in hosting the games.
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Helmick?
        Mr. Helmick. I don't share the confidence, but I certainly
    share the hope that the reform will come. Certainly election of
    IOC members is absolutely essential to change the environment.
    If nothing happens, I think you had an excellent model in 1978,
    and you need to have congressional action to urge further
    reform. In 1978, I heard of many people say, well, the
    international community will not accept reforms that we had in
    the Stevens Olympics Sports Act, and indeed within a year or 2,
    they accepted those reforms, and our representatives'
    international federations were changed. I think the same thing
    can happen here.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ganske. The Chair will exercise his prerogative, since
    I was next anyway, to ask a question. I want to follow up along
    Mr. Waxman's line. One of my neighbors is vice president for
    Pioneer Hybrid, which--and he travels around the world seeking
    business for a major international firm. Now, he has to follow
    a United States law called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
    This basically make it is illegal for U.S. corporations to get
    involved with bribes overseas in order to get business. One of
    the great advantages of doing business in our country is that
    this has not been a common practice that in order to get a
    contract, you have to provide a bribe.
        Now, yes, there is a, ``gift-giving culture'' around the
    world, but I think everyone here is also--also realizes that
    there are countries where it exceeds a simple gift of goodwill
    and gets deeply into corruption practices, and that has
    significant potential in terms of doing business.
        Now, last year Congress enacted a law to enable the
    President to designate by Executive Order the IOC or other
    organizations to be subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices
    Act. I want to ask each of you, the President today has not yet
    acted on that authority. Should the President apply that by
    Executive Order to the IOC? Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. To be very truthful, sir, I have not thought
    about nor studied that issue, and I would just have to defer to
    the wisdom of Congress. I really don't have an opinion on that
    issue, sir.
        Mr. Ganske. Mr. Young?
        Mr. Young. It's a difficult issue, and the Foreign Corrupt
    Practices Act is difficult. Attorney General Griffin Bell at
    the time of that act reminded us that there was in the
    legislative language an understanding that grease payments
    might be acceptable. Most of what you talk about here would not
    be--most of what we're talking about would not be covered under
    the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and it's very difficult for
    American businessmen, even in relationship to their own laws,
    trying very desperately to uphold those laws, to deal with
    questions like travel reimbursement and things like that.
        I don't know that the IOC can be reformed from outside by
    force. I think the kind of pressure that you're bringing on
    this hearing and the kind of public testimony that's being made
    is what is needed to get them to reform themselves.
        Mr. Ganske. I need to get down the roll a little bit
    because I'm going to have to go for a vote here pretty soon.
        Mr. Hybl, I think on March 3, 1999, you took a different
    position. I think you stated the U.S. Olympic Committee fully
    supports the recommendation and respectfully request--this was,
    I believe, a letter to the President--request that you issue
    such an order. Is that correct, and is that still your
    position?
        Mr. Hybl. That's still our position. It's based on the
    fact, Mr. Chairman, that what you have is 22 different nations
    hosted the Olympic Games. Twenty of those are signatories to
    the OECD, and we think only Russia and Bosnia that hosted the
    games would be outside that. We believe this is one vehicle
    that would help level the playing field, not place the American
    cities or athletes at any disadvantage, and we did send that
    letter on the March 3--in fact, I sent it, and we stand by that
    position. To their credit, the IOC has requested of the OECD
    based in Paris that they be included on some basis, which I
    think they probably will define this afternoon, so that is
    going forward.
        Mr. Ganske. Mr. Helmick, do you have a position on that?
        Mr. Helmick. Yes, I fully support that.
        Mr. Ganske. My time--I'm going to have to run for a vote
    pretty soon. I just want to ask one last question.
        Mr. Helmick, if you were Mr. Samaranch, how would you--what
    would be the recommendations that you would make to clean up
    this process?
        Mr. Helmick. I think, first of all, it has to be something
    that's reasonable. The end process must be having the IOC
    members responsible for their constituents back home. We know
    that here in Congress. So elections, I would predict existing
    IOC members would probably be reelected. That's not going to
    happen overnight. Phase in some programs, but ultimately you
    have to have the IOC so that, just like all of you, that you're
    subject to being responsive and responsible to a constituency,
    and there's nothing like the loyal opposition and other people
    nipping at your heels to get your job that keeps these things
    clean and open.
        Mr. Ganske. Should the IOC salary members who evaluate the
    sites; should they pay for their travel and should they have a
    strict gift limit similar to what we have in Congress?
        Mr. Helmick. Absolutely. It was at one point--and this is
    why there's some frustration being inside the IOC--I believe,
    and perhaps Mr. Carrard can correct me, for a brief period of
    time when I was on the executive committee, we actually
    required that all ticketing go through the IOC travel agent,
    which was a good way to control this. My suggestion would be
    just no gifts whatsoever, and enforce it, and have a culture so
    that it is okay to turn down a request for a gift because
    nothing was forced.
        It was very, very difficult for Atlanta to refuse that type
    of trip that was itemized, but the culture has to be that you
    can report this type of activity, and sanctions and threats
    will be made against you.
        I would say absolutely no gifts. I think the visits are
    primarily silly. They don't really help the IOC member, nor do
    they help the bid city. I think the IOC has recognized this and
    has made some attempts to limit it, but I would continue on
    that way.
        Mr. Ganske. I thank the panel. We're going to go into
    recess. We'll try to get back here just as soon as we can. And
    so the committee is in recess.
        [Brief recess.]
        Mr. Burr [presiding]. The Chair would ask the witnesses to
    return to the table.
        The Chair has been informed that Ambassador Young will be
    here shortly. I've asked Mr. Stupak, who is the next in turn,
    if he would prefer to wait. He said, no, he could go ahead. So
    at this time the Chair would recognize the gentleman from
    Michigan for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I'm looking at the report here from King & Spalding. I've
    read it with great interest, as I'm sure everybody on this
    panel has. And throughout this report, I see on page 11 it
    says, Atlanta's bid was submitted as a joint application with
    the USOC. So USOC, while we focus on Atlanta, if you're jointly
    involved in this whole operation, they are one and the same,
    the way I look at it.
        The part that bothers me throughout this report, and going
    anyplace where you want under any subsection, we continue to
    see GAAF, that's the Georgia Atlanta, whatever it was, but the
    Atlanta folks indicate they did not incur any expenditures in
    connection with this donation, or GAAF volunteers assisted or
    offered or attempted to steer financial assistance for
    relatives or friends. There's always a third party or
    volunteers who did the things on behalf of GAAF or the USOC.
        It seems like in this report what we acknowledge wrong, we
    can't account for anything because we don't know because of
    volunteers or third parties did it. So when you gave us the
    figure of $6.5 million that Atlanta spent, now, was that just
    what Atlanta spent, or does that include what the volunteers
    and relatives and friends gave, too?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir. Thank you. I think volunteers
    throughout that report, sir, is used generically to describe
    not only the community in general as they helped us, but the
    actual people working full time, because they were, in fact,
    for that 3-year period all volunteers even though we work full
    time. So that is--that's not to--that's not to defer
    responsibility, but to attribute it to the leadership group as
    well.
        Mr. Stupak. My question is the $6.5 million you speak of,
    does that include----
        Mr. Payne. I believe, sir, it was actually--I don't want to
    disagree with the Ambassador, but I believe it was actually
    $7.8 million including cash and value in kind, and I believe to
    the fullest extent possible that includes other unidentified
    third parties or other--the people about which you are
    inquiring, what they may have contributed in support as well.
        Mr. Young. I used $6 million because the million dollars
    extra was the bill they gave us for the party after we won. But
    to win, we were around $6, $6.5 million.
        Mr. Stupak. The report goes on, and it's on page 4, I think
    it says same thing in the summary on the last panel. Many of
    Atlanta's expenditures would have been improper. That's water
    over the dam, but the part that continues to bother me is this:
    Instead, GAAF volunteers believed during the bid process and
    continue to believe today that their expenditures were within
    the bounds of acceptability under the circumstances and were
    the minimum required to remain competitive in a bid with other
    cities. Basically--and when they summarize, they say, well, we
    realize that some people may look at it as being wrong. We
    believe, and we continue to believe today, that what they did
    was within the bounds of that culture. In fact, I'm reading
    from page 19. Those involved believe and still believe today
    that they conducted their bid within the bidding culture of the
    time, and their conduct was within the bounds of culture.
        In hindsight their effort can be reviewed as excess by some
    respects, but they still don't believe they've done anything
    wrong.
        Mr. Stupak. I guess I'm trying to get at this culture. Even
    if you do new rules come December 12 or 13, it's really not
    going to change anything, is it, if the culture is the same?
        Mr. Payne. I think with the rules, sir, must also be
    included sanctions and procedures to ensure their observance
    and enforcement, and so I think there will be a difference,
    yes, sir.
        Mr. Stupak. Who's going to do the enforcement?
        Mr. Payne. I think the choice now is the IOC itself,
    acceptable to the participants around the world or other
    governments, as you are suggesting, that would choose to have
    some part in the enforcement for the protection of the Olympic
    athletes and the movement in their own respective countries.
        Mr. Stupak. Well, to take--for example, it's listed at page
    15--other accommodations. In one case two volunteers transport
    money into the United States the IOC member from Jamaica could
    not have brought in himself without addressing certain
    reporting requirements.
        Mr. Payne. Address that?
        Mr. Stupak. That's not even within the culture. That's in
    violation of U.S. law. Do we go so far that we violate the
    United States currency laws?
        Mr. Payne. I'm not sure, sir, that that is an absolute
    assessment that violates the law. I know it was done
    innocently, although mistakenly.
        Mr. Stupak. Explain to me if a Jamaican person is coming
    into this country, why would he need two volunteers to bring
    money into this country and somehow that's a mistake? Why
    wouldn't the Jamaican bring in the money?
        Mr. Payne. He was not coming within time that he needed to
    pay a legitimate bill and asked them to do it for him, sir.
        Mr. Stupak. These volunteers, are they considered--were
    they paid people?
        Mr. Payne. No, sir, they were not paid people. They were
    full-time volunteers.
        Mr. Stupak. Well, but they were obviously directed by the
    Atlanta committee and all that, right?
        Mr. Payne. With respect to that transaction? No, sir.
        Mr. Stupak. They weren't?
        Mr. Payne. No, sir. They made an honest, innocent mistake.
        Mr. Stupak. How would the person from Jamaica contact two
    volunteers to do this if they're not at some direction from
    somebody with the Atlanta committee?
        Mr. Payne. The question asked were they under our direction
    with respect to that specific transaction, which would mean to
    me did we know about it. The answer is no, sir. The response
    was that they were there visiting him and were requested to do
    that, and they made an honest mistake when they agreed to do
    it.
        Mr. Stupak. Well, Mr. Payne, do you know a Ginger Watkins?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Stupak. Shannon Chandler?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Stupak. Were they volunteers?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Stupak. Reviewing some of the files, I see memos from
    you to these so-called volunteers. You certainly had control
    over these volunteers.
        Mr. Payne. Absolutely sir. I'm not disputing that, nor
    discounting any responsibility even for the mistakes of others.
        Mr. Young. There's some question about whether he had
    control of them, though. These are women in our community who
    gave their own money, their own time, and I would say they
    controlled us more than we controlled them, and what they did,
    they did with the utmost sense of integrity and discretion, I
    think.
        Mr. Stupak. I just really have trouble, the culture, the
    so-called volunteers; it seems like there's a shift when things
    look bad, well, it must have been a volunteer. We don't know
    the amount of money because that was a volunteer.
        Mr. Young. You know, we did what we said we did. And we're
    not trying to----
        Mr. Stupak. Where are the limits? Let's go back to this
    Jamaica situation.
        Mr. Young. We exceeded reasonable limits of this committee.
        Mr. Stupak. You also exceeded U.S. law. The Jamaican person
    was one who brought in $15,000, so what you had to have is two
    volunteers because you had to break up the $15,000 because the
    most you can bring into this country is $10,000 that you have
    to declare when you come in back and forth to this country.
        Mr. Payne. Sir, we've already said that Andy and I had
    nothing to do with that transaction. We believe it was an
    honest mistake by two very fine gentlemen.
        Mr. Stupak. I guess my time is up. Seeing that this culture
    is going to change when we--that may be the culture within the
    IOC or whoever it may be, but we even violate U.S. law to in
    hopes to get a vote on the IOC for Olympic Games.
        Mr. Young. He didn't even vote for us. He never----
        Mr. Stupak. It makes it look even more foolish.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I
    missed the statements of the panel members, although I have
    read some of them in advance, and I know Mr. Payne's statement,
    one thing that came through perfectly clear is that there is a
    culture that has developed in the efforts to win the votes of
    these members to determine where these games will be located.
    As I said in my opening statement, which was quite brief, we
    are just trying to get some background information to have a
    better understanding of the way some of this took place.
        But in some of the documents that were provided to us, and
    I know I am sure this is not unusual and other cities have done
    it as well, but there was a document that Mrs. Samaranch, how
    do I pronounce the same Samaranch, Samaranch, okay, Mrs.
    Samaranch was in Atlanta and Charleston, S.C., and I guess our
    committee, the Atlanta committee maybe paid more than $12,000
    for her and a friend to visit, and first of all I don't know
    that that is true, but that is in here somewhere.
        Mr. Young. Yes, sir, that is true.
        Mr. Whitfield. Was that trip in and of itself a violation
    of any of the IOC travel rules?
        Mr. Payne. I don't believe so, sir, but I guess you will
    have the opportunity later today to find out. We did not
    believe it was.
        Mr. Upton. Was Mr. Samaranch an IOC member herself?
        Mr. Payne. No, she is not. She is the wife of the
    president.
        Mr. Whitfield. Did president Samaranch know about that
    particular trip, or do you know?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, I would assume he knew she was coming to
    Atlanta, yes, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. How did that trip actually come about? You
    may not have been personally involved in it, but I assume that
    since he is the president, there must have been a feeling that
    if we accommodated her and helped her visit Atlanta and helped
    in any way we could, that that would be a good influence.
        Mr. Young. Yes, sir. I will not discount that at all. I
    think--it was important for us to impress her as well.
        Mr. Whitfield. That probably was the basis of that whole
    trip and decision to do that.
        Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. And then I am assuming that is why Atlanta
    did pay for that trip then.
        Mr. Payne. We were actually billed for the trip by the IOC.
    They sent us a bill for reimbursement.
        Mr. Whitfield. They paid for her to come and sent you a
    bill for the trip and you all reimbursed her?
        Mr. Payne. I believe that is so, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. Now, in your testimony, I know you had
    talked a lot about the--it is like you are out to win votes and
    you want to influence these people and give them a good
    impression of your community. So I am assuming that you all
    probably gathered quite a bit of information and intelligence
    on individual IOC members. Would that be accurate or not?
        Mr. Payne. Various members of our early bid team, sir, met
    extensively with people, some of which volunteered information,
    others which we sought out, I think as Andy has described
    earlier, to find out all we could so that we could later
    formulate our own strategy.
        Mr. Whitfield. Right. Do you all know, does anyone on the
    panel know how the IOC members themselves are selected to
    serve?
        Mr. Payne. I believe Mr. Helmick knows, sir.
        Mr. Helmick. Yes, sir, they are elected by the IOC
    membership, but it is really most of them are hand picked by
    the president or the executive committee members.
        Mr. Whitfield. By the president----
        Mr. Helmick. Of the IOC.
        Mr. Whitfield. So the president, he has the authority and
    the power?
        Mr. Helmick. He does not have the authority and power, but
    his influence is very great. My experience has been in most
    every case it is a hand selection, he makes the final decision,
    and I have never known him to put forth a name that did not
    pass, including some very controversial names.
        Mr. Whitfield. Right. And how long has he served as
    president of the IOC, Mr. Samaranch?
        Mr. Helmick. My recollection, since 1980. Mr. Carrard could
    correct me.
        Mr. Whitfield. The red light went on. Maybe I will get
    another round.
        Mr. Upton. You will. Ms. DeGette.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Young, you
    testified today that there were five rounds of balloting and
    you did not believe that there would be any way you could
    unduly influence the election of which city was selected
    because of the process, correct?
        Mr. Young. Correct.
        Ms. DeGette. Now, I guess I would like you to answer this
    then: If this cannot be influenced, why then did Atlanta and
    Salt Lake and all these other cities participate in this gift
    giving and scholarship offering and all of this, if it has no
    influence on the balloting?
        Mr. Young. It has influence, but there is no quid pro quo
    attached to it.
        Ms. DeGette. No direct quid pro quo. But I assume that the
    IOC just as the U.S. Congress and many other bodies recognizes
    that lavish gift giving and international travel and so on can
    be--can give an undue influence because they have all enacted
    rules against it. For example, all of us are prohibited from
    taking gifts over $50. I assume that is because there is some
    inference that it could exert an undue influence, isn't that
    correct?
        Mr. Young. That is the assumption. But that didn't happen
    here until 1974.
        Ms. DeGette. I think we all agree it is increasing.
        Let me ask you this. You mentioned in response to
    Congressman Stupak's question that these volunteers, I believe
    you said ``these women,'' but some of course were men, in your
    community, controlled you more than you controlled them. Did
    you explain the rules that at least were on the books of the
    IOC to these volunteers?
        Mr. Young. No, they explained them to me.
        Ms. DeGette. The volunteers explained them to you. Did they
    seem to be aware, for example, that the IOC had at least on the
    books a rule that said there was only one trip allowed, and
    only to the city itself? Did they explain that to you?
        Mr. Young. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. And did these volunteers explain to you that
    the 1996 and 1998 rules as well as the 1988 rules stated
    explicitly that gifts of a value exceeding U.S. $200 are not
    permitted? Did the volunteers explain that to you?
        Mr. Young. They explained that that was honored only in the
    breach and we tried to stay----
        Ms. DeGette. So the volunteers were aware, according to
    your testimony--excuse me, sir, let me finish my question. The
    volunteers were aware that these rules were on the books, and
    they explained that to you?
        Mr. Young. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. So everybody knew that at least this was
    supposed to be what was happening, although everybody agreed
    that it happened only in the breach, according to your sworn
    testimony.
        Mr. Young. We were volunteers too.
        Ms. DeGette. I understand. And, you know, I am not
    inferring anything illegal was done here, but the point is
    everybody knew these rules, and yet they were doing what they
    had to do.
        Mr. Young. And we admitted we knew the rules, we knew
    everybody else was breaking them. We weren't going to do
    anything that violated our consciences. But we were going to
    win.
        Ms. DeGette. I get you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Helmick, let me
    speak with you for a moment. You are a former member of the
    IOC. Would you agree with the perception I have and many others
    have that this gift giving and this lavish travel and so on has
    been increasing worldwide over the last 20, 25 years? Or has
    this always gone on in the Olympic movement?
        Mr. Helmick. An exponential curve. Giving gifts has always
    been a part of international competition. When I was playing
    water polo, you don't speak the language, so you have small
    gifts that you give. So the idea of gift exchange, they became
    excessively exponential following Los Angeles and particularly
    as we got into 1986 with the Barcelona.
        Ms. DeGette. Was that about the time that the IOC at least
    on paper adopted the $200 gift rule and the traveling only one
    time and only to the potential host city and all of the other
    rules?
        Mr. Helmick. Yes. My recollection is starting in 1985,
    perhaps in 1986, there were a series of memos from Mr. Gap,
    from Mr. Carrard, Mr. Zwiffel, and even the president to the
    members that talk about that. The word ``rule'' has been
    stated. One of the most influential IOC vice presidents has
    several times called those ``guidelines.''
        Ms. DeGette. I know. You said that before in your testimony
    today, sir, so I went back to my report here, and it says quite
    clearly a number of times in various written documents that
    were sent to the Atlanta committee, it says gifts offered to
    IOC members by and on behalf of candidate cities should be
    limited to documents or other items intended for information
    and/or souvenir articles. Gifts of a value exceeding U.S. $200
    are not permitted.
        Mr. Helmick. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. That doesn't sound like a guideline to me.
        Mr. Helmick. It doesn't sound like a guideline to me
    either. That is why I am very surprised that the IOC vice
    president said that.
        Ms. DeGette. That is nowhere in writing that I have. Has
    anybody received a document that says this is only a guideline?
        Mr. Helmick. It is not written, no, ma'am.
        Ms. DeGette. You said as a member of the IOC and in
    assisting Atlanta that you reviewed the gift list and that you
    said some were okay and some weren't. Is that an accurate
    characterization of your testimony?
        Mr. Helmick. In reference to a full conversation I had with
    one of the members where we were reviewing personal gifts, that
    is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. You said some were excessive and some weren't?
        Mr. Helmick. In our joint conversation, whether she said
    that or I said that, I don't know. She was struggling with
    that.
        Ms. DeGette. The concern I have, and then I am done, Mr.
    Chairman, is we have in our documents prepared by King &
    Spaulding, lengthy lists of gifts in excess of $200 in value
    which apparently no one had a problem with.
        Mr. Helmick. I would have a lot of problems with a lot of
    those gifts, but particular--the particular instance was the
    final gift.
        Ms. DeGette. You didn't see lists like that?
        Mr. Helmick. I am very surprised with that list. What
    bothers me is the consistency of it, the pressure put on the
    Atlanta to just give more than one $200 gift. But all of those
    gifts, time and time again, you see 80 or 100 gifts of $100 to
    $200 or $300. That is really what is excessive, is the number.
        Ms. DeGette. The aggregate amount. You weren't aware that
    was going on?
        Mr. Helmick. Yes, I was. It was consistent with the
    expectations and is the thing that a lot of us spoke out
    against and said you have to stop it because there are a lot of
    countries that cannot afford that.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Bryant.
        Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened to
    most of the testimony and expressed concern in my opening
    remarks about this culture that exists out there in the Olympic
    community, and I am going to speak very broadly now, that
    apparently exists in terms of this instance of selecting host
    committees.
        I see a city like Atlanta having to go through some of
    these hoops unfortunately to get to the end that they want, but
    I think, Mr. Hybl, once Atlanta is picked as the city in the
    United States that would bid for this, that the USOC becomes a
    team player with them and an advocate for them, I trust, and
    hopefully an adviser in terms of what you can and cannot do.
        I suspect that the USOC is aware, and probably Atlanta was
    aware to some extent, of this culture within the broader IOC of
    the way things are done. I know in the business community, I
    have business friends who go overseas, and in some countries
    things are done differently.
        So I don't know what our answer is. I do to some extent
    though think the USOC ought to exercise more authority in its
    role as I assume the intermediary between Atlanta or any other
    city, Salt Lake City and the international committee, in trying
    to be an advocate to follow the rules out there. It doesn't do
    any good to have $200 gift limitations if they are not
    enforced, and obviously none of that is done. But my overall
    concern, again as I mentioned in my statement, and I would like
    perhaps a comment from one of the gentleman from Atlanta
    representing a host city viewpoint, and Mr. Hybl, you as the
    representative of the U.S. Olympic Committee, I am concerned
    about this, again, the unilateral disarmament and how we ever
    being affected here.
        Th IOC, what is their attitude to this hearing, to this
    investigation? Is it going to hurt us as a country in future
    selections? And how in the world are we going to enforce
    standards uniformly when we have to rely on other nations to do
    that? Is that feasible? Are other countries going to play by
    the rules if we play by the rules?
        I am not advocating we don't play by the rules, but I am
    just wondering as a matter of practicality, are we going to
    have any chance at success in future Olympics if this reform is
    not uniformly accepted and followed around the world?
        Let me just maybe, Mr. Hybl, you go first and Mr. Young or
    Mr. Payne follow.
        Mr. Hybl. Well, first of all, we concur, Mr. Bryant, with
    the question that the reform is needed. We also as a practical
    matter are aware of the fact that it really has to be broad-
    based with other countries also if the United States is going
    to compete on a level playing field. This was the reason behind
    the recommendation from the Mitchell commission which was sent
    to President for the OECD recommendation for the Foreign
    Corrupt Practices Act that would be adopted. I believe there
    are 34 nations that are subscribers right now to the OECD,
    which would ensure that in virtually every case others would
    also be subject to the international rules against bribery.
        I would say that we wouldn't be proceeding with bids for
    the 2012 games if we thought that the United States had no
    possibility of being the designated city. The fact is that we
    don't know what the atmosphere will be 7 years out, which is 5
    years from now basically, 5\1/2\, and we are encouraged because
    of the quality of the U.S. cities that are competing, as we
    think U.S. cities have done in the past, that ultimately the
    games will return to the United States and we will host games,
    because we think it is good for the country.
        Mr. Bryant. You don't see any retaliation or any backlash
    from the IOC in terms of what we are doing in this country in
    terms of investigating and bringing to light some of these
    abuses?
        Mr. Hybl. The comments that have been made to me would
    suggest that there are those that are not particularly happy
    with the United States and the process that has gone on, but I
    think as time goes on, the U.S. will be able to compete
    effectively.
        Mr. Bryant. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent for
    1 minute perhaps where Mr. Payne or Mr. Young--I know it was a
    rambling question, but if you have any thoughts. If you don't,
    that is fine.
        Mr. Young. One of the things about the American people, as
    you well know, Congressman, is we love to compete and we don't
    even mind accepting a handicap if competing. We thought we were
    competing with a handicap, and our excesses I think were our
    trying to be too creative. I think American cities like the
    Olympics, the American people like the Olympics. It was a $5
    billion windfall for Atlanta, that 1 year, and they are still
    building in Atlanta because of the influence we garnered from
    the Olympics.
        So American cities are going to go after it and are going
    to win it. We would be helped by a fair process, but if it is
    fair, it has to be enforced, and it is hard to know how to
    influence things internationally.
        Mr. Bryant. Thank you.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Strickland.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Payne and Mr.
    Young, clearly any money that the IOC officials spent should
    have been spent we think to make it clear that Atlanta was the
    best city to host Olympics, and according to the King &
    Spaulding report, certain things happened that I would like to
    ask you to comment on, if you would.
        In Exhibit O on page 1 there is evidence that Atlanta
    officials discussed with the IOC official from Sweden a
    cleaning contract for Olympic venues in buildings with a
    company owned by the IOC official's friends. That contract I
    understand was not taken. But how do you view such a move as a
    way to demonstrate Atlanta's ability to be the best host city
    for the Olympics?
        Mr. Payne. Do you want me to go?
        Sir, on several occasions we were asked if we could
    facilitate an interview, set up a prospective business meeting
    with IOC members' acquaintance with somebody in Atlanta,
    somebody they heard of or whatever, and we did that on I think
    a couple of occasions. We honestly thought nothing was wrong
    with it. We didn't recommend or insist that anything come out
    of it. I am not even sure that the follow-up calls were even
    made in many of those instances. But the answer, sir, we did
    not believe that was an inappropriate thing to do.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you for your answer. There is also
    evidence that efforts were made to secure job interviews for
    IOC officials' children, that various offers were made for
    medical care or medical evaluations, and would your answer be
    the same to those matters as well?
        Mr. Young. Mine would, sir, because if you are from
    Swaziland and the only place you can get your heart treated is
    South Africa, and you happen to be black, you recommend that
    you get your treatment when you come to Atlanta.
        We had doctors who were glad to treat people freely. We
    didn't consider that bribes. We were operating in the real
    world and we were dealing with the real conditions of people's
    lives. We had four people who had been run out of their homes,
    political exiles, and we probably did more for them than we
    would have done for others.
        But that was part of the way we were expressing our
    friendship.
        The other thing is we thought we were dealing with our own
    money. We didn't have the taxpayers' money here, very little of
    it. We knew what we were doing, we were raising money from our
    friends, from volunteers, who committed themselves to go after
    the Olympic games. We also knew the prize.
        So we thought these were minuscule favors that didn't cost
    us anything. I would go on further to say that most of the
    hospitals would not send us bills. They saw that as part of
    their contribution for the Olympics.
        Now, maybe that is wrong, but that was the spirit in which
    we engaged in this, is trying to help people anyway we could.
        Mr. Payne. May I add to that answer, I would add to
    conclude Andy's remarks, there were no jobs that were given,
    and I don't believe, except for my friend who I took to my
    personal doctor because I was afraid of this hocus-pocus
    medicine he was taking for heart disease, did we render any
    medical care except of an emergency nature when something went
    wrong while somebody was there.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you for those answers. Mr. Payne, I
    think this question may have already been asked you, but if it
    was, I was not here and I apologize for repeating it. But for
    me it is an important question.
        Toward the end of your written statement you remarked that
    you believe that reform is needed in the bidding process,
    particularly in the areas of gifts and travel.
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Strickland. I am wondering at what stage of this
    process in your own experience you reached that conclusion and
    what sort of reforms you would, as a result of your experience,
    what sort of reforms would you suggest are most needed?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir, that question was asked and my answer
    was when we ourselves came under attack for what we did, that
    I--and we were so criticized that I started thinking that what
    we thought at the time was perfectly appropriate to do in the
    context, other people didn't like, people we respect and honor,
    and so, you know, that was the first time I personally had the
    thought, well, let's just do away with all the gifts and just
    reform the process dramatically. So about a year ago----
        Mr. Strickland. And do you think that is possible?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir, I believe--I am not sure I am in the
    majority here today, but I believe there will be dramatic
    reforms announced in the short term.
        Mr. Strickland. And my friend on the other side asked if
    the rest of the world would concur with reforms that we may
    embrace and whether or not it would place us at a disadvantage.
    Is it your impression that the IOC at large will agree to these
    kinds of reforms?
        Mr. Payne. I am sure they will speak for themselves later
    on, sir, but I am the eternal optimist, and I believe the
    relative importance of this country to the Olympic movement, as
    viewed as a cooperative, not a combative relationship, will
    emphasize the need of those reforms, and that they will be
    undertaken in a way that satisfies everybody and will be
    accepted. That is my personal opinion, sir.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you. If I can just make a comment
    regarding Mr. Young's testimony, and I read that you provided
    soccer balls for the impoverished children and so on, I can
    understand why you felt the need to do that. I guess what
    troubles me is that these are sort of select individuals who
    may have access to an individual like you or to resources that
    the IOC committee would have, and I guess it is better to do
    something that affects a small group of people, but it seems to
    me like the rationale there is a limited rationale in terms of
    its outcome.
        Mr. Young. For instance, Congressman, we arranged to send
    food supplies to 13 different countries because the heads of
    state told us there was a shortage of protein for the athletes
    training. We got free food delivered from American companies
    and shipped to these countries for their athletes.
        The soccer balls that we took, we took them ourselves and
    we passed them out in villages. I mean, that is what we thought
    was American friendship.
        Mr. Klink. Would the gentleman yield to me for one moment.
        Ambassador Young, look, if all that had occurred was taking
    food to hungry people and taking soccer balls to Third World
    countries, we would not be sitting here. The reality is in the
    case of Mr. Ganga, the evidence shows that the money was put in
    his personal account, some $50,000 I think.
        Mr. Young. Not from us.
        Mr. Payne. No, sir.
        Mr. Klink. By Salt Lake, in that case. That wasn't you
    guys. But the fact of the matter is that there is so much
    beyond that going on here, I laud you for that. I wish I would
    have been there to see the soccer balls arrive and to see what
    occurred and to see what happened when the foodstuffs arrived.
    But it gets far beyond that. We are far, far, far beyond the
    pale with this.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Upton. I want to follow up on a couple points that were
    made. Mr. Helmick and Mr. Hybl, you both through your testimony
    and certainly the report that we heard from the Mitchell
    Duberstein report indicated that virtually everyone knew the
    abuses were taking place, and I am just curious, particularly
    Mr. Helmick, as you think back 10, some 10 years ago, if they
    were well-known to everyone, what did you do then? Did you do
    anything? What went through your mind as you watched all this
    happening, particularly as you had seen from other cities that
    had not participated in this type of thing? I think you
    indicated you thought it started in Barcelona, that is when it
    started going, and Paris, Barcelona, and it has escalated since
    then. Where were you as this thing was happening?
        Mr. Helmick. Well, I was there, and I spent a great deal of
    time thinking about that question, and obviously I should have
    done more. I was in a unique position to have done more.
    Anything I say at this point sounds like an excuse. There are
    some things we did. You have to keep in mind that we had
    another bid city going at that point. We were focused on
    changing the amateur rule. The scandal at that point was we
    can't compete evenly with the Soviets. There were a lot of
    other things on our plate. That is sounding like an excuse.
        The things we did were not sufficient. We should have done
    more. We did do some things. At that point it was obvious to
    me, having been at most of the IOC sessions since Athens in
    1978, that it had to come within the IOC. I felt it was awfully
    important that the president of the U.S. Olympic Committee be
    an inside member of the IOC. I still feel that way. Bill Simon
    before me felt that way. We started to do some things inside
    the executive board. The rule was good. My recollection is
    having the IOC take care of travel arrangements were good.
    Obviously those were not sufficient. We should have done more.
    That is the only way I can answer you.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Hybl, in the Mitchell-Duberstein report,
    ``It is difficult to believe that members of the executive
    committee or individual trustees did not become aware through
    these encounters that a large number of IOC members and their
    relatives were visiting, attending schools and finding
    employment around Salt Lake City.'' it goes on.
        I would sense that you would think that you have looked at
    this report and you sense it is accurate. With all this
    evidence there, I am still astounded that your earlier comment
    that you thought only 50 percent of the members, you thought it
    was only about a 50 percent chance that the reforms will be
    adopted, knowing the pattern of abuse is as widespread as it
    is?
        Mr. Hybl. Mr. Chairman, I think the odds are greater than
    50 percent. As I indicated, it was for the complete package of
    reforms that are in front of the IOC.
        Now, some of the reforms will undoubtedly be adopted, but
    our view is that the package as presented by the Mitchell
    commission, there may be some differences in there, but should
    be reflected in a policy as in the USOC at the IOC level. It is
    for that complete package that I say that the odds are just a
    little better than 50 percent, in my view, that they would be
    adopted.
        Mr. Upton. I want to touch base a little bit on this
    international assistance fund. I am not sure when it started.
    Did it start while you were president, or was it around for a
    long time, the IAF?
        Mr. Hybl. I believe it started when Bob was president.
        Mr. Helmick. Yes, it was a response to the Los Angeles
    organizing committee.
        Mr. Upton. How is it funded?
        Mr. Helmick. Initially it was funded from profits from the
    Los Angeles Olympic Committee. It was the village fees, by
    about $4 or $5 million.
        Mr. Upton. Would you agree with my sense of things,
    particularly in some of the things mentioned in the report,
    that this could be construed as a slush fund?
        Mr. Helmick. No. It started out as an athlete training fund
    which was governed by our national governing bodies and was
    strictly monitored only for legitimate cross training for
    athletes. It grew out of hand.
        Mr. Upton. Tom Wilkinson was quoted as saying that the IAF
    grant to train Sudanese athletes ``doesn't look like a wise
    investment unless IOC votes are involved. It seems to me there
    was a deal, and Sudan delivered. Sudan, again, in the future,
    don't burn bridges. This is not a good investment of USOC
    dollars. It is a payback for Salt Lake City votes.''
        Mr. Helmick. What was the timeframe of that? I believe that
    was after I was president.
        Mr. Upton. It was after.
        Mr. Helmick. That is why I said it grew out of what was a
    good idea, and it is like the gifts grew into something that
    was then being abused.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Hybl, was this one of the things you touched
    on in your testimony. This function of this IAF, is it going
    away?
        Mr. Hybl. We have certainly tightened that down. That does
    not mean that we will not have international assistance, but it
    will not be tied to any bid city.
        I would say that the comments that you just read were not
    only inappropriate, I don't believe that they reflect the
    position of the U.S. Olympic Committee.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Young, I just want to follow up on something
    that you said. You indicated that none of these gifts, I
    believe this is what you said, none of these gifts that were
    offered would violate your conscience.
        Mr. Young. I probably said that, yes.
        Mr. Upton. I mean, again, I give great credit to Judge Bell
    and the report that he put together. You know, as I look
    through some of these exhibits and I see that, you know,
    $16,000 for CD players, $10,000 for handbags, $11,000 for
    pewter cups, $10,000 for bathrobes, I mean, I don't know--and I
    see one of the dossiers that you did on a fellow that no longer
    is a member of the IOC, Mr. Ganga, and in your own dossier that
    was done on him you were involved in the strategy, at least as
    documented in this, and the observation is ``greedy, will try
    to rip you off, can be bought. Will tell you what you want to
    hear.''
        Later on in the Salt Lake City investigation it says,
    during many trips to Salt Lake City Mr. Ganga and his family
    members received extensive medical care, and in fact it talks
    about to the tune of Mr. Ganga is the IOC member who most took
    advantage of the bid committee's and communities' generosity.
    Indeed, bid committee and SLOC expenditures attributable to the
    Ganga family totaled more than $250,000.
        I suspect that this--with this particular individual, he
    didn't change from Atlanta to Salt Lake City.
        Mr. Young. No, but what happened, Congressman, was during
    the period between Atlanta and Salt Lake City's bid, he was
    driven out of his home. His whole country was destroyed. He was
    a government official. There was a kind of communist military
    cabal. Everything he had was destroyed and he was very
    vulnerable during that period.
        Now, he also has a reputation of being a very aggressive,
    outspoken Africanist, and has been fighting with the IOC
    establishment since 1968. We knew that. Our appeal to him was
    not through his personal need or greed, but through his African
    nationalist sentiments.
        One of the reasons we gave money to South Africa was
    because the Africans were always saying to us, you just come to
    us and get our votes. You never do anything for us. When we get
    through voting, it is just like in Congress, when you get
    through voting, we never see you any more until election time
    comes.
        So we tried to do some things to help African athletes. But
    we didn't do anything directly to help Ganga except try to get
    an interview for his son for a job. But there was no guarantee
    for a job. He did not get the job. He was a very well trained
    accountant, spoke two languages. We thought there might be an
    Atlanta company that might want to hire him.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Klink.
        Mr. Klink. First of all, Mr. Helmick, I am a recovering
    journalist, so I just want to give you a chance to clear
    something up, something that stuck in my ear. One of my friends
    here on the Democratic side asked you a question about how you
    became troubled by this excessive gift giving, and your exact
    quote was you thought this would have to stop because a lot of
    countries couldn't afford it. I assume you meant there were
    other reasons than that to stop?
        Mr. Helmick. Absolutely.
        Mr. Klink. I want to give you a chance to clear that up,
    because our friends at the press table, I did not want
    anybody--I know you didn't mean just that and I wanted to give
    you a chance to clear that up.
        Mr. Helmick. Thank you very much, sir.
        Mr. Klink. I am kind of troubled by, I remember as a young
    man, and I was young at one time, reading a book about Jim
    Thorpe and his unfortunate Olympic experience when he had his
    medals taken from him because they found out one time he had
    played professional baseball and had gotten a couple of bucks,
    and it was no more than a couple of bucks. To think we have
    gone from that to a time now when such extravagant expenditures
    have to be made in order to compete for whether or not you get
    the games, and as we said, you have to pay to play, but when
    you do pay, there is no guarantee you are ever going to get to
    play in this Olympic game. We have seen examples, Ambassador
    Young told us, of cities that have spent a lot more money that
    never got to host Olympics.
        I am troubled by all of this. Let me just ask you, Mr.
    Payne, who is Charlie Battle?
        Mr. Payne. Charlie Battle, sir, was one of the full-time
    volunteers who worked with us for the entirety of the bid and
    the games.
        Mr. Klink. What does Mr. Battle do?
        Mr. Payne. He runs a private foundation, the benefactor of
    which is one of his cousins.
        Mr. Klink. What is his background?
        Mr. Payne. A lawyer.
        Mr. Klink. A lawyer. Was he with a big law firm?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir, he was with the Atlanta firm of King &
    Spaulding.
        Mr. Klink. When we get back to this point about an honest
    mistake being made in regard to this $15,000 in cash, I was
    troubled by this handwritten memo from Charlie Battle to the
    file, and in this he says that since you are permitted to bring
    into the United States cash the amount of which does not exceed
    $10,000, I, Charlie Battle, brought in $8,000 and Bobby brought
    in $7,570. I took this money to a trust company, a bank, and
    received a cashier's check, et cetera, et cetera. Then he goes
    on to say I truly believe that no laws were broken.
        Now, if he had been an accountant or had been a dentist or
    had been something else, I would have less problems with this.
    But the reality is that he quotes right in his own memo that
    the law says you can't bring in more than $10,000, and then a
    few lines later he handwrites I don't think the law was broken.
        My problem is, what was going on there? Did they think this
    was a suggestion by the Federal Government that you cannot
    bring in more than $10,000? I would question also as to who all
    saw this and what action was taken. If this was ever brought to
    somebody's attention, that you had a lawyer with this well-
    known law firm that by his own admission in his own handwriting
    admits that he circumvented the law, and then at the end of the
    memo, writes I don't think the law was broken.
        Can you enlighten me on that?
        Mr. Payne. May I confer with Judge Bell?
        Mr. Klink. If it were me that had to answer the question, I
    would want to confer with Judge Bell too. Judge Bell, could you
    sit down where we could hear you at the microphone, sir.
        Mr. Bell. It is my understanding that memorandum was not
    written until just a few months ago. It was written after Salt
    Lake City. Mr. Battle has a lawyer of his own, so I am not
    wanting to interfere in any way in this. But since you asked
    the question, as I understand it, he said that after Salt Lake
    City he started wondering if he had ever done anything wrong
    while he was working in on this group, volunteer group. He was
    on a leave of absence from the law firm because he was so
    interested in getting the Olympics. So he wrote down in the
    last 3 or 4 months, he wrote this memorandum. It was 10 years
    after this happened.
        Mr. Klink. There are no dates on it, so you----
        Mr. Bell. I just found that out recently when I was doing
    the investigation. So I thought you would want to know that.
    Again, as I say, he has a legal advisor of his own.
        Mr. Klink. Well, it is something we----
        Mr. Bell. I don't want to interfere in that.
        Mr. Klink. It is something we may want to have answered.
        Mr. Payne, this discussion about, and I thought it was
    interesting that Ambassador Young mentioned the fact that you
    are directed more by the volunteers than you direct them. I
    guess I can appreciate that to a certain extent.
        But I was also interested in this memorandum from you,
    August--this is one of many, I just pulled one, it could have
    been anyone, but August 20, 1990, to Ginger Watkins and Shannon
    Chandler, subject, personal gifts. Attarbulsi, I hope I said
    that right, I know I butchered that, an offer from Emory Clinic
    acknowledging that we would like him to come to Atlanta for
    medical treatment whenever he needs it and an offer to pay his
    air transportation. Follow-up for Dibos and Mendoza. Follow-up
    with American airlines for free complimentary tickets. Gafner,
    perhaps an agreement to publish his novel in English. De Leon,
    de Leon bought clothes at L.A. Town in Korea. We could call
    Johnny Liu and have him make a suit. Mbaye, perhaps a letter
    showing support for Atlanta signed by all members of the United
    States Supreme Court. O'Flanagan, a signed card from hundreds
    of school children in Savannah, which invites him back to grand
    marshal another parade, which includes a picture of him during
    the parade. Von Schoeller, call Campbell about some kind of
    horse memorabilia. Pal Schmitt, get a letter from the
    University of Georgia offering a scholarship to his daughter.
        Well, no wonder your volunteers were leading you all the
    wrong direction if the direction they were getting from you was
    to perform this kind of personal gift giving. That is the
    problem here, that it appeared that this closed culture of the
    Olympics was being instructed from the very top.
        Mr. Payne. Well, as I have said before, sir, we don't--we
    are not trying to assign any responsibility. That memo has been
    a source of embarrassment to me before, as have others in the
    files, and the only one we did on that was the suit for Mr. de
    Leon, which came within the gift rules and limits, and they
    were bad ideas, sir, which were quickly pointed out to me by
    these other volunteers and no action was taken.
        Mr. Klink. Thank you.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am struck as I have
    read the reports and the memos and the various investigatory
    results of the similarities between this and the way football
    recruiting used to be in the Southwest Conference. Bear Bryant,
    who coached at Maryland and Kentucky and where I went to
    school, Texas A&M and then Alabama, his biography makes no
    bones about the fact that his fundamental job was to win
    football games, and in order to win football games he had to
    have players on the field. If he needed to get an alumni to get
    somebody a job, buy a car or get him a girlfriend or get a
    couple of hundred dollars for a flight, he did it. And when you
    read the testimony and you read the reports, it strikes me that
    Atlanta basically decided to compete for the Olympics, and they
    went out and hired the best advisers that they could, and the
    advisers told them if you want to get the Olympics, here is the
    way you have to do it.
        There is a legal criteria, and then there is the real
    world. Now, am I fundamentally missing the program, Mr.
    Ambassador?
        Mr. Young. We didn't hire any advisers, you know.
        Mr. Barton. Well, the report that Mr. Bell prepared says
    that early on you retained an adviser that had represented
    Anchorage and paid him $19,000. You also extensively talked to
    people who had been involved in the process.
        Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Barton. I am not being disparaging. I am just trying to
    set the stage. The goal was to get the Olympics to Atlanta, and
    you found out what the rules say and then what do we really
    have to do, and you decided to do what you really have to do.
    Does anybody fundamentally disagree with that?
        Mr. Young. I think that is a very good illustration.
        Mr. Barton. Okay. Now, I believe that if you are going to
    solve the problem, you have got to have fundamental reform, and
    if you are going to have fundamental reform, you have to start
    at the top. My understanding is that the president of the
    International Olympic Committee at the time is this gentleman
    from Spain, Mr. Samaranch, is that correct?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Barton. Now, again, in Judge Bell's report that he
    supplied to the committee, it shows that Mrs. Samaranch came to
    Atlanta and took side trips to Savannah and Charleston and the
    total cost that is reported for all that with her friends is
    over $12,000.
        Now, did she have a vote? She didn't have a vote.
        Mr. Payne. No, sir.
        Mr. Barton. So this is no official reason to be paying for
    airfare and side trips to the president's wife and her friend,
    is there?
        Mr. Young. Yes.
        Mr. Barton. And----
        Mr. Young. I mean, again, you said it. We wanted to get
    anybody who could influence him. He is very hard to get to.
        Mr. Barton. I understand that. That is exactly my point.
        Mr. Young. If his wife wants to come to Atlanta, well,
    we're glad to have her come.
        Mr. Barton. Here is my point. It is hard for him to claim
    public outrage and shock and amazement that we have got all
    these problems if his wife and her friend flew to Atlanta, took
    a side trip to Savannah and Charleston, all at the expense of
    the Atlanta Olympic Committee. So why is he still president of
    the International Olympic Committee? Anybody want to answer
    that question?
        Mr. Young. He gets the majority of the votes. He gets
    reelected and--but in fairness to him, he is an old line
    European aristocrat who has brought the Olympic movement a long
    way on some issues. One, he has brought more minorities, the
    diversity of the Olympic movement under his leadership----
        Mr. Barton. Which is a good thing.
        Mr. Young. Is a good thing, and that is one of the reasons
    he gets support.
        Mr. Bartlett. My guess is he is not the only one who could
    do that.
        Mr. Young. He is the only one who did. It was a white male
    old boy's club until he took it over. The athletes on the
    Olympic Committee, the anti-doping efforts, the difficulties of
    keeping--he had been Ambassador to Russia, so he was one of
    those that was influential in helping to keep the Russians in
    the Olympics.
        Mr. Bartlett. My time has expired.
        Mr. Young. There are good reasons why he is still the
    president.
        Mr. Barton. There are no good reasons that I can tell. You
    need fundamental reform. It is not going to happen in my
    opinion as long as he is president. I think you need to reform
    the voting process. I think you ought to have an open vote. It
    is pointed out in Judge Bell's report on the first ballot
    Atlanta got 19 votes and they didn't get anywhere close to
    competitive until the last ballot. If you made it an open vote
    process, you prevent these 86 members of the International
    Olympic Committee from promising everybody something. In other
    words, you got to put your vote on the board like you told
    somebody you are going to put your vote on the board. I think
    you need to reform the mechanism for who puts you on the
    International Olympic Committee. From what I can understand,
    President Samaranch has quite a bit of influence on who gets on
    the International Olympic Committee. So I am not here to
    chastise the Atlantans, but if I am still here when we get the
    IOC, I am going to chastise them significantly, because I think
    that is where the problem is.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Barton. I have been generous with
    the time, as you can see, that everyone has lots of questions
    and many of us still to ask. I am going to ask all members if
    they can to submit questions to you all in writing. I have two
    members, each of which want to ask questions very desperately,
    and I will yield at this point to Ms. DeGette and then to Mr.
    Burr, and at that point we will excuse this panel and begin the
    next.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This kind of wraps it
    up a little bit. We all have a pretty clear picture from
    reading the documents and hearing you testify here today what
    happened in Atlanta, what has been escalating since the 1980's,
    and I would like to place a question to Mr. Hybl, and it is as
    follows.
        We have written policies that the IOC apparently adopted in
    the late 1980's and has reiterated throughout the 1990's,
    particularly with respect to travel and with respect to gifts.
    We also have an acknowledged recognition by host city members
    that they knew of those rules going in and that they knew that
    the rules weren't followed by anybody, and also that the rules
    were never enforced by the IOC.
        So my question to you is, what reforms do you think that
    the IOC could adopt that could and would actually have some
    hope of being enforced? And what would the mechanism look like
    to actually have real reform versus paper reform?
        Mr. Hybl. Well, let me answer that two ways, if I may. The
    first is the U.S. Olympic Committee now has experience with our
    new reform process, as we bid for the Pan Am Games. The cities
    have been visited, the USOC paid all the expenses, with the
    exception of a couple lunches and one reception within the
    community. We paid the airfare for our people to go to the
    city, we paid for their expense also while they were there, we
    have a limit of $25 on gifts. But in these cases there were no
    gifts.
        Let me tell you, no matter who wins, on October 23, whether
    it is Raleigh, NC or whether it is San Antonio, Texas, these
    rules are working.
        Ms. DeGette. I don't mean to interrupt you. I know that
    within the United States we are doing this and enforcing it.
    Maybe you can extrapolate internationally. I know the chairman
    has said we don't have much time.
        Mr. Hybl. Second, it would be my view there is probably no
    real reason for individuals to visit a host city if in fact it
    can be done by an evaluation team who then makes a
    presentation. If people are not visiting, you certainly don't
    have the problem with receiving excessive gifts.
        The second thing is, and the IOC is making I believe great
    strides here, is representation for the athletes that are
    elected by the athletes, because there is no better catalyst
    for change within any organization than these--in the Olympic
    movement--than having the athletes actively participating,
    advocating change, and certainly being a positive force for the
    whole movement.
        I believe that is going to happen. I think change will
    evolve quickly in some areas, but over the long term, the
    prognosis is very good.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Burr.
        Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, I am not
    going to ask you how you knew the Jamaican voted in a closed
    voting session, but clearly that is one I will still be curious
    on. Let me ask you, Mr. Payne, did Atlanta have competition in
    the U.S. to be the site pushed by USOC?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, sir. We had extensive competition.
        Mr. Burr. How did the USOC make their choice?
        Mr. Payne. By a ballot cast at an election process in
    Washington DC. On April 28.
        Mr. Burr. Was that an open vote?
        Mr. Payne. I believe it is a secret ballot, is it not, Bob?
        Mr. Helmick. I believe it was a secret ballot.
        Mr. Burr. Let me ask you a question and ask you to think
    about it long and hard before you answer. Did Atlanta have to
    do anything other than be the best site to receive the USOC
    endorsement?
        Mr. Payne. I think we were the best site. I think that
    determination, that selection, was assisted by introducing
    members of the U.S. Olympic Committee executive committee to
    the people of Atlanta and their enthusiasm for the Olympic
    movement.
        Mr. Burr. Was there any discussion prior to their vote
    relative to splits of their participation in the games as it
    related to any of the concessions?
        Mr. Payne. I believe we were required to sign as a
    preliminary to the vote, as were all cities, an agreement which
    basically said the division of the big revenues are A, B, C,
    and we will negotiate later all the details.
        Mr. Burr. Let me ask you, Mr. Hybl, how important is it
    that if there is an American city in the process that that
    American city win versus a foreign city to the USOC?
        Mr. Hybl. I think for the promotion of sport in our
    country, particularly Olympic sports, it is important that an
    American city win.
        Mr. Burr. Is there a financial advantage for the USOC if a
    U.S. city wins the bid process?
        Mr. Hybl. Yes, the answer is yes, because of the
    attractiveness of being a sponsor of the U.S. Olympic Committee
    and it's at least----
        Mr. Burr. Don't get a cut if it is in a foreign city?
        Mr. Hybl. The U.S. Olympic Committee participates in a
    variety of ways through the IOC TOP program, through television
    revenues in the United States, no matter whether the games are
    here or not.
        Mr. Burr. But you wouldn't get a percentage of the sale of
    concessions, for instance, if it were held in Athens versus
    Atlanta, am I correct?
        Mr. Hybl. Well, the fact is that with a joint marketing
    agreement which we had with Atlanta and also that we do have
    with Salt Lake City, there is a participation. But this is
    strictly based on revenues that are raised jointly, not what
    Atlanta would be doing.
        Mr. Burr. That you wouldn't get jointly if it were in
    Athens?
        Mr. Hybl. That is correct.
        Mr. Burr. Okay. Now, you have been associated with USOC,
    looking at your background, I think since 1981. Is that about
    the right time?
        Mr. Hybl. That is correct.
        Mr. Burr. Let me ask you, as president, are you paid
    anything?
        Mr. Hybl. No.
        Mr. Burr. As USOC president?
        Mr. Hybl. I am paid expenses, and I have an allowance for
    two staff members.
        Mr. Burr. Are any of the officers or board members paid?
        Mr. Hybl. No. None of the officers are paid. The staff is
    paid, headed by an executive director.
        Mr. Burr. Let me ask you, given the structure in the USOC
    of unpaid positions for board members, is in fact duplicative
    of the IOC structure, one of you or both of you said earlier
    one of the reforms that has to happen is the IOC has to pay
    their board members. Did I dream that? It was the Ambassador
    that said that. Let me ask the two of you then to comment on
    whether that is a needed reform that must take place.
        Mr. Hybl. The U.S. Olympic Committee is in the process of
    an evaluation of our management by Mackenzie and company and we
    will be moving much of the authority that has been incumbent I
    guess on the president and the officers to the paid staff to
    really put the president, the position I am in, more as
    chairman of the board, which means that we wouldn't have the
    decisionmaking process as much within the volunteer staff. I
    don't believe the volunteers should be paid.
        Mr. Burr. Let me, Mr. Payne, ask you one last question.
    There is no predetermined answer to this one.
        If there was not a tremendous amount of U.S. corporate
    money and U.S. TV rights that went along with Olympic Games
    today, do you believe the IOC would be at the point that they
    are as it relates to efforts to reform the process?
        Mr. Payne. I am not sure that the amount of money derived
    from U.S. sources is as relevant to the reform as it has been
    historically to the success and the growth of the IOC. I
    believe that the corporate support from American companies is
    absolutely critical, absolutely critical, to the worldwide
    success in meeting the legitimate objectives of the IOC to
    support.
        Mr. Burr. So if by not performing they lost support of U.S.
    corporations or U.S. TV contracts, that would put in jeopardy
    the success of the Olympics; they would respond?
        Mr. Payne. That would be my personal opinion, sir.
        Mr. Burr. I would take that as a yes, they are responding
    because there is pressure.
        Mr. Payne. There is pressure and I believe you will find,
    sir, that they do believe reform for its own right and merit is
    needed.
        Mr. Burr. Let me take this opportunity once again to thank
    the four of you but to especially thank Ambassador Young and
    Mr. Payne, the folks in Atlanta for going through I know what
    has to be a grueling process of trying to remember 10 years ago
    and also to have to publicly go out and say there's some things
    we did that don't look good and that's not always fun but it's
    an important part of the process. Did you want to say
    something?
        Mr. Young. Yes, Congressman. I've sounded like I'm
    defending a lot of things that I don't--that are indefensible.
    I defend paying the board members of the IOC in large measure
    because about half of them are from very poor countries and one
    of the things that has happened in sport--I mean, we are
    responsible for the big money culture around sport and we tend
    to be ashamed of money as rich folks but it has given so many
    opportunities. I say the commercialization of sport has also
    been the democratization of sport, that a kid who can run, who
    can jump or who will train doesn't have to be rich. Before the
    U.S. corporations got interested in sport, you had to be born
    rich to compete in the Olympics. You had to have somebody to
    take care of you. I always wanted to go to the Olympics but I
    could never take off and do nothing but train for 2 or 3 years,
    whereas the Soviet athletes had government support. Now all
    athletes have support. American corporations have been very,
    very helpful to sport.
        Mr. Burr. As an individual that did not grow up in a
    wealthy family but was the recipient of a football scholarship
    to Wake Forest when it was the only way I could go, I treasure
    the opportunity that I had and the ability to achieve that and
    by the same token now 25 something years since I graduated look
    at the experience that just went on at Florida State and wonder
    how can it continue and where is the supervision. I think we
    share the same concern but we also share the same goal and
    that's excellence for the next generation of potential
    athletes.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. The gentleman's time has expired. Gentlemen, we
    appreciate your being with us for the greater part of the day
    today. We appreciate your answers. We certainly appreciate the
    testimony you provided in accordance with committee rules in
    advance. I do know of a number of members that have additional
    questions and we will be communicating that in writing. If you
    could communicate back in a fairly short order, that would be
    terrific. You're excused. Thank you very much.
        Our next panel includes Mr. Francois Carrard, Director
    General of the IOC; Ms. Anita DeFrantz, Vice President of the
    IOC, and Mr. Jim Easton, a member of the IOC. Members of the
    next panel, as you heard from the first panel, we have a long-
    standing practice of taking testimony under oath. Do any of you
    object to that? I also advise you that under the rules of the
    House and of this committee, you're also entitled to be advised
    by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel? And if so,
    could you identify those individuals.
        Mr. Carrard. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Culvahouse.
        Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Oparil.
        Mr. Upton. I just want to make sure our clerk is able to
    get the names. Mr. Easton.
        Mr. Easton. Mr. Newhouse.
        Mr. Upton. If you could all stand and raise your right
    hand.
        Thank you, you are now under oath. As you know, our format,
    I'm going to be try to be a little stricter. We're going to use
    this clock. Your full testimony is made a part of the official
    record in its entirety. If you could limit your remarks to
    about 15 minutes, that would be terrific. Mr. Carrard, we'll
    start with you. Welcome to the subcommittee.

    TESTIMONY OF FRANCOIS CARRARD, DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL
         OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; ANITA L. DeFRANTZ, VICE PRESIDENT,
     INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; AND JAMES L. EASTON, MEMBER,
                    INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

        Mr. Carrard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    committee. My name is Francois Carrard, I'm a Swiss citizen.
    I'm the Director General of the International Olympic
    Committee. My language is French and I ask for understanding if
    now and then I have a slip of tongue because I learn hard
    English thanks to a scholarship in California many years ago,
    but it's not my language. Thank you for your invitation to
    appear and let me tell you outright that it is the IOC's strong
    determination to fully cooperate with your committee. It is Mr.
    Samaranch's equally strong determination to cooperate and to
    appear in front of this committee in December.
        Before addressing shortly our crisis and our result action
    for in-depth reform, let me say a few short words about the
    Olympic movement and the IOC. The Olympic movement is the
    concerted action of all those in the world, and we are speaking
    of hundreds of millions of people, who accept to be guided by
    the principles and the rules of the Olympic charter. All these
    people are integrated fundamentally into three different
    constituencies: First of all, the international federations
    which are international nongovernmental bodies governing sports
    at world level; the National Olympic Committees, this is the
    second constituency, 199 of them in the world, one of them the
    most important being the U.S. Olympic Committee; and last, the
    International Olympic Committee, the IOC, which is of course
    today in the heart of the matter.
        The IOC coordinates the entire Olympic movement in
    accordance with the Olympic charter. It is a nongovernmental
    international organization privately funded, privately funded.
    Its legal structure is that of an association under Swiss law
    with headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland. The present
    membership consists of 103 individuals coming from 77 different
    countries, 103 from 77 countries. Total independence, totally
    free of their acts, entirely not paid and their meeting
    constituents, the supreme body, the general assembly which we
    call the session. Session elects the executive body, elects
    president and chooses the host cities for the Olympic games.
    The session also approves the changes in the charter which
    would be necessary for the reform process. Their entire reform
    process under way will be submitted to the session on December
    11 and 12. A two-thirds majority is required and I can say that
    fundamental, unique, unheard of changes will be submitted. It
    is a formidable challenge after 105 years for Mr. Samaranch and
    all those committees to reform.
        A few words about the crisis. The crisis has to do with
    people with structures and with procedures. We were aware of
    the--as soon as we had evidence and that was the key word,
    evidence, of misconduct. We took immediate action in late 1998.
    Immediate internal investigation was ordered. Shortly
    afterwards, a commission was set up, the so-called ad hoc
    commission chaired by Vice President Pound dealing with the
    problems of the people. Within 3 months we reviewed all the
    files of all the members, and the result is that an
    extraordinary session was convened in March 1999, practically
    after 3 months, and this led to the exclusion, the expulsion of
    six members and to the resignations of four others.
        So practically for the first time in 105 years, the IOC did
    cutoff the 10 percent of its membership for misconduct. This
    was, Mr. Chairman, very harsh action.
        We further studied and took into account as soon as we
    received it the Mitchell commission report and took immediate
    measures for transparency, accountability. Our accounts,
    audited according to international standards, were disclosed.
    We opened the next session which took place in June 1999 to the
    media at large, for the first time in 105 years. The decision
    was taken immediately, no trips, no visits anymore for the
    ongoing campaign which led to the decision for the 2008 games
    because that's--we saw it as quite an important matter. We
    applied following the recommendation of the Mitchell commission
    to OECD to be governed by the regulations internationally,
    because we're a worldwide organization, on corruptions. We
    established an ethics commission composed for a vast majority
    of leading senior independent persons with a very strong action
    and inference. And then there is a reform process, the IOC 2000
    reform going on.
        Many of the reforms proposed are absolutely radical,
    introducing age limits. We are proposing 70 years old. Term
    limits, a new nominations committee, more members from outside
    including athletes and athletes democratically elected by their
    peers, and there will be new procedures also on the
    candidacies. Anita DeFrantz will speak of that.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of this committee for
    your time. We consider this investigation as necessary. It's
    not easy for us but useful and constructive and positive
    contribution to our reform process. We are very thankful also
    to Senator Mitchell, Mr. Duberstein for all the time they have
    taken as well as for the leading, the leading American
    personalities who are helping us with this process.
        We have a crisis. Yes, there have been abuses. Yes, there
    have been excesses, but we're fully committed to deliver for
    the end of the year fully newly renovated IOC.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Francois Carrard follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Francois Carrard, Director General, International
                               Olympic Committee
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Francois
    Carrard, and, as Director General of the International Olympic
    Committee (IOC), I am here to represent the IOC and its President.
        I want to thank you for the courtesy you and other Members of the
    Committee extended to me last week during our meetings. I also want to
    reiterate the IOC President is absolutely prepared to testify before
    your Committee after the IOC Session meets to vote on reform December
    11 and 12. I want to thank you for understanding his need to
    concentrate on building the necessary consensus among our multicultural
    organization for the acceptance of our reform package. As you know,
    changes to the Olympic Charter require a two-thirds majority vote for
    passage.
                              the olympic movement
        The International Olympic Committee was established in 1894 to
    revive the spirit and competition of the Olympic Games celebrated in
    ancient Greece. Since then, the IOC has coordinated and supervised the
    celebration of the modern Games and the growth of the Olympic Movement.
    In the most simple terms, the Olympic Movement is made up of those
    people who agree to uphold the Olympic Charter. Although the Movement
    consists of many partners, most notably the Olympic athletes, the three
    leading elements of the Olympic Movement are the International Sports
    Federations (IFs) that manage sport on a global level, the 199 national
    Olympic committees (NOCs) that coordinate the Olympic Movement within
    their own countries, and the IOC.
        The IOC is organized as an association having legal personality
    under Swiss law and is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland. Its
    activities and relationships are governed by the terms of the Olympic
    Charter, and it has a permanent staff of over 100. The IOC has 103
    members from 77 different countries, which means they also come from
    different backgrounds, cultures, races, and religions. Nineteen members
    come from North and South America, 19 from Asia, 13 from Africa, 48
    from Europe, and four from Oceania.
        Each member serves as an independent trustee of the Olympic
    Movement. This independence is a hallmark of the IOC and has allowed
    the Olympic Movement to survive political pressure inconsistent with
    the Olympic values. While all different, their common bond is their
    love of sport--one out of four is an Olympian--that drives them to work
    as unpaid volunteers for the development of sport around the world. I
    should also mention that six of the eleven members of the Executive
    Board are Olympians.
                             crisis as opportunity
        Over the past Century, the Olympic Movement has faced several major
    challenges--from the World Wars to the boycotts. Today, we are gathered
    to discuss the most important challenge--most important because it is
    leading to fundamental change in the organization. It is the IOC
    President's firm conviction that this crisis has a positive side
    because it has generated the political will to make overdue changes.
        To the IOC's credit, the Olympic Games have grown into the most
    important sports event in the world. Unfortunately, while the Games
    evolved, our organizational structure did not keep up with the pace of
    change. In effect, we did not realize we were going through a growth
    crisis.
        The result of an old-fashioned structure managing modern Games was
    not corruption, but a situation in which some of the less responsible
    members--a small minority--showed poor judgement and abused the system.
        Our problems were caused by weak people, structures, and
    procedures. This is why the International Olympic Committee is now
    engaged in a comprehensive and unique review and reform process.
                                     people
        The revelations coming out of Salt Lake City and Atlanta show us
    there were both givers and takers among the organizations involved. The
    IOC has taken responsibility for the behavior of its members, and where
    that behavior stepped over the line, the IOC levied the harshest of
    sanctions.
        Immediately after it became clear there were improprieties involved
    with the selection of the host site for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games,
    the IOC President took steps toward organizing an internal probe. The
    IOC was the first to act and the first to report. As a result of its
    investigation, six members were expelled, four resigned under pressure,
    and one passed away before the beginning of the investigation. Ten
    others were sanctioned with warnings of varying degree of severity.
        Expelling six members by vote of their peers and leading four
    others to resign was a most painful moment for the International
    Olympic Committee; yet these actions were overwhelmingly endorsed by
    the membership.
        Regarding the Atlanta allegations, the IOC President has referred
    the response known as the Bell Report (by the Georgia Amateur Athletic
    Foundation) to your Committee to the newly established permanent and
    independent IOC Ethics Commission, a majority of whose members are
    senior, independent voices from outside the IOC. They will make
    recommendations to the IOC Executive Board if disciplinary action is
    required. I should mention, many of those referred to in the Bell
    Report are the same people that were disciplined earlier this year.
                                   structure
        Once we dealt with these problems, we turned our attention to key
    structural changes. We already have seen substantial progress and some
    results.
    Ethics Commission.
        The first key change in terms of structure was the creation of the
    permanent and independent Ethics Commission. The IOC membership voted
    to create the IOC Ethics Commission at its 108th Session in Lausanne in
    March 1999. The Ethics Commission is charged with ensuring the ethical
    standards for IOC members are clear, applied, and enforced.
        The Commission is headed by Judge Keba Mbaye, former vice president
    of the International Court of Justice and an IOC member since 1973. He
    is joined on the Commission by five independent, international
    personalities:

     Howard Baker, former U.S. senator;
     Javier Perez de Cuellar, former United Nations secretary
            general;
     Robert Badinter, former president of the French Constitutional
            Court and former French minister of justice;
     Kurt Furgler, former President of Switzerland; and
     Charmaine Crooks, a five-time Olympian from Canada.
        IOC members Kevan Gosper, who is a former chairman and CEO of Shell
    Australia, a former Melbourne city executive, as well as a Silver
    Medallist, and Chiharu Igaya, another Silver Medallist and a member of
    a number of corporate boards, also serve on the Commission.
        The Commission's initial work resulted in the adoption of a Code of
    Ethics and changes to the Olympic Charter at the 109th Session in June
    1999.
        The IOC Code of Ethics will govern the actions of IOC members as
    well as those of officials of candidate cities and Organizing
    Committees of the Games (OCOGs) as they interact with IOC members.
    Among other provisions, the new Code limits gifts to items of nominal
    value and hospitality to the prevailing customs in the host country.
    The amendments to the Charter enhanced and clarified the powers of the
    IOC Executive Board to sanction and suspend members for unethical
    behavior.
    IOC 2000
        Further changes to the IOC's structure are being contemplated by
    the IOC 2000 reform commission, and we are on schedule to enact
    fundamental reforms on December 11 and 12, 1999.
        The IOC 2000 Commission was established by the IOC's March 1999
    Session with a broad mandate to review all facets of the organization,
    including its structures, rules, procedures, and host city selection
    process.
        IOC 2000's general membership of 80 is led by a 26-member Executive
    Committee, comprised equally of IOC members and external personalities.
    (Of the thirteen external personalities on the Executive Committee,
    five are from the United States.) IOC 2000's plenary commission
    includes top leaders of international sports organizations, senior
    business executives, academics, sponsor and television broadcast
    partner representatives, and other internationally known public
    figures.
        The IOC 2000 Commission also includes the ten members of the IOC
    Athletes Commission, democratically elected by their peers during the
    last Summer and Winter Olympic Games.
        Among the members are:

     Henry Kissinger, former US secretary of state;
     Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former UN secretary general;
     Paul Allaire, chairman, Xerox;
     Michel Barnier, European Commissioner;
     Dick Ebersol, chairman, NBC Sports;
     Peter Ueberroth, former Olympic Games organizer and Major
            League Baseball commissioner; and
     Thomas Stoltenberg, former foreign minister of Norway.
        The IOC 2000 plenary commission met on June 1 and 2, and its three
    working groups have met three times since then.
        The three IOC 2000 working groups' preliminary recommendations
    include several key elements to revising the structure of the IOC. They
    are:

     setting the membership to 115 members which will include 15
            members who come from the ranks of the International Olympic
            Sports Federations, 15 from among national Olympic committee
            presidents, and 15 active Olympic athletes. The athlete members
            would be elected by their peers at the Olympic Games;
     lowering the age limit to 70 years old;
     establishing a nominations commission that would review the
            qualifications for people considered for election or reelection
            to the IOC;
     setting the term of service at eight years, after which
            reelection to the IOC is required; and
     setting the term of the President of the IOC at eight years
            after which he or she could be reelected to serve only one
            additional term of a yet to be determined length.
        The IOC 2000 Commission will meet October 30 and 31 in Lausanne to
    finalize its recommendations for reform. The plenary meetings will be
    open to the media, and the full roster of recommendations will be made
    public at that time. IOC members will review and vote on this set of
    final recommendations at the IOC Session on December 11 and 12.
                             policy and procedures
        The third major area of reform is revision of IOC policy and
    procedures.
    Transparency
        Perhaps the most obvious shift of policy is the IOC's stronger
    embrace of transparency. In March, the IOC published its financial
    statements that were audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. A couple of
    months later, we opened the IOC 2000 Commission plenary meetings to the
    media. Then in June, we took a further step by opening the IOC's annual
    membership meeting, the IOC Session, to the media for the first time.
    And we have made an incredible amount of information available on our
    web site, www.olympic.org. I think the media will concur that we are
    making major strides in this area of openness, and I hope you will see
    the IOC President's willingness to come to Congress to explain the
    reform as yet another step toward greater transparency.
    OECD
        Earlier this month, the IOC President instructed me to send a
    letter to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
    (OECD) asking that the IOC be covered by the organization's anti-
    corruption convention. Some members of the Senate Commerce Committee as
    well as the Mitchell Commission urged the IOC to find ways it could be
    covered by the US's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. After consultations,
    we determined a direct application to the OECD would be the best
    approach for the IOC, as we could circumvent the need to apply to each
    of the OECD's member nations one by one.
        At this point, I would like to thank the members of the Mitchell
    Commission, especially Senator Mitchell and Ken Duberstein, who have
    made themselves available to meet with us and provide input on how they
    feel the IOC reform efforts should be directed. In this same vein, I
    would like to say we appreciate the interest this Committee and your
    Senate colleagues have taken in the reform of the IOC.
    Host City Selection Process
        Perhaps the most important reforms in terms of procedure are the
    fundamental changes being contemplated for the host city selection
    process. IOC Vice President Anita DeFrantz, who was the chairman of the
    IOC 2000 working group addressing this area, is here to provide
    detailed testimony on the proposed changes to the process.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, I hope in the time provided I was able to give you
    and your colleagues a basic understanding of how substantial a reform
    effort is underway at the IOC. Senator Mitchell has commented that the
    reforms his commission recommended alone would be hard enough to
    implement, and IOC 2000 has a much broader mandate to review all
    aspects of the IOC.
        I respectfully submit that the IOC is undergoing a reform process
    that is unprecedented in both scope and pace for a 105-year-old,
    multicultural organization. Let me repeat: the IOC leadership is fully
    committed to ensuring the reform efforts growing out of this crisis
    result in a fully renovated IOC that will be better able to lead and
    serve the Olympic Movement.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal statement. I look forward to
    taking your questions following the testimony of Ms. DeFrantz and Mr.
    Easton.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you. As you may have heard, we have those
    buzzes and lights that indicate that we have a vote on the
    House floor so we're going to temporarily recess and we'll come
    back promptly at 2 for Ms. DeFrantz. Thank you.
        [Brief recess.]
        Mr. Upton. There are members who are trying to sneak a
    sandwich and do a number of things. A number of subcommittees
    are meeting. But I think we'll continue. Mr. Carrard, thank you
    very much for your testimony. Ms. DeFrantz, we'll begin with
    you. Welcome.

                     TESTIMONY OF ANITA L. DeFRANTZ

        Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
    you for the opportunity to testify today on a topic of great
    importance to me. I also want to thank you and the members of
    the committee for the constructive dialog of the International
    Olympic Committee. My name is Anita L. DeFrantz, I'm an
    executive committee member of the U.S. Olympic Committee. I'm
    Vice President of the International Rowing Federation, FISA,
    and I'm Vice President of the International Olympic Committee.
        My involvement in the Olympic movement has been continuous
    since I first rowed for the U.S. Olympic team. I am an
    Olympian. I represented our country in the games of the 21st
    Olympiad in Montreal in 1976 and I'm proud to say we were able
    to win a bronze medal that year in rowing. I was also a member
    of the 1980 Olympic team which was not allowed to compete in
    Moscow. Since then I have served in a various--a variety of
    volunteer positions within the USOC. I also worked as a vice
    president for the Los Angeles Olympic organizing committee
    which put on the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles and I was
    elected to the IOC in 1986. Today my work is as President of
    the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles, which is the
    legacy of the 1984 Olympic Games.
        I have stayed involved with the Olympic movement because I
    believe in what the Olympic movement stands for, which is, as
    written in the Olympic charter, building a peaceful and better
    world by educating youth through sport, practiced without
    discrimination of any type of any kind and in the Olympic
    spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of
    friendship and fair play.
        Most people think of the Olympic movement only when they
    watch the games every 2 years. While the games do bring
    together the world in a celebration of human excellence, it's
    what the International Olympic Committee does to promote
    international sport leading up to and in between the games that
    makes me proud to be a member of the IOC.
        Through the moneys generated from the sale of broadcasting
    rights worldwide and worldwide sponsorships, the International
    Olympic Committee helps fund training programs to enhance the
    national sports organizations around the world. The programs
    seek not only to prepare athletes to compete in the Olympic
    Games but also to train their coaches in the latest techniques
    and to teach the national sports administrators to better
    manage their country's sports programs.
        As a result of these programs, athletes who could not
    afford the training much less the airplane ticket to the games
    now compete alongside their peers from wealthier nations. Due
    to the success of these programs, we now have athletes from 199
    National Olympic Committees participating in the Olympic Games
    and I'm happy to say that more than 40 percent of those
    athletes are women.
        There is a whole list of programs which are undertaken
    under Olympic--what we call Olympic solidarity. There are
    programs for administrators, for coaches, for athletes, sport
    for all, women in sports, sport and the environment,
    Olympafirca, and these programs are funded through our
    sponsorship. I must also point out that the U.S. Olympic
    Committee and their four U.S. athletes are major beneficiaries
    of the moneys generated through the worldwide sale of broadcast
    rights and sponsorships.
        From the IOC's worldwide sponsorship program, the TOP
    program, the first 20 percent of revenues are distributed
    directly to the USOC. The first 10 percent of television
    rights, U.S. television rights goes directly to the United
    States regardless of where the games are held. Perhaps it is
    because I am so proud of the work of the International Olympic
    Committee that I am so disappointed about what we have learned
    during this past year. It is also why I have given so much of
    my time to help advance the reform process.
        Mr. Chairman, I am here to assure you the process for
    selecting the host cities in the future will be dramatically
    different from the recent past. Following the revelation of
    problems with the 2002 bid process, the IOC took immediate
    action. An inquiry panel was immediately formed to examine the
    actions of IOC members who had abused their trust. Ten members
    resigned or were expelled from the organization. Ten others
    were warned. The IOC president then put in place a reform
    process with the development of a new interim procedure for
    selecting the 2006 Olympic Winter Games site, the creation of
    an independent and permanent Ethics Commission and the IOC 2000
    Reform Commission.
        Recognizing the urgent need for action on the bid process,
    the system for the selection of the 2006 Olympic Winter Games
    was immediately changed. Under that interim system, gifts and
    visits were prohibited and a selection college chose two
    finalist cities. The winner was elected by secret ballot cast
    by each member of the IOC.
        If the reform process goes forward as planned, the host
    city of the 2008 games will be elected through an even more
    thorough and improved selection process.
        Although the Ethics Commission has existed for only 6
    months, it has already made an impact on the future host site
    selection process through the ethics code it drafted. The
    members of the International Olympic Committee adopted this
    code in June. You should note the code lays out ethical
    standards for the interaction of the members of the
    International Olympic Committee with the members of the bid
    committees, and the National Olympic Committees. Second, it
    limits gifts to those of nominal value; third, it limits
    hospitality to that of the prevailing local customs. The new
    ethics code will be enforced by the independent Ethics
    Commission of which Senator Baker is a member.
        With the ethics code as the backdrop, the IOC 2000 Reform
    Commission is revising the process by which the International
    Olympic Committee will elect future Olympic host cities. First
    we have proposed changes to make clear the responsibilities of
    the National Olympic Committees in the bidding process. We
    found through the Mitchell report that there was no legal
    leverage over the bid committees and no mechanisms to compel
    the National Olympic Committees to assert closer control over
    the activities of the bidding committees. Second, we will add a
    new phase to the process called the bid acceptance phase. In
    the past, any National Olympic Committee could propose a city
    and that city would be declared a candidate for the games. In
    the future, the IOC with the assistance of technical experts,
    athletes, representatives of international federations, and
    National Olympic Committees will screen the cities to determine
    whether that city can be considered a candidate to host the
    games in question.
        After the bids are accepted--I'm sorry, a very important
    step at that point is that there will be a contractual
    relationship with the bid cities. The leverage that was not in
    place in the past will be there in the future.
        After the bids are accepted, they'll go through a more
    thorough evaluation process. The third major change. The
    International Olympic Committee has long studied the
    qualifications of the bid through the work of the evaluation
    commission. However, we have recommended the expansion of that
    commission to involve more technical consultants, athletes, and
    other representatives of the federations and National Olympic
    Committees.
        Under the previous system after the distribution of the
    evaluation reports, the IOC members would visit the cities. The
    executive committee of the IOC 2000 reform has recommended that
    we eliminate the member visits to the bid cities which would be
    the fourth major change. If the number of candidate cities is
    too large at this point the IOC executive board would have the
    authority to limit that field.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope you will see that the International
    Olympic Committee has been working to reform one of our most
    important procedures. Choosing the site of the next Olympic
    Games is a serious responsibility, as it determines where the
    dreams of future Olympians will be realized. We are making sure
    that the choice is being made under the best circumstances.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Anita L. DeFrantz follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Anita L. DeFrantz, Vice President, International
                               Olympic Committee
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on a topic of great importance to me. I
    also want to thank you and other Members of your Committee for the
    constructive dialogue with the International Olympic Committee.
        My name is Anita L. DeFrantz, and I am an executive committee
    member of the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) and a vice president of the
    International Olympic Committee (IOC). I am also vice president of the
    International Rowing Federation, FISA. I am an Olympian. I represented
    our country at the Games of the XXI Olympiad in Montreal in 1976 and
    was proud to win a Bronze Medal in rowing. I also was a member of the
    1980 US Olympic team that did not get a chance to compete in the Moscow
    Olympic Games.
        My involvement in the Olympic Movement has been continuous since I
    first rowed for the US Olympic team. I have served in various volunteer
    positions within the USOC. I worked as a vice president for the Los
    Angeles Olympic Committee for the 1984 Olympic Games. I was elected to
    the IOC in 1986. I am currently employed as president of the Amateur
    Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles.
        I have stayed involved because I believe in what the Olympic
    Movement stands for, which as written in the Olympic Charter is, ``. .
    . building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through
    sport, practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic
    spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship
    and fair play.''
                              the olympic movement
        Most people think of the Olympic Movement as the Games they watch
    every two years. While the Games do bring the world together in a
    celebration of human excellence, it is what the International Olympic
    Committee does to promote international sport leading up to the Games
    that makes me proud to be a member of the IOC.
        Through the monies generated from the sale of broadcasting rights
    and world-wide sponsors, the International Olympic Committee helps fund
    training programs to enhance the national sports organizations around
    the world. The programs seek not only to prepare athletes to compete in
    the Olympics but also to train their coaches in the latest techniques
    and to teach the national sporting administrators to better manage
    their countries' sports programs. As a result of these programs,
    athletes who could not afford the training, much less the airplane
    ticket to the Games, now compete alongside their peers from wealthier
    nations. Partly due to the success of these programs, we now have
    athletes from 199 national Olympic committees participating in the
    Olympic Games, and I am happy to say that more than 40 percent of the
    athletes are women.
        The goal is to ensure both today's and tomorrow's athletes from all
    nations continue to compete on the world stage.
        Among these programs are:

     For Administrators
         Assistance to Continental Associations
         Grants for NOC operating costs
         Preparation for and participation in the Olympic Games
         International Olympic Academy
         Programs with the Medical Commission
         Training for sports administrators
     For Coaches
         Olympic scholarships for coaches
     For athletes
         Preparation for and participation in the Olympic Games
         Sydney 2000 programs
         Olympic scholarships for young, promising athletes
         Programs with IFs
     For sport in general
         Sport for All
         Women in Sport
         Sport and Environment
         Olympafirca
        The United States Olympic Committee, and therefore the U.S.
    athletes, are major beneficiaries of monies generated through the
    world-wide sale of television rights and sponsorships. From the IOC's
    corporate sponsorship program, the TOP program, the first 20% of
    revenues are distributed directly to the USOC. And, no matter where the
    Olympic games are held, 10% of the U.S. television rights fee goes
    directly to the USOC.
      international olympic committee action in response to recent crisis
        Perhaps it is because I am so proud of the work of the
    International Olympic Committee that I am so disappointed about what we
    have learned during this past year. It is also why I have given so much
    of my time to help advance the reform process.
        Mr. Chairman, I am here to assure you the process for selecting the
    host cities in the future will be dramatically different from the
    recent past.
        Following the revelation of problems with the 2002 bid process, the
    International Olympic Committee took immediate action. An enquiry panel
    was formed to examine the actions of IOC members who had abused their
    trust. Ten IOC members have resigned or have been expelled as members.
        The IOC President immediately put in place a reform process with
    the formation of the IOC 2000 Reform Commission and a permanent and
    independent Ethics Commission.
        One of the goals of the IOC 2000 Reform Commission is to examine
    the bid process and make recommendations for change. I was appointed
    chair of this working group.
                        2006 host city election process
        Recognizing the urgent need for action on the bid process, the
    system for the selection of the 2006 Winter Games was immediately
    changed. Under that interim system, gifts and visits were prohibited
    and a selection college chose two finalist cities. The winner was
    elected by secret ballot cast by each member of the IOC. If the reform
    process goes as planned, the host city of the 2008 Olympic Games will
    be elected through an even more thorough and improved selection
    process.
            ethics commission's impact on host city election process
        Although the Ethics Commission has existed only for six months, it
    already has made an impact on the future host site selection process
    through the Ethics Code it drafted. The members of the International
    Olympic Committee adopted this Code in June. With your permission, I
    would like to enter it into the record. First, you should note the code
    lays out ethical standards for the interaction of members of the
    International Olympic Committee with members of bid committees and
    national Olympic committees. Second, it limits gifts to those of
    nominal value. Third, it limits hospitality to that of the prevailing
    local customs.
        The new Ethics Code, enforced by the independent Ethics Commission
    of which Senator Baker is a member, will govern the behavior of all
    involved in the host city election process.
               ioc 2000 reform to the host city election process
        With the Ethics Code as the backdrop, the IOC 2000 Reform
    Commission is revising the process by which the International Olympic
    Committee will elect future Olympic host cities. We have devised a
    process that will work well into the future and address the issues with
    which this Committee is concerned.
        First, we have proposed changes to make clear the responsibilities
    of the national Olympic committees in the bidding process. We found, as
    did the Mitchell Report, that there was no legal leverage over the bid
    committees and no mechanism to compel the national Olympic committees
    to assert closer control over the activities of the bidding cities. The
    Olympic Charter clearly states that the national Olympic committees are
    responsible for the bid city they propose. As we have found, there was
    a varying degree of involvement in both the initial preparation and
    ongoing oversight of the bid cities. The proposed procedure will
    mandate that involvement.
        Secondly, we will have a new phase, called the bid acceptance
    phase. In the past, any national Olympic committee could propose a city
    and that city would be declared a candidate city for the Games. In the
    future, the IOC with the assistance of technical experts, athletes, and
    representatives of International Federations and NOCs will screen
    cities to determine whether that city can be considered a candidate to
    host the Games in question. This step will assess whether there is the
    necessary infrastructure to host the Games in place now or can be
    reasonably expected in seven years time. If not, the city will be
    encouraged to work toward improving its chances for the future.
        After the bids are accepted, they will go through a more thorough
    evaluation process--the third major change to the system. The
    International Olympic Committee always has studied the qualifications
    of the bid through the work of the Evaluation Commission; however, we
    have recommended the expansion of the Evaluation Commission to involve
    more technical consultants, athletes, and representatives of the
    International Federations and NOCs. The added input will provide a more
    thorough evaluation.
        Under the previous system, after the distribution of the evaluation
    reports, the members of the IOC would have visited the cities. The
    executive committee of the IOC 2000 Reform has recommended that we
    eliminate the member visits to the bid cities--the fourth major change.
        At this point, if the number of candidate city is too large, the
    IOC Executive Board will reduce the field to a manageable number on the
    basis of the Evaluation Report. It will then present those candidates
    to the membership for the final vote.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, I hope you will see that the International Olympic
    Committee has been working to reform one of our most important
    procedures. Choosing the site of the next Olympic Games is a serious
    responsibility, as it determines where the dreams of future Olympians
    will realized. We are making sure the choice is made under the best
    circumstances.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I'm happy to
    take questions.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Easton?

                      STATEMENT OF JAMES L. EASTON

        Mr. Easton. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name
    is James L. Easton. Before I start, I would like to ask you if
    the four documents that we brought could be a part of the
    record.
        Mr. Upton. Without objection they will be made part of the
    record in their entirety. Thank you.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0363.072

        Mr. Easton. Thank you. Together with Ms. Anita DeFrantz, I
    have the honor of representing the IOC in the United States. I
    would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the
    committee and for your concerns of the Olympic movement and the
    athletes we represent.
        Briefly, my background is I'm chairman and chief executive
    officer of James D. Easton, Inc., a manufacturer of sports
    equipment. I'm also president of the International Archery
    Federation, FITA. And I was elected president of that
    association in 1989 and have been reelected for my third term.
    My previous involvement with the Olympics goes back to 1976
    when I filmed the archery competition as the official film
    maker for archery at that Olympic Games.
        My next involvement was in the organization and operation
    of the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, where I served as
    mayor of the Olympic village for athletes at UCLA and also was
    a commissioner of the archery competition.
        As an IOC member of the United States, I also serve on the
    management committee of the Salt Lake Olympic organizing
    committee and the executive committee of the U.S. Olympic
    Committee.
        From September 1995, when I was elected to the IOC, through
    1996, I also served on the Atlanta committee for the Olympic
    Games, on their executive board. International sports
    federations are one of the three pillars of the Olympic
    movement. We are the guardians of our respective sports. We
    promote and develop the sports internationally. We set the
    rules for competition internationally so those rules are
    consistent. We train the judges to enforce those rules and we
    sanction and oversee competitions internationally, including
    the Olympic Games. In short, we make sure our rules are fairly
    applied and our athletes are protected and our sport grows.
        Although FITA is one of the smaller international sports
    federations, I consider this an advantage as I am able to get
    to know many of the competitors on a personal level. This
    connection with the athletes along with my lifelong love for
    the sport of archery keeps me focused on the most important
    part of the Olympic movement: The athletes.
        Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I'm strongly in
    favor of reforming the IOC to prevent any future occurrences of
    inappropriate actions by bid committees and IOC members.
        I understand that proposals are being considered by the new
    IOC Ethics Commission and the IOC 2000 Commission. These
    proposals will be presented in early December at the
    extraordinary session of the IOC and I look forward at that
    time devoting on these necessary--voting on these necessary
    reforms and also committed to help convince other IOC members
    that they should vote for them also.
        We must not and will not fail the Olympic movement. I'm
    grateful that the IOC has given me the opportunity to work for
    the athletes across the globe, and I look forward to continuing
    my efforts on their behalf.
        Before I close, I'd just like to make another statement, a
    personal statement, that I'm troubled by the statements that
    have been made here today that all IOC members are guilty or
    have been guilty of accepting or requesting excessive gifts.
    From my personal experience, I have not seen that. I can state
    that these statements are not true and I believe they unfairly
    condemn many IOC members who have a high level of ethics and
    would not do many of the things that had happened in the past.
    And I just wanted to say that because there are many of us who
    do fit that mold and it is I believe unfair that every one of
    us is condemned with that same unethical activity.
        I'd like to thank you and I would be pleased to answer any
    questions you have.
        [The prepared statement of James L. Easton follows:]
     Prepared Statement of James L. Easton, Member, International Olympic
                                   Committee
        Chairman Upton, Members of the Committee, my name is James L.
    Easton. Together with Anita DeFrantz, I have the honor of representing
    the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in the United States.
        Thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee and for
    your interest for and concern with the Olympic Movement and the
    athletes that we represent.
        Briefly, my background is as follows. I am Chairman and CEO of Jas.
    D. Easton, Inc. (Easton). We manufacture sporting goods equipment. In
    addition to being a member of the IOC, which I have had the privilege
    of being since 1994, I am also the President of the Federation
    Internationale de Tir a l'Arc (FITA) otherwise known as the
    International Archery Federation. I was first elected to this post in
    1989 and am currently serving my third term as president. My
    involvement with the Olympic Games goes back to the organization and
    operation of the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. In addition to
    other duties, I had the privilege of serving as the Mayor of UCLA
    Olympic Village and as Commissioner of the Archery Competition.
        As an IOC member in the United States, I also serve on the USOC
    Executive Board and am I a member of the Management Committee of the
    Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee (SLOC). From the time of my
    election to the IOC until 1996, I also served on the Executive Board of
    the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG).
        The international federations are an important part of the Olympic
    Movement. We are, in effect, the guardians of our respective sports. We
    promote all aspects of our sports, assure that the rules are applied
    evenly and fairly and oversee the conduct of our sanctioned
    competitions, including the Olympic Games. In short, we make sure that
    our athletes are protected and the welfare of the sport is safeguarded.
        Although FITA is one of the smaller International Federations, I
    consider this an advantage, as I have been privileged to get to know
    many of the competitors on a personal level. It is this connection with
    the athletes, along with my life-long love for the sport of archery,
    that keeps me focused on what really matters in the Olympic movement:
    the athletes and the Games.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am strongly in favor
    of reforming the IOC to prevent any future occurrences of inappropriate
    actions by bid committees or by IOC members. I understand that
    proposals are being considered by the new IOC Ethics Commission and the
    IOC 2000 Commission. These proposals will be presented to the IOC
    Executive Committee and then to the full IOC membership in early
    December 1999. I look forward to voting on these necessary reforms in
    December, and have personally committed to working diligently to secure
    the necessary approval of two-thirds of my IOC colleagues. We must not
    and will not fail the Olympic Movement.
        I am grateful that the IOC has given me the opportunity to work for
    the athletes across the globe, and I look forward to continuing my
    efforts on their behalf.
        I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

        Mr. Upton. That was perfect timing with the clock. Again, I
    appreciate all of you being here, particularly Mr. Carrard,
    whose international travel has been able to bring him before
    this subcommittee today and you'll be here, as I understand it,
    again in December with Mr. Samaranch. So we very much
    appreciate that.
        We have a number of questions. First of all, I guess Ms.
    DeFrantz, Mr. Easton, it's my understanding, correct me if I'm
    wrong, but in the past you have been voting members of the
    selection committee; is that correct? Ms. DeFrantz, have you
    cast a vote in favor of one city or another in past Olympics
    and if so, which ones?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Since I was elected to the IOC in 1986, I did
    not vote in that election. I was elected at the end of the
    session, although I'm pictured as a part of the session.
        Mr. Upton. With which Olympics have you helped select as a
    member of the voting body?
        Ms. DeFrantz. From--in 1988 we elected the site of the 1994
    Olympic Winter Games. In 1990 we selected the site of the 1996
    Olympic Games. In 1991 we selected the site of the 1998 Olympic
    Winter Games. In 1993 we selected the site of the 2000 Olympic
    Games and in 1995 we selected the site of the 2002 Olympic
    Winter Games and this year we selected the site of the 2006.
        Mr. Upton. So you have been present for six votes of the
    cities and throughout all that, you were aware, were you not,
    of the $200 gift rule that was in place I believe for all of
    those? Is that correct?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, the rules changed a little bit,
    but essentially that is correct.
        Mr. Upton. Were you ever in a position where you saw cities
    come to you and offer gifts that exceeded the $200 gift rule?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, I had a particular approach to
    this. I believed that my responsibility was to find out from
    every bid city what they were going to provide for the
    athletes. So I always ask for technical information. Gifts were
    not of interest to me. I paid no attention to them and indeed I
    usually left them in the room if they came to me.
        Mr. Upton. So you were never--yes or no. Were you offered
    gifts that exceeded $200?
        Ms. DeFrantz. I don't know because I didn't accept gifts.
        Mr. Upton. You accepted no gifts but the question was were
    you offered gifts? Were there gifts that were offered to you
    that you might have turned down that were in excess of $200?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, it's difficult for me to
    answer. If I didn't open a box or look at a gift, I can't tell
    whether it was over $200 or not but I can tell you that I
    understood that the rule was gifts were okay as long as they
    were under $200.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Easton, were you ever in a position to also
    vote on the selectionsite of cities?
        Mr. Easton. Yes, I was. I voted on the 2002 Winter Games
    and I voted on the 2004 Summer Games.
        Mr. Upton. Did you ever have a member from another--from
    the United States or any other country ever come to you and
    offer you a gift in excess of $200?
        Mr. Easton. Not that I was ever aware of. They never looked
    to me like that they exceeded that value. Like Anita DeFrantz,
    most of them were things you didn't want to take home. I left
    many of them in the rooms.
        Mr. Upton. I remember when Congress was under a great
    examination a few years ago and in reference to your closing
    statement as part of your testimony, one bad apple can spoil
    the whole bunch. And certainly no one is accusing you or anyone
    else specifically of abuse. But one of the things that we did
    when Congress was under attack was to pass a very strict ethics
    rule and in fact for a good part of the last number of years,
    there in essence has been a no gift rule all together. Maybe a
    T-shirt and a baseball hat but not a meal where you could sit
    down, and as part of the enforcing mechanism we have an ethics
    committee that's bipartisan. It's equal in numbers. A number of
    members in fact missed votes last week on the Dingell-Norwood
    HMO bill because they were meeting to discuss and review at
    least one case before them but that ethics committee works, I
    think, in most cases pretty well. I know that the Senate has
    one, too. Would you say that even though that $200 gift ban was
    in place that because there was no ethics committee until now
    recommended before the IOC that that was what may have rendered
    it somewhat infective?
        Ms. DeFrantz. There were two parts that made it
    ineffective. Certainly having no Ethics Commission was a huge
    problem but equally important there was no leverage. There was
    no contractual relationship with the bidding city and we intend
    to change that so that there will be such a relationship and so
    that the bidding city, the National Olympic Committee as well
    as the IOC members will be under the guidance of the Ethics
    Commission.
        Mr. Upton. I have a followup question but I'm going to
    adhere to this clock.
        Mr. Klink.
        Mr. Klink. Let me first start off with Mr. Easton. I don't
    know if you were in the room for my opening statement, but my
    concluding paragraph was, let me conclude by saying that while
    some within the IOC have strayed from the Olympic movement,
    from what the Olympic movement should be about, and have sadly
    used the bid process to seek personal award, most have not and
    are extremely hard working and dedicated individuals. In fact,
    I believe the vast makeup of the IOC care very deeply about the
    health and the integrity of the games. You might have missed
    that.
        Mr. Easton. I appreciate that statement.
        Mr. Klink. You may not appreciate that because there are
    some questions that have to be asked of all of you. And that
    is, if you are hard working individuals, and I believe you are,
    and all of this was going on, not only in the cities that were
    awarded as the previous panel showed us but in the cities that
    lost to spend tremendous amounts of money, why didn't you know
    what was going on? What kind of blinders, not just you, but
    what kind of blinders did people in the Olympic movement have
    on that you weren't aware that millions, tens of millions of
    dollars was being spent on courting the members of the IOC
    around the world?
        Ms. DeFrantz, we'll start with you. You testified, I think,
    you've been with the Olympic movement since 1976. That's 24
    years, is that correct?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Yes, as an athlete first and as an
    administrator second.
        Mr. Klink. You never saw anything that raised your
    suspicions?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Well, certainly, raised suspicions as well as
    I read the memos from Francois Carrard, from Madam Zheifel,
    from Mr. Gafner who wrote to the bidding cities always
    attempting to control, but again we did not have the leverage
    in place. That was the flaw. There was no way other than to
    send a memo saying please adhere to the rules. We understand
    that there are expenses being made that are totally
    unnecessary. The receptions, the dinners and things like that,
    we wanted to stop that, but we failed to have in place what we
    will have in place starting in December of this year, which is
    a way to sanction the bid cities. There was no contractual
    relationship at that time.
        Mr. Klink. My difficulty is we've got this report of the
    International Olympic Committee by the Toronto, Ontario Olympic
    Council. This is dated the January 9, 1991. This is after they
    lost. Maybe you'd say they're sore winners but they outline--
    and I'll get to this a little later on. Mr. Carrard, maybe can
    you tell me. The thing that bothers me is that it prompted the
    Salt Lake City scandal. It prompted the United States press,
    the Department of Justice, and the Congress making this
    investigation before anybody came forward to try to do
    anything.
        We're looking at Salt Lake City and Atlanta. The question
    is have you at the IOC taken a close look at the bids
    surrounding--the activities surrounding the bids for Nagano,
    Athens, Sydney and perhaps other cities, even cities that were
    not awarded? Were there similar serious wrongdoings or bid
    irregularities like what happened in Salt Lake City, like what
    was alluded in Atlanta. I can't believe these are two exclusive
    situations. What happened at Nagano or Athens or Sydney? My
    understanding is Nagano, the records are burned. They're gone.
    They're destroyed.
        Mr. Carrard. Congressman, we did ask from all National
    Olympic Committees involved because some of these organizations
    have been dissolved and liquidated since then to report to us
    any possible facts or any possible form of misconduct. This was
    done of course early this year. We did receive reports from I
    think all countries involved. I would say that reported to us
    were a few minor flaws but nothing of substance. In the Nagano
    case, we were told by the Japanese that the records were
    burned. We certainly--we learned it like the rest of the world.
    And whatever we received from those other foreign countries is
    immediately passed on to the newly established Ethics
    Commission.
        Mr. Klink. The credibility of your investigation is in
    question. If in fact you're not able to go back--we heard from
    the first panel. Atlanta said this was widespread. We were
    simply doing what everyone else was doing. We were in fact
    doing less of it because if you look at how much we spent, all
    of these other cities spent that much more. The difficulty is
    how do we get to the bottom of this to make sure the intent is
    really to clean this up.
        I've got the red light and I understand, but I just want to
    end with the investigation that has occurred here in the U.S.
    We've had discussions with you and you've had discussions with
    us. You've been cooperative in trying to get to the bottom of
    this. But the other thing that troubles me is that in pursuing
    this, we have been told, staff had been alluded to the fact
    that the United States is going to pay a price for the pressure
    that we have put on the IOC and our attempts to clean it up. We
    have heard some say that because the U.S. is so aggressively
    pushing reforms in the International Olympic Committee, that it
    could be decades before a United States city sees another
    Olympics. Whether that would be something planned or not or
    whether that would be the other members of the IOC would simply
    say, look, on our own, doesn't have to be any great plan or any
    correlation of plans but just say, look, we're not going to
    vote for the U.S. if they're going to put us through all this.
    We had a good thing going. We got to travel for free. We got
    medical supplies for free. We got gifts. We got watches. We had
    champagne, shopping trips. Our wives didn't have to pay for it.
    We traveled all over the world.
        We went where we wanted to. We had the use of houses,
    condominiums and now the stupid people in the United States are
    causing things to end. Why is the U.S. having to do all the
    dirty work? Where was everybody else in cleaning up all of
    this? What is going to occur? How are you going to convince us
    you really want to get to the bottom of this?
        Mr. Carrard. I can assure you, Congressman, we want this
    thing solved and fundamentally reformed. And the U.S. is a
    major constituent in the Olympic movement. The Olympic movement
    is universal and certainly it is our aim to get this done,
    clean the house, and get on with the Olympic movement in a
    universal way.
        Mr. Klink. Where was everyone else? Why are we doing the
    heavy lifting here? Why do we have to be the bad people of the
    International Olympic Committee? Where has every one else been?
    Where have your people been? You just can't have not been
    realizing there was a problem. Someone had to know all of these
    things was going on. Leverage can't be the only thing.
    Certainly leverage is the press. You go to the press, the best
    antiseptic is sunlight. And you go to the press, you say this
    is what's going on. It's a stacked deck. This is the way
    they're doing business. This is not the way the world views the
    Olympic Games. Amateur competition among athletes. It's not
    over tens of millions of dollars in gifts.
        Why did it take us to get to the bottom of it? And why are
    we the bad people. I still haven't heard why the rest of the
    world hasn't repudiated this activity over the decades it has
    been going on.
        Mr. Carrard. Congressman, I cannot speak for the rest of
    the world because I don't represent them. I can say that as
    soon as we had for the first time, thanks to the United States,
    thanks to your power of investigation and your laws, the first
    evidence which came from Salt Lake City which was about in
    1998, we immediately acted and since then we have been acting
    non-stop.
        Mr. Klink. First evidence was 1991. This is a report and I
    have no evidence of anyone did anything about it.
        Mr. Carrard. There was no name of any member of the IOC.
    What we have been trying, Congressman, was to obtain names.
    We've been trying to obtain evidence. The cities file a report
    like Toronto but when we were asking please bring evidence,
    please give me a witness, please give me a name----
        Mr. Klink. There are three names on the front of this
    report. You're telling us Mr. Henderson, Mr. Eagleton and Mr.
    Seagram wouldn't give you the names of the people who did this?
        Mr. Carrard. That's exactly accurate, Mr. Congressman, and
    no city ever wanted to give us a name. It's one thing to have
    rumors and allegations. It's another thing, and that was our
    difficulty, was to secure evidence.
        Mr. Klink. I think, Mr. Chairman, I might suggest to you we
    attempt to see if we can get some cooperation from the people
    who signed this report.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Burr.
        Mr. Burr. Mr. Carrard, we're not here talking about rumors
    or innuendos here today. We're talking about things that are
    substantiated that do have names and do bring credibility to
    the Toronto report, at least in the spirit of how that report
    was written.
        Ms. DeFrantz, let me ask you what exists today that would
    in these proposals that we've been given that won't allow
    anything like this to happen in the future?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Several things exist. Well, actually December
    11 and 12 will be finalized but what exists today is the
    proposals that will go to the session that No. 1, when a city
    is proposed by a National Olympic Committee before it can
    declare itself a candidate city, they will have to be accepted.
    In other words, they will have to show they have the technical
    capability now or feasibly within the 7-year period.
        Mr. Burr. That in some way assures us that there's no
    violation of the gift rules?
        Ms. DeFrantz. I'm getting to that, sir.
        Mr.  Burr. Would you get there quickly, please.
        Ms.  DeFrantz. I will. We will make certain that only the
    evaluation commission goes to visit the cities. We will have a
    contract with the bidding city, the National Olympic Committee
    and the city that is bidding with the IOC, assuring that they
    understand they're under the code of ethics and subject to
    actions by the Ethics Commission, and that is a significant
    difference. Before we had no leverage. There was no mechanism.
    There will be a mechanism so no city can be a bidding city
    without entering into a contractual agreement, which will
    ensure that they'll abide by our code of ethics. We also have
    changed the process so there won't be the travel and there
    won't be the gifts.
        Mr. Burr. Let me ask Mr. Carrard, an IOC spokesperson in
    September is quoted as saying Atlanta pushed those favors and
    gifts on IOC members under the pretext of friendship and the
    delegates were not used to the systematic approach of lobbying.
    Were you that IOC spokesperson?
        Mr. Carrard. No, sir.
        Mr. Burr. Do you know who it was?
        Mr. Carrard. No, sir.
        Mr. Burr. Do you believe that Atlanta pushed those gifts
    and favors on IOC members?
        Mr. Carrard. Sir, I think the best answer we have today was
    given by Ambassador Young on exactly what happened at that
    time.
        Mr. Burr. I'm asking you do you think as the IOC--excuse me
    for not knowing your title--executive director--Director
    General, excuse me, do you believe that Atlanta pushed favors
    and gifts on IOC members?
        Mr. Carrard. I didn't follow myself the Atlanta campaign
    because at the time I was rather new shortly before the vote. I
    never went to Atlanta before the vote.
        Mr. Klink. Would the gentleman yield.
        Mr. Burr. I would be happy to yield.
        Mr. Klink. I have a news article in front of me. The IOC
    spokesperson Franklin Schriver, it's in the second paragraph if
    you're referring to that news article.
        Mr. Burr. Do you know a Franklin Schriver?
        Mr. Carrard. Yes, of course.
        Mr. Burr. Did he work for the IOC?
        Mr. Carrard. Yes.
        Mr. Burr. Does he still work for the IOC?
        Mr. Carrard. Yes.
        Mr. Burr. He believes Atlanta pushed the favors and the
    gifts on IOC members.
        Mr. Carrard. Well, he started working with us last year so
    he wasn't there either.
        Mr. Burr. Let me ask, Ms. DeFrantz, you were involved in
    the Atlanta process, weren't you?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Yes. I live in Los Angeles but as a member of
    the IOC in the U.S., I was supportive of the USOC's interest in
    yet again hosting the games----
        Mr. Burr. Did you ever see anything on Atlanta's part that
    would have broken in the spirit or the letter the gift ban or
    the gift rule of the IOC?
        Ms. DeFrantz. I did not see the gifts----
        Mr. Burr. Did you hear about it?
        Ms. DeFrantz. I did not hear about it. I was advised from
    time to time by the bid committee of who might be coming to
    town as they asked me if I could be there but the list of gifts
    was not shared with me.
        Mr. Burr. Did you ever see Salt Lake City break the gift
    rule of the IOC?
        Ms. DeFrantz. During their very first bid, I noticed that
    they were given a jacket which to me seemed a tad--looked like
    it might be more than $200 worth of jacket and I asked them
    were they abiding by the rules and the response was yes, they
    bought them in bulk and they were significantly less than $200.
        Mr. Burr. But other than the jacket, there was never an
    indication that you saw as an IOC member that Atlanta or Salt
    Lake City was working out of the guidelines or the rules of the
    IOC?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Not in my purview, sir.
        Mr. Burr. I would take for granted from that that you've
    never expressed to the IOC of any violation that existed by
    either of those two bidders or any other city that you've been
    involved in the bid process?
        Ms. DeFrantz. When on occasion for example--actually, we
    were in meeting--I can't remember where now. But in my room
    arrived something that seemed to me beyond the rule. I took
    that item down to the office which was then in place of
    coordination of bids. The IOC started a process to coordinate
    the bids. That happened in the middle 90's. By the way, this
    visiting process is rather new. It started in the late 80's so
    it hasn't been decades. And that also gives me great hope----
        Mr. Klink. Will my friend yield for a moment.
        Mr. Burr. I'd be happy to.
        Mr. Klink. Your question gets to where I was headed with
    this. In a February 1, 1999 article I think the majority has it
    if you don't we'll share it with you. It talks about the
    excessive gifts during Nagano and Salt Lake City. It says all
    members have been lavished with extravagant last minute gifts
    from the various bid cities. Expensive Italian luggage, Stetson
    hats, hand blown glassware, laptop computers, enough stuff that
    the IOC set up a parcel post station in the hotel to make it
    easier for delegates to send their booty home. My question is,
    why didn't somebody see it?
        Mr. Burr. You never saw that, Mr. Carrard?
        Mr. Carrard. I beg your pardon?
        Mr. Burr. Mr. Carrard, did you ever see what Mr. Klink just
    reported?
        Mr. Carrard. The parcels, I know exactly what it's all
    about. It is customary at the end of an IOC session of the
    Olympic Games which has for a long time, they get a lot of
    material, they get a lot of documents. They have their thick
    files and things like that. They also ask to have some special
    parcels for----
        Mr. Burr. Mr. Easton entered into the record this IOC code
    of ethics. Is this the new code of ethics?
        Mr. Carrard. Absolutely.
        Mr. Burr. With indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I just ask for a
    clarification. Under integrity, I'll read No. 2, only gifts of
    nominal value in accordance with prevailing local customs.
    Could one of you define nominal value or what prevailing local
    customs might give us a yardstick as to how to follow what the
    guideline is?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Certainly in this House I think, as was said,
    a cap and a T-shirt in this country would work but we would
    leave that to the Ethics Commission.
        Mr. Burr. In South Africa, would that include diamonds? I
    don't ask it to be a joke. Mr. Young said earlier he couldn't
    compete with diamonds and furs. Therefore, I think somebody
    must have supplied those before.
        Mr. Carrard. With your permission, Congressman, the code of
    ethics you're referring to is new and has been operated by the
    Ethics Commission and you will I think hear Senator Baker, who
    is a member, and they interpret their own rules. We don't.
        Mr. Upton. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Waxman.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Prevailing local
    custom is a very unusual term to use when the prevailing custom
    of IOC members was to take lavish gifts. I wonder if we're
    going to have this kind of interpretation of those words. I say
    that facetiously, not as a question.
        Mr. Carrard, I was amazed at your testimony a minute ago
    where you said thanks to the Congress, thanks to the
    investigations of Salt Lake City, we now know about these kinds
    of practices. How could you not have known about these
    practices? This is like the scene from Casablanca when the man
    comes out and says gambling here in this establishment? How
    could you not know? There are stories with people coming with
    three empty suitcases and leaving with them full. How could you
    not know?
        Mr. Carrard. There were three steps, Congressman. First and
    foremost, I would say at the end of your 80's, we were
    concerned only with trying to keep the amount of the expenses
    made by the candidate cities to reasonable figures because we
    figured out we had 10 candidates for instance, nine were going
    to lose. Nine out of 10 we knew that and we said, please,
    please do not spend too much. They were the most eager to
    spend. It was their own money. Sometimes they were rich.
    Sometimes they were poor. At that time we were not concerned
    about the IOC members at the beginning. I'm just explaining the
    chronology.
        Second steps, Congressman, there began to be rumors, rumors
    in the media, rumors in the press. We started looking for
    evidence because the IOC members are, as I said, 103 totally
    independent persons, unpaid. They're volunteers. They are not
    under contract and this is going to be changing with the
    reform, but they are absolutely not accountable, they were not
    accounting to anybody but their own conscience.
        Mr. Waxman. I only have a limited amount of time. You
    really didn't answer my question. But I'm going to ask the
    questions and I'd like an answer if I can get them. Because it
    seems to me you don't need an investigation in the United
    States to recognize that what was going on were bribes. Now,
    maybe it just became the prevailing custom--obviously it became
    the prevailing custom and that's what has gotten us so
    disturbed.
        I just have to say this to everybody. In reading these
    reports, I've become so disturbed about what's going on in the
    Olympics that I introduced a bill saying that American
    corporations also ought to be prohibited from putting any money
    into the IOC until the Mitchell reforms are in fact enacted.
    And I don't agree with Congressman Bob Barr. You may not
    appreciate this but the Americans who follow politics will know
    that he and I are not particularly on the same wavelength
    politically, but he has joined me on this legislation and I'm
    convinced that if the IOC does not adopt those Mitchell reforms
    in December, the Congress is not going to have any patience any
    longer to leave the IOC to reform itself.
        I want to ask Ms. DeFrantz and Mr. Easton, you're Americans
    on this panel. Do you agree with the fact that the Congress of
    the United States should act if the IOC is not going to take
    responsibility to end this culture that they've developed?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Well, as a constituent of yours in southern
    California, I live in Santa Monica, I'm pleased to tell you
    that I don't think you're going to have to worry about that we
    are going to reform. We're going to make this happen. We
    understand fully that we have a responsibility to the athletes
    of the world and we will make it happen.
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Easton?
        Mr. Easton. Well, I agree with Anita but I also think that
    participating in the Olympic Games is voluntary. If we were to
    pass a bill that no Americans can participate in the Olympic
    Games, that would solve the problems also. But I don't think
    that's what we want to do. What we want to do is try to reform
    what we have, make it better, and I think we are heading in
    that direction and we will be there. I don't think we need any
    other incentives to do so.
        Mr. Waxman. I want to tell you I think that's a really
    insulting answer that you've just given me. We don't do
    anything that would affect the athletes. What we do is we say
    to the IOC they no longer will have all the revenues they get
    from American corporations, including our networks. And I think
    that's the money that subsidized the lifestyle of Mr. Samaranch
    and some of the others at the IOC in addition to the booty that
    they've been able to collect every time a city wants to try to
    attract the Olympics to be held in their site.
        My time is up. I want to put this on the table: You already
    had a gift limit, and that was never enforced. I want to be
    sure that if the IOC is going to make some changes in December,
    that there is an enforcement mechanism, because rules that are
    not enforced or ethics committees that don't act independently
    to make sure that the rules are obeyed, become fairly
    meaningless. I don't think the American people are going to
    tolerate that kind of sham, if that is later called a reform
    that doesn't really get enforced.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. We will continue. Again, we have votes on the
    House floor. We will come back at 3 o'clock.
        [Brief recess.]
        Mr. Upton. We will get started again.
        I know Mr. Strickland has some questions, but I think I
    will start. Ms. DeFrantz, I wanted to go back to my question I
    ended on in the first round, and that was you indicated that
    you were never approached with gifts. Were you aware of other
    members that were approached of the IOC with gifts exceeding
    $200? Did you ever hear any stories from any of your peers?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Did I ever hear any stories from my peers?
    No, they didn't tell me. No.
        Mr. Upton. You mentioned in your testimony a little bit
    earlier to another member, I don't remember which one it was, I
    think you indicated that you thought that you had received a
    gift, you didn't describe it, and you sent it away. Can you
    tell what that gift was?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Sure. It was a briefcase which appeared to me
    to be close to $200 limit, and I simply turned it in to the
    coordination office of the bidding cities.
        Mr. Upton. Based on your testimony, Mr. Easton, you were
    not aware either of other members of the IOC being approached
    with offers of gifts, is that true?
        Mr. Easton. I never heard of any excessive gift offers to
    any IOC member. I am not sure I would have. I continue to think
    if they were doing something that was improper, it would not
    have been very public.
        Mr. Upton. So would you say then when the Salt Lake City
    report came out detailing a number of abuses, that that was the
    first you had heard of that?
        Mr. Easton. I was very surprised. It was the first I heard
    of that.
        Mr. Upton. Ms. DeFrantz, in your testimony that you gave
    before Senator McCain's committee earlier this year, I think
    you testified that it was--that you agreed with the comments
    made by the Mitchell-Duberstein report that there was a culture
    of corruption. At what point did you think--was it the
    initiation of that report that brought you to that conclusion,
    or were there events in earlier years that began to lead you to
    that conclusion?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, I think I said there was at
    least a sub-culture of corruption. Not everyone was corrupt. I
    do not consider myself to be corrupt.
        Mr. Upton. I am certainly not casting any bad finger at
    you.
        Ms. DeFrantz. Thank you, sir. Overtime, with memos from the
    directorate saying to the bidding cities we want to make sure
    that you abide by the rules, that was the regulations, that was
    the indication to me. The cities in the United States did not
    show me the list of things they were doing. They asked me to
    come and support them, which I did when I had the time, but I
    sadly was not privy to the things that they did.
        When someone offered a gift, the rules were the gift being
    offered should not be of more than $200 of value, and that was
    my understanding of the way they should comport themselves. All
    of the bidding cities.
        Mr. Upton. What is your estimate as to--you are a member of
    the reform committee that will be voting later this month. What
    is your sense of where the votes are? Will it pass or fail?
        Ms. DeFrantz. I believe it will pass, and I am going to
    work very hard to make sure that it will pass.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Easton, you are not a member of the reform
    committee, as I understand it, but you will be voting in
    December, is that correct?
        Mr. Easton. That is correct.
        Mr. Upton. And if the reform, assuming that Ms. DeFrantz is
    correct and the vote passes in the reform committee, do you
    think that there will be sufficient votes to pass it by a two-
    thirds vote as required?
        Mr. Easton. I think there will be, and I think a lot of us
    are going to be working and talking to our colleagues to try to
    convince them, those that are not already in favor of it.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Carrard, would you share the predictions by
    these two members, both in terms of the committee and assuming
    that that takes place, that it would pass in December?
        Mr. Carrard. I stopped making predictions, but I work very
    hard to make this reform pass.
        Mr. Upton. Okay. What is the penalty for those that violate
    the gift rule in the future? I know that a new ethics committee
    is established, I think it will be led by Senator Howard Baker.
    He certainly will be a member of that panel.
        What is, as there are tough sanctions, as there should be,
    for Members of Congress when they violate ethics rules, one of
    the things that has come out in the testimony today is that
    before there was a $200 threshold, there really wasn't a
    penalty that was sanctioned. What will the sanction be if and
    when someone violates that new threshold? Can anybody tell me?
        Ms. DeFrantz. We will have--of course, any violation will
    be turned to the ethics commission on which Senator Baker does
    serve. The scale of sanctions is anything from a reprimand all
    the way up to expulsion, just as was the case this last year.
    We have one member at present who is still a member, but has
    been stripped of all his responsibilities as a member, save
    coming to the session. So there is a range of possibilities,
    including expulsion.
        Mr. Upton. Will that member be able to vote in December?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Yes.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Strickland.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carrard,
    according to your testimony, the IOC recently sent a letter to
    the OECD asking that the IOC be covered by the organization's
    anti-corruption convention. To your knowledge, has OECD
    responded to the IOC and has there been any progress in this
    matter?
        Mr. Carrard. Not yet to my knowledge, Congressman, but this
    letter is very recent, I think it is September 24, to be
    specific, and we certainly hope that we will get a favorable
    response.
        The question, if I dare say so, which was not as easy maybe
    to raise, that is why it took some time, is that we are not an
    international governmental organization. We are a non-
    governmental organization. That creates--we are in a situation
    which is not classical, so-to-speak.
        We are referring, and this was suggested to us by Senator
    Mitchell and Mr. Duberstein, we are asking for the same
    treatment as the Red Cross from OECD. We hope to have a
    favorable response and we are following up on that closely.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you. In your judgment, sir, how will
    the IOC respond to the King & Spaulding report?
        Mr. Carrard. In which sense? I am not sure I understand the
    question, Congressman. How would we respond?
        Mr. Strickland. Yes. Will the IOC respond to the King &
    Spaulding report?
        Mr. Carrard. Yes, I am sorry. The IOC immediately passed on
    the King & Spaulding report made by Judge Bell to the ethics
    commission, and now this report is in the hands of the ethics
    commission. And let me be clear, I don't even know what they
    are doing, because they are totally independent in the sense
    there is a majority of outsiders, like Senator Baker and other
    leading personalities. They are dealing with it. They will take
    whatever action they think is fit and appropriate. They have
    the means to investigate, and they will make whatever
    recommendations at the end which they feel appropriate. But I
    don't know what they are doing with it. They don't tell me.
    That is proper.
        Mr. Strickland. Okay. One other question, and then I have a
    question that I would like to address to all three panelists.
        Mr. Carrard, if the IOC felt it was important to examine
    what happened in Salt Lake City and in Atlanta, to gain lessons
    learned that can be used to improve, does the IOC intend to
    also examine activities which may have surrounded bids by
    Athens and Sidney and perhaps other cities, or do you know the
    answer to that question?
        Mr. Carrard. Congressman, from the moment we knew of what
    occurred in Salt Lake City, we did ask from every national bid
    committee involved with any bid for, I don't remember, as many
    years as possible, I think we were--we touched at least 36, if
    my recollection is accurate, or if not more bids. We asked for
    a report. We have asked for facts. We have asked for evidence.
        We did receive answers I think from all of them. We
    received a couple of reports where I would say there was some
    minor flaws, but nothing substantial, including, I must say,
    the first report, the first answer from Atlanta.
        Mr. Strickland. A question I would like to ask all three of
    you for your personal opinions. If a level of corruption has
    existed at a certain level within the IOC regarding the cities
    that are trying to attract the games and so on, is it
    reasonable for us to be concerned that that atmosphere or
    attitude which could be referred to as corruption or ethical
    breaches, or there may be other ways to describe it, could also
    affect the actual games themselves and the way the athletes are
    able to participate?
        Is there reason to be concerned that the games themselves
    are influenced by unethical or questionable behavior on the
    part of the IOC? That is a judgment that I am asking you to
    give me.
        Mr. Carrard. I think I would first like to hear my vice
    president, which is an athlete and who is an Olympian.
        Ms. DeFrantz. The answer would be no. I can tell you when I
    first competed, after practice 1 day one of my teammates said
    if we win a medal we will get it from the Lord. I said well,
    yes, divine providence is very good to have. She said no, you
    nitwit, the President of the IOC, the Lord Callahan. As an
    athlete, you really don't care about the IOC, you care about an
    opportunity to compete. The International Federation, the rules
    of the federation are what are in place during the time of the
    games. The IOC selects a city. The organizing committee
    organizes it, provides the venues, provides them with someplace
    to work, gets the athletes to the venues and the actual conduct
    of the sporting event is under the rules of the International
    Federation.
        So what is happening with the IOC is something we are
    ashamed of, but we are fixing, we have gotten fixed. We have
    changed the way we selected the 2006 site of the games. We have
    an ethics commission in place, and I am absolutely certain that
    the athletes who are training understand that their chances to
    compete in Sidney are going to be fair and safe.
        Mr. Strickland. Is that something that you would like to
    speak to, Mr. Easton?
        Mr. Easton. Just to embellish that a little bit. As the
    president of an international sports federation, we do control
    the competitions, so if you are concerned, and I think it is a
    valid concern that you can have with this thing by what you
    have heard so far, that is totally out of the hands of the IOC.
    It is in the hands of the individual sports federations who
    supply the judges and who supply the rules and who really
    oversee action of the athletes on the field.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you. That is reassuring. Thank you
    very much.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Klink.
        Mr. Klink. Thank you. Again, the problem here with having
    other countries do investigations and counting on them is,
    Nagano, what they did was get rid of the records. They cleaned
    up everything by burning it. The question is what, and why the
    IOC didn't take some action.
        I want to tell you, I talked just briefly a few moments
    ago, I want to get back to this 1991 report, that I understand,
    I have looked through it, it does not have names in it. Go back
    to the Sports Illustrated article. Sports Illustrated, a pretty
    widely read magazine. I would imagine people in the Olympic
    community were aware of this article, talking about the tactics
    of Olympic bidders, varies somewhat, but they are never very
    subtle. The most popular strategy is to simply shower everyone
    on the IOC with gifts, trips and parties. IOC. I am sorry, I
    get a little confused this late in the day, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you for babysitting me.
        Continuing, no city did better in this area than Paris.
    Whenever an IOC--IOC member--I did it again--felt they needed a
    vacation in Paris for a while, they were instantly sent airline
    tickets and given a free room in the Eliont Hotel and reserved
    tables at these restaurants. Bills were paid in advance.
    Members traveled everywhere in limousines, sometimes with a
    police escort. Given perfume, raincoats, jogging suits,
    discounts at some of Paris' finest shops.
        I would think that somebody in the IOC would have read
    that, would have wanted to. Even if you--maybe I need to go to
    Mr. Carrard on this. Even if you didn't know the names of the
    people who were doing this, doesn't it bring up the question of
    what kind of systems you have in place to make sure that this
    doesn't occur? And when you see the 1991 report, you have to
    assume that there is some credibility here again.
        It talks about members obtaining airline tickets from local
    sources at sometimes discount prices, then demanding hard
    currency in return for the unused first class passes. Obtaining
    combination air tickets to several cities on a single trip and
    demanding cash equal to return first class tickets between
    their countries and in each bid city. Demanding and receiving
    full fare tickets, failing to arrive and cashing in those
    tickets. Coupling a trip paid by a bid city with a trip to a
    session paid by the IOC and converting the city's passes to
    cash.
        It says it is our estimate that all of the aforegoing
    abuses associated with the IOC members' visits, talking about
    the Toronto committee, may have cost between $700,000 and
    $800,000 in 1991.
        Given the published reports in Sports Illustrated, given
    this report given you by the city of Toronto, we don't know
    what else was out there. Wasn't there at least something that
    occurred between the late 1980's when this article in Sports
    Illustrated was there, the early nineties when this report was
    made, that you said at the IOC we want to put a system in place
    where we have checks and balances. Let us check our system to
    see if IOC members are able to cash in plane tickets, if they
    are receiving all these lavish gifts.
        Why does it fall upon us to cause some action to occur?
        The second part of that question is how do we know that you
    are really going to follow through if we are not looking? If
    you didn't fix it when we didn't know it was going on, and
    there is every evidence that a lot of people at IOC did, how do
    we know you will when we are not looking that you are going to
    do something now?
        Mr. Carrard. Well, to the first part of your question,
    Congressman, late eighties, as I said earlier, there was a
    concern of an escalation of expenses by all the candidate
    cities, and there was the desire to put them on an equal
    footing, and you must understand that when we are dealing with
    the candidate cities, they all got together with us to discuss
    the whole process. They discussed the whole process with us,
    and at the same time we tell them, look, we don't want these
    expenditures, and they also attended, and that is where I
    confess we failed, to police each other, because we always tell
    them, these are the instructions which you are getting and for
    which you sought on this limitation of expenses. We expect you
    to tell us if anything goes wrong. We were also counting to a
    certain degree to one city saying the other city is
    misbehaving. We have seen a little bit of that, but too late.
        We started with that in the late eighties. We tried, for
    instance, to put in place a system under which we would control
    all the tickets issuing for any visits of members. These
    instructions were aimed at members making one visit to prepare
    their vote.
        We had everybody complaining, these cities. Everybody said
    it doesn't work because they had free tickets from their
    sponsors which they wanted to use and reduce their cost, and it
    was practically extremely difficult, I must say. I am not
    saying we were successful. I am not saying we did all what we
    should have done, because in retrospect we see what happened.
        But what I can tell you, this is the second part of your
    question, Congressman, is that the mechanism which is now being
    put in place, the first immediate decision, immediate decision
    which was taken, was no trips, no gifts. This was the first
    reaction of our President, Mr. Samaranch, because a lot of
    these problems are linked with the traveling and the
    hospitality and the lavishness on the exchanges of these
    visits.
        This was the first step taken. Again, with an independent
    ethics commission working fully independently as described
    earlier, with authority to take swift and hard actions with new
    sanctions voted, I think we can reasonably say we are committed
    to succeed.
        Mr. Klink. Ms. DeFrantz, I have to say you have risen to a
    very strong position within the IOC, and it seems absolutely--
    you seem like a very nice person, but it seems incredible to me
    you have been with the Olympic movement all this time, the
    published report was out, this stuff was out, and you come
    before the committee today and say you didn't know any of this
    stuff was going on. If the IOC does not vote for reforms,
    should Congress then take direct action?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Well, let me say that we expelled 10 members
    and they were the 10 members who were doing the wrongdoing. We
    sanctioned 10 more, and we are looking at them and all their
    activities for the future will be under a microscope. Should
    Congress take action, programs. I don't know what action you
    would intend to take, so it is hard for me to say yes. I
    believe that the IOC will do what needs to be done. I honestly
    believe that, and I am going to work every moment of December
    10, 11, and 12 to make sure that that happens.
        Mr. Klink. I thank the chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Whitfield.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize once
    again for being in and out, but I did--you may have already
    covered this, but I want to ask Mr. Carrard a question or two
    if I could.
        Mr. Carrard, you are the Director General of the IOC, and
    in that position I am assuming it is your responsibility, you
    are maybe the chief executive officer. Could you explain what
    your responsibilities are?
        Mr. Carrard. It is somehow comparable to chief executive
    officer.
        Mr. Whitfield. Good. I know that as a result of the
    revelations, some of the revelations at Salt Lake City and
    Atlanta, that the IOC has taken some action to address some of
    these concerns.
        Would you expand on that a little bit? Perhaps you have
    already covered it, but the IOC has taken some action already,
    is that correct? Or is that not correct?
        Mr. Carrard. Oh, yes, indeed, Congressman. As soon as we
    had the evidence, as I said, which was about late November of--
    I think late November, the first action was to order a full
    investigation, because we had evidence. We immediately
    appointed an ad hoc commission to investigate all files of the
    members, because we were getting at last files. We were getting
    the files on the members, on the figures, on the behaviors and
    the patterns. Because in the United States everything is a
    matter of public record and you have laws which allow that,
    which is not the case in most of the rest of the world where
    these actions are not illegal or not even alleged to be
    illegal. They are wrong, but they are not illegal and we have
    no authority. We are not a government. We have no power. The
    judges would not act on our request.
        We immediately appointed our ad hoc commission which in
    less than 3 months, and there was a holiday season to exchange
    the files, as the Vice President recalled now, it led to the
    departure of 10 members, 6 expelled, 4 resigned, and more
    sanctions on 10 members.
        Immediately it was said no more visits and trips for the
    ongoing campaign, 2006. This was effective immediately. And in
    March we had an extraordinary session. At that time the 2000
    commission for reform was put in place, the ethics commission
    was put in place, independent, as I said, with the senior
    outsiders to control the process, a code of ethics was voted by
    our session in June, and the process is going on. The schedule
    was set by the President to end up on December 11 and 12 with
    an extraordinary session.
        So we have been acting nonstop since then.
        Mr. Whitfield. And did you say that 10 members, or 20
    members were either sanctioned or dismissed from the IOC, is
    that correct?
        Mr. Carrard. Ten members left the IOC, that is to say 6
    were expelled by decision of their peers where they had to
    present their case, 4 resigned in anticipation of most likely
    exclusion, and 10 others got other sanctions like warnings,
    reprimands, and, as Ms. DeFrantz said, are under control.
        Mr. Whitfield. The 2000 committee, who appointed members to
    that committee?
        Mr. Carrard. The 2000, IOC 2000 Commission, is a vast
    commission composed of 80 members, 40 of them IOC members, and
    40 others being outsiders who are contributing and helping the
    Olympic movement by their highly welcome participation. I see
    Henry Kissinger is one of them, just entered now.
        It is a broad commission which is studying all the reform
    processes divided into three working groups, one dealing with
    the structures, the other with the activities, and its third
    one with the reform of the bidding process of the candidate
    cities.
        That is the commission, with half of its members being
    outsiders, that will discuss the very many proposals for
    further reforms on October 30 and 31, and these proposals will
    then have to be submitted to final approval by an extraordinary
    IOC session in December.
        Mr. Whitfield. The IOC is not bound in any way to implement
    these recommendations, but I am assuming that they would be
    considered seriously and many of them would probably be
    adopted.
        Mr. Carrard. Congressman, you can be sure they will be
    considered very seriously, and we are all working toward that.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Whitfield. I have a couple more
    questions before we move to panel 3. Mr. Carrard, it is my
    understanding that you and Mr. Samaranch sent a letter back in
    1990 to all of the cities competing in bids that they--a
    reminder that they should follow the rules. Do you remember
    that letter?
        Mr. Carrard. Is there any way I could see it?
        Mr. Upton. I will have someone bring it down to you. I will
    come back to this question.
        Mr. Carrard. I am sure there have been many letters.
        Mr. Upton. I want you to look at the letter and get a
    response. Are you satisfied that the reforms before the reform
    committee and those that will then hopefully be taken up by the
    full IOC will satisfy this--listening to the hearing this
    afternoon and this morning, are you convinced that if those
    reforms are adopted, that in fact that will satisfy all if not
    most of the concerns raised by members on this subcommittee?
        Mr. Carrard. I believe so, Mr. Chairman. Let us never
    forget there is human nature.
        Mr. Upton. I will let you look at that and come back to you
    in just a second.
        Ms. DeFrantz, when you appeared before Mr. McCain's
    committee in the Senate in the spring, an individual by the
    name of Mr. Jennings, an author who wrote the Lord of the Rings
    book, testified, and he says it had been a cultural fear that
    they could not get the Olympic games in the future if they told
    the truths that they knew, somewhat going back to the report
    perhaps that the folks in Canada had written.
        Do you feel that our actions here have been helpful in
    pushing the reform process forward and to adopting necessary
    reforms that are needed?
        Ms. DeFrantz. I think it is very important to talk about
    these issues, and especially in this country it is very
    important to better understand how the Olympic movement worked,
    how it has worked in the past, and what we intend to do to make
    sure it is strong in the future for the athletes. So, yes, sir.
        Mr. Upton. One of the things that he wrote about in his
    book, he talked about some boxing matches in Seoul, and I
    remember those well as a TV viewer, the fact that I felt our
    country was not--did not receive the medals that they should
    based on the performance of the boxers. There was quite an
    outcry then. As I recall in his book, he references that and
    indicates that it is because of some penalty that the U.S.
    might have taken not on the athletic scene that brought about
    some of the decisions by those judges.
        Are you aware of that?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Actually, I am not.
        Mr. Upton. Have you read his book?
        Ms. DeFrantz. I read some of it. It became so--well, I read
    some of it. I will leave it at that.
        Mr. Upton. I may communicate with you. I may cite those
    chapters and ask for you to respond back. I might ask a follow-
    up question. Have you heard because of our committee action
    today and inquiries that we made, is there any sense that in
    fact that same type of activity that I believe did happen in
    Seoul might happen in future Olympic games that would
    discriminate against our athletes?
        Ms. DeFrantz. I certainly hope not, Mr. Chairman, and I
    will work with my colleagues. I am a vice president of an
    international federation, so I understand that there is a
    difference between the IOC and how the various sports are run.
    I will tell you that in 1980, because we weren't there, rules
    were changed and the best example is that prior to 1980, you
    could have three swimmers from any one country. Of course, the
    United States was very, very strong in swimming. Because there
    was no presence of the United States during those games, rules
    were changed in the Congress of the international federation so
    there could be only two swimmers per country.
        If you were to step back and say that is better for the
    whole world, that means there is one more space because the
    U.S. wouldn't get three athletes, you could say that it was
    really an improvement for the entire world. But I believe that
    that was done as a bit of a punishment for the U.S. for trying
    to bring down the games in 1980.
        Mr. Upton. So you have not heard of any evidence at this
    point based on our committee action, you have heard it has only
    been constructive? Would that be a proper----
        Ms. DeFrantz. I am doing my best to make sure that if
    someone asks a question about what is happening in the United
    States, that is my answer. It is to make the Olympic movement
    stronger.
        Mr. Upton. I have one further question before I get back to
    Mr. Carrard with regard to that letter. I had heard a report,
    an allegation, that in Japan during the final selection vote
    process when Atlanta was awarded the city, and we heard
    testimony from the first panel that they had, I think it was
    Mr. Young indicated that Atlanta had spent $7 million on the
    games, but other cities had spent considerably more. I had
    heard a report that, I believe it was Greece, had prepared some
    rather lavish gifts for the members of the voting IOC that
    included a black pearl necklace, antique coin, diamond studded,
    done by one of the finest jewelers in the world.
        Were you aware of that gift that might have been presented
    to some of the members of the IOC at that time?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, in my case----
        Mr. Upton. I am not talking about your case, and I am not
    at all accusing you and have no reason to believe that you
    accepted such a gift or that it was even offered to you. My
    question is, were you aware that other members, not yourself,
    of the IOC may have been presented a gift of that nature, that
    certainly exceeded the $200 mark, and probably even the $10,000
    or $15,000?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Mr. Chairman, I was not present when any such
    gift was given to any----
        Mr. Upton. I don't doubt that answer. I wouldn't have
    expected you to be present. The question is, were you aware of
    any IOC member being given that type of gift? You didn't have
    to be present to have heard about it.
        Ms. DeFrantz. Well, sir, the rumors abounded, and rumors to
    me are just that. There were rumors, yes.
        Mr. Upton. Did you hear that rumor?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Well, yes, you heard rumors that every city
    was doing something.
        Mr. Upton. Did you hear about that specific lavish gift
    that may have been offered to members of the IOC?
        Ms. DeFrantz. No.
        Mr. Upton. Okay. Mr. Carrard, just a last question with
    regard to that letter. What might have prompted you to send
    that letter at that time?
        Mr. Carrard. Well, Mr. Chairman, I see the letter is April
    1990. I think we wanted--I am trying to recall, we were in
    Belgrade. In Belgrade we had an executive board meeting, I
    think, not a session.
        We were, and I was personally concerned, as I said again,
    by this escalation of expenses. At the time, to be absolutely
    candid, the concern was not misbehavior by IOC members, but
    keeping these costs down. And in my function, I have no
    authority over the IOC members, I knew of tricks. The classical
    trick was what, you prohibit the organization of a cocktail
    party to a candidate city. Then it comes back that the
    Ambassador of country X, Y, Z throws a lavish party and invites
    all IOC members. It is becoming insulting to refuse an
    invitation of the Ambassador. I knew very well that it was the
    reappearance of the party I had been trying to avoid. So again
    and again we were reminding the bidding cities of these
    practices, and that is the context in which, Mr. Chairman, that
    letter was sent, as far as I can remember, because it has been
    close to 10 years.
        Mr. Upton. I appreciate that. I just want to go back to my
    earlier question and Dr. Ganske is going to ask a quick
    question and we will move to panel 3. Apparently an L.A. Times
    story, Ms. DeFrantz, as you indicated you are from California,
    I don't know if you saw this, May 25, 1999, there was, and I
    quote here, ``recently calls,'' I guess this individual is from
    Australia, ``hit more trouble when his former wife said she
    received expensive jewelry in 1990 from a businessman connected
    with Athens' failed 1996 Olympic bid,'' that is the end of the
    quote, which would have been that opportunity in Japan. So you
    still have no--you are not aware of this at all until today?
        Ms. DeFrantz. I am sorry, sir, I thought you meant at the
    time. I was in fact a member of the executive board and we
    discussed the case, so I was aware of it in this year. But
    excuse me, I thought you meant at the time when people were
    visiting the cities which would have been for the 1996 games in
    1990.
        Mr. Upton. Did I accurately describe this gift of this
    necklace?
        Ms. DeFrantz. Well, the issue became did she receive the
    necklace and was it worth that much or not.
        Mr. Upton. And were other members offered a similar gift?
        Ms. DeFrantz. This question wasn't raised, sir. We were
    specifically looking at the case of Mr. Coles, and there was an
    allegation made by his former wife that she had indeed received
    these gifts and later it was found that in the divorce decree
    there was no indication of gifts of any value, so there was a
    question as to whether they were costume jewelry or not. So
    that discussion was all within this last year, sir.
        Mr. Upton. Dr. Ganske.
        Mr. Ganske. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. According to Atlanta's
    supplemental response to the committee, exhibit K, Mrs.
    Samaranch and a guest made a trip from Barcelona to Savannah,
    Georgia, and Charleston, South Carolina, from April 4 through
    April 8, 1990. According to Atlanta, the cost of the trip to
    them was more than $12,000.
        Mr. Carrard, were you Director General of the IOC in 1990?
        Mr. Carrard. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ganske. Mr. Carrard, do you know who initiated this
    trip? Was it Atlanta, Mrs. Samaranch or IOC President
    Samaranch?
        Mr. Carrard. I don't know, because when Mr. Samaranch
    travels, it is his staff. He has his own staff and secretary,
    about three people. They take care of all of his scheduling,
    traveling. He receives numerous invitations all the time as IOC
    President, and I am not informed--I mean, I am informed. I see
    his schedule, particularly when I try to meet with him, but I
    am not at all involved in the scheduling or organization of his
    own traveling.
        Mr. Ganske. Do you know whether IOC President Samaranch was
    aware that Mrs. Samaranch and her friend took a trip at
    Atlanta's expense?
        Mr. Carrard. Congressman, I do not know it, but I would
    reasonably assume that he would know what his wife does.
        Mr. Ganske. But you were not aware?
        Mr. Carrard. No.
        Mr. Ganske. Did President Samaranch accompany his wife on
    that trip? Again you don't know.
        Mr. Carrard. I don't know. I heard what was said in the
    deposition here, and I assume----
        Mr. Ganske. The answer is no. Mr. Carrard, has Mrs.
    Samaranch or her friend ever been a member of the IOC?
        Mr. Carrard. No.
        Mr. Ganske. Well, if they were not IOC members and
    President Samaranch did not accompany them, in your opinion was
    this trip in violation of IOC rules in place in 1990?
        Mr. Carrard. No.
        Mr. Ganske. Why not?
        Mr. Carrard. Because the rules, which are instructions and
    guidelines, were established, and I confess they were badly
    written, absolutely, but were established with a clear target.
    It was to organize the trips of the members who wanted to visit
    candidate cities to make up their opinion to prepare their
    vote.
        Mr. Ganske. But she is not a member. You just testified she
    is not a member. So would it not be a violation if----
        Mr. Carrard. No, no, because--excuse me, these instructions
    were not concerning, and they should have said it very clearly,
    I would say two categories of people. There was the president
    and his wife, who was traveling constantly invited. He may go
    5, 6 times to a bidding city for other reasons, because he
    represents the Olympic movement, and he takes his wife or she
    represents him on a number of occasions. You had another
    category, you had members of the IOC in the candidate country
    who had to travel a lot back and forth.
        Mr. Ganske. Do you think it was appropriate for Mrs.
    Samaranch to make that trip at Atlanta's expense?
        Mr. Carrard. I don't know in which circumstances she was
    invited, because I wasn't involved at all in that, so I will
    not pass comment.
        Mr. Ganske. Would that be allowable under the rules you are
    considering instituting?
        Mr. Carrard. Excuse me?
        Mr. Ganske. Would that be allowable under the tightening of
    the rules that you are talking about?
        Mr. Carrard. We should ask the--as I said earlier----
        Mr. Ganske. Can spouses travel at the expense of a city?
        Mr. Carrard. I think Ms. DeFrantz knows more.
        Ms. DeFrantz. Yes, if I may, Congressman, the rules will--
    the working group had two proposals, and the executive
    committee chose one of the two, and in neither proposal was
    anyone but the IOC member allowed to visit.
        Mr. Ganske. You are quite clear you are not going to allow
    that kind of behavior in the future? Is that right?
        Ms. DeFrantz. That is correct.
        Mr. Ganske. Why do you feel that way?
        Ms. DeFrantz. As a matter of fact, as I was preparing for
    this, as I was trying to find a document, a letter from Atlanta
    said we have finally been able to prevail upon Mrs. Samaranch
    to come and visit, we are quite excited and look forward to
    having her there. They clearly were working hard to get her
    there. She clearly decided, finally decided to come, and it is
    now an issue in a hearing before the U.S. Congress.
        Mr. Ganske. Mr. Carrard, are you aware of any other trips
    Mrs. Samaranch may have taken to cities bidding to host
    Olympics at the city's expense, and, if so, which cities?
        Mr. Carrard. No, I am not aware of it.
        Mr. Ganske. According to documents produced to the
    committee, Mrs. Samaranch's trip to Savannah and Charleston was
    at least 2 months in the making. Atlanta's organizers attempted
    to make sure all details were looked after. In one document,
    February 5, 1990 memo to the file by Billy Payne, it should be
    before you, and it should be in the book, Mr. Payne makes the
    following notes and instructions: ``Mrs. Samaranch does not
    like adhering to President Samaranch's very tight schedule and
    prefers to shop (line up a Saks and Lord & Taylor visit with
    the store managers and when she selects something, make them
    insist that it is on the house because she is such an important
    person, et cetera. Make it convincing by prior arrangement with
    the respective stores.''
        Now, I understand that that shopping trip did not take
    place, but clearly the intent to provide gifts that would have
    been in excess of rules for the IOC was there.
        Mrs. Samaranch wasn't even an IOC member, nor was President
    Samaranch with her. All of this planning to make Atlanta's bid
    look attractive. Atlanta was one of only three cities competing
    at this stage.
        Mr. Carrard, do you know of any instances where a city
    competing to host games provided gifts or travel in excess of
    IOC rules to Mrs. Samaranch?
        Mr. Carrard. I am not aware of it.
        Mr. Ganske. Only a month after Mrs. Samaranch and her
    guests traveled to Savannah and Charleston her husband, IOC
    President Samaranch, sent a letter to IOC members asking them
    to strictly adhere to IOC rules. Mr. Carrard, do you know if
    President Samaranch had a specific instance of an improper gift
    giving or traveling in mind when he wrote that letter?
        Mr. Carrard. Could I see that letter? It is in there? I am
    sorry.
        Mr. Ganske. Staff can probably provide you with the page
    number. It is coming right here behind you.
        Mr. Carrard. Thank you very much. Oh, yes, I know that
    letter.
        Mr. Ganske. Let me repeat my question. Do you know if
    President Samaranch had a specific instance of improper gift
    giving or travel in mind when he wrote that letter?
        Mr. Carrard. No, because do you have the reference on top
    of it, FCD, and it is my reference. This is typically the
    letter I was writing to the candidate cities to remind them of
    our desire to generally fight against escalation of costs. I am
    the author of this letter. That is my reference, and if you
    look at the first paragraph, it says as you remember, the
    escalation of costs incurred by candidate cities in connection
    with the preparation, promotion and presentation of bids for
    the Olympic games raised here, et cetera.
        Mr. Ganske. So you are asking us--you wrote the letter, is
    that in the first place?
        Mr. Carrard. I drafted it for the President. I wanted the
    President to remind the bidding cities that they had to comply
    with the then existing instructions.
        Mr. Ganske. So your concern was that the cities not have
    any additional expense.
        Mr. Carrard. The concern was placed to make sure that they
    were limiting the expenses, and, as I said earlier in an
    example, the concern, I am saying quite frankly, was not then
    about possible misbehavior by IOC members. But by the tricks I
    was alleging to the parties which were not allowed and
    organized by embassies and sometimes foreign governments and
    even the cities to curb the rule. That was the major concern.
        Mr. Ganske. Let's go back to my original series. At least
    today you think it would be unethical for the wife of the
    President, President Samaranch, to be traveling at the expense
    of potential host cities, and you are going to make sure that
    that doesn't happen in the future.
        Mr. Carrard. Certainly in nearly all cases I know, the IOC,
    if the wife of the President travels, picks up the bill.
        Mr. Ganske. I thank you.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Well, this completes our questions
    for you all. We appreciate your willingness to come. I just
    might note that members may have written questions for you as
    we did with the first panel. We would appreciate your
    timeliness in getting a response back. Just one thing I would
    like to add, we certainly appreciate Mr. Carrard, your coming
    again from overseas to be with us today. We look forward to
    your presence on December 15 with Mr. Samaranch. Though many of
    us here would have preferred that he would be here with you in
    early November so that we could help make sure that this vote
    comes out the right way, we surely expect that you will come
    back with good news, and if any message had to go back to Mr.
    Samaranch, I think it was well expressed, certainly by Mr.
    Waxman and others, that should this vote not happen, I think
    you can expect bipartisan legislation here to make sure that in
    fact we are successful in cleaning up the taint that we found
    from the Olympics in the past.
        We appreciate your willingness to cooperate and to be here
    with us again. Thank you very much. You are all excused.
        Our final panel will include two individuals, Dr. Henry
    Kissinger and Mr. Ken Duberstein. I would note that because of
    the length of the hearing, Senator Howard Baker was unable to
    remain with us for the day, but has agreed to come back when we
    reconvene on this topic on December 15.
        As both of you individuals know, this has been a
    longstanding tradition in this subcommittee to take testimony
    under oath. Do either of you have objection to that? Also under
    both House and committee rules, you are allowed to have
    counsel. Do either of you desire or did you bring counsel?
    Terrific. If you would both stand and raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Upton. You are both under oath. Your testimony will be
    made complete in the record. We would like you, if you could,
    to summarize it in no more than 5 minutes or so, and this light
    will give you that time indication.
        Dr. Kissinger, welcome. It is a pleasure to have you here
    today.

        TESTIMONY OF HENRY KISSINGER; AND KENNETH M. DUBERSTEIN

        Mr. Kissinger. Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. Upton. If you might bring the mike just a little
    closer.
        Mr. Kissinger. Mr. Chairman and members, I only returned
    from Europe last evening, so I did not have time to prepare a
    formal statement. If you will forgive me, therefore, if I talk
    more or less extemporaneously. Also if I keep to 5 minutes, you
    can all say you were present at an historic occasion.
        Mr. Upton. Go ahead.
        Mr. Kissinger. Mr. Chairman, my relationship to the IOC is
    of very recent vintage. I am a sports fan and I read about it
    in the newspapers and I read all the accounts that brought you
    here, but I have no personal knowledge of any of the events
    that I have read about and some of which I heard while I was
    waiting to testify.
        I was asked to join the Forum 2000 for the purpose of
    reforming the IOC and the operation of the Olympics. In order
    to do this, I talked to individuals whom I greatly respect who
    had studied some of these issues, like my colleague here, Ken
    Duberstein, Senator Mitchell, Donald Fehr, who were members of
    the Mitchell committee. I also talked to General McCaffrey
    about the drug problem, and I tried to inform myself not so
    much about the past as about the future. Also I had many
    conversations with Mr. Uberoth.
        Now, it became apparent that there was a need for
    significant changes, one, in the organization of the committee;
    second, in some of the methods of operation; third, with
    respect to some of the financial accounting procedures; and
    also in the manner in which some of the expenses were being
    handled.
        I had no preconceived notions on how to tackle this. As you
    know, there were three working groups formed and all of us on
    these working groups, at least all of the active members, have
    spent a fair amount of time on it, usually giving up weekends
    to do so. I must say that the leadership of the IOC under
    President Samaranch and his colleagues have given useful
    support in these efforts.
        As you know, the process is not completed. We have to meet
    with the executive committee at the end of October and then
    there is a meeting of the whole IOC in December, and it is sort
    of a tricky problem to get the people who have to change
    procedures and indeed have to modify their terms in office to
    vote for some fairly significant changes.
        I believe that if the recommendations by the three working
    groups are accepted, then many of the--I would say almost all
    of the abuses that I read about will be eliminated. That is
    certainly our intention. The non-IOC members have certainly no
    other interest in this except to bring about exactly that
    situation. If, frankly, for any reason either the executive
    committee or the full IOC were not to go along with these
    recommendations or watered them down, certainly I, and I know
    my friend Ken Duberstein and Senator Mitchell and all the
    others who have spent a fair amount of time working on this,
    would be heard from, and you would hear from us.
        So at this point, I am quite optimistic that we will
    succeed. President Samaranch, whatever may have happened in the
    past, has been fully supportive, and we have achieved at least
    in the working groups a degree of agreement that many people
    were skeptical about having the ability when we started.
        So this is the essence of where I come from. Of course, I
    will be delighted to answer questions about either what I said
    or about some specifics. I want to thank you for giving me this
    opportunity to express my views.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you very much. Mr. Duberstein.

                   TESTIMONY OF KENNETH M. DUBERSTEIN

        Mr. Duberstein. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
    I want to echo what Dr. Kissinger said. I am betting on Henry
    Kissinger. I am grateful for this invitation to participate in
    the hearing. I do so on behalf of the independent special bid
    commission appointed by Bill Hybl, President of the USOC, which
    was chaired by former Senator George Mitchell and included Don
    Fehr and myself as vice chairman, along with members Roberta
    Cooper Ramo and Jeff Benz.
        I request that my written statement, Mr. Chairman, be made
    part of the record, along with a copy of the report of our
    commission dated March 1.
        Our commission reviewed the circumstances surrounding Salt
    Lake City's bid to host 2002 Olympic Winter Games. We did not
    address Atlanta, but we found that a culture of improper gift
    giving extended beyond Salt Lake City and predated Salt Lake
    City's participation. Our principal mandate was not to
    investigate, but to make recommendations for reform at all
    levels of the Olympic movement, local, national and
    international.
        The U.S. Olympic Committee moved quickly to adopt
    substantially all of our recommendations. They took the
    medicine we prescribed. The IOC unfortunately needed more than
    time release capsules. They required major surgery.
        Our recommendations for the IOC call for fundamental
    structural changes which are set forth in detail in our report.
    These changes necessarily require a period of study and
    consensus building prior to adoption. The IOC appears to have
    undertaken that process in earnest with the appointment of the
    IOC Reform 2000 Commission, which includes Dr. Kissinger, Peter
    Ueberroth, Paul Allaire and Dick Ebersol, as well as a new
    ethics committee which includes in its membership my old
    colleague Senator Howard Baker.
        Although it is too early to draw any firm conclusions, we
    are encouraged by the progress the IOC has accomplished to
    date. Former Senator Mitchell and I met with Juan Antonio
    Samaranch and Francois Carrard, the President and Director
    General of the IOC, in early July. At that time they provided
    us with a report outlining the IOC's preliminary actions in
    response to our recommendations. The meeting was both
    encouraging and positive. We were reassured of Mr. Samaranch's
    personal commitment to the need and urgency of reforming the
    IOC. We were heartened in recent days when the IOC formally
    requested the assistance of the OECD in becoming a public
    international organization within the meaning of the OECD
    convention on combatting bribery of foreign public officials in
    international transactions. We applaud them for this
    initiative.
        While these efforts are to be commended, there is still
    much more work that needs to be done. The IOC Reform 2000
    effort deserves close monitoring and frequent checkups as they
    approach finalizing their recommendations by the end of October
    and then again for the full IOC on December 11 and 12. The
    IOC's progress and continuing commitment to reform I think must
    be closely evaluated. I am reminded of a Russian proverb that
    my old boss, President Ronald Reagan, referred to from time to
    time. ``dovy eye no provey eye.'' trust but verify.
        I encourage this subcommittee to verify the IOC's ongoing
    efforts to systematic reform. The proof is in the pudding. They
    must do more than just reassure sponsors. They must face
    realities, not create illusions. They need to manage what they
    promise.
        At this point, therefore, I would grade them the following
    way: I would give them an I for incomplete for the reforms are
    not quite done. I would give them an O for outstanding effort,
    including the work of Dr. Kissinger. And I would give them a C
    for careful, be careful in evaluating the end product at least
    until we see specifically what the IOC Reform 2000 recommends
    at the end of October. I share with each of you the hope and
    expectation that the Olympic flame must burn clean once again
    in those words that completed our report back in March 1.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Kenneth M. Duberstein follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Duberstein, Vice Chair, USOC Special
                            Bid Oversight Commission
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you
    for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. I respectfully
    request that my written statement be made a part of the record of this
    hearing, along with a copy of the Report of the USOC's Special Bid
    Oversight Commission dated March 1, 1999.
        The Salt Lake City bid scandal came to light in December of last
    year. Very shortly thereafter, the United States Olympic committee
    appointed a Special Bid Oversight Commission (the ``Commission''). The
    Commission's charge was to review the circumstances surrounding Salt
    Lake City's bid to host the Olympic Winter Games, and thereafter to
    make recommendations for improving the process by which cities are
    selected to host the Games of the Olympiad and the Olympic Winter
    Games. Senator George Mitchell acted as Chairman of the Commission, Don
    Fehr and I were Vice-Chairs, Roberta Cooper Ramo and Jeff Benz were
    members.
        The Commission presented its recommendations on March 1 of this
    year. Very generally, our recommendations called for the elimination of
    the improper gift-giving practices that have grown out of any
    reasonable bounds, and for the IOC to make fundamental structural
    changes. Our recommendations were directed to both the IOC and the
    USOC.
        The USOC moved quickly to adopt substantially all of our
    recommendations. They took the medicine we prescribed. The IOC needed
    more than just medicine--they needed major surgery.
        Our recommendations for the IOC are far greater in scope than our
    recommendations for the USOC. Many of them require significant changes
    to the structure of the IOC, and necessarily require a period of study
    and consensus-building prior to adoption. The IOC appears to have
    undertaken that process in earnest. The IOC 2000 Commission and working
    groups thereof have met regularly since late May. A final meeting is
    scheduled for October 30-31, at which time recommendations will be made
    to the IOC. Although any reforms recommended by the IOC 2000 Commission
    will be subject to the approval of the full IOC in December, I think we
    will learn a great deal from the final recommendations that come out of
    IOC 2000.
        Although it is too early to draw any conclusions, I am encouraged
    by what the IOC has accomplished to date. Senator Mitchell and I met
    with President Samaranch and Francois Carrard, the Director General of
    the IOC, in early July. At that time, they provided us with a report
    outlining the IOC's preliminary reaction to the Commission's
    recommendations. I trust that your staff has shared that report with
    you. Because the work of IOC 2000 is not yet finished, it is not timely
    to publicly comment on the views expressed in the report. We did,
    however, share our comments with the IOC.
        Some of the changes that we recommended to the IOC are not
    difficult to implement. By way of example, the following actions have
    already been taken by the IOC:

    1. The IOC's audited financial statements are now available to the
            public at large.
    2. The IOC has appointed an Ethics Commission chaired by Judge Keba
            Mbaye, a former member of the International Court of Justice.
            Senator Howard Baker is a member of the Ethics Commission.
    3. The IOC Ethics Commission has adopted a Code of Ethics. The new Code
            of Ethics prohibits gifts of more than nominal value.
    4. Certain meetings of the IOC are now open to the public.
        I am also encouraged by the fact that, subsequent to our meeting,
    the IOC formally requested the assistance of the OECD in becoming a
    ``public international organization'' within the meaning of the OECD
    Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in
    International Transactions.
        When the Commission appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee
    in April, Senator Mitchell stated that the end of this year is a
    reasonable deadline for IOC action. The IOC is on schedule to meet that
    deadline. It is important, however, that we evaluate the IOC's progress
    at each step of their journey. I am reminded of a Russian proverb that
    my former boss, President Reagan, referred to on occasion.
        Trust, but verify. While I am encouraged by what the IOC is doing,
    I also believe that they should be closely and frequently monitored. We
    will have an opportunity to do that later this month.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you both. As you heard, the buzzers sound.
    We have a vote on the floor. Dr. Ganske has been over to vote
    and when he returns, I will be gone and he will continue so
    that we can try to finish this. I'm going to do some questions
    and Dr. Ganske is going to come back so that we can keep this
    flowing. Mr. Duberstein, in your written testimony submitted in
    your appearance in the Senate last April before Senator McCain,
    you were particularly hard on the IOC. In fact, you said and I
    quote, the pace and the scope of the IOC's reform actions are
    disappointing, expelling a few rank and file members, allowing
    a handful to resign but leaving the two most prominent culprits
    who sit on IOC's executive board to escape with a gentle slap
    on the wrist is not encouraging, end quote.
        Would you say that today based on the grades that you gave
    and if you assume, to take Dr. Kissinger's words, that they
    will succeed in adopting these reforms, that if in fact that
    happens, they will restore the shine on the rings and you'll be
    proud of the Olympic movement again?
        Mr. Duberstein. Mr. Chairman, I think that the efforts
    under way with IOC Reform 2000 are fundamentally sound. That
    does not mean that they meet every one of our recommendations
    but the thrust is very much in the right direction. I am
    encouraged by the personal commitment of Mr. Samaranch. I am
    even more persuaded by the participation of Dr. Kissinger and
    Mr. Ueberroth and Mr. Allaire as well as others. I think that
    bodes very well.
        I would not retract there my statement the fact that some
    of the members of the executive committee received only a slap
    on the wrist. I felt strongly at the time that more harsh
    punishment was in order, but I think as far as looking forward
    to making sure that we do not have a repeat of what happened in
    Salt Lake City and other places, I think they have made great
    strides and I look forward to them fulfilling this commitment.
        Mr. Upton. I don't know if you've actually seen the actual
    reforms that are in place. I know you've had some discussions
    with Mr. Carrard and others. If you were able to add an
    amendment that could be adopted by that reform committee, how
    would it read?
        Mr. Duberstein. If I were to add any recommendations, I
    would look toward more athlete participation in greater numbers
    on the IOC, and I would be very concerned about the
    interlocking directorate so that some people in fact could be
    appointed not simply as IOC representatives but to represent
    their countries to the IOC.
        Mr. Upton. Dr. Kissinger, what would your response to that
    be?
        Mr. Kissinger. First of all, I want to also point out that
    the chairman of the USOC, Bill Hybl, has been tremendously
    helpful in this process and has made a very significant
    contribution and I want to thank him.
        I believe the recommendations that Ken Duberstein just
    made, that we can go a long way toward meeting them if not
    meeting them completely. Basically all I knew about what needed
    to be done I learned from him and Senator Mitchell and his
    report, and however pleasant he is when he testifies to you he
    sort of stays on our back all the time to make sure that we are
    properly performing.
        I think the members of the executive committee, there will
    be a rotation very quickly if these reforms are carried out
    because while it may be necessary to have a period of
    transition for the whole IOC in the top positions, it is
    foreseen in this reform program that all the limitations and
    changes take effect immediately.
        Mr. Upton. Though I know Mr. Duberstein is not a member of
    the Reform 2000 Committee, how--you do know, I'm sure, all of
    the members on that committee. How receptive have they been to
    the reforms that have been proposed?
        Mr. Kissinger. Well, I would think that some--that some
    people feel that the IOC has constituted a fairly comfortable
    operation and do not have an overwhelming desire to go into
    barricades and change it but the fact is that our reports of
    the working groups have been unanimous and that some of the
    established individuals who have had leadership positions have
    cooperated with drafting in a way that meets the technicalities
    of the IOC and I believe in the working groups we will
    certainly succeed. Now, the next hurdle will be the executive
    committee and I have not met with them, but I agree with Ken. I
    will take the same position that Ken has indicated here that I
    will--no halfway house is really feasible that does not reflect
    on the Olympic movement. So I really expect that these working
    group reports will be accepted with only the most minor
    modifications.
        Mr. Upton. We hope that that's true. As you know, we have a
    vote on. I am getting to go vote. You going to make this vote?
        Ms. DeGette. I'll make this vote. I just have a couple of
    questions.
        Mr. Upton. As long as you don't steal this gavel you may go
    ahead and when you finish we will recess until Dr. Ganske gets
    here.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Hybl will tell you I always behave.
        Mr. Duberstein, first of all I know I can speak for the
    entire panel when I thank you and Senator Mitchell for the
    outstanding job you did in putting this report together. I
    fully endorse the recommendations that you've made and I think
    most of us do. Of course, the problem is that there's been
    public knowledge of the lavish gift giving of the IOC for
    years, and as I asked several of the previous panels, I know
    Dr. Kissinger wasn't here. I don't believe you were either. We
    have had written rules in effect by the IOC for many years
    since the 1980's which should have prevented the kind of
    profligate gift giving that has been going on.
        For example, in terms of gifts, there is a strict rule that
    says gifts of value are not permitted and that it strictly says
    gifts of value exceeding $200 U.S. are not permitted but yet
    the previous panel's testified and your report accurately
    represents everyone completely ignored this and in fact it was
    quite the opposite. If your recommendations are adopted, what
    is it about these particular recommendations that you think
    will actually make them be observed versus existing only on
    paper only as the previous rules have been?
        Mr. Duberstein. I believe the acceptance by the IOC of the
    recommendations of the working group and the prestigious
    members who are on the working group will in fact infect world
    opinion. We have a microscope right now on the IOC. We have
    heard President Samaranch's firm commitment to Senator Mitchell
    and to me that he wants to leave as his legacy for the IOC a
    reformed IOC. I think you will in fact find by the end of this
    year the IOC will approve the reforms.
        Ms. DeGette. Let me stop you. They may approve the reforms
    but do you think that they will be observed?
        Mr. Duberstein. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. Is there anything about the structure you're
    recommending that will make it more likely that they will be
    observed or do you think it's because the world opinion will be
    shifted?
        Mr. Duberstein. I think world and national opinion here
    will be such that in fact they will have to abide by these
    rules, by these guidelines.
        Ms. DeGette. So there's nothing inherent in your----
        Mr. Duberstein. There's no enforcement.
        Ms. DeGette. Dr. Kissinger?
        Mr. Kissinger. May I make a point here. Each member of the
    IOC will be given--has a fixed term now. They're not appointed
    for life or until the age of 80 if these reforms are accepted.
    And each member will have to go before a selection committee
    which will be composed of both IOC and non-IOC members. So if
    there are credible allegations, it would be amazing if they
    were not brought up when a member's name comes up for renewal
    before the selection committee.
        Ms. DeGette. Do you think that world opinion has begun to
    shift in any way as a result of the light that's been shed on
    the Salt Lake City and Atlanta bids?
        Mr. Duberstein. I think there is a strong view that in fact
    the IOC needs to clean up its act. I think President Samaranch
    is now committed to that and I think a lot of that has to do
    with opinion throughout the world.
        Ms. DeGette. Just one last question. We asked the first
    panel what they thought the likelihood of these new rules being
    adopted is. Do you have any sense? We were told slightly
    greater than 50 percent.
        Mr. Duberstein. No, I don't have any magic wand that says
    85 percent or 90 percent. I'm not a betting man but I believe
    that President Samaranch that Mr. Carrard and others will work
    diligently to getting them approved and with the kind of
    prominence that is on the IOC Reform 2000 panel that it will be
    very difficult for the IOC to turn back.
        Ms. DeGette. Dr. Kissinger, do you have any sense how
    likely you believe it is?
        Mr. Kissinger. I have--I'm new in this so I have not
    encountered the full membership of the IOC and I've had only
    one session with the preliminary executive committee. I have
    operated on the assumption that we will get these reforms
    through. That's the position I've taken in the working group
    and that's the position I will take at the end of October. I
    also have reason to believe that President Samaranch will
    support it but there are a number of senior people in this
    group, Allaire from Xerox and Yellay from Fiat and non-IOC
    members will be united in supporting these recommendations. So
    it would be quite a responsibility to turn them down.
        Ms. DeGette. Let me just say because I have to now go vote,
    I do not have any faith at all that the international community
    will simply believe people are prominent and therefore they
    will follow these rules. I think that some of the
    recommendations of the structure will help. I think, as Dr.
    Kissinger said, the term limits will help, but I think that
    there needs to be more vigilance because after all, as long ago
    as the 1980's, many prominent people said that the rules had to
    be changed. The rules were changed on paper and people still
    completely disregard it.
        Thank you, gentlemen, both for coming. I apologize for
    having to leave. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Ganske [presiding]. The Chair recognizes himself.
        Well, doctor, one of my prerogatives, well, Dr. Kissinger,
    you're the diplomat so I won't ask you to make a comment on
    Mrs. Samaranch's trips, but I do want to ask you in light of
    the fact that it was the events in Salt Lake City that served
    as the catalyst for the present atmosphere of IOC reform, have
    you detected any anti-American sentiment during your work with
    the IOC 2000 commission?
        Mr. Kissinger. Yes. There is a feeling that the Americans
    are trying to impose their standards, that we are picking on
    the smaller developing nations. I wouldn't suggest that it is
    this attitude among some members and I've heard statements to
    that effect. They have not prevailed and I don't expect them to
    prevail.
        Mr. Ganske. Well, Dr. Kissinger, in light of some of those
    anti-American sentiments, I understand that the IOC 2000
    commission is now finalizing its recommendations and will
    announce them at the end of the month and that the IOC will
    vote on these recommendations in December of this year.
    However, these are only recommendations. Is the IOC obligated
    to adopt any of the commission's recommendations?
        Mr. Kissinger. No, the IOC is not obligated to adopt the
    committee's recommendations, but they would lose the support of
    the non-IOC members and I think the games next year would be
    under shadow if the IOC rejected the recommendations that were
    so far as I can see unanimously endorsed by a group of
    individuals who have given a fair amount of their time and who
    have no ax to grind.
        Mr. Ganske. What do you think will be the result if the IOC
    adopts only the least intrusive, least controversial
    recommendations and ignores the ones with real clout?
        Mr. Kissinger. Well, if you called me back before this
    committee, I would express my disappointment strenuously and I
    can't believe that that will happen. In fact, I don't believe
    that President Samaranch will take it quietly. Not only I but a
    number of the individuals that we have mentioned giving up--
    have given up a number of weekends, traveled long distances.
    We're doing it again at the end of October. We'll do it again
    in December. And our only interest in this is to have an
    Olympic Games that the world can be proud of, that Americans
    can be proud of participating in and we have absolutely no
    reason to compromise and we won't.
        Mr. Ganske. I'll be with you in just a minute, Mr.
    Duberstein. If the IOC only adopts some face saving measures
    but not the full chest, I'm sure, Dr. Kissinger, you're aware
    that we have a law called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    which makes it illegal for American companies, individuals to
    bribe foreign officials or businesses. Now, the IOC is not
    covered by that law. However, last year Congress enacted a law
    to enable the President to designate by executive order the IOC
    or other organizations to be subject to the Foreign Corrupt
    Practices Act.
        Would you recommend that the president do this if the IOC
    does not act in good faith to clean up their own act ?
        Mr. Kissinger. I would expect the IOC to clean itself up.
    Second, I expect the IOC to accept the principles of the
    Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, even if it doesn't use its exact
    language so that it does not seem to be submitting to a law of
    one particular country. And so if that circumstance arose, we
    might be in a situation where our law might be implemented but
    I don't--I really would be disappointed if we reached that
    point.
        Mr. Ganske. Your preference would be for us not to have to
    do that but you wouldn't rule it out as an appropriate action
    at some time?
        Mr. Kissinger. I wouldn't rule out if there were a
    conviction that the principles of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
    Act, never mind whether it applies legally, if the principles
    were being violated, I would understand it if the Congress made
    its views felt.
        Mr. Ganske. I thank you.
        Mr. Duberstein, in his report to the USOC, the Mitchell
    commission concluded, quote, that the USOC shares
    responsibility for the--this is the USOC shares responsibility
    for the improper conduct of the bid and organizing committees
    in Salt Lake City, end quote. The report also recommends
    several steps the USOC should take to strengthen its oversight
    of the site selection process. However, a more stringent
    oversight role in the site selection process may leave the USOC
    open to a conflict of interest. If a U.S. city's bid to host
    the games is successful, it's like the USOC may benefit in the
    form of increased television and sponsorship revenues. While
    the USOC and its members do not personally gain in this
    scenario, it's hard to argue with the lure of the additional
    sums or funds to help train athletes or promote amateur sports
    in the U.S.
        Mr. Duberstein, you served as vice chair of the Mitchell
    commission. Is it possible for the USOC to balance a more
    stringent oversight role against the benefits that it would
    gain as a result of a U.S. city hosting the games?
        Mr. Duberstein. Mr. Chairman, we were very heartened within
    a few days after our commission's recommendations that the
    USOC, the executive committee of the USOC, unanimously went for
    every one of our recommendations and I believe Mr. Hybl when he
    testified this morning made reference to that. I think the
    oversight clearly was lacking. I believe that they now have the
    message. I think that what they have enacted based on our
    recommendations in fact ensures that the USOC will be far more
    mindful so that you don't get into the situations as you
    described.
        Mr. Ganske. I think I'd like to hear from both of you in
    answer to this question. Dr. Kissinger, in light of the fact
    that you testified today that you think there is an anti-
    American feeling because of the exposure on this issue, do you
    think that this could affect U.S. cities getting the Olympic
    site in the future?
        Mr. Kissinger. Not really because whatever the anti-
    American feeling exists is balanced by the realization that the
    majority of the funds come from the United States and the
    incentive--it's one thing to needle us, it's another to
    antagonize us.
        Mr. Duberstein. I subscribe to exactly what Dr. Kissinger
    said.
        Mr. Ganske. What a great diplomatic response. My time is
    finished. I will yield to Mr. Klink.
        Mr. Klink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duberstein, in your
    statements you reiterated that old chestnut of President
    Reagan's trust but verify. You say that that adage now applies
    to your monitoring of what they are doing at the International
    Olympic Committee. This is kind of a follow up to the last
    question. We might say we want to verify but other countries
    might say, well, it's the U.S. meddling, imposing their will on
    us, overreaching.
        Do you think that we have a right and a responsibility to
    actively monitor the progress that the IOC makes in this reform
    process? Specifically, let me ask you what should the U.S. role
    be in all this?
        Mr. Duberstein. I think we need to verify each one of these
    actions. I think when we see at the end of October what the
    working panels recommend, we will take another step in
    evaluation. When our commission testified before Senator
    McCain's Commerce Committee, we were asked about legislative
    remedies and what we said was let's see what the IOC does.
    Let's give them to the end of the year. I think that caution is
    still worthwhile now, but I do think that we have an obligation
    and a responsibility whether it's the USOC or the U.S. Congress
    to make sure that the IOC not only enacts rigorous reform as I
    expect that they will do but also that they match the practice
    with the words.
        Mr. Klink. Are you as troubled as I was--I don't know how
    much of the hearing you have been present for--but I brought up
    to some of the other committees that I'm troubled that it took
    the United States, took our Justice Department, took our press,
    took our Congress out there exposing this when it--the gifts
    became so exorbitant and the problem became so obvious with
    Salt Lake City. And then we sat here today in a very public
    fashion and we had Ambassador Young and others here and talked
    about what happened in Atlanta, yet there doesn't appear to be
    anyone else at the International Olympic Committee that are
    looking at what has happened in their country.
        My example would be what happened in Nagano or Sydney or
    Athens or Barcelona or cities that weren't successful, like
    Toronto or Melbourne or Manchester or Belgrade. We have
    reformed what we--the way we operate the U.S. Olympic
    Committee. We appear to be headed that way. Reforms are in
    place but what happens to the rest of the National Olympic
    Committees and what happens to their introspective look if
    we're the only ones that are policing this?
        Mr. Duberstein. I don't think we're the only ones that are
    the police. I think the litany that you delivered failed to
    mention the U.S. Olympic Committee. That's who appointed the
    Mitchell commission. It was Bill Hybl who said everything that
    I have seen from Salt Lake City says we need to get on this and
    get on it now, not to do an investigation. That's left to the
    Justice Department and to others. But to come up with
    recommendations so this will never happen again.
        I think we're very much on our way to that. I think the
    world opinion will in fact rally behind if the IOC does the
    right thing and doesn't do lip service, doesn't just worry
    about reassuring sponsors but in fact runs an ethical and
    trustworthy Olympic movement which will be good for all the
    cities and all the countries.
        Mr. Klink. Dr. Kissinger, again we mentioned this during
    the hearing today. We had the ``Sports Illustrated'' article
    from 1986 that mentioned all of the lavish gifts and all the
    things that occurred back then. We have the 1991 report that
    the people in Toronto who were unsuccessful filed. Yet all of
    these things were ignored. What confidence do we have now that
    once your back is turned and our back is turned and other
    people's backs are turned, that people who ignored these
    problems for decades, in fact allowed them to proliferate, get
    more serious until Salt Lake City pushed this over the edge,
    what confidence do we have that we're not going to then relax
    back into a standard where we have this closed culture where
    these things are allowed to proliferate?
        Mr. Kissinger. Well, I believe that first of all it would
    be very appropriate for this committee to keep an eye on the
    process. Second, the previous organization of the IOC was sort
    of a family kind of organization where members who are for life
    or later were changed till the age of 80 and there was an
    attitude that they were responsible as far as I can understand
    to each other and that made it of course very difficult to
    investigate allegations carefully. I think the rotation in
    office but I am impressed by what I've heard here. I will
    discuss when I get back to Lausanne in 2 weeks the creation in
    the office of the president of some mechanism that audits--the
    auditing of finances is taken care of but the performance of
    the reform, I think that's a very good point that we ought to
    try to take into account.
        You understand I'm speaking for myself because I don't know
    what the reaction will be, but this is a reasonable proposal it
    seems to me.
        Mr. Klink. Suppose you can help us with one housekeeping
    person. Mr. Samaranch has responded back to the committee's
    request that he testify. He told us at the IOC bid process--
    about the IOC bid process to Congress. We asked him to come and
    talk to us. He said we're going through trying to talk to all
    of these countries. I don't want to appear that I'm heavy
    handed by coming in and testifying before Congress when this is
    going. In your expert opinion as persons that are affiliated
    with this Olympic reform movement, when would be the
    appropriate time for Mr. Samaranch to come and testify before
    the subcommittee?
        Mr. Kissinger. I will tell you I recommended to him to
    appear after the process is completed and I'm happy that a date
    apparently has been fixed for December 15. He will be the key
    person in maneuvering these reforms through the committee.
    Whatever we outsiders do he's the indispensable element on the
    parliamentary level. This will require some very careful
    maneuvering with tender egos, and I think it is better for
    everybody if we can come here and put before you a completed
    project and know that he will be tested by your questions
    rather than speak in a preliminary way where he may have to be
    very careful about what he is free to talk about.
        So I frankly am partly to blame for his view that he should
    appear after he has something to present to this committee and
    I also believe that this will be a major contribution by this
    committee to spur the reforms because he will be in a very
    difficult position if he has to explain--some compromises may
    have to be made but if they are significant and go to the core
    of it, I would expect the members of the committee to proceed
    with a relentlessness as has been exhibited in my brief stay
    here.
        So I think this is the best time, December 15, that I'm
    grateful for the committee for having to agree to the session.
        Mr. Duberstein. I think what is absolutely critical is that
    Mr. Samaranch has agreed to appear before this committee. Some
    of us may have wanted him to appear after the IOC Reform 2000
    report is done at the end of October. Some have suggested that
    he not come until December. I think the fact that he is coming
    before this committee is a mark not only of his commitment to
    reform but his willingness to sell this to you and I think that
    is very encouraging news.
        Mr. Klink. Thank you.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Stupak.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duberstein, you
    also make reference in your testimony to the July 14 interim
    report done by the IOC on your and Senator Mitchell's report.
    It's called the IOC paper on the recommendations made by the
    U.S. Olympic Committee special bid oversight commission in its
    report on March 1, 1999. None of the reactions made in that
    report are carved in stone and of course are subject to change.
        When will we really know which of the Mitchell's report
    recommendations are being adopted by the IOC? Is there going to
    be a plenary session October 31.
        Mr. Duberstein. You're going to have a strong indication
    October 30, 31 but full IOC is meeting on December 11 and 12.
    So we will know both from the former date as well as the
    latter.
        Mr. Stupak. Would it be--should all of them be adopted in
    its--are there some of them that should be adopted, some of
    them that aren't you can live with? Could you try to give us a
    little bit more insight as to----
        Mr. Duberstein. We think all of our recommendations are
    important. Clearly some are more critical than others.
    Financial accountability, term limits, age. The ruling out of
    visits to the bid cities, all of that getting tied up so that
    in fact the process of selecting bid cities as well as the
    accountability, responsibility of the IOC itself, the
    structural reforms I think are all taken as one, Congressman
    Stupak.
        Mr. Kissinger. And the creation of an auditing system that
    Mr. Allaire from Xerox considers equal to those of
    multinational corporations would be a complete innovation.
        Mr. Stupak. Would that be like an inspector general type
    function?
        Mr. Duberstein. No, it's an independent audit by outsiders,
    not by the inside, publicly released is what we called for. We
    also called for open meetings which I believe the IOC is now
    doing. It's all of that that the sunshine comes.
        Mr. Stupak. That sunshine, that's audits but let's get to
    enforcement then. How would the enforcement come other than
    public scrutiny?
        Mr. Duberstein. It's public scrutiny.
        Mr. Kissinger. Rotation in office and the submission of
    each--even existing members have to in addition to the age
    limit have to be rotated at periodic intervals and have to go
    before the selection committee where they are compared with
    other candidates, plus the fact that more athletes are being
    added, the international federations, the national committees
    so that there will be a number of groups that are new that were
    not previously represented institutionally on the committee.
        Mr. Stupak. Will any of these groups then, these new
    groups, will they have investigative powers within the IOC of
    any alleged wrongdoing?
        Mr. Kissinger. The athletes of course have a vested
    interest in the Olympics being clean and they also have the
    greatest interest in the doping issue, and I have noticed of
    the working groups that the athletes are among the most vocal
    and concerned and constructive members of the working groups.
        Mr. Duberstein. In addition, you also have the creation of
    a new independent ethics committee for the IOC which I think
    speaks volumes.
        Mr. Stupak. Let me put it this way. After let's say the IOC
    reforms are implemented, what will actually be set up to detect
    any wrongdoing other than rotating people and the athletes are
    concerned about it. Is there any mechanism there that we can
    point to? You see, my problem here is with this culture we have
    seen here and it's a culture thing. Everyone does it. This is
    the way you do it. This is the way you get host cities. How do
    you change that culture? You may change the rules but if
    there's no accountability and responsibility and some
    enforcement, I don't see how we change the culture.
        Mr. Kissinger. I think a number of you members have raised
    this point, and I will certainly bring that back when I go to
    the executive committee meeting and I think in the president's
    office or the executive committee some mechanism has to be set
    up on the--at least I would think ought to be set up on the
    basis of which these questions can be answered.
        Mr. Duberstein. I also think that you should address some
    of this to Senator Baker when he comes here as a member of the
    ethics committee as far as an ongoing role in overseeing not
    only the reform effort but the governance of the IOC.
        Mr. Stupak. You've got to have a hotline, inspector
    general, someone there to enforce it. You've got to have a
    watchdog there somewhere I believe anyways.
        Mr. Upton. Before I yield to Mr. Strickland I just want to
    ask, do you know if the reform committee meeting in the end of
    October of this month and again in December, is that open to
    the public? Or is it a closed meeting?
        Mr. Kissinger. It was last time. The first plenary session
    was open to the public.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Strickland.
        Mr. Duberstein. Mr. Stupak, the answer from the IOC it is
    open, according to Mr. Carrard.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Strickland.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one
    question and then I will make a comment and then I will stop.
    You've been kind in giving us of your time. I would like to ask
    you if you would share with us your reaction to what happened
    in Atlanta. We heard from the Atlanta folks earlier today and
    in your judgment, if your commission had used Atlanta's bid as
    opposed to Salt Lake City, do you think you would be making the
    same sort of recommendations to the USOC and the IOC as you are
    making?
        Mr. Duberstein. Congressman, I did not hear the testimony
    of Atlanta today but just from the flavor of what I have read
    and heard, we said in our commission report it did not begin in
    Salt Lake City. These are the nature of the same kind of
    allegations. So I don't think our report would have changed one
    iota as far as our recommendations for fundamental systemic
    reform of the USOC, the IOC, and the handling not only of the
    bid process but the governing of the IOC.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you, sir. And if I could just make a
    comment. I don't want to be offensive to anyone, certainly not
    my colleagues, but as I was sitting here listening to folks
    today and what we're talking about is the selling or the
    purchasing of influence, I think, and it is proper, I think,
    for those of us who are concerned about this to sit in some
    judgment on what has happened and to be concerned about reforms
    and making recommendations for the future, but just in fairness
    to those who may have been caught up in this, you both have
    been around Washington for a long time and you've observed the
    functioning of Congress and I wonder if you see any
    similarities between some of the things that we've talked about
    today and been concerned about today and maybe some of the
    practices that exist within our own governmental bodies in
    terms of decisionmaking and influence buying and so on.
        Mr. Kissinger. Well, collegial bodies have a tendency to
    cover up for each other. That is--and in fact what then later
    an investigation looks like covered up is an attempt to help
    out friends with whom one has worked and isn't perceived this
    way. So this is something that is built into any bureaucratic
    and--on the other hand, one shouldn't go to the other extreme
    of starting a culture of investigations so that everybody feels
    under permanent threat. So I would think that if it is very
    successful reforming the system and if then there is some
    procedure by which one can check on the performance internally,
    then the outside pressures should still continue but they
    should not be the form of a permanent investigation but
    something like a periodic checkup to see, and after all by now
    there's a fairly wide body of people who have been involved in
    the reform or in the investigations who have, as I said before,
    have no other interest except seeing this thing cleaned up.
        Mr. Duberstein. I think when we have seen the lack of
    accountability, it leads to problems. When we got into the
    Mitchell commission, we got into this. One of the things that
    we were startled with was what we thought was a total lack of
    accountability. I think that's as true in Lausanne as it is in
    Washington. Those are the seeds for problems. We often deal
    with perceptions and in this town especially perceptions become
    reality. What we found, though, as far as Salt Lake City and
    before is that the perceptions were reality. The misdeeds were
    taking place. I don't think that that calls for a permanent
    investigation. That's why in my opening statement I talked
    about periodic checkups. I think it is worth dialing into from
    time to time.
        Look, when I appeared before Senator McCain's committee, I
    was a critic. I doubted that the IOC was as committed as I
    hoped that they would be. I have learned in several months
    trust but verify that when you have people involved, whether
    it's Bill Hybl or Henry Kissinger or Peter Ueberroth or Dick
    Ebersol or Paul Allaire and they are pushing the same
    direction, when my friend and former colleague Howard Baker
    joined the ethics committee, that is another indication that
    the IOC got the message.
        Business as usual is no longer. You have to move on. You
    have to turn the page. And I think that's as applicable in
    Washington as it is in Lausanne.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you both. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Bilbray, do you have questions?
        Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I think
    first of all we need to clarify again, and again one of our
    colleagues pointed out that a lot of this discussion is about
    the world Olympic committees and the multinational not to tar
    and feather the U.S., not that we don't have points that we
    need to get included. I guess the argument of my colleague
    about the fact that maybe we look at ourselves, the issue of
    gifts and everything else have been discussed here in the House
    hasn't been entrusted to the executive branch as much recently.
    But in California we've got a full disclosure and I guess this
    is where it gets to Mr. Kissinger's issue about you don't want
    to have a Spanish inquisition but you also don't want to have
    major cover-ups. In California one of the things we said is
    anybody in the field of trust just publicly publishes
    everything they've received unless it's under certain
    categories and that sort of makes sure that at least somebody
    knows--it may be a happy medium and that's what you talked
    about before. But growing up on the frontier in the Southwest,
    I'm worried about we talk about this culture within the Olympic
    International Committee but can we expect the culture of the
    committee to be any different than the culture of the world
    that it's working within and that may now seem abstract but I
    know for one thing that Governor Rufo of Baja, California, the
    first freely elected Governor of Mexico in 67 years, made a big
    deal about the corruption and the corrupting influence of
    society just within his state. And about what a struggle it is
    in a lot of these countries to try to get out of a culture of
    mordida, the culture of this is the way business is done. And I
    think it's rather inappropriate for us to be so naive to think
    that the American standard or the Western European standard is
    just universally the only standard that is going to apply.
        How do we address this issue within the Olympic Committee
    when it is obviously going to continue to be influenced by the
    world culture experience that there is these what we perceive
    inappropriate influences and decisionmaking?
        Mr. Duberstein. Let's get over October 30 and 31 and
    December 11 and 12. Let's get these reforms done and then we
    can come back and address that question. But I would rather
    focus on getting the reforms in place and then implemented and
    I think that you will then see other parts of the world saying
    the IOC is in fact leading the way. I think that helps.
        Mr. Kissinger. Also this is a question that after the
    reform should be discussed with the president, with the new
    executive committee in due course with the new president
    because that is how it will have to be implemented. It is not
    at all a trivial question. There's no doubt that in major parts
    of the world we here consider unacceptable behavior is the
    normal way by which influence is established. So one has to
    take--it will work best if it is done under the aegis of the
    IOC rather than as a demand from the United States. And we
    hope--I speak here for Ken as well, that we cannot change the
    world but we might be able to make a contribution to changing
    the atmosphere in which the Olympic Committee operates.
        Mr. Bilbray. I hope we have that sensitivity when we look
    at that. My family is from Australia. I grew up on the frontier
    with Latin America. I look at Americans' rather critical review
    of certain cultural traditions in Mexico but at the same time
    my cousins in Australia believe that trying to tip a waiter is
    a bribe and is immoral and is wrong. And we sort of chuckle at
    that. I think there may be people all over the world that would
    sort of look at our perception about mordida, about a gift,
    what we saw as an inappropriate deed and sort of chuckle at
    that too and I think we just need to desensitize that and try
    to move into it.
        I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I just feel as we address
    this issue, we've got to remember that we are working within a
    world culture and maybe, maybe we can start the process of
    helping to influence a world cultural experience in a positive
    manner. God bless Governor Rufo. He left office frustrated with
    the fact that he couldn't change something that he saw as a
    cancer in his culture that he was trying to remove.
        But thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. In closing, I'd like to say a couple
    of things. First of all to both of you we appreciate your time
    and your very hard work and to those that were not able to
    come, Senator Mitchell, Senator Baker, we know that their
    spirit and their work help lend great credence to this hearing.
    I also want to thank all of the members that participated on
    both sides of the aisle and the staff who worked countless
    hours getting documents, doing questions, really helping us
    understand the issue.
        I talked to Senator McCain yesterday with regard to the
    hearings that he held in the spring and I intend to talk to him
    yet this evening before he goes to conduct his hearing that
    he's going to have next week as well. And I guess the reason--
    and he thanked me for holding this hearing today. And as I see
    it, this hearing does provide the setting. It initiates the
    momentum, it helps send a message. It rallies the troops that
    will be casting these votes later this month and again in
    December to make sure that the votes will be there so that we
    are all proud, not only as Americans but as citizens on this
    planet. And I would hope that in your discussions and in your
    work, particularly Dr. Kissinger as a member of that committee
    and others in this room that will be voting as well, that you
    will convey that message and that spirit in a constructive way
    in terms of the work that this committee is trying to do.
        I have a daughter who wrote a letter to the local city
    schools complaining that the gymnastics program was being
    canceled and that if it was canceled, if indeed they followed
    through on that recommendation, that they would lose a future
    Olympian who at some point in the future would be in those
    Olympics. It is in that spirit that we're all here because
    we're proud of the Olympics, whether it be a Jesse Owens,
    whether it be a Mohammad Ali, a Mark Spitz, anyone in the world
    that can triumph in those world games and what they mean to all
    of us.
        And so it is in that ethics, with that integrity that we
    urge you to carry on your mission. We appreciate the work that
    you have done and as they say in Ann Arbor, thanks for coming
    to the big house today.
        Mr. Klink. Would the gentleman yield for one moment.
        Mr. Upton. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Klink. Thank you for that. That was a fine closing
    statement. I see Mr. Carrard is still here. I want to thank you
    for coming today as well. I see we've got some of our other
    witnesses that stayed around. I'm not speaking for Chairman
    Upton but I'm sure he agrees with me. We have doors on the
    front of our office and they are open. If we can help you to
    clean this up, if there's something that we can do, I would
    suggest that you get in touch with us. We want to see this
    done. There's not a lot of fun in what we did today. We'd
    rather sit down and talk to all of you about how wonderful
    these games are and how wonderful they're going to be. We did
    not enjoy this, and the same to Dr. Kissinger and Mr.
    Duberstein; if there's some way that you see that we in
    Congress have the ability to positively impact this plan to
    clean up the International Olympic Committee, let us know what
    we can do. We're here to work with you. We have not had fun
    today.
        Mr. Upton. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard H. Baker, Jr.
        Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Klink, and members of the
    subcommittee, I thank you for inviting me to discuss my views on the
    International Olympic Committee's response to the many well-publicized
    allegations of wrongdoing in connection with the site selection process
    for the Olympic Games.
        IOC President Samaranch invited me to become an original member of
    the IOC Ethics Commission, which was established this past March to
    strengthen the IOC's ethical guidelines and thereby provide a clear
    standard of conduct for all members of the Olympic Family. The Ethics
    Commission was also charged with ensuring that these guidelines are
    reflected in the policies and practices of the IOC, National Olympic
    Committees and organizations associated with efforts to host the
    Olympic Games. Furthermore, the Commission takes responsibility for
    considering specific allegations of ethical violations by organizations
    and individuals within the Olympic Family.
        I am joined on the Commission by Javier Perez de Cuellar of Peru,
    former United Nations Secretary General; Kurt Furgler of Switzerland,
    former Swiss President; Robert Badinter of France, former President of
    the French Constitution Court; and Charmaine Crooks of Canada, a five-
    time Olympian. Three current IOC members were also appointed to the
    Commission: Judge Keba Mbaye of Senegal, Chairman of the Commission and
    former Vice President of the International Court of Justice, R. Kevan
    Gosper of Australia, IOC Vice President and Chairman and Chief
    Executive Officer of Shell Australia; and Chiharu Igaya of Japan.
    Notably, a majority of the Commission members are not IOC members.
        As an indication of the IOC's commitment to actively promoting a
    culture of ethics within the Olympic Family, the Ethics Commission met
    twice during the month of May and approved a new Code of Ethics that
    was adopted by the IOC Executive Board in June. This Code sets forth
    the basic ethical guidelines to be followed by the entire Olympic
    Family, including IOC members and those representing cities bidding to
    host the Olympic Games. It also establishes that the IOC will play an
    important and ongoing role in monitoring and enforcing these
    guidelines.
        While the IOC did have ethical guidelines in place prior to the
    adoption of the new Code this year, they were not actively communicated
    or enforced. Under the new ethics regime, the IOC will aggressively
    educate members of the Olympic Family about the new Code, exercise an
    oversight function, fully investigate alleged violations of the Code,
    and impose sanctions where necessary.
        To ensure the active involvement of the IOC in maintaining high
    ethical standards, I proposed that the Ethics Commission adopt a set of
    guidelines to govern the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of
    the Code of Ethics. The Commission accepted my recommendation and asked
    me to work with a fellow Commission member (Kevan Gosper of Australia)
    to develop bylaws to the Code that would accomplish this purpose. My
    intention is to establish permanent mechanisms through which clear
    standards for ethical behavior will be communicated by IOC leadership
    to the entire Olympic Family. I would also like to develop the basic
    infrastructure that will ultimately accommodate the processing of
    complaints and the regulation of compliance issues, as well as the
    reporting of same to the Ethics Commission and the IOC. This process is
    ongoing and will be discussed during the next Ethics Commission meeting
    on October 28.
        As the Ethics Commission has worked toward establishing stronger
    ethical guidelines for the Olympic Movement, it has also considered
    individual cases where violations of the existing rules have been
    alleged. Accordingly, the Commission will review the Atlanta situation
    as well which of course was the subject of earlier panels. I know that
    Judge Bell has put together a comprehensive and straightforward report
    that was submitted to the IOC President, who subsequently asked the
    Ethics Commission to conduct a review. Since this review will commence
    during the October 28 Commission meeting, it would be inappropriate for
    me to comment on the substance of the report at this time.
        Concurrent with the efforts of the Ethics Commission, I know that
    many other steps have been taken in the overall effort to reform the
    IOC and address prior allegations of unethical conduct. The IOC itself
    has taken a number of actions during the past several months. After
    conducting an internal investigation of allegations arising out of the
    Salt Lake City matter, the IOC expelled and accepted the resignations
    of several members found to have been engaged in unethical behavior,
    while sternly warning others. As part of a broad effort to reform the
    site selection process, the IOC has prohibited visits by IOC members to
    candidate cities and visits by candidate city representatives to IOC
    members. It has also banned gift giving, in connection with the bidding
    process. Ultimately, the IOC plans to develop a permanent site
    selection process to promote clarity, consistency and, of course,
    ethical behavior. In addition, the IOC has responded to criticisms
    about the secrecy of its financial affairs by releasing a financial
    report that was audited by a major US accounting firm, an action that
    will now be repeated every two years.
        To comprehensively review the IOC's policies and practices and
    recommend necessary changes, the IOC established the IOC 2000 Reform
    Commission, with Dr. Henry Kissinger among its members. Dr. Kissinger
    will no doubt share his thoughts on IOC 2000 during his testimony. In
    my view IOC 2000 has done an outstanding job. I am happy that the good
    work done by the Special Bid Oversight Commission chaired by Senator
    Mitchell and Vice-Chairman Ken Duberstein has been received and given
    serious consideration. I know that IOC 2000 reported preliminary
    recommendations this summer and plans to submit a final report to the
    IOC for its consideration during a special session in December. I am
    hopeful that the IOC will fully support it.
        While I was initially skeptical about whether the IOC would
    undertake serious ethical and structural reforms in a fairly short
    period of time, I am now convinced that the IOC and its membership
    understand and accept the need for meaningful change. The IOC's actions
    thus far are consistent with my belief It has also become clear to me
    that all international bodies, National Olympic Committees and
    individuals that are part of the Olympic Movement must join with the
    IOC in accepting responsibility for conducting themselves in a manner
    that will preserve the integrity of the Movement for generations to
    come. The IOC certainly cannot in any way encourage a ``culture of
    corruption'' as many have alleged, but a concurrent obligation exists
    on the part of the entire Olympic Family to recognize and follow the
    highest ethical standards. Ultimately, we all want the Olympics to be
    about the athletes and the competition, not about ethical scandals.
        Going forward, the IOC must send a very clear message that its
    members cannot and will not be unduly influenced during the site
    selection process for the Olympic Games. Those cities and countries
    bidding to host the Games must correspondingly abstain from any
    activities that might even be perceived as improper. In my view, this
    kind of cooperative effort is required if we are to see lasting change
    and the long term preservation of the integrity of the Olympic
    Movement.
        Thank you for allowing me to express my views.

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.154

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.156

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.157

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.158

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.159

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.160

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.161

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.162

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.163

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.164

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.165

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.166

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.167

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.168

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.169

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.170

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.171

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.172

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.173

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.174

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.175

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.176

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.177

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.178

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.179

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.180

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.181

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.182

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.183

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.184

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.185

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.186

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.187

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.188

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.189

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.190

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.191

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.192

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.193

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.194

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.195

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.196

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.197

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.198

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.199

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.200

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.201

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.202

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.203

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.204

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.205

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.206

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.207

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.208

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.209

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.210

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.211

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.212

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.213

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.214

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.215

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.216

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.217

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.218

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.219

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.220

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.221

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.222

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.223

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.224

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.225

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.226

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.227

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.228

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.229

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.230

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.231

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.232

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.233

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.234

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.235

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.236

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.237

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.238

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.239

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.240

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.241

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.242

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.243

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.244

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.245

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.246

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.247

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.248

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.249

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.250

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.251

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.252

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.253

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.254

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.255

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.256

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.257

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.258

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.259

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.260

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.261

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.262

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.263

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.264

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.265

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.266

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.267

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.268

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.269

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.270

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.271

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.272

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.273

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.274

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.275

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.276

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.277

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.278

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.279

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.280

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.281

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.282

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.283

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.284

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.285

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.286

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.287

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.288

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.289

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.290

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.291

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.292

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.293

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.294

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.295

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.296

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.297

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.298

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.299

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.300

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.301

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.302

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.303

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.304

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.305

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.306

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.307

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.308

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.309

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.310

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.311

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.312

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.313

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.314

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.315

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.316

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.317

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.318

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.319

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.320

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.321

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.322

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.323

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.324

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.325

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.326

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.327

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.328

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.329

        THE OLYMPIC SITE SELECTION PROCESS: REVIEW OF THE REFORM EFFORT

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1999

                      House of Representatives,
                                 Committee on Commerce,
                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
    room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton
    (chairman) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Upton, Barton, Burr,
    Bryant, Waxman, and DeGette.
        Also present: Representative Oxley.
        Staff present: Jan Faiks, majority counsel; Clay Alspach,
    legislative clerk; and Chris Knauer, minority investigator.
        Interpreters present: Alexandre Schiavo and Fernando van
    Reigersberg.
        Mr. Upton. Good morning, everyone, and welcome. We are
    sorry for the slight delay this morning. We have a number of
    members that are stranded at a variety of different airports
    around the country, and at this point, I will ask that their
    remarks be included by unanimous consent as part of the record.
        And I know that a number of members are still going to try
    to get here for the hearing that will go much of the day. So we
    wish for them to have safe travel and get here as fast as they
    can.
        We are here today because the Olympic Games are too
    important to allow a culture of corruption to be whitewashed
    and perpetuated by a piece of paper called ``reforms.'' The
    record is riddled with evidence of over a decade's worth of
    blatant abuse which was ignored by those who consistently,
    arrogantly, unbelievably, turned a blind eye to the ugly truth.
    Now, after being dragged under the magnifying glass, the IOC
    reports to have turned over a new leaf. They say they have seen
    the light. They say action has been taken. The question is, can
    we trust that the reforms will be vigorously enforced once the
    spotlight has dimmed? How can we be sure that business as usual
    has truly ended?
        In May of this year, when the committee started its inquiry
    into the Atlanta organizing committee's 1996 Olympic bid, we
    wanted to learn whether the events surrounding the Salt Lake
    City's Olympic bid were an isolated incident or part of a
    larger pattern of misconduct. At the first hearing, the Atlanta
    organizers and other witnesses testified that Atlanta actively
    gathered information about IOC members and, armed with this
    information, broke gift and travel rules in order to keep its
    host city competitive.
        Additionally, the committee learned that IOC members
    requested and received numerous gifts, travel and other perks
    from Atlanta organizers. Based on the testimony and records
    presented in the first hearing, including the 1991 Toronto
    report, it is clear that Salt Lake City and Atlanta were not
    the only bidding cities engaged in improper gift giving. Sadly,
    this culture of corruption has existed for more than a decade.
    Today, we will hear directly, for the first time, from the man
    who has headed the IOC since 1980, Juan Antonio Samaranch.
        As we all know, the IOC voted on a reform package this past
    weekend, and Mr. Samaranch has received kudos for steering
    these reforms through. Today, however, he must do more than
    merely outline what the reforms are intended to do. He must
    detail exactly how he will personally enforce what is written
    on paper. The conduct by IOC members in the bidding cities did
    not spring up yesterday, and it will not go away simply because
    there are new rules written on a piece of paper. The rules on
    paper, no matter how tough or complete, are just that.
        Frankly, it is hard to have confidence in the success of
    these reforms, given some of the disturbing statements in the
    media the last couple of days. These include the IOC Ethics
    Commission declaration that they, ``Do not plan to initiate
    investigations and probably would not take up any new cases
    that develop out of the Salt Lake City probe.''
        Another panel member, Robert Badinter, says, ``We will not
    be detectives or Scotland Yard or the General Attorney of the
    United States.''
        Mr. Samaranch has declared, ``The new millennium will see a
    new International Olympic Committee.''
        We are at a point where we want to believe, based on
    enactment of these reforms, a new day has dawned. The bottom
    line needs to be trust, but verify, verify, verify.
        Along those lines we will hear also today from Senator
    Howard Baker, who is the only American member on the new IOC
    Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission is charged with
    ensuring that ethical standards for IOC members are clear,
    applied and, in fact, enforced. We want to learn whether the
    Ethics Commission will be strong enough to end the mentality
    that rules are made to be broken.
        On the second panel we will also hear from Senator George
    Mitchell and Dr. Henry Kissinger. Senator Mitchell chaired the
    USOC's Special Bid Oversight Commission to review the
    circumstances surrounding the Salt Lake City bid and to make
    recommendations to improve the process. Dr. Kissinger is, in
    fact, a member of the IOC 2000 Commission.
        The bidding process was eroding away from an evaluation of
    the true merits of a bid city into an auction awarding the best
    bidder. The qualifications of a city began to matter less and
    less. How many gifts given to IOC members mattered more and
    more. Only after the Salt Lake City scandal erupted and was
    exposed on the world stage did the IOC finally step up to the
    plate and address the need for reform.
        My concern about the IOC's commitment is based upon their
    response and President Samaranch's reaction, in particular, to
    over a decade of serious warnings and allegations that
    improprieties were occurring. The Toronto report was presented
    in 1991 to a group of IOC executive committee members,
    including Mr. Samaranch, and yet no serious follow-up
    investigation occurred that the author of the report, Mr.
    Henderson, is aware of. Certainly no one asked to see Toronto's
    records, which were public at the time.
        Additionally, Mr. Bob Helmick, an IOC executive committee
    member, never received from the IOC a copy of Toronto's report,
    and he is not aware of any further investigation into the
    allegations. The report should have served as a clear warning
    shot across the bow. Was no one looking? Was no one standing
    watch? Or was this shot simply ignored?
        In fact, there is documentation on this culture of
    corruption dating back to the mid-1980's. Peter Ueberroth's
    biography ``Made in America'' describes the bidding process for
    the Seoul games that Ueberroth saw as tantamount to bribery.
        The 1987 L.A. Times details a luxurious life-style enjoyed
    by an elite few in which travel is in grand manner, every
    expectation is fulfilled, and it is ``all on the house.''
        In 1992, another Washington Post article states, ``Cities
    often go to great lengths to impress its members, who have been
    given the opportunity to play golf at Augusta National, ski in
    the Alps, or have their names engraved on a plaque on the Great
    Wall.
        In September, 1997, the Post discusses South African
    officials forced to apologize for offering first class airplane
    tickets to wives of 19 IOC officials. Yet nothing was really
    done to adequately address these problems. In fact, we know of
    one instance when the lavish gift-giving was showered on
    President Samaranch's wife. Mrs. Samaranch and a friend were
    flown by Atlanta organizers to Atlanta with a stopover in
    Charleston, South Carolina, for a cost of more than $12,000.
    The trip included a private fashion show for their enjoyment as
    well.
        The fact that President Samaranch was informed of this trip
    and allowed it to occur does not give me great confidence that
    he is prepared to address similar abuses in the future.
    Consequently, imagine my surprise when I read a recent Time
    magazine article regarding an interview with President
    Samaranch, when he was asked about his wife's trip to Atlanta
    and whether she would make another trip to a bidding city, when
    the response was, ``Maybe. It depends. After all, my wife is
    the wife of the president.''
        Why should I or any member of this panel believe that the
    IOC leadership is serious about implementing these reforms now?
    We need to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not
    repeated.
        Our last panel today features some of the finest athletes
    in the United States, and I am proud to represent a district
    that some Olympians have called home, including Jesse Owens and
    Muhammad Ali. These men and women practice many, many years,
    often overcoming tremendous odds to compete for Olympic
    victory. On behalf of today's Olympic athletes, past Olympic
    competitors, and athletes throughout the world striving to be
    Olympians, this committee will maintain its vigilance over the
    IOC reform effort. The athletes represent the very best in the
    Olympic movement and they deserve no less than the best from
    the IOC and its leadership.
        I will yield to the acting ranking member of this
    subcommittee, as Mr. Klink is stranded in Pittsburgh, Ms.
    DeGette, from Colorado.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Subcommittee on
                          Oversight and Investigations
        Good morning and welcome. We are here because the Olympic Games are
    too important to allow a culture of corruption to be white-washed and
    perpetuated by a piece of paper called reforms. The record is riddled
    with evidence of over a decade's worth of blatant abuse which was
    ignored by those who consistently, arrogantly--unbelievably--turned a
    blind-eye to the ugly truth. Now, after being dragged under the
    magnifying glass, the IOC purports to have turned over a new leaf They
    say, they have seen the light. They say, action has (finally) been
    taken. The question is: can we trust that the reforms will be
    vigorously enforced once the spotlight has dimmed? How can we be sure
    that the business-as-usual era has truly ended?
        In May of this year, when the Committee started its inquiry into
    the Atlanta Organizing Committee's 1996 Olympic bid, we wanted to learn
    whether the events surrounding Salt Lake City's Olympic bid were an
    isolated incident or part of a larger pattern of misconduct. At the
    first hearing, the Atlanta organizers and other witnesses testified
    that Atlanta actively compiled personal profiles detailing likes and
    dislikes of IOC members, and armed with this information, broke gift
    and travel rules in order to keep its host city bid competitive.
    Additionally, the Committee learned that IOC members requested and
    received numerous gifts, travel and other perks from the Atlanta
    organizers.
        Based on the testimony and records presented in the first hearing,
    including the 1991 Toronto Report, it is clear that Salt Lake City and
    Atlanta were not the only bidding cities engaged in improper gift
    giving. Sadly, this culture of corruption has existed for more than a
    decade. Today, we will hear directly--for the first time--from the man
    who has headed the IOC since 1980, Juan Antonio Samaranch.
        As we all know, the IOC voted on a reform package this last weekend
    and Mr. Samaranch has received kudos for steering these reforms
    through. Today, however, he must do more than merely outline what the
    reforms are intended to do. He must detail exactly how he will
    personally enforce what is written on paper. The conduct by IOC members
    and the bidding cities did not spring up yesterday, and it will not go
    away simply because there are new rules written on a piece of paper.
    Rules on paper, no matter how tough or complete are just that. Frankly,
    it's hard to have confidence in the success of these reforms given some
    of the disturbing statements in the media in the past few days. These
    include:

     The IOC Ethics Commission declaration that they ``do not plan
            to initiate investigations and probably would not take up any
            new cases that develop out of the Salt lake City probe.''
     Another panel member--Robert Badinter--says ``we will not be
            detectives or Scotland Yard or the General Attorney of the
            United States.''
        Mr. Samaranch has declared ``the new millennium will see a new
    International Olympic Committee.'' We are at a point where we want to
    believe--based on enactment of these reforms--a new day has dawned. The
    bottom line needs to be trust but verify, verify, verify.
        Along those lines, we will also hear today from Senator Howard
    Baker, who is the only American member on the new IOC Ethics
    Commission. The Ethics Commission is charged with ensuring that ethical
    standards for IOC members are clear, applied, and enforced. We want to
    learn whether the Ethics Commission will be strong enough to end the
    mentality that ``rules are made to be broken.''
        On the second panel we will hear from Senator George Mitchell and
    Dr. Henry Kissinger. Senator Mitchell Chaired the USOC's Special Bid
    Oversight Commission. He along with Ken Duberstein and others, reviewed
    the circumstances surrounding Salt Lake City's bid and made
    recommendations to improve the process. We will also hear from Dr.
    Kissinger who is a member of the IOC 2000 Commission.
        The bidding process was eroding away from an evaluation of the true
    merits of a bid city into an auction awarding the best bidder. The
    qualifications of a city began to matter less and less--how many gifts
    given to IOC members mattered more and more. Only after the Salt Lake
    scandal erupted and was exposed on the world stage did the IOC finally
    step up to the plate and address the need for reform.
        My concern about the IOC's commitment is based upon their response
    and President Samaranch's reaction, in particular, to over a decade of
    serious warnings and allegations that improprieties were occurring. The
    Toronto Report was presented in 1991 to a group of IOC executive
    committee members, including Mr. Samaranch, and yet no serious follow-
    up investigation occurred that the author of the report Mr. Henderson
    is aware of--certainly no one asked to see Toronto's records which were
    public at the time. Additionally, Bob Helmick, an IOC executive
    committee member, never received from the IOC a copy of Toronto's
    report and he is not aware of any further investigation into the
    allegations. This report should have served as a clear warning shot
    across the bow. Was no one looking? Was no one standing watch? Or was
    this shot simply ignored?
        In fact, there is documentation on this culture of corruption
    dating back to the mid-eighties.

     Peter Ueberroth's biography ``Made In America'' describes a
            bidding process for the Seoul games that Ueberroth saw as
            tantamount to bribery.
     1987, the LA Times details a luxurious Olympic lifestyle
            enjoyed by an elite few in which travel is in grand manner,
            every expectation is fulfilled, and ``it's all on the house.''
     In 1992, the Washingion Post article states, ``. . . Cities
            often go to great lengths to impress its members, who have been
            given the opportunity to play golf at Augusta National, ski in
            the Alps or have their names engraved on a plaque on the Great
            Wall.''
     September 1997 the Washington Post discusses South African
            officials forced to apologize for offering first-class airplane
            tickets to the wives of 19 IOC officials from Africa.
        Yet, nothing was really done to adequately address the problems. In
    fact, we know of one instance when the lavish gift giving was showered
    on President Samaranch's wife. Mrs. Samaranch and a friend were flown
    by Atlanta organizers to Atlanta, with a stopover in Charleston, South
    Carolina, for a cost of more than $12,000. The trip even included a
    private fashion show for Mrs. Samaranch's enjoyment. The fact that
    President Samaranch was informed of this trip and allowed it to occur
    does not give me great confidence that he is prepared to address
    similar abuses in the future. Consequently, imagine my surprise when I
    read a recent Time magazine article regarding an interview with
    President Samaranch. When he was asked about his wife's trip to Atlanta
    and whether she would make another trip to a bidding city, he
    responded, ``Maybe, It depends . . . After all, my wife is the wife of
    the president.'' Why should I or any member of this panel believe that
    IOC leadership is serious about implementing these reforms, now?
        We need to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not
    repeated.
        Our last panel today features some of the finest athletes in the
    United States. I am proud to represent an area that some great
    Olympians have called home, including Jesse Owens and Muhammad Ali.
    These men and women practice many, many years, often overcoming
    tremendous odds to compete for Olympic victory. On behalf of today's
    Olympic athletes, past Olympic competitors, and athletes throughout the
    world striving to be Olympians, this Committee will maintain its
    vigilance over the IOC reform effort. The athletes represent the very
    best in the Olympic movement. They deserve no less then the best from
    the IOC and its leadership.

        Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Initially,
    I would like to express my thanks to my old friends, to Bill
    Hybl, to Henry Kissinger, and to all of the members of the U.S.
    Olympic Committee who worked very diligently to make sure that
    these reforms were passed, and who have been here in this
    hearing room also working with Congress to let us know what was
    going on, and we do appreciate their efforts. I know I can say
    that for both sides of the aisle.
        But, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, news of more scandal has
    emerged since our last hearing in October. As we suspected,
    Atlanta and Salt Lake City were not anomalies. Reports from
    Sydney about ticket hoarding and rumors of shredded documents
    in other cities continue to tarnish the Olympic rings. The
    allegations of bribery that have been catalogued in the reports
    provided to this committee cast dark clouds over the true
    spirit of the Olympic Games. And, as we will hear from the
    fourth panel, the real victims of these scandals are the
    athletes and the fans.
        Today, the International Olympic Committee will tout the
    newly approved reforms as a symbol of change and rejuvenated
    effort to refocus the games on sport and sport alone. I hope
    they will have that effect. However, I am concerned about the
    compliance program that is supposed to monitor the IOC reforms.
    They say that the devil is in the details, but thus far we have
    seen very few details.
        I fear that these reforms will be cosmetic and purely to
    mask the aristocratic aura that has formed around the
    organization. And I am not convinced that the reforms approved
    this past weekend can be implemented in a manner that
    alleviates the situations that resulted in IOC members
    forgetting that the games are about elite athletes at the
    pinnacle of their ability.
        This culture of bribery coexisted with the rules of the
    organization in Salt Lake City, in Atlanta, in Sydney, and in
    other host cities. The rules were clear, as we found in our
    last hearing, yet the rules were not adhered to in any way. In
    fact, committee members from Salt Lake City believed that they
    lost the 1992 games to Nagano because they played by the rules.
    This corrupt culture resulted in cities and volunteers shelling
    out hundreds of thousands of dollars to IOC for shopping sprees
    at Saks, medical treatments for IOC members' relatives, and
    college tuition. So I am hopeful that these new reforms will be
    treated differently, but I am also skeptical that they can be.
        I am anxious to learn if our witnesses believe that
    lowering the age for IOC members to 70 years will prohibit
    gifts like a tennis camp in Florida for two teenagers from the
    Republic of the Congo. And I would also like to know why a
    loophole has been created for the term limits which will, in
    essence, result in infinitely renewable terms. I am hoping that
    Mr. Samaranch and our other witnesses can convince me otherwise
    today, but I am afraid that the enforcement program around the
    reforms enacted this weekend will show that what the IOC passed
    will simply be window-dressing and business will go on as
    usual.
        I am particularly concerned, as I said, about the lack of
    detail in the establishment of the Ethics Commission. This is
    perhaps the most crucial aspect of IOC reform. This is the one
    component that can prevent other scandals like the ones that
    brought us here today. However, ironically, this appears to be
    the most murky of the reforms. In fact, three Ethics Commission
    members gave three different answers as to how the commission
    will work when asked about the structure this weekend.
        Two particular guidelines caught my attention upon review
    of the IOC's proposed code of ethics, both discussed in the
    integrity section of the guidelines. One guideline states,
    ``Only gifts of nominal value, in accordance with prevailing
    local customs, may be given or accepted by the Olympic parties
    as a mark of respect or friendship.''
        This is a difficult definition, given the wide variety of
    currency, buying power and cultural traditions prevalent in the
    countries participating in the Olympic movement. Most U.S.
    corporations and U.S. Congress are specific, for example, that
    a nominal gift is defined as one which does not have a value of
    more than U.S. $100 or U.S. $50. As currently written, these
    guidelines do nothing to prohibit the exorbitant gift-giving
    that we saw in past scandals.
        The second disturbing guideline states, ``The hospitality
    shown to the members and staff of the Olympic parties, and the
    persons accompanying them, shall not exceed the standards
    prevailing in the host country.'' Again, this definition is
    vague, at best. An Olympic guideline must be universal, and
    perhaps in light of past scandals, more restrictive than some
    would call ``local customs'' of the host countries in order to
    prevent future scandals.
        I hope our witnesses will provide more detail as to how
    this commission will work on a daily basis. How will complaints
    be handled? How will the commission factor in cultural
    differences or even determine what cultural differences are?
        The U.S. Congress, for example, has a self-policing Ethics
    Committee and we all know what a difficult task it is to
    evaluate and discipline peers. The IOC cannot discount the
    importance of this commission nor can it allow it to falter by
    failing to provide proper guidance for Ethics Commission
    members.
        This committee, and I can say probably this entire
    Congress, is eager to work collectively to decide how the
    United States will help in its leadership role to develop and
    implement the new reforms and guidelines that we can stick
    with. I applaud the Mitchell Commission for taking the
    initiative in developing a comprehensive plan for reform. And I
    sincerely hope that Senator Mitchell will continue to offer his
    expertise as the IOC flushes out the details of the Ethics
    Commission and other reforms.
        Again, I applaud the USOC for taking the lead in trying to
    implement the reforms recommended by the Mitchell Commission,
    and I hope this organization is willing to lend its leadership
    and experience to other national Olympic committees as they
    implement similar reforms. But the United States cannot act in
    a vacuum, and I believe we also need to take the lead in
    helping the IOC to instigate tough Ethics Commission guidelines
    so that we can stop the abuses that we have seen.
        Above all, the United States and the USOC can and must
    ensure that the athletes, some of whom we will hear from today,
    will regain their proper place as the central focus of the
    Olympic Games. U.S. cities, like cities worldwide, have had to
    perform like dancing ponies. And the USOC has been just as much
    a victim as anybody. On the other hand, United States cities
    have participated voluntarily in this type of conduct and,
    therefore, it is incumbent on the cities, the USOC, and the
    United States to act as they have in helping the IOC take a
    leadership role in this way.
        In conclusion, I hope that the IOC will extend the good
    faith it showed last weekend and begin to act in the spirit of
    the games it represents and to move to implement successfully
    real reforms. And I believe that if the Ethics Commission is
    strong and independent, these reforms can be achieved.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Diana DeGette follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress
                           From the State of Colorado
        Thank you Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, news of more
    scandal has emerged since our last hearing in October. As we suspected,
    Atlanta and Salt Lake were not anomalies. Reports from Sydney about
    ticket hoarding and rumors of shredded documents in other cities
    continue to tarnish the Olympic rings. The allegations of bribery that
    has been catalogued in the reports provided to this committee casts
    dark clouds over the true spirit of the Olympic games. And, as we will
    hear from our third panel, the real victims of these scandals are the
    athletes and the fans.
        Today, the International Olympic Committee will tout the newly
    approved reforms today as a symbol of change and a rejuvenated effort
    to refocus the Games on sport and sport alone. I hope they will have
    that effect. However, they say the devil is in the details, but thus
    far, I have seen very few reforms. I fear that these reforms are purely
    cosmetic reforms and fail to eliminate the aristocratic aura that has
    formed around the organization. I am not convinced that the reforms
    approved this past weekend can be implemented in a manner that
    alleviates the situations that resulted in IOC members forgetting that
    the games are about elite athletes at the pinnacle of their ability.
        This culture of bribery that co-existed with the rules of the
    organization in Salt Lake City, in Atlanta, in Sydney and other host
    cities. The rules were clear, as we learned in our last hearing, yet
    they were not adhered to in any way. In fact, committee members from
    Salt Lake City believed they lost the 1992 games to Nagano because they
    played by the rules. This corrupt culture resulted in cities and
    volunteers shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to IOC for
    shopping sprees at Saks, medical treatments for IOC member's relatives
    and college tuition. So I am hopeful that these new reforms will be
    treated differently, but skeptical that they can be. I am anxious to
    learn if our witnesses believe that lowering the age limit for IOC
    membership from 80 to 70 years old will prohibit gifts like a tennis
    camp in Florida for two teenagers from the Republic of the Congo. I
    would like to know why a loophole has been created for the much touted
    ``term limits'' which result in infinitely renewable terms. I am
    hopeful that our witnesses can convince me otherwise today, but
    unfortunately I am afraid the reforms enacted this weekend signify that
    the IOC passed will simply be window dressing and business will go on
    as usual.
        I am particularly concerned by the lack of detail in the
    establishment of the Ethics Commission. This is perhaps the most
    crucial aspect of IOC reform; this is the one component that could
    prevent other scandals like those that brought us here today. However,
    this appears to be the murkiest of all the reforms. In fact, three
    Ethics Commission members gave three different answers as to how the
    Commission will work when asked about the structure this weekend. Two
    particular guidelines caught my attention upon review of the IOC's
    proposed Code of Ethics; both discussed in the Integrity section of the
    guidelines. One guideline states: ``Only gifts of nominal value, in
    accordance with prevailing local customs, may be given or accepted by
    the Olympic parties, as a mark of respect or friendship.''
        This is a difficult definition given the wide variety of currency,
    buying power and cultural traditions prevalent in the countries
    participating in the Olympic movement. Most U.S. corporations, and the
    United States Congress are specific, for example, that nominal gift is
    defined as one which does not have a value of more than $US 100, or $US
    50. As currently, written, the guideline does nothing to prohibit the
    exorbitant gift giving we saw in past scandals.
        The second disturbing guideline states: ``The hospitality shown to
    the members and staff of the Olympic parties, and the persons
    accompanying them, shall not exceed the standards prevailing in the
    host country.''
        Again, the definition is vague, at best. An Olympic guideline must
    be universal and perhaps, in light of past scandals, more restrictive
    than some would call local customs of the host countries in order to
    prevent future scandals.
        I hope our witnesses will provide more detail as to how this
    commission will work on a daily basis. How will complaints be handled?
    How will the Commission factor in cultural differences? Or even
    determine what cultural differences are? The US Congress has a self-
    policing ethics Committee, and we all know what a difficult task it is
    to evaluate and discipline peers. The IOC cannot discount the
    importance of this Commission, nor can it allow it to falter by failing
    to provide proper guidance for Ethics Commission members.
        This Committee, and indeed I can probably say this entire Congress,
    is anxious to work collectively to decide how the United States is
    going to take the leadership role implementing the new reforms and
    developing guidelines that we can stick with. I applaud the Mitchell
    Commission for taking the initiative in developing a comprehensive plan
    for reform and I sincerely hope that Senator Mitchell will continue to
    offer his expertise as the IOC flushes out the details of an Ethics
    Commission and other reforms. Again, I applaud the USOC for taking the
    lead in trying to implement the reforms recommended by the Mitchell
    Commission and I hope this organization is ready to lend its leadership
    and experience to other national Olympic Committees as they implement
    similar reforms. But the United States cannot act in a vacuum. I
    believe we must take the lead in insisting that the IOC install tough
    guidelines. Above all, the US and the USOC can and must ensure that the
    athletes, some of whom we'll hear from today, regain their proper place
    as the central focus of the Olympic games.
        U.S. cities, like cities worldwide, have had to perform like
    dancing ponies and the USOC has been just as much a victim as anyone.
    On the other hand, United States cities have participated in this type
    of conduct, and, therefore, it is incumbent on the cities, the USOC,
    and the United States Congress to take the lead in putting
    international pressure in cleaning up these practices.
        I hope the IOC will extend the good faith it showed this weekend
    and will begin to act in the spirit of the games it represents and move
    to successfully implement the reforms it has approved.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        At this point I will recognize the vice chairman of the
    subcommittee for an opening statement, Mr. Burr from North
    Carolina.
        Mr. Burr. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter my
    statement into the record, my written statement, because I
    think it is pretty good, but I feel compelled, listening to my
    colleagues before me, to make some remarks off the cuff.
        Let me welcome Mr. Samaranch. I know this is voluntary
    participation, and I appreciate your willingness to come and to
    testify in front of this committee. I also want to take this
    opportunity to welcome our other witnesses, because I believe
    it is extremely important that we do a thorough, fair and open
    process in completion of this task before Congress.
        I had the opportunity to play college football. I
    understand what real competition is, what winning and losing
    is. I understand what is generated from fans of schools and
    fans of countries as it relates to sporting events. I also
    understand the integrity that must exist for that support to
    continue and for that trust to build. One only has to look at
    the reports since the weekend to understand, and I commend the
    IOC and its president for a number of changes, that there are
    still statements that contradict each other.
        It was quoted in The Washington Post by the President of
    John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, Mr. D'Allessandro, that
    ``the first thing they have accomplished is they have
    acknowledged that public opinion does count. In the past, there
    has been no limit on the levels of arrogance. We are somewhat
    more confident, but we will have a wait-and-see attitude with
    how everything is implemented.''
        In the same article, an IOC member, Mr. Nicaleu of Greece,
    told Mr. Samaranch over the weekend, ``I would suggest you do
    not go to Washington. You are the President of the IOC and you
    are only accountable to the Olympic family.''
        What a huge difference in the perspective of, one, a
    financial contributor to the Olympic Games and, two, a member
    of the voting committee who had an opportunity to pass real
    reforms.
        Mr. President, I am thankful you did not listen to that IOC
    member from Greece and that you are in fact in front of us
    today, because I think the correct observation is closer to the
    President of John Hancock Mutual Life, that public opinion does
    count, that public trust and integrity is essential to the
    games, and that the Olympics are about athletes.
        I agree with Mr. Samaranch's statements, as they appeared
    in the world press, that this weekend's vote marked an historic
    page in the long history of the IOC. Unfortunately, just
    turning the page on the transgressions of the past will not
    ensure that those transgressions are not repeated. You can turn
    the page, Mr. Samaranch, but the next page will not make much
    sense if the IOC doesn't build on the recommendations and see
    that meaningful reform actually takes place.
        Many IOC members have expressed concerns that the outside
    world, including this subcommittee and this Congress, has no
    business involving itself in IOC affairs. I must respectfully
    disagree. The IOC may own the rights to the Olympic rings and
    other symbols, but the Olympic Games themselves are bigger than
    any one person and any one group. They belong to the people of
    the world, to the athletes that devote their lives to excelling
    in a sport, to the spectators who stand in awe of their
    accomplishments. The Olympic family does not consist of just
    the IOC and its membership, and that is something the current
    IOC membership has to date failed to recognize.
        The entire Olympic family deserves nothing less than the
    knowledge that the games and all events surrounding the games
    are conducted in a free, open and fair manner. I hope that, as
    we move forward, Mr. Samaranch, that in fact we will all aspire
    to a free, open and fair process.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Richard Burr follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Burr, a Representative in Congress
                        from the State of North Carolina
        Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this important
    hearing--the second held by this subcommittee to investigate the
    Olympics site selection process. Our first, in October, left many
    questions unanswered and many areas unexplored. I am hopeful that we
    can address some of the remaining issues today, but I hold no illusions
    that today will mark the end of this subcommittee's involvement in this
    issue. Nor should it. The American people--who have long been champions
    of the Olympic movement and the staunchest supporters of its values and
    principles--as well as people around the world deserve to know if those
    charged with promoting, developing, and staging the Olympic Games are
    doing so not in their own self-interest but in the interest of the
    Games and all they stand for.
        I am pleased to see that the subcommittee has invited such
    distinguished witnesses to testify before us today, particularly the
    president of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio
    Samaranch. I was pleased to see the IOC approved all of the IOC 2000
    Commission's recommendations this past weekend, due in no small part to
    the efforts of Mr. Samaranch. However, a number of serious questions
    remain that I hope Mr. Samaranch and our other witnesses can address.
        Of utmost importance to me is adequate oversight and control of the
    site selection and bid process. Without serious changes in the way the
    process is managed, none of the reforms adopted by the IOC will have
    any meaning. The faults in the bid process go to the heart of the
    difficulties currently facing the Olympic Movement, and those faults
    must be repaired. We must fully understand the relationship between bid
    cities, national Olympic committees, and the IOC as well as the
    responsibilities of each.
        I agree with Mr. Samaranch's statements, as they appeared in the
    world press, that this weekend's votes mark a historic page in the long
    history of the IOC. Unfortunately, just turning the page on the
    transgressions of the past will not ensure that those transgressions
    are not repeated. You can turn the page, Mr. Samaranch, but the next
    page will not make much sense if the IOC doesn't build on the
    recommendations and see that meaningful reform actually takes place.
        Many IOC members have expressed concerns that the outside world,
    including this subcommittee and this Congress, has no business
    involving itself in the IOC's affairs. I must respectfully disagree.
    The IOC may own the rights to the Olympic rings and other symbols, but
    the Olympic Games themselves are bigger than any one person or any one
    group. They belong to the people of the world, from the athletes that
    devote their lives to excelling in a sport to the spectators who stand
    in awe of their accomplishments. The Olympic Family does not consist of
    just the IOC and its membership, and that is something the current IOC
    membership has, to date, failed to recognize. The entire Olympic Family
    deserves nothing less than the knowledge that the Games, and all events
    surrounding the Games are conducted in a free, open, and fair manner.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Burr.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank you for holding this important hearing, and I want to
    welcome all of our distinguished guests that are going to be
    appearing before us today.
        Fifteen years ago, my hometown of Los Angeles hosted the
    23rd Summer Olympics. It was a proud moment both for the people
    of Los Angeles and for the entire country. The success of the
    1984 Olympics was an accomplishment that we are still proud of
    today in Los Angeles.
        Unfortunately, the reputation of the Olympics in 1999 is
    very different from what it was in 1984. That is why I believe
    that the United States and, in particular, the U.S. Congress
    has an obligation to try to clean up the Olympics.
        In April, I introduced legislation to prohibit American
    corporations, including the television networks, from providing
    any financial support to the IOC until it instituted the
    reforms proposed by Senator Mitchell's commission. It was a
    tough bill, a controversial one, but a necessary piece of
    legislation. It was also a bill with bipartisan support from
    members with very different political views.
        Now that the reforms have been adopted, some people believe
    that the U.S. Congress should step aside. I disagree. Congress
    can and should play a role in ensuring that these reforms are
    actually implemented and that they are effective. If this does
    not happen, Congress should move forward with sanctions like
    those envisioned in my bill. It is easy when you are under a
    lot of pressure to take some actions that appear to be doing
    the right thing, and then, when the world is not paying
    attention, to ignore those very rules.
        In my opinion, there are several important issues that
    still need to be addressed.
        First, are these reforms enough? Does more need to be done
    to ensure that the problems that occurred in Salt Lake City and
    Atlanta do not occur again? I am especially interested in
    hearing Senator Mitchell's views on this topic.
        Second, how will these reforms be enforced? For a long time
    the IOC has had rules against gift giving, rules which were
    regularly disregarded. I have great faith in Senator Baker and
    know that he will do his utmost to enforce the new rules
    adopted this past weekend. But I also know that the culture of
    gift giving and perks that existed for years cannot be
    eliminated overnight, and it certainly cannot be eliminated by
    one person, even if that person is Howard Baker, unless he has
    the complete support of the rest of the IOC.
        Finally, merely changing a few rules does not mean we are
    going to solve the problem. After all, it is easy to rewrite
    rules. It is much harder to change attitudes and behaviors,
    particularly when they are so ingrained in the fabric of an
    organization. That is the real challenge facing the IOC in the
    coming months. Without a genuine change in attitude, no amount
    of enforcement will be enough.
        When I read the press coverage of this weekend's meeting, I
    was struck by the reaction of several IOC members to the reform
    package. An Italian IOC member said, ``Our vote was mostly a
    vote of confidence for Samaranch. Many, many people were
    against some of the proposals. But we decided almost
    unanimously that we would support the President.'' To be honest
    with you, that does not sound like someone who believes in the
    importance of reform.
        Even more incredible is a comment from a Pakistani member,
    who said that bid cities used ``Satanic''--that is his word,
    ``Satanic''--methods to prey upon IOC members. This IOC member
    also said that the IOC was ``unnecessarily suffering from a
    guilt complex.'' Clearly, this is another IOC member who does
    not get it.
        Reading these comments does not inspire a great deal of
    confidence in me that the IOC problems will be solved
    overnight. I hope that the witnesses today will give us some
    reason to feel confident.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I, too, want to welcome the distinguished President of the
    International Olympic Committee to this subcommittee hearing. I
    have great admiration for many of the innovations that you have
    instigated during your tenure as president since 1980. I think
    it is only fair that you get the credit for the good things,
    but I think it is also fair that you get the accountability for
    the bad things.
        I have a written statement, Mr. Chairman, I am going to put
    in the record. And, as Mr. Burr, I am just going to kind of
    outline what my questions will be.
        I think the first question I am going to ask when it is my
    appropriate turn is why, of the reforms that have been
    implemented, apparently none of them apply to the office of the
    presidency? As I understand it, even if these reforms are fully
    implemented and enforced, you would be able to travel at host
    city expense; you would be able, or whoever the president
    happens to be, would be able to receive gifts; all the things
    that have caused consternation as they have been reported in
    the United States. If you or whoever becomes president were to
    continue those activities, it would be acceptable. I just
    cannot believe that that would meet with much support if the
    rank and file of the Olympic movement knew that.
        Second thing I am going to ask is why it is necessary for
    the Olympic committee to maintain a luxury suite at the Palace
    Hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland, for your personal use, your
    private use, apparently your exclusive use on a year-round
    basis. We have not been able to determine exactly how much that
    costs, but the estimates range from $100,000 to $300,000 a
    year. I do not see how that furthers the Olympic movement
    myself, but perhaps you can explain that to us.
        We would also like to know how it furthers the Olympic
    movement that apparently you feel it is appropriate for your
    family, specifically your wife, to travel at potential host
    city expense all over the globe, and in the case of the Atlanta
    host city at a cost of at least $13,000. And that is exclusive
    of hotel rooms, meals, and shopping excursions. And according
    to documents that the committee has, we are told that she did
    not want to be bothered with looking at the venue, that she
    really liked the high society and to go shopping.
        I have a wife, too. She likes high society, she likes to go
    shopping, but when she goes shopping, I pay for it. The
    potential host city does not pay for it or some committee.
        So those are some of the questions that I am going to be
    asking.
        Quite frankly, I think it is well-known that I have asked
    that you resign. I would like for you to announce today that
    you will resign. I think you have done many good things, but I
    do not think that the good things you have done overwhelm the
    bad practices that have developed, and I think it is time for
    some new blood and some new leadership, and this would be a
    great venue for you to be a true statesman of sport and
    announce that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress
                            from the State of Texas
        Today's hearing is the second time we, as a Subcommittee, have come
    together to discuss the process in which potential sites for Olympic
    Games are considered, reviewed and chosen by the International Olympic
    Committee, IOC. As we all know, we last met here on October 14th of
    this year in response to the widespread media reports of corruption and
    abuse of power involved in this process. Our last hearing attempted to
    highlight some of the problems involved in this process and, hopefully,
    bring about substantial and meaningful reform within the IOC. Today's
    hearing is to review what efforts have been taken. It should come as no
    surprise to anyone present today that I feel that the reform efforts
    taken thus far by the IOC are not sufficient and the environment for
    potential unethical conduct is still quite evident. In fact, it has
    become obvious to me that true reform of the Olympic site selection
    process will be difficult to enforce until a change in leadership of
    the IOC occurs so that someone with a fresh outlook and impartial voice
    can attempt to address these concerns.
        I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, specifically
    current president of the IOC, Juan Antonio Samaranch. It is with his
    actions that I personally am most concerned. Mr. Samaranch has been
    quite vocal recently as to the ``sweeping'' reforms he has spearheaded
    in the IOC. However, these recent actions and sound clips by Mr.
    Samaranch may be misleading. During his 19 years in office, many
    questionable actions have occurred by he and other members of IOC
    throughout the site selection process. It is alleged that for many
    years, members were accepting lavish gifts and trips from potential
    site cities, both solicited and unsolicited. In most cases, these items
    were viewed by potential cities as a must in order to secure votes by
    IOC members. It is the opinion of some that President Samaranch knew
    this was occurring and did nothing to stop it because he, too, may have
    been benefitting from and soliciting such actions.
        The IOC is a non profit organization. Why does the IOC have
    overhead costs 3 to 4 times higher than other non-profit organizations?
    Why do proposed reforms of the IOC selection process not appear to
    apply to President Samaranch himself? Why should he be provided a hotel
    suite, year-round, in Switzerland with the hefty cost of over $100,000
    per year paid for by funds from the IOC? In what official capacity did
    his wife and family friend serve when they accepted an all expenses
    paid trip to Atlanta, Charleston and Orlando? How does his influence
    over the Executive Committee and other IOC members affect any attempts
    of impartial investigating by the Ethics Commission? Are there any
    limitations as to the number of times IOC policy can be altered, such
    as the maximum age of IOC serving members for example, to personally
    benefit his standing in the organization?
        These are just a few of many questions that raise serious concerns
    with me as to the ability of Mr. Samaranch to effectively serve as
    President of the IOC. I feel that it would be beneficial that Mr.
    Samaranch resign so that any reform efforts established by the IOC will
    be able to be independent in nature, clear in direction and fresh in
    its outlook. Until a change in leadership exists, I am concerned that
    it will be very difficult to ensure that any reform proposals will be
    taken seriously and feel that is safe to say that the temptation for
    members to continue such unethical practices may continue to occur
    throughout the IOC.
        I appreciate Chairman Upton holding this follow-up hearing and am
    looking forward to hearing the testimony of all the witnesses gathered
    here today.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Barton.
        Mr. Bryant, from Tennessee.
        Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate, as
    everyone here on this panel does today, you holding a follow-up
    hearing on this important issue. I especially want to thank all
    of our distinguished witnesses, not only this panel but the
    panels to come.
        I am confident today that the panels we will hear from will
    provide the members of this subcommittee as well as the
    supporters of the Olympic Games around the world a new
    perspective on the culture of the IOC and its dedication to
    achieving much needed reform. I was pleased to see in the news
    over the weekend that the IOC had taken several important steps
    toward restoring the public's faith in the sanctity of the
    games.
        As a result of the 2-day meeting of all the IOC members,
    the committee expelled six members, and four others resigned
    after they were accused of breaking rules on accepting gifts
    from representatives of the Salt Lake City team during its
    successful bid for the 2002 Winter Games.
        Among the reforms that I have made reference to, that you
    have agreed to over this weekend, was a proposal to make
    members face reelection every 8 years, thus eliminating the
    unchecked power and influence associated with lifetime
    appointments.
        The session also voted to allow future presidents to be
    elected for an 8-year term, with a right to stand for a further
    4 years, and agreed to add 15 active athletes to the committee.
    I hope that these athletes testifying today will provide us
    with their comments on the benefits of this last change in
    particular.
        Mr. Chairman, I agree with Dr. Kissinger that the IOC, had
    they not taken these steps, would have faced a crisis of public
    confidence sooner or later. However, I also concur with former
    President Reagan's belief that we should trust but verify.
        At our last hearing we were informed that rules were
    already in place limiting the ability of IOC members to receive
    gifts. For example, under the IOC rules, gifts of a value
    exceeding $200 are not permitted and that candidate cities
    shall not organize individual receptions for IOC members. Yet
    King and Spalding, the Atlanta law firm that is involved in
    this, has clearly documented gifts such as cameras, a shotgun
    and a bowl with values ranging from $250 to $1,000. My question
    would be, what assurances do we now have that these new rules
    will actually be carried out and enforced?
        I will also appreciate hearing from the distinguished IOC
    president what assurances he can give the members of this
    subcommittee that our United States cities will not be denied
    future site consideration as retribution for its role in
    calling for reform. These are important questions, and it is
    vital we do not leave here today congratulating the IOC for
    supporting reform without some indication that these changes
    are put into practice and not simply promised.
        Again, I appreciate your presence here to testify. I
    appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your holding this hearing, and I look
    forward to listening to today's testimony, and I would yield
    back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Ed Bryant follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Hon. Ed Bryant, a Representative in Congress from
                             the State of Tennessee
        Thank you Mr. Chairman:
        I appreciate your holding a follow-up hearing on this important
    issue, and I especially want to welcome all of our distinguished
    witnesses. I am confident that the panels we will hear from today will
    provide the members of this subcommittee, as well as supporters of the
    Olympic games around the world, a new perspective on the culture of the
    International Olympic Committee and its dedication to achieving much
    needed reform.
        I was pleased to see in the news over the weekend that the IOC has
    taken several important steps toward restoring the public's faith in
    the sanctity of the games. As a result of the two-day meeting of all
    IOC members, the Committee expelled six members and four others
    resigned after they were accused of breaking rules on accepting gifts
    from representatives of Salt Lake City during its successful bid for
    the 2002 Winter Games.
        Among the reforms agreed was a proposal to make members face re-
    election every eight years, thus eliminating the unchecked power and
    influence associated with lifetime appointments. The session also voted
    to allow future presidents to be elected for an eight-year term with
    the right to stand for a further four years and agreed to add 15 active
    athletes to the committee. I hope the athletes testifying here today
    will provide us with their comments on the benefits of this last
    change.
        Mr. Chairman, I agree with Dr. Kissinger that had the IOC not taken
    these steps, they would have faced a crisis of public confidence sooner
    or later. However, I also concur with former President Reagan's belief
    that we should trust but verify.
        At our last hearing we were informed that rules were already in
    place limiting the ability of IOC members to receive gifts. For
    example, under IOC rules ``Gifts of a value exceeding $200 are not
    permitted'' and the candidate cities ``shall not organize individual
    receptions for IOC members,'' yet King and Spalding clearly documented
    gifts such as cameras, a shotgun, and a bowl with values ranging from
    $250 to $1000. What assurances do we have that the new rules will
    actually be carried out and enforced? I would also appreciate hearing
    from IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch what assurances he can give
    the members of this subcommittee that US cities will not be denied
    future site consideration as retribution for its role in calling for
    reform. These are important questions, and it is vital that we do not
    leave here today congratulating the IOC for supporting reform without
    some indication that these changes are put into practice and not simply
    promised.
        Again, I appreciate your holding this hearing Mr. Chairman. I look
    forward to listening to today's testimony and yield back the balance of
    my time.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Bryant.
        [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
     Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        This is the second hearing that the Committee has held on the
    International Olympic Committee's (``IOC'') site selection process. We
    learned at the first hearing that the various parts of the scandal were
    evident for more than 10 years before the shameful events involving
    Salt Lake City exploded across the world stage. Consequently, at this
    hearing we will be reviewing what reforms and more importantly what
    enforcement will be necessary to ensure that the abuses and excesses
    that developed within the site selection process will not occur again.
        The Olympics represent the highest of ideals. Unfortunately, the
    fundamental principles of the Olympic Movement have been tarnished by
    these scandals. Therefore, it is critical that the reforms we will
    learn about today are aggressively implemented and enforced. If it were
    not for the effort and hard work of both this Committee and the
    Americans sitting in this room today, the IOC reform effort would not
    be a reality. Senator Mitchell investigated the Salt Lake City scandal
    and produced a comprehensive report recommending extensive reforms for
    both the USOC and the IOC. We are very pleased to have Senator Mitchell
    with us today to give his assessment of the reforms that have just been
    passed by the IOC last weekend. Senator Baker is a member of the IOC
    Ethics Commission. We are very lucky to have someone with his
    experience and integrity working to ensure that a meaningful framework
    is developed and maintained to implement the ethical standards that the
    Ethics Commission recently has adopted. Finally, Dr. Kissinger
    testified at our first hearing regarding his work on the IOC 2000
    Commission. He is returning today to give the Committee a status report
    of the reform process and an analysis of those reforms just passed. We
    welcome all of you and certainly thank you for your work.
        This past weekend the IOC passed a number of reforms that are
    intended to restore the ideals of the Olympic Movement. I am hopeful
    that the necessary changes can be realized. But this will only be
    achieved with true commitment to reform. I thank the Chairman for
    holding this hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of our
    witnesses.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Klink, a Representative in Congress from
                           the State of Pennsylvania
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this hearing.
        This weekend the IOC made partial payment on a promise it made
    months ago. In the extraordinary session held on December 11th and
    12th, the IOC passed a series of reforms. I applaud them for making
    that first step. But while there are those that say the IOC is now
    ``reformed,'' I believe a more accurate description is that the IOC has
    begun a ``Process'' of ``reforming.'' The IOC's reform is not complete
    because certain areas still need considerable work.
        Mr. Chairman, to understand why last weekend's reforms are but a
    beginning and not an end, one must first understand the mindset from
    which this organization must reform. For more than a decade, warnings
    had been issued suggesting serious problems existed within the IOC. In
    fact, as far back as the mid 1980's, the press reported on a culture of
    excessive gift giving in connection with the efforts made by bidding
    cities to win the right to host the games. For example in 1986, Sports
    Illustrated made the following observation:
            ``The tactics of Olympic bidders vary somewhat, but they are
            never very subtle. The most popular strategy is simply to
            shower everyone on the IOC with gifts, trips and parties . . .
            No city did better in this area than Paris. Whenever an IOC
            member felt the need to vacation in Paris for a while, he was
            instantly sent airline tickets and given a free room in the
            elegant Hotel de Crillon, as well as reserved tables at Maxim's
            or Tour D'Argent with the bill paid in advance. Members
            traveled everywhere in limousines, sometimes with a police
            escort, and they were given perfume, raincoats, jogging suits
            and discounts at some of Paris's finest shops.''
        Perhaps the IOC could have argued that evidence such as this was
    too vague; that it was only what the press was saying, or that nobody
    directly affiliated with the games had made such allegations. But a
    1991 report given to the IOC by the Toronto Ontario Olympic Council
    (whose bid to host the Olympics was unsuccessful) provided additional
    and seemingly credible evidence that should have raised red flags. To
    quote from that report:
            ``No single issue is so open to abuse as gifts and other
            material inducements to individual IOC members. Perhaps no
            single issue has the power to undermine the integrity of the
            IOC as this particular one. Unfortunately, many IOC members
            expect to receive gifts above and beyond what anyone would
            judge to be courteous and gracious. Cash, jewelry or other
            items easily converted to cash, were hinted at on several
            occasions. We were surprised to discover on more than one
            shopping trip that the bid city host was expected to pay for
            all the purchases made by not only the member, but the guest as
            well.
        In yet another section of the Toronto Ontario Olympic Council
    report, this time involving the issue of IOC member travel, other
    abuses were illustrated and presented to the IOC:
            ``The most blatant abuses were the misappropriation of travel
            expenses and airline tickets or passes advanced by [Toronto] to
            IOC Members. Our personal observations suggest that at least 18
            Members and their companions materially benefitted [sic] from
            one or other of the following devices:
        --obtaining airline tickets from local sources at sometimes
                discounted prices and demanding hard currency in return for
                the unused first class passes received from [Toronto];
        --obtaining combination airline tickets to several bid Cities on a
                single trip and demanding cash equal to return first class
                tickets between their countries and each bid City;
        --demanding and receiving full fare tickets, failing to arrive, and
                cashing in those tickets;
        --coupling a trip paid by a bid City with a trip to a Session paid
                by the IOC and converting the City's passes to cash.
            It is our estimate that all of the forgoing abuses associated
            with IOC Member visits may have cost [Toronto] some $700,000 to
            $800,000.''
        Those were serious allegations, Mr. Chairman, made almost 10 years
    ago by a seemingly credible source. But as with other evidence, it
    appears that much of this information was either outright ignored, or
    management was incapable of using it to determine if key reforms were
    needed.
        Equally troubling, this attitude appears to have persisted even
    into this year. After this Subcommittee began to expose the
    questionable behavior by some IOC officials connected with Atlanta's
    bid to host the games, the IOC again became defensive. Rather than
    acknowledging some immediate responsibility for the problems that were
    increasingly becoming evident with Atlanta's bid, an IOC spokesperson
    said the following:
            ``Everything that we have read shows that Atlanta actually
            pushed those favors and gifts onto the IOC members under the
            pretext of friendship . . . The members weren't used to this
            systematic approach to lobbying.''
        Incredibly, this statement was made even after the revelations of
    Salt Lake City suggested that such practices had been widespread for
    years.
        It is important to remind ourselves of this troubling fact-pattern,
    because if the IOC is serious about reform, it must move beyond a hear
    no evil see no evil. speak no evil style of governance. But so far, Mr.
    Chairman, I see no clear evidence that the IOC has implemented a system
    capable of doing this.
        To be fair, the IOC has created an ethics commission that is
    supposed to assume this role. But details remain vague on how this
    commission will function and what role it will play in preventing
    future corruption. At the very least, we should know the following:

    (1) What specific authorities will this commission have to investigate
            potential wrongdoing? Can it compel testimony from all IOC
            officials, for example? What happens if such parties refuse to
            testify, or they provide misleading or wrongful testimony?
    (2) What is the commission's jurisdiction regarding activities
            connected with IOC business, and what is the time period during
            which this commission can investigate potential wrongdoing?
            Press stories have suggested it can only investigate events
            occurring after January 1, 2000. Other reports say the
            commission can look at events before this date. Which is it?
    (3) How will allegations be reported to the commission for possible
            investigation? For example, will the commission be allowed to
            initiate investigations based on information reported in the
            press? Will the commission be allowed to initiate
            investigations from anonymous sources? Will it have a hotline?
            If so, who will staff it, and in what languages will it
            operate?
    (4) Will the ethics commission develop a compliance manual with
            unambiguous and detailed rules all IOC officials must follow?
            Will each IOC official receive training on both the purpose and
            the definition of such rules?
    (5) Finally, what resources will the ethics commission have to carry
            out its mandate? Will it have large enough staff to do the
            daily work? So far, there are a number of prominent figures
            associated with the commission that meet from time to time--all
            very bright. But I don't envision Senator Baker or Judge Keba
            Mbaye answering a hotline or personally conducting an inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, it is critical to recognize that none of the reforms
    voted on last weekend were designed to detect and sanction the sorts of
    ethical lapses that have so undermined the credibility of the IOC. That
    effort remains the task of the ethics program. But because details have
    yet to be defined, this important reform remains incomplete. Simply
    put, as long as this commission remains a ``work in progress,'' the IOC
    should not be considered ``reformed.''
        Mr. Chairman, an ugly storm has engulfed the IOC over the past
    year. Yet through the efforts of many, the IOC has made progress toward
    meaningful reform. Nevertheless, significant work remains. And while I
    want to acknowledge the efforts of the many who have contributed to
    this effort--in particular the efforts of three distinguished
    gentleman, Senator Mitchell, Senator Baker, and Dr. Kissinger--we
    should not let our guard down until this job is complete. As an old but
    useful saying goes, ``You may trust in God, but always tie your
    camel.''
        I welcome the witnesses before us today and I greatly look forward
    to their testimony on the progress the IOC is making toward reform. But
    because there remains considerable work ahead, and because some of the
    most important reforms remain incomplete, I'll continue to keep my
    camel tethered.
        With that, I yield back.

        Mr. Upton. I have a few housekeeping things that I need to
    do before we get started with testimony from Mr. Samaranch.
        First of all, I need to ask unanimous consent that in the
    first round we will not have a 5-minute question period but 10.
    So is there any objection to a 10-minute question period?
        Hearing none, that will be the case.
        Second, Mr. Samaranch, you may be aware that this
    subcommittee is in fact an investigative subcommittee and, as
    such, we have always had the practice of taking testimony under
    oath. Do you have any objection to testifying under oath?
        Mr. Samaranch. No.
        Mr. Upton. Also, under the Rules of the House and the
    committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel. Do you
    desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today?
        Mr. Samaranch. Yes, I am.
        Mr. Upton. If you and your counsel then would rise and
    raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. You are now under oath. We recognize
    you.
        I want to make sure that you are aware that your entire
    statement will be made part of the record, and we now would
    like to listen to your opening statement. You may begin. Thank
    you.

     TESTIMONY OF JUAN ANTONIO SAMARANCH, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL
     OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANCOIS CARRARD, DIRECTOR
       GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, COUNSEL TO MR.
                               SAMARANCH

        Mr. Samaranch. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
    thank you for giving the International Olympic Committee and
    its president an opportunity to address our crisis and our
    subsequent efforts. I would like to summarize what happened,
    what we did, where we are now, and, finally, where we intend to
    go.
        What happened? A little more than 1 year ago the
    International Olympic Committee had for the first time evidence
    of misconduct by some of its members. Yes, there had been many,
    many rumors. Yes, there were many allegations in the media. But
    every time we tried to get proof, nothing that could have
    initiated an inquiry was ever produced.
        The simple fact is that, as the financial stakes become
    higher and higher, leading the cities bidding to hold the games
    become more and more aggressive, and also some of our members--
    and I would like to say all volunteers and independent--become
    vulnerable and misbehaved. This happened and was revealed in
    the occasion of the bid of Salt Lake City.
        What did we do? We immediately ordered a full-scale
    investigation run by an ad hoc commission chaired by our first
    vice-president, Mr. Dick Pound, who is here with me. The ad hoc
    commission immediately set to work in full coordination with
    Salt Lake City.
        Also, all of the cities, bidding cities for many games,
    more than 30, we asked them for a report. Within 3 months,
    regarding Salt Lake City, without any coercive authority, the
    ad hoc commission ended its work, which led to the departure of
    10 IOC members--6 were expelled and 4 resigned, 1 had passed
    away--plus severe sanctions for other members. But we did not
    stop here, as we were committed to turning this crisis, a very
    important crisis, into a positive side.
        Extraordinary session in March, 1999. This session was the
    first session of the International Olympic Committee after the
    crisis. And at the beginning of this very important session,
    because in the session they had to study the possibility to
    expel some members, I thought myself, as president of the
    International Olympic Committee, that I had a great
    responsibility. For this reason, at the very beginning of the
    session, I asked all the members for a vote of confidence.
        As you know, I was elected by the members of the
    International Olympic Committee in 1980 in Moscow. My first
    responsibility is to the IOC members. I left the hall, the
    meeting room. The vice president took the Chair. He organized a
    secret ballot regarding if the members held confidence in me or
    not. The result was stunning even for me: Eighty-six members
    voted in favor, with 2 against and 1 abstaining.
        This vote--the result of this vote was really very
    important for me. Because I realized that the members of the
    International Olympic Committee were not only confirming me as
    president of the International Olympic Committee, they were
    telling me directly, ``You are the man to run this crisis. You
    have the experience, you have our support, and you, with all
    the people that run with you, with the support of the IOC, the
    staff of the International Olympic Committee, we think you can
    solve this crisis before the end of this year.''
        But we did many other things in this session in March. We
    published publicly the accounts audited by PriceWaterhouse
    Coopers, and today you can see this account in our website, the
    website of the International Olympic Committee. Because we
    thought that the main problem of the IOC regarding bidding
    cities was the visit of the members and we had an election for
    the Winter Games in 2006, we canceled the visits. And the
    system, for me, worked very well. And in this session in March
    in Seoul, Torino, Italy, was elected as the city who will have
    the honor and also the responsibility to organize the games in
    2006.
        And we established a new Ethics Commission consisting of a
    majority of independent external personalities like Senator
    Baker, who is with us today. But we established also the IOC
    2000 Reform Commission that was comprised by 50 percent of
    members outside the IOC and 50 percent of members of the
    International Olympic Committee. As you know, there were around
    80 members.
        Among the members outside the IOC, there were many
    important personalities in the world like Dr. Kissinger, Mr.
    Ebersol, Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, Mr. Peter Ueberroth, Paul
    Allaire, Mr. Agnelli, Mr. Stoltenberg, a very important man, a
    former foreign minister of Norway.
        Also, we studied carefully the Mitchell report. And I flew
    to London, and I met with Senator Mitchell and also Mr.
    Duberstein. That meeting for us was very positive, very
    positive. And I would like to say also that the report of
    Senator Mitchell was a guide to us for the future reforms. I
    would like, before you, to thank Senator Mitchell and also Mr.
    Duberstein.
        The second important step was done in Seoul, the second
    session of the IOC this year. A code of ethics was approved.
    And for the first time in the long history of the International
    Olympic Committee, we opened the session to the media through a
    television circuit. And I think the media now they can follow
    all the details of our meetings.
        Also, during the summer, there were many meetings of the
    IOC 2000 Commission's Working Groups until late October, when
    this IOC 2000 Commission presented the 50 recommendations.
    During this time, also, I spoke with many members of the
    International Olympic Committee, because the most important of
    this stage was that many members had to give up many of their
    powers, many of the advantages they had as members of the
    International Olympic Committee. And I think during these
    meetings with the IOC members, we convinced them it was time
    for change.
        Finally, the third session of the International Olympic
    Committee this year, normally we have only one, was last
    weekend, 11 and 12 December, in Lausanne, where we have the
    headquarters of the International Olympic Committee.
        What we will do. We approved many things, and many of these
    things already are implemented. The new nomination of the
    International Olympic Committee, to be a member, will be
    totally different. Sports organizations, like international
    federations, National Olympic Committees as well as athletes
    and other persons have the right to present candidates. New
    nominations will be screened by this screening committee
    composed of 3 members of the IOC, 4 members outside the IOC,
    and 1 athlete.
        In this first step of the nomination committee, the
    proposals will go to the executive board of the International
    Olympic Committee and finally to the session, where they will
    vote by a secret ballot the approval of the admission of new
    members.
        Also, the International Olympic Committee will include in
    physical position 15 representatives from international
    federations, 15 from national Olympic committees, and 15
    athletes chosen by their peers, active athletes. These
    elections have been organized in Atlanta and also in Nagano.
    These elections have been organized with great success. In
    Atlanta, 53 percent of the members, of the athletes, they
    voted. That means around 7,000. And the participation of the
    athletes in Nagano was really much more important, because 60
    percent voted. In Atlanta, they elected seven athletes
    representing the Summer Games, and in Nagano three athletes
    representing the Winter Games.
        Also, during this session in Lausanne last weekend, every
    member, new member or old member, must be reelected every 8
    years. For the new members, we lower the age limit to 70 years.
    This limit vote will have in the future 15 members instead of
    11, and they will reflect the whole membership of the session.
    That means that when we vote we must have representatives of
    international federations, of National Olympic Committees, from
    athletes, and also minimum, minimum, one woman.
        The term of president has been changed. To now, in 105
    years of history, we have had only seven presidents of the
    International Olympic Committee. Our founder, Baron de
    Coubertin, served for 29 years as president. Mr. Avery
    Brundage, from your country, served 20 years, and now I am in
    my 19th year as president. Now, for the next president, will be
    a term of 8 years, plus 4 if he is reelected.
        Also, something that was I was looking for a long, long
    time, we changed the system of election of host cities. There
    will not be more visits of International Olympic Committee
    members to the cities. I think, really, that is not necessary.
    But, also, there will not be visits from the bid cities to the
    IOC members. I think avoiding these visits also we avoid a real
    danger.
        There are other reforms, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to
    emphasize the most important. I would like also to say that
    many of these changes are now, today, in the Olympic Charter--
    now, today, in the Olympic Charter.
        I am going to where we are now. In 1 year, I think we
    worked a lot. Normally, we have one session; we had three
    sessions. Normally, we have four executive board meetings; we
    had eight, and many other meetings. I think we cleaned the
    house, and a fundamental reform package has been adopted.
        Much more for me is much important, because I know you are
    very interested in the athletes, we have already incorporated,
    elected, 10 active athletes as elected by their peers. Seven
    that were in Lausanne were introduced to the session. They sat
    among the members of the International Olympic Committee. In
    the last part of our session, they had the right to speak, they
    had the right to vote. That is the first time that active
    athletes have been members of the International Olympic
    Committee. One of these athletes is coming from the United
    States.
        But besides these active athletes, I would like to say that
    in the International Olympic Committee we have 29 members, 29
    members, that took part in the Olympic Games. That means that
    we have today 39 members of the International Olympic Committee
    that took part in the Olympic Games, and 26 of these members
    gained a medal during the Olympic Games. That means, and some
    of you mentioned the aristocracy in the International Olympic
    Committee, today the aristocracy in the International Olympic
    Committee are the athletes.
        We also are very pleased that the International Olympic
    Committee was touched, we suffered a lot, but the Olympic
    Games, they are not touched. The preparation of the Sydney
    games are going very well.
        Some of you mentioned the whole scandal with the tickets. I
    will say, on a positive side of the scandal, that that means
    that 1 year before the games the Australians are very much
    interested to buy tickets to attend this very important event
    at the Olympic Games. Salt Lake City also suffered from this
    crisis.
        Now we have a new president of the organizing committee,
    Mr. Romney, very good relations with International Olympic
    Committee, and he is doing really, I would like to say, a
    wonderful job. It was not easy for him. But we can assure you
    that today the games in Salt Lake City, they are going the
    right way.
        What do we intend to do from now on? As I said before, most
    of the critical reforms are already implemented and written
    into our Olympic Charter. The inclusion of athletes is done.
    The ban on visits of the bidding cities also. The 8 years fixed
    term for members and the lowering age limit, the limit term for
    the President's mandate and the opening of the session to the
    media all have been done.
        For the other reforms of the--for example, the composition
    of the executive board, they met 1 day after the session, last
    Monday in Lausanne, the executive board, and we began to work.
    And we think that all of the other measures will be implemented
    before or during the games in Sidney next year in September.
    Our goal is to make sure that the world gets with the new
    millennium a totally renovated IOC, younger, modern,
    transparent, accountable, dynamic, worthy of the fundamental
    values of Olympism. That is our goal. And my personal hope is
    to be able to deliver to my successor, in 2001, an
    International Olympic Committee with a fully restored prestige
    and credibility, not only for the best of the Olympic Movement,
    but also for the youth of the world. And for the athletes, we
    have the responsibility.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I can assure you
    that we will deliver what we promise. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Juan Antonio Samaranch follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Juan Antonio Samaranch, President, International
                               Olympic Committee
        Mr. Chairman, on January 24, I promised the IOC would institute
    fundamental reforms. I can now say the IOC has kept its word.
        Once fully implemented, the reforms will result in a fundamentally
    renovated IOC--one that is more transparent, more accountable, and more
    responsive. It will be an institution adapted to contemporary society
    featuring a lower age limit, specific terms of service, 15 active
    athletes elected by their peers as members, more sports leaders
    nominated by their national or international organizations, and new
    processes for electing IOC members and Olympic host cities. We have
    elected 10 active athletes to our membership and banned visits to bid
    cities.
        It is because these changes promise a better future for the Olympic
    Movement that I believe the crisis will go down in history as a
    positive force for the International Olympic Committee.
                      the international olympic committee
        The IOC was established in Paris in 1894 to revive the spirit and
    competition of the Olympic Games of ancient Greece. Since then, the IOC
    has consistently coordinated and supervised the celebration of the
    modern Olympic Games and the growth of the Olympic Movement. In the
    most simple terms, the Olympic Movement is made up of those people who
    agree to uphold the Olympic Charter. Although the Movement consists of
    many partners, most notably the Olympic athletes, the four leading
    constituencies of the Olympic Movement are the international sports
    federations (IFs) that manage sport on a global level, the 200 national
    Olympic committees (NOCs) that coordinate the Olympic Movement within
    their own countries, the IOC, and the athletes.
        The IOC is organized as an association having legal personality
    under Swiss law and is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland. It is
    privately funded and receives no public monies. Its activities and
    relationships are governed by the terms of the Olympic Charter, and it
    has a permanent staff of around 100.
        The IOC's membership includes 113 members from more than 80
    different countries, with different backgrounds, cultures, races, and
    religions. Each member serves as a fully independent trustee of the
    Olympic Movement. This independence is a hallmark of the IOC and has
    allowed the Olympic Movement to survive political pressure inconsistent
    with the Olympic values. While all members are different, their common
    bond is their love of sport. One out of three is an Olympian, as are
    six of the eleven Executive Board members, with four of them being
    Olympic medalists. This love of sport drives them to work as unpaid
    volunteers for the development of sport around the world.
                           role of the ioc president
        Presiding over an organization of 113 unpaid, independent
    volunteers, the IOC President serves principally as a coordinator and
    motivator for the growth of the Olympic Movement and the preservation
    of the Olympic Games.
        As President of the IOC, I too am an unpaid volunteer; however,
    because I work nearly full-time as IOC President, the IOC covers the
    cost of my expenses. I frequently travel to varying sports competitions
    and related events, administrative meetings, and to cities bidding for
    the Games. In many countries, because of the values the Olympic Games
    represent, the IOC is regarded as an important institution, and thus,
    its president is greeted with treatment comparable to a senior
    government official, and sometimes even a head of state.
        Questions have been raised in this Committee whether the IOC
    president is subject to the Hodler guidelines and the IOC ethics codes.
    Every member is equal, however, the IOC president represents and acts
    on behalf of the entire organization and thus receives gifts and
    hospitality on behalf of the organization. I give these gifts to the
    Museum or for display at IOC headquarters. Mainly for this reason, in
    all deliberations over the guidelines, the IOC president was never
    considered to be subject to the limits the IOC set to check the
    behavior of bidding cities toward voting members. This is not
    specifically written, but it is the custom. As President, I have never
    participated in votes for the host city. Likewise, this is not written,
    but it is the practice.
        My wife sometimes accompanies me on my travels, and sometimes
    represents me. With regard to her trip to Atlanta, I had been to
    Atlanta on the occasion of the opening of the bid committee's offices,
    as I happened to be traveling in the U.S. at that time. Officials of
    the Atlanta bid committee asked whether my wife would visit Atlanta,
    expressing to me that they wanted her to see their city first hand.
    Over the next several months, a number of bid committee members wrote
    to my wife, asking her to come. She accepted the invitation and went,
    as a representative of the IOC, as a courtesy.
        My wife accepted the invitation to Atlanta in the spirit in which
    it and so many others have been offered: friendship and hospitality. A
    stranger to Atlanta, she put herself at the bid team's disposal,
    agreeing to participate in an itinerary planned and selected by those
    who knew the city best. She was honored by the enthusiasm generated by
    her visit, and left Atlanta with many friends. Even Vice President Dan
    Quayle wrote to her afterwards, expressing his appreciation for her
    visit.
                        the ioc's choice of host cities
        The selection of the host cities for the Olympic Games and the
    Olympic Winter Games, which was the central issue in this crisis, is
    one of the most important roles and responsibilities of the IOC. The
    Games are, in some respects, the ``engine'' that drives the whole of
    the Olympic Movement and the IOC exercises great care in the selection
    of host cities.
        The selection process for host cities has evolved over the years,
    as we have tried both to be of assistance to candidate cities and, at
    the same time, to be more confident that we have reviewed all relevant
    aspects of the candidature files for purposes of making an informed
    choice from amongst the various candidates.
        For the Atlanta bid, on which this Committee is particularly
    focused, we had six candidates: Athens, Atlanta, Belgrade, Manchester,
    Melbourne and Toronto.
        The report of the IOC Evaluation Commission (which did not, at the
    time, give numerical rankings) nevertheless made it reasonably clear
    that Atlanta had the best overall ranking amongst the six candidates.
    This is not to suggest, however, that other cities would not have been
    capable of staging excellent Games as well, such as Toronto, which
    finished third, or Melbourne, which finished fourth. But it did
    indicate that Atlanta met all the criteria that the IOC considered
    important in a potential host city for the Games.
        The voting, on the occasion of our Session in Tokyo in 1990,
    indicated that the IOC members had quite differing views on the matter
    of where the Centennial Games should be celebrated. One group, which
    might be characterized as conservative or traditional, felt very
    strongly that the Games should return to Athens, where they began in
    1896. This group was convinced, despite the fact that Athens was
    probably not ready, at the time of the election, to host such an
    ambitious project, it would, because of the importance of the Olympic
    Games to Greece, make whatever efforts might be necessary to host
    successful Games. The other group, a significant majority of the
    members, was not so convinced.
        The early rounds of the voting were, therefore, essentially a
    process of choosing the candidate that would eventually go up against
    Athens in the final round of voting. Our system is that an absolute
    majority is required for a decision and, where no such absolute
    majority is obtained, the candidate with the lowest number of votes
    drops off and we proceed with the next round. Atlanta emerged from this
    process and, in the final round, won handily over Athens. The IOC was
    quite satisfied with the process and the eventual winner. Atlanta
    staged exceptional Games for the centenary of the modern Olympic
    Movement and the United States should be proud of that success.
     the relationships between the ioc, its members, the usoc and bidding
                                     cities
        The IOC operates, in a manner akin to governments, by
    ``recognition'' of international sports federations (``IFs'') that
    govern particular sports and of national Olympic committees (``NOCs'')
    that agree to subscribe to and be bound by the provisions of the
    Olympic Charter.
        The responsibilities of NOCs are, inter alia, to promote the
    Olympic Movement within their respective territories and to select the
    athletes from those territories who will participate in the Olympic
    Games.
        In addition, NOCs are responsible for the selection of possible
    candidate cities from within their territories to bid to host the
    Olympic Games. In most circumstances, the NOC will work closely with
    its candidate city to provide advice and counsel at that stage of the
    process, since most candidate cities have no real knowledge of the
    Olympic Movement when they begin the quest. The NOCs are represented on
    any Organizing Committee that is formed, should the candidate city from
    that country be successful in winning the right to host the Games. This
    is a requirement contained in the Olympic Charter, to ensure that the
    Organizing Committees benefit from the knowledge of the sports
    authorities in their country.
        Thus, the USOC selected Atlanta from amongst several U.S. cities
    that wished to be candidates. Our rule is that only one city per
    country may be presented as a candidate to host any particular edition
    of the Games.
        The candidate cities, once they are officially selected by the NOC,
    embark on a process not unlike an election campaign. Each candidate
    city tries to convince as many IOC members (the voters) that it would
    be the best prospective host city for the Games. This involves many
    meetings over the course of the campaign, some of which are formal,
    when presentations are made on the occasion of Olympic gatherings, and
    some of which are informal, whether in groups or one-on-one situations.
    Under the previous system, the candidate cities would try to convince
    IOC members to visit them in order to show them the highlights of the
    cities and the proposed locations of the many Olympic events. Those
    cities not as well known to international audiences thought it was
    vital for the IOC members to make a physical visit, especially when
    other cities with established international reputations are involved.
    The Atlanta bid organizers felt this way because at the time, it was
    not so well known internationally.
        The visits of those IOC members who were willing to travel to bid
    cities were paid for by the bidding committees, as the IOC members are
    not paid to perform their duties. The IOC had become, over time,
    concerned that candidate cities not incur too much expense in their
    activities, since only one would win. It is important to the IOC that
    we have candidate cities for each Games in the future and we did not
    want the costs to be so high that cities would be inhibited from coming
    forward as candidates to host the Olympic Games.
        We took many steps in this regard to reduce the costs incurred by
    candidate cities in that process, many of which were vehemently opposed
    by candidate cities themselves. They considered that they should be
    free to promote themselves in any way they chose and that it was
    paternalistic of the IOC to restrict their activities. In that regard,
    many of the candidate cities considered that the process of obtaining
    the Olympic Games was similar to that of attracting industries or
    corporations to their cities, getting major projects to occur within
    their communities, or competing for franchises, conventions and other
    spectacles. They did not appreciate that normal practices, whether of
    business or governments, used in such circumstances might not be in the
    best interests of the Olympic Movement on a long-term basis.
        But, it was nevertheless the desire of the IOC that expenditures we
    considered to be of no or marginal value in the bid process be
    restricted, in the best interests of the Olympic Movement and all
    candidate cities, present and future. For example, we restricted the
    holding of expensive receptions, the preparation of hugely expensive
    bid books, staging expensive displays around the world on the occasion
    of Olympic meetings and the number and duration of visits by IOC
    members. We also tried to make it clear that the IOC did not want
    candidate cities to spend money on expensive gifts. The rules were not
    intended, beyond this overall objective of reducing the costs of
    Olympic bids, to restrict the day-to-day activities of the candidate
    cities per se in the promotion of their candidacies. I believe we were
    successful in reducing such costs by millions of dollars for each
    candidate city.
                    the growth of the games and the movement
        Looking at the Olympic Games today, it is hard to imagine a time
    when they were unprofitable in a financial sense or even when the very
    future of the Olympic Movement was in question. But this was the case
    not even 20 years ago. The Olympic Movement and the world in which it
    lives have changed since the management of the Games became a
    profitable enterprise so coveted by so many cities. While not yet
    official, perhaps a dozen cities will vie for the honor of hosting the
    Games of the XXIX Olympiad in 2008.
        Much good has been accomplished since the financial success of the
    Olympic Games of Los Angeles. Our Olympic Solidarity program, helping
    turn the Games profit into benefits for the athletes, is stronger than
    ever. NOCs that before could have never dreamed of being able to afford
    to train their athletes along side competitors from wealthier nations
    now do. IFs now have extra funds to improve the administration of world
    sport. Advanced research into doping controls has been commissioned.
    Educational, cultural, environmental, and women in sport programs have
    been and are being advanced throughout the Movement.
        The Olympic Games have grown into the most important sports event
    in the world. This growth and financial success, however, did not come
    without risks, nor did all of our practices keep up with the pace of
    change.
        The result of an old-style structure managing the details involved
    with the modern Games, including the bid city visits, was not
    corruption, but a situation in which some of the less responsible
    members--a small minority--abused the system.
        We ran a system that relied heavily on the expectation that our
    members would act honorably and uphold their Olympic Oath. Without the
    introduction of gains to be had, or members vulnerable to temptation,
    the system was sufficient. The far majority of our members conducted
    themselves in a proper manner in the past, and they still do today. As
    IOC President, I always have trusted the members elected by the
    Session. After all, before being elected to the IOC, many of them had
    been democratically elected to the heads of international and national
    sports organizations or held other respected positions within their
    communities as either senior business executives or high-ranking
    government officials.
        As the temptations rose, our policing of the situations that placed
    people at risk should have increased. We can now see our practices were
    too weak to disallow those among us who could be tempted to accept--and
    unfortunately even demand--excesses. Yes there were rumors, but never
    proof; so with limited knowledge, we took limited action. As mentioned
    earlier, we attempted to place guidelines on what bid cities could do--
    initially to limit their expenditure, and later on, to limit the
    chances for impropriety. We tried to control the aggressive nature the
    bid process was assuming, but the Salt Lake City experience
    demonstrates our actions were insufficient.
        In ours, and for some other long-standing organizations, it took a
    crisis to come to the realization and build the political will to
    affect real change. In the face of this realization, I considered what
    would be the best for the organization--for me to resign, as some
    suggested, or to remain as president. My decision was to put this
    question to a vote of the Session. By secret ballot, the Session voted
    for me to stay in office by a vote of 86-2. I interpreted this vote to
    be a mandate to make the changes necessary to fix the problems. From
    the beginning, I thought good would come from these revelations. This
    nearly unanimous vote steeled my and the Executive Board's
    determination to find the positive outcome of the crisis. That positive
    outcome today is a renewed organization.
                                     reform
        Many of the problems that directly caused the crisis could have
    been taken care of by rooting out the wrongdoers, refining the
    procedure for electing Olympic host cities and by limiting the risk of
    vulnerable members to cross the line. In fact, one of the first steps
    the IOC Executive Board took in reaction to the crisis was to eliminate
    both visits and gifts for the bid for the Olympic Games in 2006.
    However, we realized that this was the moment to review and refresh our
    policies to bring them in line with the demands of contemporary
    society.
    Expulsions and Sanctions
        The revelations that came out of Salt Lake City demonstrated there
    were IOC members among those at fault in the wrongdoing. The IOC took
    responsibility for the behavior of those members and levied the
    harshest of sanctions on them.
        On December 1, 1998, I sent a letter to SLOC asking for more
    information about the allegations that were being reported by the Salt
    Lake City media. On December 11, 1998, the Executive Board created an
    ad hoc commission to investigate credible evidence of wrongdoing in
    relation with the bid. On January 29, 1999, I widened the investigation
    by sending letters of inquiry to all NOCs that had participated in bids
    going back to 1990. We incorporated these findings along with the
    findings of the SLOC investigative committee into our initial
    investigation.
        Immediately after it became clear there were improprieties involved
    with the selection of the host site for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games,
    the Executive Board and I took steps toward organizing an internal
    probe. The IOC was the first to act and the first to report.
        As a result of our investigation, by March 17--less than three
    months after credible evidence emerged--six members were expelled, four
    resigned under pressure, and one had passed away before the beginning
    of the investigation. Ten others were sanctioned with warnings of
    varying degree of severity.
        Expelling six members by a two-third majority vote of their peers
    and leading four others to resign was a most painful moment for the
    International Olympic Committee; yet these actions were resolutely
    endorsed by the membership.
    Transparency
        Once we dealt with these problems, we turned our attention to key
    policy and structural changes. One of the more immediate shifts of
    policy was the IOC's stronger embrace of transparency.
        The IOC had not grasped the desire of the public to know more about
    our internal workings. To the IOC, the Olympic Games were what
    mattered, and we make every effort to ensure everyone can participate
    in the experience, including enforcing a free-TV-only policy for
    broadcasting the Games. Now we understand the public wishes to know
    more about the process which bring them the Games. We have no problem
    with this, it just took time to realize the interest.
        We took several significant steps. Earlier this year, the IOC
    published and posted on the Internet its financial statements audited
    by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Our communications department was
    reorganized to provide a wealth of information to the public, most of
    it available on our web site, www.olympic.org. We opened the IOC 2000
    Commission plenary meetings and the IOC's annual membership meeting,
    the IOC Session, to the media. And, of course, the media was able to
    follow the deliberations over the reforms earlier this week as well.
        Our financial transparency will be enhanced by the publishing of
    additional financial reports that clearly illustrate the flow of the
    sources and uses of IOC revenues. We will disclose the amounts of
    revenues redistributed to the numerous Olympic organizations and
    require those organizations that receive IOC funding to publish similar
    reports on how they use those funds. The IOC has also recommended that
    all NOCs and IFs follow the same disclosure policy.
    Ethics Commission
        The first key change in terms of structural reform was the creation
    of the permanent and independent IOC Ethics Commission. The IOC
    membership voted to create the Ethics Commission at its 108th Session
    in Lausanne in March 1999 and charged it with ensuring the ethical
    standards for IOC members and staff are clear, applied, and enforced.
        The Commission is headed by Judge Keba Mbaye, former vice president
    of the International Court of Justice and an IOC member since 1973. He
    is joined on the Commission by five independent, international
    personalities:

     Robert Badinter, Senator, former president of the French
            Constitutional Court and former French minister of justice;
     Howard Baker, former Senate majority leader and White House
            chief of staff;
     Charmaine Crooks, a five-time Olympian from Canada and an
            elected member to the IOC Athletes Commission.
     Javier Perez de Cuellar, former United Nations secretary
            general; and
     Kurt Furgler, former President of Switzerland.
        IOC members Kevan Gosper, Olympic silver medalist, former chairman
    and CEO of Shell Australia, and former Melbourne city executive, and
    Chiharu Igaya, silver medalist and board member of major corporations
    such as the American Home Assurance Company and American International
    Underwriters, also serve on the Commission.
        The Commission's initial work resulted in the adoption of a code of
    ethics and changes to Rule 25 of the Olympic Charter ``Standards and
    Sanctions'' at the 109th Session in June 1999. The IOC Code of Ethics
    will govern the actions of IOC members and staff, the NOCs, the
    officials of candidate cities, and the organizing committees of the
    Games (OCOGs). Among other provisions, the new Code limits gifts to
    items of nominal value and hospitality to the prevailing customs in the
    host country. The amendments to Rule 25 of the Charter enhanced and
    clarified the powers of the IOC Executive Board to sanction and suspend
    members for unethical behavior.
        After organizing itself and writing the Code, the Ethics Commission
    decided it will hire a Special Representative who will implement,
    monitor, and enforce the Code. This decision was taken following a
    presentation by highly-respected experts in the field of implementing
    ethics programs in a multi-national context. It is a critical area for
    the success of the Ethics Commission, and the details of this
    implementation program are still being worked out. The Ethics
    Commission was advised by experts; in order to be most effective, these
    programs must be developed with deliberate consideration.
        I want to thank Senator Baker for helping the Commission focus its
    efforts in this direction. His ideas will have a lasting, positive
    impact on the IOC.
    IOC 2000
        The results of this weekend's Session provide further fundamental
    changes to the IOC's structure. These come as a result of the hard work
    of the IOC 2000 Commission.
        The IOC 2000, the IOC's reform commission, was established by the
    will of the IOC Session in March 1999 and was given a broad mandate to
    review all facets of the organization, including its structures, rules,
    procedures, and host city selection process.
        IOC 2000's general membership of 82 was led by a 26-member
    Executive Committee, comprised equally of IOC members and external
    personalities. (Of the thirteen external personalities on the Executive
    Committee, five were from the United States.) IOC 2000's plenary
    commission included top leaders of international sports organizations,
    senior business executives, academics, sponsor and television broadcast
    partner representatives, and other internationally known public
    figures.
        Among the members were:

     the ten members of the IOC Athletes Commission, elected by
            their peers during the last Summer and Winter Olympic Games;
     Paul Allaire, chairman, Xerox;
     Giovanni Agnelli, the honorary chairman of Fiat;
     Michel Barnier, European Commissioner;
     Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former UN secretary general;
     Dick Ebersol, chairman, NBC Sports;
     Henry Kissinger, former U.S. secretary of state; and
     Thomas Stoltenberg, former foreign minister of Norway.
        IOC 2000's working groups met throughout the summer to develop the
    list of 50 major recommendations, endorsed by the IOC 2000 plenary
    commission on October 30, and adopted by the IOC membership on December
    11 and 12, 1999.
        The 50 reforms adopted at the 110th Session last weekend mean
    fundamental change.
    New Composition
        The new IOC will have a new makeup of its membership that, when in
    place, will be more reflective of the sports world.
        The key to a good organization is having good individuals within
    it, so the IOC has made improvements as to how it will choose its new
    members. While some recommended that national and international sports
    bodies elect representatives to sit on the IOC, we felt this system
    would add problems as it tried to solve others. The biggest problem
    with this suggestion is that the IOC would then be comprised of members
    wed to external interests rather than the interests of the Olympic
    Movement. Members would be subject to the very political and
    ideological pressures from which the Movement has tried to refrain.
    Under that type of system, I doubt, for example, that the Movement
    would have survived the tensions of the Cold War.
        The IOC has added totally new procedures to the election process.
    First, all Olympic organizations are entitled to nominate people for
    election to the IOC. Second, a nominations committee, consisting of
    three members elected by the IOC, three by the Ethics Commission, and
    one by the athletes commission, will screen the nominations and present
    the qualified ones to the Executive Board. Third, the IOC Executive
    Board is entrusted select candidates from this pool to present to the
    IOC membership for a vote.
        Eventually, the membership will be set at a maximum of 115 members.
    Fifteen will be active Olympic athletes elected at the Games by their
    peers; 15 will be chosen from among the NOC presidents; and, in similar
    fashion, 15 will be chosen from among the Olympic IF presidents. The
    other 70 members will be elected as individuals.
        At the 110th Session, we elected for the first time, 10 active
    athletes to the IOC. These athletes had previously been elected to the
    Athletes' Commission by their peers in Atlanta and Nagano.
        The age limit for incoming members is now set at 70 years. The
    current members are not affected by this change, as it is proper to
    maintain their rights acquired upon their election. Grandfathering
    acquired rights is a time-honored tradition in the United States and is
    one we chose to uphold.
        All members, including current members, will serve for renewable
    terms of eight-years. Members will have to face the reelection process
    above to renew their terms. It is interesting to note that more than
    half of the IOC's membership today has been in office eight years or
    less.
        The IOC's leadership also will be different in the coming years.
    The term of office for the IOC President will be set at eight years
    with a possible four year second term. The Executive Board will be
    enlarged to 15 members to better reflect the new composition of the IOC
    membership. It is my hope and expectation that the IOC will always
    reserve a seat by practice for at least one active athlete.
    New Bid Procedure
        The IOC will now elect its host cities in a substantially different
    way. The Executive Board has been given the new responsibilities and
    powers to better manage this process. A new bid acceptance procedure
    has been established that will review the organizational capacity of
    the interested cities in order to accept them as candidates. The
    obligations of the NOCs to oversee and counsel the bidding committees
    in their countries will be clearly laid out and reinforced. The IOC,
    the accepted candidate cities, and their NOCs will sign a contract
    outlining the obligations of each party, the applicable code of
    conduct, and the sanctions for breach of the terms. Member visits to
    candidate cities have been eliminated, as they were rendered
    unnecessary by the enhancement of the IOC Evaluation Commission. Of
    course, gifts have been limited to nominal value by the Ethics Code.
    Other Reforms
        Along with changes to the IOC's structure and the bid process, the
    Session adopted further enhancements of many other IOC policies. Mr.
    Chairman, I would like to request that the record be kept open to allow
    me to submit when completed the new Olympic charter that will
    incorporate the changes enacted last weekend.
                           fundamental ioc principles
        All of these reforms will improve the IOC without destroying the
    special characteristics that have made the Olympic Movement a worldwide
    phenomenon. The structure and the fundamental principles upon which the
    IOC was founded have been essential elements in the success and growth
    of the Olympic Movement, which has been a force for social good and
    progress, the motivation of the youth of the world and the building of
    a better society through the combination of sport, education and
    culture.
        I want to stress the importance of the autonomy of the Olympic
    Movement, which I consider to be absolutely essential to its growth and
    existence. Matters relating to the governance of sport must be left in
    the hands of the sports authorities. Yet, the sports authorities
    welcome the involvement of the public authorities in the development of
    sport and welcome the opportunity to work in co-operation with them.
    The IOC always has encouraged this co-operation and has worked for many
    years to build up good working relationships with the public
    authorities throughout the world.
        The traditions and stages of development of sport in each country
    are necessarily different. As I understand the development of sport in
    the United States, the government has always supported the Olympic
    Movement and has encouraged the existence of a strong and independent
    USOC. This has been especially true in recent years, following the
    enactment of the Amateur Sports Act in 1978, when the USOC was given
    wide responsibilities and powers for the coordination and advancement
    of the Olympic Movement and amateur sport within the United States. The
    IOC also has supported the activities of the USOC, recognizing its
    special role in your country and the importance of the United States
    within the Olympic Movement. We have made special arrangements with the
    USOC to reflect our understanding of the special role that it plays and
    we have awarded the Olympic Games to the United States on more
    occasions than for any other country. Under my presidency alone the
    Olympic Games were celebrated twice in the United States. This is a
    very important relationship, and I hope that it can be encouraged by
    your government so that the United States can continue to play a major
    role in the Olympic Movement.
                               ioc's appreciation
        Looking back at the reform process, the IOC owes a debt of
    gratitude to the members of IOC 2000--especially the external members--
    who gave so much of their time to help develop the appropriate formula
    for IOC reform.
        The IOC always has valued the input of leading personalities who
    are not affiliated with the Olympic Movement, but never have we
    embraced the contributions of these external personalities to the
    extent we did during the reform process. This was a positive experience
    as these contributions were extremely valuable.
        I also want to recognize the contributions of this Committee and
    those of the Senate Commerce Committee. Our US members, Ms. DeFrantz
    and Mr. Easton, have met with you and your staff during your oversight
    review, and we have received beneficial input from those meetings.
    Thank you for receiving them.
        In addition to the views of the Congressional Committees, the IOC
    gave serious consideration of the recommendations of the United States
    Olympic Committee's Special Bid Oversight Commission, known as the
    Mitchell Commission.
        I would like to thank the Mitchell Commission, especially Senator
    George Mitchell and Mr. Ken Duberstein who met with us and provided
    input on certain areas of IOC reform. In some cases, IOC 2000 may have
    recommended different solutions, but I believe the reforms achieve
    almost all the goals of the Mitchell Commission: terms of service and
    reelection; more transparency, financial disclosure, responsiveness,
    and accountability; conflict of interest protection; changes to the bid
    procedure; and so on.
        An area still unresolved is the recommendation to apply to be
    covered under the statutes of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. As an
    international organization, the IOC wrote to the Organization of
    Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to determine how it could
    be governed by the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public
    Officials in International Business Transactions. The OECD recently
    replied that they would study how the IOC may be able to be covered
    under its conventions even though we are not an international
    governmental body.
        One area where the IOC has gone further that the Mitchell
    Commission recommendations is in the area of visits. While the Mitchell
    Commission recommended restricting them, we simply eliminated them.
        Finally, I would like to thank the people without whom the reforms
    would have never happened: the members of the International Olympic
    Committee. Over the course of this year, the misdeeds of a few have
    colored the reputation of all. The good members of the IOC have
    suffered a steep personal toll. Despite this, they stayed focused on
    the necessary course of action and embraced change.
                                   conclusion
        The work of this year was dedicated to regaining the trust of the
    people. Our comprehensive reform effort has brought forth renewed
    structures and enhanced policies, and we are working on their
    implementation. I realize it will take more than new policies and new
    structures to regain the trust of the people, so I will work during the
    remainder of my tenure to make sure the spirit of the reform effort
    becomes a living part of our culture.
        While the IOC has just completed a reform process that is
    unprecedented in both scope and pace for a 105-year-old, multicultural
    organization, the IOC leadership will continue to work toward regaining
    the public's trust and ensuring the celebration of human effort that is
    the Olympic Games flourishes well into the next Millenium.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal statement. I look forward to
    your questions.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you very much. We want those words to ring
    true, that you will deliver what you promised.
        This little light now is for us, and I have set it at 10
    minutes. I will go first.
        Mr. Samaranch, I am interested in learning how and why the
    culture of excessive gift giving, favors, perks to IOC members
    by bid cities became a normal practice within the bidding
    process. In the words of a very famous Senator, who happens to
    be sitting in the front row, I want to know what did you know
    and when did you know it. When did you personally become aware
    that bid cities were giving excessive gifts and inducements to
    IOC members in violation of IOC rules? And in our last hearing
    we learned that during the 1986 competition between Barcelona
    and Paris, excessive lobbying and gift giving occurred.
        Were you aware that any excessive gifts were given to IOC
    members during that bidding cycle?
        Mr. Samaranch. May I answer?
        Mr. Upton. Yes.
        Mr. Samaranch. The culture of gift giving and also some
    borderline illicit initiatives on the part of members of the
    IOC date back to the Los Angeles games. The Los Angeles games
    were a tremendous success, not only from a sport standpoint,
    but also financially. And this was an achievement by the
    president of the organizing committees of the Los Angeles
    games, Mr. Peter Ueberroth. I believe that the net benefit of
    the Los Angeles games were in excess of $200 million.
        That's how we funded two foundations. One was established
    to assist Californian youth, gearing them toward sports
    activities; and the second through the United States Olympic
    Committee was designed to assist young athletes. After this
    economic success, the cities that would bid for the upcoming
    games became far more aggressive. These cities began to invite
    members of IOC.
        We came to realize that this was risky and we passed a few
    rules. They were called the Hodler Rules. For instance, they
    included the provisions such as that a member of the IOC would
    not be allowed to stay in the same city for more than 3 days,
    that no presents with value in excess of $200 could be received
    by him. But the fact is that these regulations did not produce
    anything. I realize that we have made a mistake, but it was
    very difficult for us to persuade the members of the IOC that
    they could not take part in such visits. And now, perhaps
    thanks to this crisis, we have been able to persuade them.
        As I said in my statement, we heard a great deal of rumors
    and the media has also informed about abnormalities. But
    whenever we become cognizant of some concrete fact such as the
    Toronto report, we officially ask them to name names, members--
    names of members of the IOC who did not have the proper
    behavior. This is not only for Toronto, but also it applies to
    other bidding cities. We can only take action if we have
    concrete evidence. And the first time that we became cognizant
    of concrete evidence was when I received a series of documents,
    copies, from the Salt Lake City organizer; and in these copies
    there were many members of IOC who were involved. That's when
    we set up the ad hoc commission presided over by Mr. Pound, the
    vice president. And I think he took expeditious and fair
    action, as I see it. In these instances we succeeded in
    gathering sufficient intelligence, and that enabled us to expel
    6 members, and 4 additional members resigned.
        Concerning Barcelona and Paris, I would like to address
    that specifically, although I have already done so in my
    statement. I think we made a mistake in failing to take action
    against these visits by the IOC members. But we tried it
    several times, however, and we were unsuccessful. They would
    not be willing to relinquish that right, the members of the
    IOC.
        Mr. Upton. Let me tell you something that concerns me. I
    would like to read parts of the Toronto report that I have
    highlighted. This, for those in the audience, dates back to the
    9th of January, 1991. On page 15, it says, ``No single issue is
    so open to abuse as gifts and other material inducements to
    individual IOC members. Perhaps no single issue has the power
    to undermine the integrity of the IOC as this particular one.''
        On page 19, it goes on to say, ``Other bid cities staged
    functions which clearly were outside the guidelines, yet no IOC
    member suggested to us that he thought that any bid city had
    been acting improperly.''
        And in this report, it also talks about on page 8, ``We
    would be pleased to answer any questions that you might have
    about them,'' meaning this report. Some discussions that
    happened this weekend--at this point I will ask unanimous
    consent that a letter be inserted into the record dated
    December 13, 1999. This is a letter from Bob Helmick, who
    writes--and I will just include parts of this in my statement.
    ``I first received a copy of this report''--meaning the Toronto
    report--``on January 29, 1999, following a conversation with
    Chris Grosskurth of CBC News, Canada, in response to my comment
    that I heard that Paul Henderson with the Toronto committee and
    others had met with certain executives of the IOC in which they
    claimed of the excessiveness of the bid process, certain
    inappropriate actions of the IOC members, and suggestions for
    the IOC to remedy the situation. I do not recall ever having
    seen the report. I am able to confirm that the report had never
    been furnished to me. I was a member of the executive committee
    of the IOC at this time and do recall that in an IOC executive
    committee meeting in 1991 a reference was made to this
    meeting.''
        But he concludes, ``I am not aware of any further
    investigation into the allegations made in this report,'' which
    was almost a decade ago. My concern is that as you talked about
    Los Angeles and the beginning improprieties that were known,
    began to become known in the 1980's and again in the early
    1990's, that when you say you want expeditious action and
    enforcement, that in fact this information has been on your
    doorstep for a long time, and until now nothing was done, which
    stretches our confidence in terms of what can be done with
    these reforms that were announced to be in place this weekend.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                           Dorsey & Whitney LLP
                                                      December 13, 1999
    Committee on Commerce
    United States House of Representatives
    Attn: Jan Faiks, Counsel
    2125 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: Testimony regarding bidding process for Olympic Games

        You have requested a statement regarding my knowledge, if any, of
    the ``Toronto Report,'' namely the document entitled ``Report to the
    International Olympic Committee--9, January, 1991 by the Toronto
    Ontario Olympic Council on the Candidature of The City of Toronto to
    host the Games of XXVIth Olympiad.''
        I first received a copy of this Report on January 29, 1999,
    following a conversation with Chris Grosskurth of CBC News Canada in
    response to my comment that I heard that Paul Henderson, with the
    Toronto Committee and others, had met with certain executives of the
    IOC in which they complained of the excessiveness of the bid process,
    certain inappropriate actions of IOC members, and suggestions for the
    IOC to remedy the situation. I did not recall ever having seen the
    Report.
        Upon receipt of the Report that day by fax, I am able to confirm
    that this Report had never previously been furnished to me. For purpose
    of identification, I have enclosed a copy of the Report I received from
    CBC News Canada.
        I was a member of the Executive Committee of the IOC at this time,
    and do recall that at an IOC Executive Committee meeting in 1991 a
    reference was made to this meeting. We were informed that some
    unsubstantiated claims were made, but nothing was produced that could
    form the basis of confirming the facts or forming the basis of an
    investigation. The details of this matter should be reflected in the
    IOC Executive Committee minutes and, more particularly, the verbatim
    transcript that was made of all Executive Committee meetings.
        I am not aware of any further investigation into the allegations
    made in the Report.
        If this does not fairly respond to your question, please do not
    hesitate to contact me.
                Very truly yours,
                                                      Robert H. Helmick
    Enclosure

        Mr. Samaranch. I have explained this earlier on, but
    concerning Toronto, I would like to reiterate my answer. This
    report was the source of alarm to us. We called Mr. Henderson
    to come to Lausanne and he did so. He had an interview with Mr.
    Hodler, who was in charge of controlling and checking visits by
    IOC members, the bidding cities. And we requested from him
    names, facts. Never did he submit a single name. Had they given
    us a name, we would have been able to take action.
        Concerning, Mr. Chairman, the letter from Mr. Helmick, I
    think it is of dubious value. Mr. Helmick was a member of the
    IOC; in fact, a member of the executive board. He had problems
    in the United States. He had to resign from the presidency of
    the United States Olympic Committee, and also he resigned his
    membership in the International Olympic Committee.
        Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired. If I intend to keep
    this gavel, I will come back. At this point I recognize Ms.
    DeGette.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Samaranch, as you
    see, the red light goes on really fast in this committee. I
    would appreciate it--I have a series of questions to ask you. I
    would appreciate short answers, if possible.
        First of all, as you have heard from members of this panel,
    we are concerned how the IOC will ultimately police itself. We
    are glad the rules are on the books, but the policing will be
    the issue. Now, we understand that the IOC has formed an ethics
    commission which is really a compliance program, but over the
    weekend there was much confusion in the press by IOC members as
    to how this commission will function. So I would like to ask
    you some questions about the powers of the commission.
        First of all, Mr. Samaranch, will the commission be allowed
    to compel testimony from all IOC officials if it believes there
    is wrongdoing?
        Mr. Samaranch. The ethics commission is totally
    independent. I am sure Senator Baker would be in a position to
    provide----
        Ms. DeGette. So you, as president of the IOC, do not now
    whether or not the commission will be allowed to compel
    testimony by subpoena or other means from IOC officials, yes or
    no?
        Mr. Samaranch. To give you a short answer, yes, ma'am.
        Ms. DeGette. You do know?
        Mr. Samaranch. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. And will they be allowed to compel testimony?
        Mr. Samaranch. They are fully independent, and they act as
    they find advisable.
        Ms. DeGette. So is that a yes, that they will be able to
    compel testimony, or an, I don't know whether or not since they
    are independent?
        Mr. Samaranch. As I say again, the ethics commission is
    independent.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Samaranch, will the ethics commission be
    able to compel testimony or not? If you don't know, I will ask
    someone else.
        Mr. Samaranch. I do know, and the answer is yes.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now, do you know how they will
    compel testimony from witnesses? Subpoena, other kinds of
    means?
        Mr. Samaranch. Generally, this consists of a letter
    summoning him before the ethics commission.
        Ms. DeGette. What if the witness does not want to comply
    with the request of the letter? What will happen?
        Mr. Samaranch. The ethics commission will then decide on
    some form of sanction for this member.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Will the ethics commission decide
    what that sanction will be if they don't cooperate?
        Mr. Samaranch. They propose a sanction, and that proposal
    is then ratified by the executive board.
        Ms. DeGette. But the sanction to be proposed would be
    decided by the ethics panel. Correct?
        Mr. Samaranch. Precisely.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Samaranch, who exactly will be allowed to
    make an allegation to the ethics commission?
        Mr. Samaranch. Everyone. Sports organizations, athletes,
    and also private citizens.
        Ms. DeGette. How about the press?
        Mr. Samaranch. Also.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Samaranch, can the special representative
    or the ethics commission begin an inquiry based on an anonymous
    source?
        Mr. Samaranch. Yes. Yes, ma'am. This is part of our
    regulations, and the regulations have been passed.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Samaranch, will there be a detailed set of
    rules or an ethics manual developed so that IOC members will
    know precisely what the rules are that they are required to
    follow?
        Mr. Samaranch. This code will be put together as soon as
    possible. I hope you realize, ma'am, that the ethics commission
    has been working now for the last 3 to 4 months only.
        Ms. DeGette. Yes, I do. Do they have a target date by which
    the code will be completed?
        Mr. Samaranch. Mind you, it is a totally independent----
        Ms. DeGette. I understand that it is independent. Have the
    members told you some date by which they hope to complete the
    code----
        Mr. Samaranch. But you will have an opportunity to ask
    Senator Baker about it.
        Ms. DeGette. When would you like to see it done, Mr.
    Samaranch, as president of the IOC?
        Mr. Samaranch. As soon as possible.
        Ms. DeGette. Do you know, Mr. Samaranch, whether there will
    be a certification process to ensure that all IOC members have
    been taught the rules and fully understand what they mean?
        Mr. Samaranch. As I pointed out, I believe so. But the
    ethics commission still has to complete the drafting of these
    regulations.
        Ms. DeGette. As soon as possible. Mr. Samaranch, I have
    reviewed the IOC rules from over the years. And here is what I
    am concerned about, that we have a very strong certification
    requirement. In 1987, the IOC gift rule said IOC members should
    be limited to documentation relating to a city's candidature,
    and souvenirs, hence gifts, of value are not permitted. In 1988
    the gift rule said that gifts of a value exceeding U.S. $200
    are not permitted. In 1989, similar rules. And it goes on in
    1990. The gift rules that were just promulgated last weekend
    said, ``only gifts of nominal value in accordance with
    prevailing local customs may be given or accepted by the
    Olympic parties.''
        We know, based on our investigations, that the previous
    gift rules were flagrantly violated time and time again for at
    least the Atlanta and Salt Lake City Olympics. We are hearing
    more evidence of flagrant violation in other cases. I would
    like to know why you think the new gift rules just promulgated,
    which admittedly are quite vague, will be obeyed when the
    previous gift rules have never been obeyed.
        Mr. Samaranch. The rules you termed as vague, quite vague,
    I think it was one of the agreements in the ethics commission.
    But that problem is no longer with us. It has disappeared
    completely. No visits, no gifts.
        Ms. DeGette. Well, you see here is the problem, Mr.
    Samaranch. The visits, that's a fairly clear rule. But the
    gifts, gifts were prohibited in the past. And yet we have ample
    evidence that they occurred both in Atlanta and Salt Lake City.
    The new gift rule says only gifts of nominal value in
    accordance with prevailing local customs. What happens if
    someone says a gift of $500, $1,000 U.S. dollars is in
    accordance with U.S. customs? What is to prevent that under
    this new rule adopted by the IOC this weekend?
        Mr. Samaranch. I think gifts were closely connected to
    trips. The article that you referred to would no longer be
    valid today. I would ask--I will have them remove it.
        Ms. DeGette. You will have them remove the gift provision?
        Mr. Samaranch. So since there are no more visits, there
    will be no more danger of gifts. And we are actually willing to
    have the ethics commission rescind that article.
        Ms. DeGette. So what you are saying is you will have the
    ethics commission ban all gifts?
        Mr. Samaranch. As I was saying, there are no visits, no
    more visits, and no more dangers of gifts.
        Ms. DeGette. If there is no more dangers of gifts, why
    don't you just ban them?
        Mr. Samaranch. Precisely. That's what we are going to do.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Burr.
        Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by
    commending Mr. Samaranch for his English, and I appreciate your
    opening statement in English. That was helpful for all of us.
    Let me stay on the subject of the reforms passed by the IOC and
    specifically the ban on visits. The session passed the proposal
    to eliminate visits by IOC members by bidding candidate cities.
    But I am troubled by the wording in the second half of the rule
    change that states, and I quote, ``It is also not considered
    necessary for representatives of candidate cities or third
    parties acting on their behalf to visit IOC members.''
        My question is what specifically does that language mean
    and is it legal, is it ethical, is it appropriate for bid
    cities to visit IOC members outside of that bid city's
    location?
        Mr. Samaranch. During our last meeting in Lausanne, I think
    we did ban. The things we did ban were visits in both ways. IOC
    members no longer are allowed to visit the bidding cities, and
    organizing committees' representatives are not allowed to visit
    the national Olympic Committee in their own country. Based on
    the Olympic Committee investigation procedures for the bidding
    cities, I think all the members will have enough information to
    ascertain whether that or which one is the best city to be
    visited.
        Mr. Burr. Have I by chance misrepresented what the rule of
    the reform says? I will read it again. ``it is also not
    considered necessary for representatives of candidate cities or
    third parties acting on their behalf to visit IOC members.''
        I don't read into that statement a ban.
        Mr. Samaranch. I think you are quite right. Perhaps we
    drafted it incorrectly. But the decision was to ban visits on
    both sides, both censuses.
        Mr. Burr. Let me move on to the substance of the ethics
    commission, if I can, and ask you, Mr. Samaranch, did you
    select the members of the ethics committee?
        Mr. Samaranch. No, we did not, sir. We only had appointed
    or suggested three names that would represent the IOC at the
    ethics board. The other four independent members was thanks to
    some good offices given by Mr. Mbaye with important
    personalities. They are Mr. Badinter, former minister of
    justice of France and former president of the constitutional
    tribunal; Mr. Perez de Cuellar, former secretary general of the
    United Nations; Mr. Furgler, three times president of the
    Helvetic Confederation, Switzerland. And the fourth, Senator
    Baker.
        Mr. Burr. I think you saved the best for last in Senator
    Baker. I would agree with you that the credentials of these
    individuals are impeccable, but I will also point to the IOC
    rule as it related to the ethics commission. It states that the
    members of the ethics commission shall be designated by the
    president and subject to the executive board ratification.
        Did you choose Mr. Mbaye, I believe I correctly pronounced
    his name, to chair the commission?
        Mr. Samaranch. I did not. It was the executive board of the
    IOC that selected him.
        Mr. Burr. Does Mr. Mbaye serve on the executive board?
        Mr. Samaranch. He is the member and also the vice
    president.
        Mr. Burr. And the structure, the ethics commission will
    report any violation to, in fact, the executive board of which
    Mr. Mbaye is the vice president of the board?
        Mr. Samaranch. Yes, precisely.
        Mr. Burr. Should this committee or should the public be
    concerned whether the ethics process can work when the ethics
    committee chairman is in fact the vice president of the board
    that would make a decision on the findings of the ethics
    committee?
        Mr. Samaranch. I think--I don't think so, sir, because the
    sports world is quite familiar with Mr. Mbaye. He was the
    Justice in the Supreme Court of Senegal, his country, and also
    vice president of the International Court of Justice in the
    Hague. I think these credentials are sufficient for us to place
    our trust in him.
        Mr. Burr. Will the ethics committee have the ability to--
    access the bid city and bid city officials for--to conduct
    their investigations?
        Mr. Samaranch. The ethics board is empowered to take action
    and intervene in all matters that pertain to the IOC and other
    organizations that are in contact with them.
        Ms. DeGette. Would you yield for one moment? I am listening
    to this line of questioning, and it seems that you have faith
    in the integrity of the ethics committee based on the
    individual who will be chairing it. And I am wondering what
    happens when he leaves? How can you be sure that someone who is
    also the vice president of the IOC can have that independence
    once the person you trust is gone? Again, this entire system
    seems to be based on personality, not structure.
        Mr. Samaranch. As soon as when he goes, we will have to
    select another to replace him. The graveyards are full of
    indispensable people.
        Mr. Burr. Mr. Samaranch, one of the reforms passed last
    weekend, in fact, lowered the age for an IOC--that an IOC
    member could serve until to 70 years old. The age limit used to
    be 72. In 1995 the age limit was raised to 75. Then in 1997 it
    was raised to 80 years old. When this rule change was made last
    weekend, it grandfathered every current IOC member under the
    age of 80 years old. What is the real purpose of this 70 year
    old age and what is to assure this committee that next time
    when have you a vote the age won't change?
        Mr. Samaranch. Well, I can't give you assurances that rules
    will not be changed in the future, sir. People will come after
    me and these same individuals may be--will change the rules. I
    don't think any organization in the world can have unchanging
    or permanent rules. Could I have the first part of your
    question, sir?
        Mr. Burr. The question dealt with how can we be assured
    that this age does not change? I used the reference of the
    original age of 72 years as the IOC membership began to age
    itself. We saw a change from 72 to 75 to 80, and now we have
    grandfathered every current member.
        My last statement would be in line with the gentlelady, Ms.
    DeGette, and it is where I am headed on this. I think she
    summed it up very well. Mr. President, you said it very well
    that you can't be assured that the next president and the next
    committee vote might not reverse all 50 or 51 changes or all
    changes that you make. The problem that we have is a cultural
    change with the system. Cultural changes are not successfully
    accomplished without the assurances that in the future that
    that foundation that they are established on is solid, that it
    is not just because the political winds, the investigations by
    this committee, or the outrage of athletes around the world.
        I hope that the changes that were voted on last weekend
    will in fact receive the teeth that Senator Baker and his
    colleagues on the ethics commission will in fact have the tools
    to successfully complete their job and to bring the highest of
    integrity back to this International Olympic Committee. I yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Waxman.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling on me.
        Mr. Samaranch, to be a member of the IOC and to be
    president of the IOC is a pretty powerful position. As you
    indicated, the decisions that are made involve very high
    financial stakes. When high financial stakes are on the table,
    I think we want to know that those people that are making those
    decisions are accountable, that they are not going to be
    abusing the power that they have, and they are not going to be
    caught in a conflict of interest.
        It is clear to me that the rules under which the IOC has
    been operating or the failure of rules under which they have
    been operating indicates that you have a broken system and it
    needs to be repaired. You acknowledge that as well. It reminds
    me of our own campaign finance system in the United States,
    which I think is also broken and needs to be changed. We all
    have to be mindful of conflicts of interest and appearances of
    impropriety.
        Mr. Samaranch, I want to ask you today about two such
    conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety. First, I
    understand that allegations have been raised about the manner
    in which NBC obtained the television rights for the next five
    Olympics. An allegation has been made that there is a conflict
    of interest because a senior NBC executive was also an IOC
    member. And moreover, I understand that the IOC accepted NBC's
    bid without even soliciting bids from the other American
    networks.
        And then the other allegation that I want to ask you about
    involves an Olympic museum in Switzerland. I understand that
    you have been very active in obtaining financial support for
    that museum. I also understand that after winning the Olympic
    television contract, NBC made a million dollar donation to the
    museum. And I have to tell you that looks to me like a quid pro
    quo. But even more incredibly, a Japanese corporation gave $20
    million to that museum at the same time that the IOC was
    considering whether to award the 1988 Olympics to Nagano,
    Japan. I would like you to respond to these allegations that
    have been made of possible improprieties, possible conflicts of
    interest.
        Mr. Samaranch. Let me try my hand at answering your
    questions, sir. In the first place, let me say that we are very
    happy with the NBC contract. They have been with us for a long
    time now. They cover, in a very good manner, all of the games
    and as a matter of fact, NBC has a representative at the IOC.
    He is from Israel. I can assure you, though, that this
    gentleman does not take part in any way on negotiations.
        If you so desire, I would be more than happy to explain how
    the negotiations are conducted with television and media.
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch, the appearance is that when a
    highly lucrative television contract is let out to one network
    and the other networks don't even get a chance to come in and
    present to you and your colleagues an opportunity to do as
    well, if not better, and then money is donated by the winner to
    a museum that you have been very involved in, doesn't that
    appear to be a conflict of interest, an impropriety?
        Mr. Samaranch. With NBC, it was to expand the contract they
    already had with us. There were two very important points
    concerning television contracts. One, we want television in the
    open. In other words, no cable or pay-per-view; it would be
    broadcast.
        Mr. Waxman. But you didn't have the bidding in the open; is
    that correct? It was a no-bid contract, nobody else got to
    compete?
        Mr. Samaranch. No. There was no such thing for the people--
    --
        Mr. Waxman. I'm sorry, there was----
        Mr. Samaranch. [continuing] request for bids for the
    renewal. We felt that NBC is a company that deserves our
    confidence and had our confidence.
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch, excuse me. My time is limited,
    as you know.
        You may well be satisfied with NBC, but they got the
    contract without anybody else being able to compete. Then NBC
    gives a million dollars to a museum that you personally care a
    lot about. The other example that I gave you was Nagano wanted
    to get the selection--they get the selection and they give $20
    million to the museum as well. That appears like a conflict.
    Certainly--did you require of them that they make this
    contribution to the museum in order to get television rights or
    in order to be selected for a site of the Olympics?
        Mr. Samaranch. No, I didn't demand anything from NBC. NBC,
    all it did was to persuade sponsoring agencies and companies to
    make a donation to our museum. The museum is not my personal
    initiative. It is the home of the world of sports.
        Mr. Waxman. Have you been asking and soliciting
    contributions to the museum for yourself?
        Mr. Samaranch. I do not----
        Mr. Waxman. I could not hear----
        Mr. Samaranch. [continuing] but many of the sponsoring
    companies have decided to assist us in putting together this
    museum. This is no secret because at the very entrance of the
    museum there is a wall with the names of each of the donors
    inscribed in the bricks.
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch, you are giving us your
    explanations, but you still haven't addressed the fact that it
    appears that there was a conflict of interest. You have the
    power and the IOC has the power to let out the contract for
    television coverage. You don't ask for bids from anyone else
    and then a million dollars goes to this museum. And I don't
    know what else might have gone to anyone else not disclosed.
    The same thing with Nagano. They get the selection, and they
    give their $20 million to this museum. If we are going to have
    a system that is going to meet people's expectations of
    confidence in the integrity of the International Olympic
    Committee and its president, we have got to avoid appearances
    of improprieties. These are clearly appearances of
    improprieties whether you acknowledge that or not. And if you
    don't, it makes me wonder whether you can see what many of us
    are concerned about when we hear about what happened in Salt
    Lake City and also from our last hearing that Atlanta was able
    to win its Olympic bid through the giving of gifts to the
    people who make the decisions.
        Mr. Samaranch. Mr. Congressman, this is my personal
    opinion. My concern--and I am concerned about anything that is
    done sub rosa, but contracts that are closed--are open and in
    the public's view are not of concern to me because it is----
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch, in that regard, are you willing
    to release records dealing with the awarding of the television
    contract and the museum's finances?
        Mr. Samaranch. I will be more than happy to make available
    to you a full list of donors to the museum together with a copy
    of the contract signed by NBC and the IOC.
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch--excuse me, are you finished?
        Mr. Samaranch. For the last Olympic games in Nagano and
    Sidney, we have hired for the negotiations $3.5 billion.
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Samaranch, I don't want to argue with you
    whether you have got your money's worth. My question to you is
    whether we are going to get the records to know how that
    decision was made.
        My time is up, but we are going to have Bonnie Blair
    testify before us later today. She didn't win her gold medal
    because the Olympics were comfortable with her. She didn't have
    to have the IOC approve her. She did it solely on the merits,
    and she competed against others who wanted that gold medal as
    well. But here the IOC gives a contract to one network and the
    others are not even allowed to compete. They weren't even
    allowed to come in and make their case to the powers that be
    why they should have been given the contract and then let you
    see who was the real--who was the best bidder, not the only
    bidder who you thought was doing a good job and deserved your
    support. That to me is what a real competition is all about,
    and the Olympics should be about real competition. And the IOC
    ought to make their decisions based on competition, not
    something that appears to be a conflict of interest and
    impropriety, a sweetheart deal.
        My time is up. If the chairman would like to enable him to
    respond, if he wants to?
        Mr. Samaranch. With my permission, sir, may I add
    something? You have requested documents and if you ask me
    officially I will be glad to make them available to you.
        Mr. Waxman. I am so requesting, thank you.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Samaranch,
    in your opening statement you say that you first became aware
    of some of these improprieties a year ago and you have begun to
    take actions to correct those improprieties. You also agreed to
    testify under oath, so you have sworn that everything that you
    have say is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
    truth. I want to read to you a statement from a Sports
    Illustrated article, I think in February 1999, to get your
    response to that in light of the fact that you just said you
    first became aware of some of these problems a year ago.
        I quote: ``protestations by top level IOC members
    Samaranch, Pound''--and Pound is an IOC member, I believe, from
    Canada who is a vice president--``and other members of the
    executive board that they have had no evidence of malfeasance
    before the stories begin coming out of Salt Lake City are
    nonsense. In 1986 Wolf Lieberg, secretary general of the
    Swedish Olympic Committee, wrote Pound to complain that an IOC
    member had asked for sex from a woman member of the committee
    representing the city of Prolond in its bid for the 1992 winter
    games. Pound reportedly wrote back that while he was
    sympathetic, without a formal request it is very difficult to
    do anything.''
        Were you aware of this letter that Mr. Lieberg sent to your
    committee in 1986?
        Mr. Samaranch. As I said earlier, we can only take action
    at the IOC when we have concrete facts. I read the same thing
    from a Swedish publication. We asked them for names, and they
    did not come up with any.
        Mr. Barton. So the fact that the secretary general of the
    Swedish Olympic Committee sent your committee a formal letter,
    you didn't consider that to be a formal request?
        Mr. Samaranch. The letter that I received contained no
    names.
        Mr. Barton. Did you make any attempt in your office to
    follow up on this letter?
        Mr. Samaranch. We are trying to find out who that member
    might be, but no success.
        Mr. Barton. I see. Let's fast forward to 1991. I have here
    a photocopy report to the International Olympic Committee by
    the Toronto, Ontario, Olympic council on the candidature of the
    city of Toronto to host the games of the 26th Olympiad
    presented to the IOC, Lausanne, January 9, 1991. It is
    approximately 25 pages long.
        Have you ever seen or heard of the Toronto International
    Olympic report? This is in January 1991.
        Mr. Samaranch. At this point, I have no recollection of
    having seen it, but I am sure that I have seen it. And I am
    sure that in that report there are no names.
        Mr. Barton. Ah. So for your esteemed committee to take
    action, you demand the disclosure of names. Even if it is an
    official document of the Canadian committee, that is not
    sufficient?
        Mr. Samaranch. Before we can impose sanctions on anyone, we
    have to know who those sanctions are being imposed to.
        Mr. Barton. I am told that the Canadian Olympic committee
    or government, some body in Canada, kept the documents that
    went into filing this report for about 7 years before they were
    destroyed. Did you ask any of your cracker jack Olympic
    investigators to try to go to Canada to look at those source
    documents?
        Mr. Samaranch. I did not know that the Canadian government
    had that report.
        Mr. Barton. I am not swearing that it was the Canadian
    government, but some documents existed that were maintained in
    Canada by a former body, and the staff says it was the
    government.
        Mr. Upton. If the gentleman would yield, am I right in your
    question to Mr. Samaranch that you asked Mr. Samaranch if he
    was there to receive the report from the Toronto committee?
        Is that correct? Was that your question?
        Mr. Barton. Excuse me, I was----
        Mr. Upton. Was your question to Mr. Samaranch was whether
    Mr. Samaranch was present for the presentation of the report
    from the Toronto----
        Mr. Barton. My question was whether he was aware that this
    report was turned in. The salutation says Your Excellency. I am
    told that Mr. Samaranch requires that he be addressed as Your
    Excellency, so I assume that he was present, but that could be
    a mistake.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Samaranch, was your--you do not recall this
    meeting that may have occurred by the Toronto committee before
    a number of the members of the IOC?
        Mr. Samaranch. The meeting with Mr. Henderson from Toronto
    was held with the person who was in charge of talking to
    bidding cities.
        Mr. Upton. The reason I ask that is the information that we
    had that we have gotten from Mr. Henderson indicated that there
    were a number of members present including Mr. Samaranch and
    Mr. Pound, who I know is sitting behind you.
        Mr. Samaranch. I can't deny that I attended that meeting.
    But again I reiterate that this report names no names and that
    is what really matters as far as we are concerned.
        Mr. Barton. Reclaiming my time, that begs the question. We
    have several documents on the record that were sent officially
    to your organization while you were president and apparently
    your response is if they don't name names, it doesn't count. So
    I guess my next question is, the reason that you decided to
    investigate Salt Lake City and Atlanta is because somebody
    named names?
        Is that what differentiates your actions in the last year
    is because some stalwart investigative reporter began to name
    names?
        Mr. Samaranch. Going back to Toronto, we requested them to
    supply us with names, and they did not do so.
        Mr. Barton. Those are open records kept by the Canadian
    Government and they remained open for at least 7 years. And I
    am told at the staff level no Olympic official has attempted to
    investigate those records, so they may not still be in
    existence. They have been destroyed. But for 7 years they were
    available, and no one at your committee made an attempt to
    investigate. But I want to go on. I only have a limited amount
    of time.
        My next question is, of all these reforms that you have
    supported being implemented, I am told that none apply to you
    or the Office of the Presidency. Why is that?
        Mr. Samaranch. Because I don't think this would be
    necessary.
        Mr. Barton. Oh. What if this subcommittee thought it might
    be necessary? Would you be willing to have them apply to the
    Office of the Presidency?
        Mr. Samaranch. I would be glad to listen and then we will
    review your proposal.
        Mr. Barton. I see. Well, I guess I need to send you a
    formal letter naming names, and I will send such a letter that
    I formally request the International Olympic Committee to apply
    the reforms that they are applying to the IOC members to the
    President, the Office of the President. Would that be explicit
    enough to have you consider it?
        Mr. Samaranch. Particularly if you make specific reference
    to the action or measures to be adopted regarding the
    President, we will be glad to review it.
        Mr. Barton. I appreciate that. Let me ask you about the
    suite of rooms at the Palace Hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland.
    Sports illustrated indicates that that costs the IOC half a
    million dollars a year and that it is for your exclusive use.
        Is that true?
        Mr. Samaranch. No, this is not true.
        Mr. Barton. Okay. What part of that statement is not true?
        Mr. Samaranch. The total you alluded to, the half a million
    dollars. I live in a hotel in the city of Lausanne. I have two
    rooms; one is my bedroom and the other is a small salon. It is
    not very large.
        That costs approximately $250 a day, and days in which I am
    out of town, like today, I pay $70 for them to keep the
    reservation, the room available to me. Let me assure you that
    that is far from being a luxurious suite.
        Mr. Barton. So when Sports Illustrated says, ``demands a
    suite, not just a suite, but the Presidential Suite, the finest
    hotel room in the city, the IOC at a cost of some $500,000 a
    year rents a massive suite that takes up half the top floor of
    the Palace Hotel to house Samaranch when he stays in
    Lausanne,'' that is just an incorrect statement? Sports
    illustrated is wrong?
        Mr. Samaranch. No, it is not that it is wrong, sir; it is a
    lie.
        Mr. Barton. It is a lie.
        Mr. Samaranch. A lie.
        Mr. Barton. If it is a lie, are you willing today to state
    whatever the cost, you will pay it out of your own pocket and
    not charge the IOC? If it is only $250 a day and you only use
    it a few times a year and they can rent it out to other people,
    are you willing to take that upon yourself to pay that cost?
        Mr. Samaranch. I don't think I have a reason to pay for
    that. I am the Chairman of the IOC. I have no payments made to
    me. They cover my expenses, the hotel in Lausanne, and also
    travel expenses when I had to come here to Washington and the
    same thing occurred. I never demand to have a very large suite.
    All I request usually is a bedroom and a room to receive
    people, such as the case of the hotel I am staying in here in
    Washington. That is all I request.
        Mr. Barton. So if we formally request, and again be
    explicit that we name the hotel, you will provide the
    documentation or instruct the IOC accounting department to
    provide the documentation that the statement you just made is
    true, that it is only $250 a day and it is just two small rooms
    and all that?
        Mr. Samaranch. I don't think it will be necessary to
    request that, because you can read it in The Los Angeles Times
    today.
        Mr. Barton. Well, we may want to request it.
        One final question, and then I yield back. Do you maintain
    personal effects in these two small rooms in Lausanne,
    Switzerland, in the Palace Hotel; your clothing and personal
    artifacts that are only yours, that stay there when you are not
    there?
        Mr. Samaranch. As I explained earlier, sir, when I am not
    in town, the IOC pays $70 a day----
        Mr. Barton. That is not--my question is does he maintain
    his personal effects in the suite, even when he is not there?
    Some of his clothing, some of his hygienic supplies,
    photographs of his family, various gifts that have been given
    to him by well-wishers around the world?
        Mr. Samaranch. The answer is yes.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
    from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
        Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. President, thank
    you for coming today to testify. I am going to try to move mine
    right along. I know we have an extremely distinguished panel
    which follows you. I think they can add an awful lot of
    information to where we are today. After sitting here and
    listening to the questioning, I think you have been asked an
    awful lot already in terms of covering the territory that needs
    to be covered with you. I think we have done most of that, and
    I appreciate you being here today and being on the hot seat and
    taking some very difficult questions.
        I think you can tell from the tone and tenor of the
    questioning by this panel that we are indeed very concerned
    about what we have learned over the last several months in
    particular and the last years of some of the practices
    involving the IOC, and I can appreciate that you too are very
    concerned about those.
        I would, before I ask you just a couple of questions and
    yield back the balance of my time, I would like to reiterate
    what one of my predecessors in questioning has asked, and that
    is that you give extremely serious consideration to applying
    the ethical changes you are incorporating to your office. I
    don't think there is any question that you know this and we all
    know this, that on these types of issues, that the leadership
    at the top must set the example, must lead by example.
        I think, again, you gather from the questions that have
    been asked, there are I think legitimate and serious concerns
    about some of the issues that have been involved that would be
    in the realm of ethical conduct.
        I might add to that, because you answered some of the
    questions, it is your view they were not conflicts, and I am
    not going to get into all the different questions again, but
    there is a very important element to this that it doesn't have
    to actually be a conflict. Sometimes it is the appearance of
    the conflict that causes a great deal of difficulty. So I
    caution you that you incorporate both of those, not only
    concern with regard to avoiding conflicts, but also that same
    concern for avoiding the appearance of a conflict. I know you
    feel that way.
        The two words that I have consistently heard in the
    hearings I have been in that involve the Olympics, are the
    spirit of the Olympics and how that spirit, everyone is
    concerned it not be tainted in any way; and that some feel that
    these allegations, and in fact they are beyond allegations,
    this misconduct, has tainted the Olympics. That is something we
    all want to avoid.
        The second word that I hear an awful lot, and it gets to my
    question, is the word culture, that the culture of the Olympic
    Committee has been a result or has been a cause of some of
    these problems. The culture that has gone on for years, just
    the way that the Olympic Committee has done business, if you
    will.
        I can appreciate the establishment of this commission. You
    have had some outstanding people that have participated in
    that, and again we are going to hear from them later. But it is
    going to be important that we have confidence that we have now
    a good set of rules set up. It is going to be very important
    that we also have confidence in the second part of that, that
    several of us have made reference to, that we make sure they
    are enforced properly.
        Do you feel that the expulsion of those 10 members, either
    by resignation or by expulsion, do you feel like you have
    eliminated that culture from the committee?
        Mr. Samaranch. I sincerely believe so, sir. We gathered
    evidence regarding these 10 members. Either they were expelled
    or they resigned. Other members were also sanctioned, but in
    various degrees. But I have full confidence in the current
    membership of the IOC.
        Mr. Bryant. In reading some of the articles that covered
    the meeting, I was able to discern some of the debate, and
    there was some opposition, relatively minor I think, but they
    were concerned. They raised as a defense this questioned their
    own personal ethics; they didn't need somebody to watch over
    them. But I think you led the majority appropriately to the
    fact that there is evidence out there that people have violated
    the rules.
        Again, I want to commend you for overcoming that
    opposition. I think it is time that the people involved in the
    Olympic Committee rid themselves of that culture. Again, I
    think you have taken good steps in doing so.
        I want to move on and hear from the second panel, because
    again they are going to talk about how this whole set of
    changes will come into play. Hopefully it will result in
    restoring that spirit that we expect from the Olympics.
        But I wanted to conclude my questioning by asking you
    something I made reference to in my opening statement, and
    after listening to the rather lively examination of you, I
    simply want to reiterate that I trust that the fact that we
    have been involved in this, a lot of the clamor for reform has
    come from the United States, and certainly this panel has been
    questioning you about those issues, I trust that this will in
    no way affect any future involvement of the United States in
    terms of being a site city. Do you sense that there might be,
    not necessarily from you, but from others on your committee,
    there might be some--``retribution'' is the wrong word, but
    some unanticipated or unhoped for results in terms of this
    country's hosting future Olympic Games?
        Mr. Samaranch. Mr. Bryant, I am sure this will not take
    place. Members and myself are of the opinion that your country,
    the United States, has a very, very important position among
    the family of nations, Olympic nations. This is the country in
    the world that has organized the highest number of Olympic
    Games. I myself had the privilege of presiding over four Summer
    Olympic Games, two of which were held in the United States.
    Aside from the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Games, we know for a
    fact that many cities in the United States are beginning to
    express interest in organizing and hosting the 2012 Games. As
    you probably know, we can only accept one candidate. The
    process of selection is conducted by each country's Olympic
    Committee, and I am sure that the bid that will come from the
    United States will be correct; they will stand identical
    chances of being selected, like all the others.
        Mr. Bryant. Thank you. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Bryant. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from
    California.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much. Mr. Samaranch, we have
    been hearing about all these problems because of Salt Lake City
    and Atlanta, and most of what we heard came not from an
    investigation by the IOC, but by the press and city officials
    in these two American cities.
        Has the IOC confirmed that no serious wrongdoing or bid
    irregularities similar to what happened in Salt Lake City and
    Atlanta occurred in Nagano, Athens, or Sidney? Are you
    convinced that the IOC's house is totally clean when it came to
    those cities?
        Mr. Samaranch. Many of the national organizing committees
    are no longer in existence. When this crisis came upon us, we
    wrote letters or memos to all the national organizing
    committees that had bid for the Summer Games or Winter Games.
    We sent 30 letters. In some of these letters there is an
    indication that if anything abnormal shows--and this letter was
    forwarded to the Ethics Board.
        Mr. Waxman. Your investigation involved letters, but isn't
    it true that Nagano burned many if not all of its Olympic bid
    records? If the gentleman from Ohio would allow me 2 minutes,
    it is really his time now.
        Mr. Bryant. I would yield you whatever time the Chair----
        Mr. Upton. He has no time left.
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, let me ask you then, particularly
    I am asking Mr. Oxley, I have to run to another hearing, and I
    wanted to ask questions, so I would do it within 2 minutes
    rather than miss the opportunity for a 5-minute round later.
    You waited very patiently for your time. I leave it to your
    discretion.
        Mr. Oxley. It is okay. I will be glad to yield. I need to
    be recognized first, and I will yield to the gentleman from
    California.
        Mr. Upton. I accept the unanimous consent agreement that
    Mr. Waxman have 2 minutes.
        Mr. Waxman. I thank my colleagues. Unfortunately, I have to
    go to another hearing, so I will not be able to be here for all
    the testimony. But what I wanted to ask about, Mr. Samaranch,
    is it seems like the only investigation the IOC did of other
    cities in the past was sent letters; and, as I understand it,
    when it came to Nagano, I have heard that they burned many if
    not all of their Olympic bid records. Is that an accurate
    statement?
        Mr. Samaranch. I learned the same thing as you have.
        Mr. Waxman. What does that mean to you? Why do you think
    they would do that? What are we supposed to make of the fact
    that a city would burn its Olympic bid records? Is it to keep
    it from you, to keep it from the press, from the world?
        Mr. Samaranch. I don't know. I think you should direct that
    question to Nagano.
        Mr. Waxman. The reason I am asking you is that the IOC
    doesn't appear to have done much of an investigation about any
    of the potential abuses by other cities except to send some
    letters asking them whether they knew of some abuses, and
    accepted pretty much what they had to say. It seems to me that
    the IOC, if you really cared to know whether abuses took place
    in the past, would have demanded records and called the people
    from Nagano on the carpet to find out why they destroyed their
    records.
        We in the United States have had Salt Lake City and Atlanta
    held up to real scrutiny because we care about this issue. But
    it looks like we care about it, I am not sure the IOC cares
    about it.
        Mr. Samaranch. I respect your point, sir. We did what we
    had to do. We sent those memos to all the national organizing
    committees and also the United States Olympic Committee, and
    all these letters were also forwarded to the Ethics Commission.
        Mr. Waxman. Would the Ethics Commission be permitted to
    reopen these issues from these previous cities' bids to know
    whether there were improprieties?
        Mr. Samaranch. Whenever new facts arise that will warrant
    opening up an investigation, the Ethics Board will do so.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and particularly Mr.
    Oxley for giving me this opportunity to jump in on these
    questions. But it appears that I have heard it said over and
    over again, when facts come up, when we are presented with
    names, then we will do something about it. That kind of
    attitude doesn't give me confidence that the IOC really wants
    to know what abuses have taken place and that they are going to
    aggressively encourage their Ethics Committee to go out and
    investigate these matters and to take actions against those
    that have acted improperly.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will continue our
    investigation in this committee and continue our oversight on
    this whole question of whether these reforms are real or not.
        Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of whatever
    time I might have had.
        Mr. Upton. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Ohio has been very patient. We welcome
    the Chairman of the Finance and Hazardous Materials
    Subcommittee, Mr. Oxley, to join us today. You are recognized
    for 10 minutes.
        Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
    participate in this important hearing. As the Chair knows, I,
    along with Chairman Bliley, cosponsored legislation dealing
    with antibribery as it related to the OECD Convention and
    bringing the United States into conformity with the OECD
    Convention.
        Mr. Samaranch, there have been reports in the press about
    the IOC petitioning to be subject to the OECD Convention on
    combatting bribery of foreign public officials as one way to
    address some of the IOC's recent problems. However, my
    understanding is that only governments can join the Convention,
    and since the IOC is not a government, it could not join. I
    understand that this was confirmed for you recently in a letter
    sent by the OECD.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from the letter. This a
    letter from Donald J. Johnston from the OECD to Mr. Carrard,
    who is with us today, the IOC Director General. In part it
    states the IOC does not correspond to the definition of a
    public international organization in the meaning of Article I,
    paragraph 4 of the Convention, and that as a result its members
    could not be regarded as foreign public officials in the
    meaning of the Convention.
        He goes on to say, I have asked the Secretariat in the
    context of this work, to put to the working group the idea of
    the Convention possibly covering the officials of
    nongovernmental international organizations such as the IOC.
        Mr. Chairman, this was translated from French. I want you
    to know I did not do this personally, that is the translation.
    But I would like to make it part of the record and ask
    unanimous consent that the letter be made part of the record at
    this point.
        I thank the Chair.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.330

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]60363.331

        Mr. Oxley. Furthermore, as the letter indicates--I am
    sorry, the letter does not indicate, but it is my understanding
    the Convention only deals with those who pay bribes, not with
    those who receive them. In the case of the IOC, the allegations
    dealt with bribes received, not bribes paid, and there is
    obviously a big distinction there.
        Mr. Samaranch, I would like to ask you, would you agree
    that OECD member governments such as the United States and
    others should make the IOC subject to their own anti-bribery
    laws, laws which needed to be adopted in accordance with the
    Convention?
        Mr. Samaranch. The issue of OECD came up during our
    negotiations or our contacts with Mr. Mitchell in London. They
    told me that the International Red Cross was a member of that
    organization and I told them that the IOC would have no
    problems in applying for membership at the OECD. They did so,
    as you so aptly pointed out, and their response which came to
    us about 5 days ago was that we were not eligible because we
    were not a governmental organization.
        We will be very happy if the U.S. Government would lend its
    good offices to have us become members of the OECD. We would be
    very happy.
        Mr. Oxley. It is my understanding that the information
    regarding the Red Cross was in error, that in fact it is quite
    clear that NGO's, nongovernmental organizations such as the
    International Olympic Committee or indeed the Red Cross cannot
    become members of the OECD Convention.
        Is that statement correct?
        Mr. Samaranch. What I can tell you, sir, is that at that
    point the IRC was told that they--I was told that the IRC was a
    member. That is why we came up with the application. But if
    there is any other organization that is very much the same as
    OECD, we will be more than glad to consider the possibility of
    applying for membership.
        Mr. Oxley. I would appreciate that. Again, it appears to
    this member that we will need to take some leadership working
    with you to make certain that the member countries of the IOC
    make application to follow the OECD Convention, and we want to
    work with you toward that end.
        Mr. Samaranch. Please bear in mind the fact that we have
    200 countries in our membership.
        Mr. Oxley. I understand that. There may be some members,
    member countries, that are not--I am sure there are a number of
    them that are not signatories to the OECD Convention, and that
    is precisely why it is important that we work with those
    countries to make certain that they adopt not just for the IOC,
    by the way, but in general to expand the Anti-bribery
    Convention at the OECD. I think they did yeoman's work, and the
    IOC is an important part of that, but only a part of joining
    that Convention.
        Mr. Samaranch. I can say that we fully accept your
    proposal, sir.
        Mr. Oxley. Let me turn to a question regarding the
    television contract, if I may. Mr. Samaranch, did you even know
    about the NBC donation before the contract dealing with Salt
    Lake City and Sidney was signed?
        Mr. Samaranch. No, I did not.
        Mr. Oxley. Isn't it a fact that you were surprised when
    that announcement took place at the ceremony celebrating the
    contract?
        Mr. Samaranch. It did not come as a total surprise to us
    because we had already received donations from sponsors, many
    of them from the United States.
        Mr. Oxley. But the specific gift to the museum from NBC
    network, that was a surprise?
        Mr. Samaranch. It did not surprise.
        Mr. Oxley. It did not surprise. And how many sponsoring
    companies are on the wall there at the museum?
        Mr. Samaranch. We have received about $80 million in
    donations, about 60 or 65 companies, but not only businesses,
    but also States and governments, the organizing committees, for
    instance, of the Games. In other words, all the names are there
    for the public to see. And we are very thankful for these
    donors, because thanks to them, we have been able to build this
    museum which is a source of great pride to us.
        Mr. Oxley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Oxley. I know that a couple of
    members have a couple more questions, so we are going to move
    this to a 5-minute round, and then I think we will be done with
    the first panel, and we will start with the second panel
    immediately following.
        Mr. Samaranch, we appreciate your testimony and willingness
    to come today. I guess if I had a bottom line, I want to be
    perfectly clear that we want the Olympics and the Olympic
    movement to be clean as a whistle, and that means that the
    referees have to be able to blow the whistle and have to be
    able to throw a flag when there is a penalty, as we would see
    on a football field. We want no loopholes, none.
        I want to go back to a question that I think Mr. Burr
    asked. I want to clarify your answer with regard to the visits
    to cities.
        The way that a number of us read the documentation, you
    indicated that though IOC members will no longer be able to
    visit the cities, it is not necessary, and those were the words
    used, it is not necessary for the cities to visit the IOC
    members. I want to come back to you and to all of us up here, I
    think, the language ``not necessary'' means that it in fact is
    still permissible.
        With your statement, does that mean you are going to amend
    what we had read before and in fact will block visits by cities
    to visit IOC members in their respective countries? Do we
    expect to see that clarification come about?
        Mr. Samaranch. Let me address the two questions, if I may.
    I fully concur with you, we need a referee, and that referee is
    the Ethics Commission.
        I would like to once again reiterate that the visits by
    organizing committees to members of IOC are banned. My Director
    General points out that perhaps you would have with you a draft
    of the recommendation, but the decision was to ban visits in
    either sense.
        Mr. Upton. On both sides.
        Mr. Samaranch. And this is absolutely firm.
        Mr. Upton. Good. My last question before I move down the
    panel, I have a whole series of statements that were in the
    press, reports dating back to 1986 with the Los Angeles Times,
    the Washington Post, the New York Times, really spanning about
    15 years, talking about abuse with the IOC members with regard
    to gifts, trips, and I suppose you could say cash as well,
    bribery. It is mentioned a number of times.
        I want to make certain that this new Ethics Committee that
    is being established in fact will have the authority when they
    see, if they see press accounts like these in the future, that
    they will have the independence and authority to investigate
    fully these reports and that those investigations in fact will
    be made public once they are complete.
        Mr. Samaranch. As I said before, the Ethics Commission has
    full powers and full independence. In fact, even their budget
    will be separated. And, as such, they are empowered to conduct
    all kinds of investigations.
        Mr. Upton. So that in fact if these appear again in major
    newspapers across the world, they will have the authority to
    pursue it?
        Mr. Samaranch. Fully.
        Mr. Upton. Terrific. I yield to the gentlelady from
    Colorado.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Samaranch. I noted with
    interest Mr. Bryant's question and your response regarding
    whether the United States will be punished in some way for
    pushing for these reforms. I would like to ask the question in
    a slightly different way.
        I look in the second row and I see the athletes who are
    here with us today. The American athletes who are not here and
    were not in the Olympics because of any kind of special bribery
    or special favors or anything, but simply because of their
    athletic committee--I would like to ask you directly in the
    spirit of the Olympics, do you believe the United States
    athletes will suffer in any way because of the United States'
    efforts to aggressively push these reforms?
        Mr. Samaranch. I don't think so. Sports in the United
    States is an area that has the highest respect. The U.S. is a
    very important member in the Olympic movement and that is why I
    am here.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Mr. Samaranch. And I am more than certain that the U.S.
    team will get tremendous results in Sidney and they will be
    treated with the same fair play that we devote to other
    countries, or all other countries.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much. Another question: What do
    you think the United States' role should be in monitoring the
    progress of implementation of these reforms?
        Mr. Samaranch. It is actually up to you, madam, because we
    have two members from the United States in the IOC, Anita
    DeFrantz and Mr. Jim Easton. We will be more than happy to
    report regularly to you, if you so desire, through these two
    members who sit at the IOC.
        Ms. DeGette. I think we would like to hear regular reports,
    probably on a quarterly basis, and in particular the thing we
    will be interested in knowing, as soon as possible, is the
    progress of the Ethics Committee in promulgating its
    regulations.
        Mr. Samaranch. You will receive that if you so desire. Mr.
    Chairman, if I might, I would like to correct one thing. I said
    that there were two IOC members from the United States. As of
    last Sunday, we have three; the third one being Mr. Ctvrlik,
    Gold Medalist in the Olympic Games, and we take great pride in
    having him with us.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much for clarifying. Senator
    Mitchell and Mr. Duberstein conducted a very thorough review of
    the Salt Lake City bid, and because of that review, we were
    able to make very specific recommendations to our own National
    Olympic Committee, the USOC. Have the other former bid
    countries conducted similar reviews to see if they have got
    problems and to see if they can improve the function?
        Mr. Samaranch. My Director General points out that there
    was an inquiry in Berlin.
        Ms. DeGette. And do you think it would be worthwhile for
    the other countries to conduct such an audit to see how their
    experience can lend to the promulgation of the regulations?
        Mr. Samaranch. I have always been in favor of whenever you
    can make things clear, you should do so.
        Ms. DeGette. So to be clear, your answer would be yes?
        Mr. Samaranch. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Mr. Samaranch. There is also another inquiry in Sidney, I
    have just been advised.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is
    critical to recognize that none of the reforms that were voted
    on last weekend were actually designed to detect and sanction
    the sorts of ethical lapses have undermined the credibility of
    the IOC. That effort is going to remain the task of the ethics
    program. But since the details have not yet been defined, the
    important reform is incomplete.
        I guess I would say, simply put, as long as this Commission
    remains a work in progress, the IOC cannot be considered
    reformed.
        Mr. Chairman, an ugly storm has engulfed the IOC over the
    past year, but I do believe--and I want to join you in thanking
    Mr. Samaranch for coming--the IOC has made progress toward
    substantial reform but significant work remains. As an old but
    useful saying goes, you may trust in God, but always tie your
    camel.
        I welcome the witnesses before us today, and I look forward
    to hearing the rest of the testimony. The thing I look forward
    to seeing most of all is the regulations that are promulgated
    by the Ethics Committee, and until I see that, I guess what I
    would have to say is I am going to have to keep my camel
    tethered.
        Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Samaranch. Thank you very much for your kind words, and
    I can assure you that many of the decisions we have made late
    last week are already part of the Olympic charter. As to the
    others, with regard to the others, we will have them clearly
    decided and included by the time that we hold the preparatory
    meetings in Sidney next year, in 2000.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Burr.
        Mr. Burr. Mr. Samaranch, you said that the United States
    plays an important role in the Olympic movement. Let me ask you
    if you think that Congress has a role in this process?
        Mr. Samaranch. Given the tremendous importance of sports in
    any society, agencies of that society should also take an
    interest in sports, and in this case the International Olympic
    Committee, and we can only thank you for that.
        Mr. Burr. I thank you for your willingness to testify in
    front of us.
        Let me ask you, have you accomplished all the changes you
    personally feel need to be made?
        Mr. Samaranch. I believe so. I believe we have already
    adopted the most important changes, and in all candor I might
    say that we might not have succeeded in including these changes
    unless we had had this crisis.
        Mr. Burr. Let me ask the same question a different way: If
    changes did not require a vote of the IOC membership, are there
    any additional reforms that you personally would have liked to
    have adopted?
        Mr. Samaranch. I think we are speaking frankly. I believe
    that we should, for instance, have the bidding and the
    selection of host cities to be made by the executive board, not
    by the plenary. But I think this would be the job of the next
    President.
        Mr. Burr. Let me again take this opportunity to thank you
    for your willingness to be here, for your openness with this
    committee. I thank the Chairman and yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Burr. Mr. Barton.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the
    first round of my questions we established, according to the
    answers that President Samaranch gave, that the reforms that
    are being implemented for the IOC members, committeemen, do not
    apply to him, because in his own words they are not necessary
    that they apply to him. We established that they haven't
    investigated past reports of improprieties in the site
    selection process because no names were provided by those
    reports that were given to the IOC Committee and that as
    President, he apparently made no attempt to try to document any
    of those prior charges. We established that the Sports
    Illustrated report that a half-a-million-dollar-a-year hotel
    suite is kept for his personal use in Lausanne, Switzerland on
    the top of the Palace hotel, is a lie, in his own words,
    because the dollar amount reported in the Sports Illustrated
    report is incorrect.
        I am not going to go over any of that in this round. I am
    going to concentrate on a trip that his wife and a friend of
    his wife took to the Atlanta area in the spring of 1990.
        My first question to President Samaranch: Is he aware that
    his wife did in fact travel to Atlanta at the expense of the
    Atlanta host city organization in the spring of 1990?
        Mr. Samaranch. This took place many years ago, but I
    expected something like that to arise, so I would like to give
    you a brief rundown of events.
        Mr. Barton. My first question is simply is he aware that
    his wife did visit the Atlanta area?
        Mr. Samaranch. Not only did I know it, but I also advised
    her to go.
        Mr. Barton. I would be happy to let him elaborate on that
    visit before I ask some more questions.
        Mr. Samaranch. In 1989 I went to Atlanta to attend the
    opening ceremony of the organizing committee, the officers of
    this organizing committee presided over, with Mr. Billy Payne.
    We were good friends and we had worked together well. At that
    point I was alone, and they regretted the fact that my wife had
    not been able to come to Atlanta with me.
        They insisted on inviting her and they did so, and I felt
    that she should accept the invitation and visit Atlanta.
        My wife was already advanced in years and she cannot travel
    on her own. I am not going to tell you how old she is because
    she might be angry at me.
        Mr. Barton. I respect that.
        Mr. Samaranch. But she attended the invitation, she was
    very well treated. I wouldn't call it an official visit, but it
    was a visit by the wife of the IOC's President.
        With your permission, I have in hand a letter that is very
    significant. I will ask that it be read.
        The Vice President, Washington, April 6, 1999, addressed
    Mrs. Juan Antonio Samaranch, International Olympic Committee,
    Chateau de Vidy, 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland: Dear Mrs.
    Samaranch, it was a pleasure to meet with you in Atlanta. I
    hope you were able to sample the warm hospitality for which the
    American South is famous and that you enjoyed your stay there.
    Should the city of Atlanta receive the honor of hosting the
    1996 Games, I know its people and all Americans would ensure
    that these games are among the best ever. Best wishes as you
    plan this tremendous event. Sincerely. Signature, Dan Quayle.
        Mr. Barton. I will stipulate that Dan Quayle was Vice
    President of the United States at the time that letter was
    written, if the president will allow me to add that to the
    document.
        Mr. Samaranch. Yes.
        Mr. Barton. Can I ask a question now that I have heard his
    response?
        Mr. Upton. Yes.
        Mr. Barton. What formal purpose, if any, was served for the
    good of the Olympic movement by having the Atlanta organization
    spend at least $13,000 to host your wife on her visit to
    Atlanta, Charleston, and I believe Orlando on that trip?
        Mr. Samaranch. Perhaps this is part of what the letter
    says, which is the American--the South is famous for its
    hospitality.
        Mr. Barton. I will agree with that. I am from Texas. I
    understand we are famous for our hospitality. But my question
    is----
        Mr. Samaranch. She was invited and they felt they should
    defray the costs. But I don't think this point is really that
    important.
        Mr. Barton. It is not important that your lovely wife, who
    I am sure is a lovely lady--and I don't mean that
    sarcastically--she has no formal vote in the proceeding; we
    have documents that show she was not interested in even looking
    at any of the venues, she just wanted to go to artsy-craftsy
    places and participate in high society. So I think it is well
    and good if she wants to visit the South and have that
    hospitality, but I don't think the Olympic movement and the
    host cities bidding to host Olympics should have to pay her
    expenses.
        Mr. Samaranch. You are probably right, sir. This is a
    problem of the organizing committee. This was an invitation
    based on friendship.
        Mr. Barton. I understand.
        Mr. Samaranch. And this is all I can advance.
        Mr. Barton. My final question, and I want to read one
    statement from the Sports Illustrated article and see if this
    too is a lie. This again is from the February article of Sports
    Illustrated, and I quote: It says, ``Before Samaranch took over
    the presidency in 1980, IOC representatives had to pay their
    own way to cities bidding for the games. Within a year, they
    were getting not one but two first class tickets from
    prospective cities, plus all expenses. In 1983 spending money
    of $100 a day was added to the package required of bid
    cities.''
        Is that a true statement?
        Mr. Samaranch. I think your question has to do with what
    members of the IOC received----
        Mr. Barton. No. According to Sports Illustrated, before Mr.
    Samaranch became President in 1980, IOC representatives had to
    pay their own way to cities bidding for the games. Within a
    year after he became President, members of IOC representatives
    were required to give two first class tickets, and by 1983,
    $100 a day for expenses. That would appear to me that President
    Samaranch suggested to the IOC membership board or at least
    acquiesced when this change was made. So that bid cities had to
    pay these expenses before 1980, before he became the President,
    IOC representatives had to pay their own way. So that is my
    question. Is this one of the reforms he instigated when he
    became President in 1980?
        Mr. Samaranch. I don't think there were visits scheduled
    before 1980, none. So perhaps there is some degree of
    confusion.
        Mr. Barton. So this is something if we again send a
    specific letter asking specific questions, he can check his
    files and see what caused this particular change in policy to
    be made?
        Mr. Samaranch. With your permission, I would like to give
    you my version. No visits were organized prior to 1980 to the
    bidding cities. IOC members were expected, and did pay for
    their own expenses when they attended meetings. I thought this
    was unfair. During the first IOC session that I presided over
    in 1981, we adopted the decision to pay members of the IOC all
    expenses, transportation, hotel, for all members. But alone,
    not with second or a companion.
        Mr. Barton. Who paid that? The IOC was going to pay it or
    you were going to require the host city to pay it?
        Mr. Samaranch. No, I am talking about the sessions of the
    IOC. They were paid by the IOC. But, Mr. Congressman, if you
    are really interested, we will be more than glad to respond to
    a request in writing from you.
        Mr. Barton. I understand. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Barton.
        Mr. Samaranch, we appreciate very much your willingness to
    come here today, and in particular we thank the interpreters,
    who we expect gave us the right answers back and forth. But we
    also want to thank Mr. Carrard, who spent a number of trips, a
    number of many hours, communicating with members of the
    committee and keeping us posted on the developments. We
    appreciated his openness and his willingness in every which
    way.
        Mr. Samaranch, we thank you for your testimony. As I
    indicated in my opening statement, we expect to continue
    oversight to make sure that this new Ethics Commission does
    have the teeth so it can look into possible abuses. We want the
    Olympic rings to be free from tarnish and we know and hope that
    you are on our side as well. You are now, as we might say,
    formally excused. We appreciate very much the time you spent
    with us today.
        At this point we will have the second panel, which includes
    Dr. Henry Kissinger, Senator Howard Baker, and because of
    flight troubles, for the time being we also now have Mr. Ken
    Duberstein, who is the vice chair with Mr. Mitchell, chair, in
    compiling the Mitchell-Duberstein report.
        If folks that are visiting the committee would take their
    seats so we can continue, we have a number of pressing
    commitments yet today. We appreciate the willingness of the
    panel and, obviously, the ability of Mr. Duberstein to step in
    the big shoes of Mr. Mitchell again. For purposes of
    introduction, we will yield to Mr. Bryant.
        Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to introduce one of our very distinguished
    witness and home State friend from Tennessee, former Senator
    Howard Baker, Jr. I can take about 3 hours and adequately
    introduce him, but given the nature of the time we have here, I
    am going to give just a short, very, very abbreviated
    introduction of our Senator Baker.
        After serving in the U.S. Senate from 1967 until 1985 and
    as President Reagan's Chief of Staff from February, 1987, until
    July 1988, Howard Baker has returned to private life and the
    practice of law.
        Following undergraduate studies at the University of the
    South and Tulane University, Senator Baker received his law
    degree from the University of Tennessee. He served 3 years in
    the United States Navy during World War II.
        Senator Baker first won national recognition in 1973 as the
    Vice Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee. He was the
    keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention in 1976
    and was a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination
    in 1980. He concluded his Senate career by serving two terms as
    minority leader and two terms as majority leader.
        Senator Baker has received many awards, including the
    Presidential Medal of Freedom, our Nation's highest civilian
    award, and the Jefferson Award for the greatest public service
    performed by an elected or appointed official.
        Senator Baker is currently an original member of the
    International Olympic Committee Ethics Commission, which was
    established this past March to strengthen the IOC's ethical
    guidelines and provide a clear standard of conduct for all
    members of the Olympic family.
        I welcome you, Senator Baker, my friend from Huntsville,
    Tennessee, and look forward to your testimony.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Leader, welcome back to the better side of
    the capitol, and we will begin with you.
        As for all three, your testimony will be made, in its
    entirety, as part of the record. We would like to limit your
    remarks to 5 minutes. I know Dr. Kissinger needs to catch a
    train back by 1:30. And I do have to swear you in.
        As you know, we have a long-standing practice in this
    committee of swearing in our witnesses. Do any of you have
    objection to that? Do any of you need counsel, as provided in
    the committee rules?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Upton. You are now under oath.
        Mr. Leader, we will begin with you.

                   TESTIMONY OF HON. HOWARD H. BAKER

        Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, may I assert the privilege of
    going first for the purpose of saying that while I served in
    the other body I was aware of this body. It was brought to my
    attention forcefully from time to time.
        I also would point out that both my father and mother
    served in this branch of the Congress. So I am a third-going
    congressional brat.
        My thanks to my friend Ed Bryant for the generosity of his
    introduction. You covered everything I can think of, except
    that my grandmother was sheriff of Roane County, Tennessee,
    just for the record.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here to
    speak on the creation and implementation of an ethics code and
    an Ethics Commission for the IOC. As you say, while I can
    submit the statement, which I do herewith for inclusion in the
    record, I will abbreviate it and cover the principal points
    that I think are relevant to your inquiry.
        First of all, it is a pleasure to serve on this commission.
    It is a distinguished commission made up of former United
    Nations Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar of Peru; the
    former president of Switzerland; the former president of the
    French Constitution Court, Robert Badinter of France; and five-
    time Olympian Charmaine Crooks of Canada. The three current IOC
    members appointed to the commission are Judge Keba Mbaye of
    Senegal, who is chairman and former vice president of the Court
    of Justice; Kevan Gosper of Australia, who is an IOC vice
    president and former chairman and chief executive officer of
    Shell Australia; and also an Olympic silver medalist, Chiharu
    Igaya of Japan.
        Mr. Chairman, when I was asked to accept this position,
    frankly, it came as a surprise, and I inquired why I might be
    asked to do this job. It was pointed out that I had had
    experience as an attorney in constructing an ethics code, more
    than one ethics code, for major U.S. and international
    corporations. So I went into this job hoping that I could
    bring, and I believe I have had an opportunity to bring, some
    insight into how others construct Olympic codes, how they are
    put in place, how they are made useful, how the provisions of
    the code are enforced, and how you go about determining that
    violations of the code have occurred.
        And also, Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the most important
    part of any ethics undertaking is to make sure that the
    membership involved, in this case country committees seeking
    the presence of the Olympics and those involved in the Olympic
    movement, fully understand that the leadership of the
    International Olympic Committee is committed to these
    statements of ethical conduct. And for that purpose, the Ethics
    Commission has adopted a code, has adopted bylaws, and has made
    it clear that the education of the membership of the IOC is one
    of the essential and first elements of a successful program.
        We are in the process now, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee, of choosing a ``special representative.'' Special
    representative is the word chosen by the commission. My own
    description of that person is an ethics officer in the context
    of an American corporation or an American enterprise who would
    choose someone to implement that code, to administer its
    provisions and to ascertain that action must be taken or should
    be taken by the body itself.
        The Ethics Commission of the IOC is roughly comparable in
    U.S. corporate terms to perhaps a committee of the board of
    directors, an audit committee perhaps, who has the stated
    responsibility to see that the code is fully complied with and
    to investigate allegations and charges that violations have
    occurred, and also to see that there is an appropriate
    education of those who will be affected by and involved with
    the ethics program.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I feel
    optimistic about the progress we have made so far. There have
    been lively, sometimes enthusiastic debates within the
    commission on the terms of the code itself and on the terms of
    the bylaws. The commission charged Kevan Gosper and I with
    writing those bylaws, and we believe that we have successfully
    provided for the implementation and the general principles
    established in the code itself. But, as I said earlier, we are
    now involved in the business of choosing an administrative
    officer, an ethics officer, if you please, designated here as a
    special representative.
        Now, in deference to my friends on the committee, I am
    going to abbreviate the rest of these remarks and make three
    points.
        The first is, Secretary Kissinger has made a major
    contribution to setting the stage for a new era in ethical
    conduct for the IOC. Senator Mitchell--my friend Senator
    Mitchell and my friend Ken Duberstein have taken the next step
    and made a major contribution to the furtherance of that
    purpose. It is my hope that the Ethics Commission now can
    complete the structural arrangements that will provide the
    oversight, the investigatory authority and the education
    necessary to have a successful ethics program for the IOC.
        The three points I would make, Mr. Chairman, are these:
        First, the IOC is worth saving. It is a great institution
    with a great history. It has most recently been involved in
    conduct that has brought criticism and difficulty for the
    organization itself, but it is worth saving. It is a great
    institution and has a great future.
        The second point I would make is, I believe by and large
    the members of the Olympic Committee, the Executive Committee,
    and all those I have been associated with are men and women of
    goodwill, and they are willing to accept a code or standards of
    conduct that will rectify the apparent difficulties of the
    past.
        I have already covered the third point, that the essence of
    any ethical program is education, to make sure that those who
    are involved and may be impacted by this code understand that
    management, so-called, at the very highest level, is committed
    to the enforcement of these provisions. And in my view that
    means not only investigating charges that may be brought by
    people in writing or otherwise about the conduct of particular
    people or groups or countries but rather to make sure that
    there is a positive requirement that those involved have a
    responsibility to report violations as they occur. Because it
    is virtually impossible for an ethics officer, and certainly
    for an Ethics Commission, to ascertain every misfeasance, every
    violation of this code that is likely to occur.
        And there will be violations. We do not live in a perfect
    world. And the best we can do is to set up a mechanism that can
    sense out and understand the charges as they are made and find
    evidence of misconduct and bring it to the attention of the
    commission itself to make a judgment.
        Now, the commission itself, under this setup, does not
    impose sanctions. Rather, it makes recommendations to the
    Executive Committee. And I think that is appropriate. Once
    again, the parallelism between an audit committee and a
    national board or a U.S. board of directors is not
    inappropriate. Because in that case, while the audit committee
    might have the responsibility and often does have the
    responsibility for administering the code and supervising its
    application, it is the board itself and the management of the
    company that finally must determine what to do about it.
        So here the sequence of events is that the ethics officer,
    in this case designated as a special representative, will seek
    out evidence of misconduct, will respond to charges of
    misconduct, and will make recommendation to the Ethics
    Commission. The Ethics Commission will then inquire into those
    matters and will decide whether or not to make a recommendation
    to the Executive Committee on what should be done. That is the
    chain of events.
        It is not dissimilar to those that have been adopted by
    major international corporations. I think it is appropriate to
    the IOC model. I think there is a high likelihood that it can
    work. I think the atmosphere is appropriate to the
    circumstance. And I believe that we have a good opportunity to
    see that the blemishes against the reputation of the IOC will
    be erased and that the future will be improved.
        And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Howard H. Baker follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr.
        Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Klink, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I thank you for inviting me to discuss my views on
    International Olympic Committee reform and the role of its Ethics
    Commission.
        The IOC Ethics Commission was established this past March to
    strengthen the IOC's ethical guidelines and provide a clear standard of
    conduct for all members of the Olympic Family, as well as ensuring that
    these guidelines are reflected in the policies and practices of the
    IOC, the National Olympic Committees and organizations associated with
    efforts to host the Olympic Games. The Commission takes responsibility
    for considering and acting upon all ethical matters affecting the
    Olympic Movement.
        I was invited to join former United Nations Secretary General
    Xavier Perez de Cuellar of Peru; former Swiss President Kurt Furgler of
    Switzerland; former President of the French Constitution Court Robert
    Badinter of France; and five-time Olympian Charmaine Crooks of Canada,
    in serving as outside members of the Commission. Three current IOC
    members were also appointed to the Commission: Judge Keba Mbaye of
    Senegal, Chairman of the Commission and former Vice President of the
    International Court of Justice; R. Kevan Gosper of Australia, IOC Vice
    President and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Shell Australia;
    and Olympic silver medalist Chiharu Igaya of Japan.
        When I was invited to join this group, I assumed that it was based
    on my prior experience in constructing and applying ethics codes in the
    U.S. corporate context and I believe that the work product that I have
    advocated for the Commission is generally in keeping with the
    philosophy of recognized codes of ethics in this country and elsewhere.
        In May, the Ethics Commission adopted Code of Ethics that sets
    forth the basic ethical guidelines to be followed by the entire Olympic
    Family, including IOC members and those representing cities bidding to
    host the Olympic Games. By adopting the Code during its June session in
    Seoul, the full IOC made a firm commitment to its letter and spirit.
        I am pleased that in addition to the Statutes and Rules of
    Procedure, the Ethics Commission adopted my recommendation that we
    create a specific set of guidelines to govern the implementation,
    monitoring and enforcement of the Code. The Commission asked that I
    work with a fellow Commission member (Kevan Gosper of Australia) to
    develop bylaws to the Code that would accomplish this purpose. We felt
    that the IOC should establish a permanent ethics office that would be
    responsible for the day-to-day management of a comprehensive ethics
    program modeled after some of the more successful corporate programs,
    but tailored to fit the unique needs of the IOC.
        As a result of that effort, bylaws to the Code were adopted by the
    Ethics Commission this past Friday which I believe materially assist in
    its definition and enforcement. The Commission voted to appoint a
    Special Representative who will be given the resources necessary to
    develop and manage a comprehensive Ethics Program for the IOC. This
    will facilitate the full implementation of the Code of Ethics, as well
    as the monitoring of its application and the enforcement thereof. As I
    previously urged, the Special Representative will consider other ethics
    programs successfully established by corporations and organizations
    from around the world and the Commission has authorized the Special
    Representative to engage private experts to assist in this effort.
        I expect the Commission to immediately begin the process of
    selecting a qualified candidate for this most important position and I
    look forward to being an active participant in this process.
        In terms of the overall management of the Ethics Program, the
    Special Representative and requisite staff will be charged to educate
    all Olympic Parties about their obligations under the letter and spirit
    of the Code of Ethics; serve as a permanent resource in connection with
    the application of the Code; monitor such application; investigate
    alleged breaches of conduct; regularly report to the Commission on the
    results of any investigation; and make ongoing suggestions about how
    the Ethics Program can be improved.
        The Special Representative will report to, and consult with, the
    Ethics Commission on a regular basis, particularly during the first
    year, when the Ethics Program is in its developmental stages. This
    reporting is in additional to the Special Representative's regular
    monthly reporting equirements.
        In general, the Special Representative works at the direction of
    the Ethics Commission, pursuant to its objectives and priorities, and
    in a manner consistent with the Ethics Commission's Rules and
    Procedures. In this context, the Ethics Commission will ensure that the
    Special Representative has sufficient autonomy, consistent with best
    business and governmental practice.
        I am satisfied that this action by the Ethics Commission is a major
    step toward the development of a credible, comprehensive and effective
    system for promoting positive ethics and addressing breaches of the
    Code where they occur.
        To encourage the Special Representative to move as quickly as
    possible in developing the Ethics Program, I am encouraging the
    Commission to specifically require the Special Representative to
    accomplish the following objectives during the first year of his or her
    tenure:
     The development of an organizational chart for the IOC Ethics
            Program that will clarify its size and scope, as well as fully
            describe its functionality;
     The creation of an IOC Ethics Program Handbook that clearly
            and comprehensively sets forth the standards of conduct that
            all Olympic Parties will be expected to uphold. This Handbook
            will consolidate and clarify all relevant rules and guidelines
            from the Olympic Charter, as amended, the Code of Ethics and
            attendant Rules and Statutes, and the pertinent new reforms
            adopted this past weekend;
     The crafting of recommendations to the Ethics Commission
            suggesting ways to more fully develop the applicable procedures
            for the Ethics Commission and the Ethics Program to ensure
            fairness and efficiency in the investigation and processing of
            breach of conduct allegations. These recommendations will
            reflect careful consideration of the kinds of cases that have
            previously been considered by the IOC and the Ethics Commission
            and those that are reasonably foreseeable; and
     Establishing a comprehensive education and training program
            for the Ethics Program that will ensure that all Olympic
            Parties are made fully aware of the goals, standards,
            procedures and resources of the Ethics Program. To facilitate
            this objective, the Special Representative will work closely
            with, and encourage the active participation of, Olympic
            Organizations.
        To encourage transparency, I am also urging that the Special
    Representative work closely with the Ethics Commission to determine, on
    a regular basis, the extent to which non-confidential information about
    the Ethics Program's activities can be made available to the public.
        Mr. Chairman, I know that some confusion has arisen over the last
    few days regarding the scope of the Ethics Commission's jurisdiction
    and its overall mandate. I would like to briefly give the Committee my
    views on this issue, which I believe are fully consistent with those of
    my fellow Commission members and the IOC.
        In establishing the Ethics Commission this past March, the IOC
    intended that it would become the principal entity within the IOC's
    organization responsible for considering and acting upon all ethical
    matters affecting the Olympic Movement. Although the Commission did
    defer to the IOC Executive Board with respect to the cases involving
    IOC members Kim and Coles, it only did so because the Executive Board
    had already launched an investigation into those matters prior to
    creation of the Commission and it didn't make sense to begin a
    concurrent investigation. I do believe that the Commission has the
    authority and mandate to consider any new allegations arising out of
    matters previously investigated and acted upon by the Executive Board.
        In any event, the deferral on those two cases should be considered
    as an exception, not the rule, and it was not intended to set a
    precedent that the Commission would not consider any matter involving
    circumstances occurring prior to its creation. I do agree with my
    friend and fellow Commission member Mr. Perez de Cuellar that the
    Commission must ultimately be focused on promoting positive ethics and
    preventing scandals of the magnitude we have seen over the past year
    from occurring again.
        A fair question has also been raised about the willingness of the
    Commission to take the initiative to look into allegations of unethical
    conduct that are not supported by a written Complaint, as required in
    the Commission's Rules. While I believe the requirement of a written
    Complaint may have some merit in terms of minimizing the number of
    frivolous complaints that the Commission will have to consider, I also
    know that it is entirely possible for meritorious claims to be made in
    other ways. I would hope that when the Special Representative makes
    recommendations to the Commission regarding the efficacy of its Rules
    and Procedures, they will reflect a careful examination of this issue.
    At that time I am certain that the Commission will consider modifying
    its procedures if necessary to ensure that we achieve our broad mandate
    to fully address ethical matters within the Olympic Movement.
        I am also happy that the IOC voted this past weekend in support of
    the major reforms developed by the IOC 2000 Reform Commission, which
    counts Dr. Henry Kissinger among its members. These reforms--which were
    strongly influenced by the good work done by the Special Bid Oversight
    Commission chaired by Senator Mitchell and Vice-Chairman Ken
    Duberstein--will bring about permanent and positive change to the way
    the IOC operates. Some of these reforms will be critically important to
    the Ethics Commission's effort to fully implement and enforce the Code
    of Ethics, such as the inclusion in the Olympic Oath of a commitment to
    compliance with the Code of Ethics; requiring a contract with all bid
    cities that stipulates adherence to the Code; allowing the Ethics
    Commission to appoint three members to the newly-established
    Nominations Commission, which will screen prospective candidates for
    IOC membership; and, of course, the banning of travel to bid cities.
    The adoption of broad reforms by the IOC is indeed a watershed moment
    in its long history and I applaud the huge effort required to make this
    a reality.
        While I was initially skeptical about whether the IOC would
    undertake serious ethical and structural reforms in a fairly short
    period of time, it is now my distinct impression that the IOC--its
    leaders and its members--fully recognize the need to restore the
    Movement's credibility. And, as evidenced by the actions taken this
    past weekend, I believe that they are willing to make the tough
    decisions necessary to do so. The entire Olympic Movement must now join
    with the IOC in accepting shared responsibility for preserving the
    integrity of the Movement for generations to come and ensuring that the
    Olympics and the spirit of Olympism will rise above the difficulties of
    the past year. Ultimately, we all want the Olympics to be about the
    athletes and the competition, not about ethical scandals.
        Thank you for allowing me to express my views and I will be happy
    to entertain your questions.

        Thank you, Mr. Leader.
        Mr. Upton. Dr. Kissinger, welcome back.

                   TESTIMONY OF HON. HENRY KISSINGER

        Mr. Kissinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        When I was asked to join the reform commission, I had the
    same reaction as Senator Baker. I did not know much about the
    organization of the IOC. Frankly, I didn't know the difference
    between the IOC and the national committees and the various
    groups composing it. But I did have an experience as a boy in
    Germany when the Olympic Games were held there in 1936 and
    brought about for a brief period an easing of pressure on the
    community to which I belonged.
        And so from this early time on, I have associated the
    Olympic movement with humanitarian purposes, with contributing
    to a world in which people can compete on the basis of merit
    and excellence and not on the basis of any other consideration.
    So I was honored to have an opportunity to contribute to the
    charge that was given to us, which was to reform the
    International Olympic Committee so that it would be
    transparent, its actions predictable, and on the highest
    ethical level.
        I know all the members of the Ethics Commission--or almost
    all the members of the Ethics Commission. I know all the
    outside members well. Senator Baker has been a close friend of
    mine for decades and needs no introduction here. But also the
    French member and also Perez de Cuellar, a man of extraordinary
    distinction.
        I happened to work on the committee in which I participated
    in the reform commission with the judge from Senegal who is
    chairman, and I want to assure the members who have raised very
    justified concerns whether the vice chairman of the IOC could
    be relied upon to be scrupulous, he is one of the most
    distinguished individuals that I have met, and he was a driving
    force in the reforms that were actually adopted. And Senator
    Baker has already referred to Kevan Gosper from Australia. So I
    have enormous confidence in the Ethics Commission. And it is of
    course true that the Ethics Commission, as a continuing
    supervisory body, will have a major responsibility for the
    spirit in which the other reforms are carried out.
        We were organized in three groups, and I was particularly
    familiar with the organization of the Olympic Commission and
    somewhat, through Paul Allaire, with the requirements for
    auditing of regular reports and procedures which parallel those
    of major American and international corporations.
        Our purpose in addressing the issue of organization was to
    set up a system where this election of members, their conduct
    and their organization, would be transparent and would be open
    to the outside world. So we proposed a selection committee of
    seven members, three of whom are outsiders, one of whom is an
    athlete, and three members of the IOC. So a majority of the
    members of the selection committee are outsiders. We proposed
    an age limit of 70 in order to make possible a rotation and
    various limitations on terms of office for the President and
    for the Executive Committee.
        We believe that, coupled with the creation of an Ethics
    Commission, insofar as any organization can guarantee a
    behavior that is widely understood and generally accepted, we
    have come as close to achieving this as we were able to. I must
    stress that on the commission on which I serve we were never
    aware of any particular views that Mr. Samaranch might have,
    and I can think of no proposal that was made that was not
    accepted.
        The basic guidance toward which I tried to orbit the
    activities of the commission was the Mitchell report. I met
    with Senator Mitchell, Mr. Duberstein and their associates at
    great length, before I even met with any member of the IOC. I
    did talk with Ken Duberstein because Senator Mitchell was
    otherwise engaged. I talked to Ken Duberstein at least once a
    week as we were progressing on our work, and I have the
    impression--of course, he can speak for himself--that what we
    proposed is consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell
    Commission and could not have been achieved without the work
    that the Mitchell Commission had done.
        I also stayed in close touch with the athletes and with
    General McCaffrey in the White House in order to bring about a
    reconciliation between the approach of the IOC to the drug
    problem and the view of the White House to the drug problem,
    and I believe that this problem has been solved to the
    satisfaction of both sides by creating an independent
    commission.
        These were the basic thrusts of our effort. I think we owe
    it to the members of the IOC to say that there were of course
    some bad apples. But the vast majority of the IOC members are
    trying to serve the ideals of the Olympic movement. And
    certainly all the ones that I met that were actually engaged in
    the reform program were actively supporting the effort that was
    being made. And I believe that after a very short period of
    time enough fresh blood is going to be introduced to achieve
    the objectives that we all share and to which this committee
    has so greatly contributed.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Duberstein. Welcome back, particularly in
    light of your pinch-hitting role for former Leader Mitchell,
    who is stuck in Michigan.

                    TESTIMONY OF HON. KEN DUBERSTEIN

        Mr. Duberstein. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to appear
    before this subcommittee yet again. Senator Mitchell, as you
    stated, was supposed to testify. He was detained by the fog in
    Michigan, certainly not by the fog in Washington.
        I am honored to be in a program with two gold medal winner
    Americans, Henry Kissinger and Howard Baker. They are the best
    in American public service.
        I am appearing today as the vice chairman, pinch-hitting
    for George Mitchell, of the special commission appointed by the
    U.S. Olympic Committee President Bill Hybl in December, a year
    ago, to review the circumstance surrounding the selection of
    Salt Lake City to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Serving
    with me on the commission were Chairman George Mitchell, my
    other Vice Chairman Don Fehr, and members Roberta Cooper Ramo
    and Jeff Benz.
        We made public our recommendations on March 1, which seems
    like a long time ago. As we reported to the Senate Commerce
    Committee in April, and to you in October, we concluded that
    the activity of the Salt Lake City bid committee was not
    isolated. Rather, it was part of a broader culture in which
    candidate cities provided items of value to International
    Olympic Committee members as a way of influencing their votes.
    This culture, we concluded, was made possible in part by the
    closed nature of the IOC and by the absence of transparency and
    accountability.
        We also concluded that some of the actions of the USOC in
    support of the Salt Lake City bid effort were inappropriate,
    and we made a series of recommendations in this regard. The
    USOC's response was quick and decisive, and by the time of the
    Senate hearing in April, I was able to report that the USOC had
    implemented all of our recommendations.
        We made 15 recommendations to the IOC. They largely fell
    into three categories: financial transparency, site selection,
    and IOC structure and accountability.
        The actions taken by the IOC last weekend, we believe,
    represent real progress in all three categories. We commend
    President Samaranch, Henry Kissinger, Howard Baker, Paul
    Allaire, Dick Ebersol, Peter Ueberroth, Bill Hybl, and the
    others, all of whom participated in the reform effort. Let me
    underscore, we believe that progress has been made.
        In the first two categories, financial transparency and
    site selection, the IOC's actions were significant. They
    generally were consistent with the recommendations of our
    commission. In one important respect, on the matter which
    sparked the controversy, visits to bid cities by IOC members,
    the ban adopted by the IOC goes even further than we
    recommended.
        In the third category, structure and accountability, the
    actions taken by the IOC, while positive, may need a bit
    further refinement and certainly continued scrutiny.
        We recommended changes in the method of electing IOC
    members. We felt that one source of its problems was its
    closed, self-perpetuating nature. Although recent changes
    provides for representation of athletes, national Olympic
    committee presidents, and sports federation leaders, they will
    be chosen by the IOC itself after being submitted by the IOC
    executive board. But, importantly, athletes will be selected by
    athletes.
        In addition, we recommended that representatives of these
    constituencies comprise a substantial majority of the IOC. They
    are not quite there. We recommended term limits. Although a
    mandatory retirement age of 70 was adopted, there is no limit
    on the number of 8-year terms that an IOC member can serve.
    They must, however, go through a process of being renominated
    and reelected, and we think that is a significant step in the
    right direction.
        We recommended the discontinuation of the practice of
    interlocking directorates between an IOC member and the NOC or
    the OCOG of that member's home country. The IOC referred that
    matter for further study.
        The IOC did recommend that the IOC members retain automatic
    entitlement to membership on the national NOC, although the 45
    IOC members drawn from the athletes, the International
    Federations, and the National Olympic Committees would not be
    permitted to vote.
        We recommended the creation of an independent Office of
    Compliance. This has been referred to the independent IOC
    Ethics Committee on which Senator Baker serves for their
    consideration.
        So with respect to structure and accountability, there were
    many positive changes. But, in our view, they were not as
    finalized as were the changes in financial transparency and
    site selection, and the new reforms need to be fully
    implemented and carefully scrutinized.
        One other subject deserves mention. Our commission regarded
    as important our recommendation that the IOC require
    prospective host countries to designate the IOC as a public
    international organization under its laws pursuant to the OECD
    Convention on Combating Bribery on International Business
    Transactions. In the U.S., this would mean coming under the
    coverage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
        The IOC petitioned the Secretariat of the OECD to have the
    IOC so designated, although as Congressman Oxley and others
    have stated, to date, because of procedural reasons, this has
    not been done. Nevertheless, we applaud Mr. Samaranch for the
    IOC effort in this regard. We hope that the IOC, the OECD
    Secretariat, and the Olympic Games' bidding and host countries
    will continue to work toward implementing the convention's
    provisions.
        Of course, the test of the effectiveness of the measures
    adopted by the IOC will be in their implementation and
    enforcement. A mechanism to ensure compliance must be fully
    constructed. Without one, lasting reform will be difficult to
    achieve. I understand, however, that the development of a
    strong enforcement program is at least partly the
    responsibility of the IOC Ethics Commission. We hope that they
    will ensure a strong code of ethics that is effectively
    enforced. One of its members, Senator Baker, let us just make
    it clear, his judgment and his integrity speaks volumes about
    the IOC appointment and asking Senator Baker to undertake those
    serious responsibilities.
        Mr. Chairman, a scandal has focused attention on a
    situation in which reform was long overdue. President Samaranch
    and his colleagues have responded to the challenge. They have
    taken important steps in the right direction. The IOC needs
    close monitoring and frequent checkups. The real test lies
    ahead in implementation and enforcement. They need to manage
    effectively what they have promised, and we need to ensure they
    continue on the reform course they have so finally established.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. George Mitchell follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Hon. George J. Mitchell, Chairman of the Special
           Bid Oversight Commission, United States Olympic Committee
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appear today as the
    chairman of the special commission appointed by U.S. Olympic Committee
    President Bill Hybl in December 1998 to review the circumstances
    surrounding the selection of Salt Lake City to host the 2002 Winter
    Olympic Games. Serving with me on the Commission were Vice-Chairmen
    Kenneth Duberstein and Donald Fehr, and members Roberta Cooper Ramo and
    Jeffrey Benz.
        We made public our recommendations on March 1, 1999. As I reported
    to the Senate Commerce Committee on April 14th, we concluded that the
    activity of the Salt Lake City Bid Committee was not isolated. Rather,
    it was part of a broader culture in which candidate cities provided
    items of value to International Olympic Committee members as a way of
    influencing their votes. This culture, we concluded, was made possible
    in part by the closed nature of the IOC and by the absence of
    transparency and accountability.
        We also concluded that some of the actions of the USOC in support
    of Salt Lake City's bid effort were inappropriate, and we made a series
    of recommendations in this regard. The USOC's response was quick and
    decisive, and by the time of the Senate hearing in April I was able to
    report that the USOC had implemented all of our recommendations.
        We made fifteen recommendations to the IOC. They largely fell into
    three categories: financial transparency; site selection; and IOC
    structure and accountability.
        The actions taken by the IOC last weekend represent progress in all
    three categories. I commend President Samaranch, Dr. Kissinger, Senator
    Baker, and all those who participated in the reform effort.
        In the first two categories--financial transparency and site
    selection--the IOC's actions were significant. They generally were
    consistent with the recommendations of our commission. In one important
    respect, on the matter which sparked this controversy--visits to
    bidding cities by IOC members--the ban adopted by the IOC goes even
    further than we recommended.
        In the third category, structure and accountability, the actions
    taken by the IOC, while positive, fell short of our recommendations.

     We recommended changes in the method of electing IOC members.
            We felt that one source of its problems was its closed, self-
            perpetuating nature. Although the recent changes provide for
            representation of athletes, National Olympic Committee
            presidents, and sports federation leaders, they are not to be
            elected or appointed by their respective constituencies.
            Rather, ultimately they will be chosen by the IOC itself, after
            being submitted by the IOC Executive Board. In addition, we
            recommended that representatives of these constituencies
            comprise a substantial majority of the IOC, but the IOC has
            only provided for 45 of its 115 members to be drawn from these
            groups.
     We recommended term limits. Although a mandatory retirement
            age of 70 was adopted, there is no limit on the number of
            eight-year terms that an IOC member can serve. Those current
            IOC members who would be affected by the new mandatory 70-year
            retirement age are ``grandfathered'' in to the age of 80.
     We recommended the discontinuation of the practice of
            interlocking directorates between an IOC member and the NOC or
            OCOG of that member's home country. The IOC did not adopt that
            recommendation, but referred the matter for further study. The
            IOC did recommend that IOC members retain automatic entitlement
            to membership on the national Olympic committees though the 45
            IOC members drawn from the athletes, international federations,
            and national Olympic committees would not be permitted to vote.
     We recommended creation of an independent Office of
            Compliance. This apparently has been referred to the IOC Ethics
            Committee for consideration.
        So with respect to structure and accountability, there were some
    positive changes. But, in our view, they were not as complete or as
    meaningful as we had recommended or as were the changes in financial
    transparency and site selection.
        One other subject deserves mention. Our commission regarded as
    important our recommendation that the IOC require prospective host
    countries to designate the IOC as a public international organization
    under its laws pursuant to the OECD Convention on Combatting Bribery on
    International Business Transactions. In the U.S. this would mean coming
    under the coverage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The IOC has
    petitioned the Secretariat of the OECD to have the IOC so designated,
    although I have been advised that to date this has not occurred for
    procedural reasons. Nevertheless, we applaud the IOC for its effort. We
    hope that the IOC, the OECD Secretariat, and the Olympic Games bidding
    and host countries will continue to work toward implementing the
    Convention's provisions.
        Of course, the test of the effectiveness of the measures adopted by
    the IOC will be in their implementation and enforcement. A mechanism to
    ensure compliance has yet to be constructed. Without one, lasting
    reform will be difficult to achieve. I understand, however, that the
    development of a strong enforcement program is at least partly the
    responsibility of the IOC Ethics Commission. We hope that they will
    ensure that a strong Code of Ethics is developed and enforced. One of
    its members is our distinguished former colleague, Senator Baker, whose
    judgement and integrity should serve this important part of the process
    well. Mr. Chairman, a scandal has focused attention on a situation in
    which reform was long overdue. President Samaranch and his colleagues
    have responded to the challenge. But the real test lies ahead, in
    implementation and enforcement. These are important steps in the right
    direction but the IOC needs close monitoring and frequent checkups.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
        I know that Dr. Kissinger has a train to catch shortly, so
    I am going to deviate from the normal practice.
        I have one question for you, Dr. Kissinger, and we may have
    a couple of members that may have specific questions for you,
    so we will take that time out of turn.
        When you were here in October and testified you made the
    point very clear, and that of course was before the reform
    commission had reported out and, obviously, the vote this last
    weekend, you made it very clear that if for some reason those
    reforms failed, and in fact at the hearing some thought that
    the chance then was only 50-50 that it would pass, that you
    would be the first one back to criticize the IOC for not making
    the necessary reforms.
        As we look ahead and obviously focus on the enforcement of
    those reforms, the testimony by you and Mr. Baker and Mr.
    Duberstein, the implementation and enforcement of that is so
    important. Will you make that same commitment to us again,
    knowing full well that in fact the reports will be public by
    the Ethics Committee, that if in fact they do fail to enforce
    that, at any point along the line, that you will--in fact will
    take that same responsibility to tell not only us but the world
    and the IOC members that they are off the track again?
        Mr. Kissinger. Well, I have no formal right to do this, but
    as an individual--and I have no formal function with respect to
    a supervisory role at the IOC--but if it should come to my
    attention, and I certainly will continue to take an interest in
    the Olympic movement, if they are not living up not only to the
    letter but also to the spirit of what has been done here, I
    would certainly be very vocal about it and I would surely come
    back to this committee.
        May I make one point about term limits that my friend Ken
    Duberstein made? I am a professor of political science, and
    endless Ph.D. Theses have been written on the subject of how
    you create organizations, and you can find plausible arguments
    in either direction. I know of no corporation that prevents
    reelection, other than age.
        And, actually, this was not a matter where the IOC objected
    to the proposal. It was the considered judgment of our
    committee, right or wrong, that in light of an age limit of 70
    and of the need for some continuity of the need for reelection
    through this election committee so that you didn't come up
    automatically for reelection that that met the needs of the
    Mitchell proposals.
        But this is one of those issues about which political
    scientists and experts in organizations will argue forever. I
    just want to make clear this was not a failure of a reform
    proposal, this was a judgment that all of us outsiders made,
    and we were certainly free to come to a different conclusion.
        Mr. Duberstein. And the key was that each member would be
    renominated and have to go through a reelection.
        Mr. Kissinger. First he has to be renominated, then he has
    to go through the seven-member selection committee, four of
    whom are outsiders. So it is not an automatic reelection.
        If you will forgive me, I must catch a train.
        Mr. Upton. Does anyone have just a brief question for Dr.
    Kissinger before he leaves?
        Mr. Burr.
        Mr. Burr. I want to just extend to Secretary Kissinger the
    same question that I gave to Mr. Samaranch; and that is, of the
    reforms that took place, are there others that you would have
    liked to have seen that you found through your participation in
    this that were not included in the package? And, if so, what
    were they?
        Mr. Kissinger. Except for the term limit one, I really
    don't know any, and I did not push for the term limit one, I
    believe that the essential recommendations were adopted.
        I also would like to say that the chairman of the USOC,
    Bill Hybl, was an invaluable contributor to the reform process
    and gave tremendous support to all of us.
        Mr. Burr. I thank the chairman, and I thank Mr. Kissinger.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I will ask this to Senator Baker, too, but, Secretary
    Kissinger, what is your opinion on the reforms that are being
    implemented for the IOC members also applying to the office of
    the presidency of the IOC?
        Mr. Kissinger. On the what?
        Mr. Barton. That the reforms that have been voted on for
    the members of the IOC, those same reforms apply to the office
    of the presidency of the IOC. Because currently none of these
    reforms actually apply to the office of the president of the
    IOC.
        Mr. Kissinger. Well, I frankly had not focused on that, but
    I would assume that the premise is that the President of the
    IOC will want to carry out these reforms without being
    technically compelled to do so as far as his own office is
    concerned. I would certainly expect that the President of the
    IOC would set an example to the rest of the organization for
    meticulous adherence to the letter and the spirit of the
    reforms.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Dr. Kissinger.
        When we were here last, when Mr. Duberstein testified, and,
    Mr. Baker, we also had transportation trouble that day as well,
    as I recall, as you had an event in North Carolina that sent
    you off from our second panel, a lot was said. In fact, it was
    Mr. Duberstein's testimony of trust but verify, and that is
    exactly what we want to see come about here.
        I would like to share your optimism and your confidence in
    the new system. I am not quite there yet. We are anxious to see
    that the code of ethics, as it is drafted up--we are anxious to
    see that perhaps the first number of cases and how they are
    dealt with--we are interested to see, obviously, the full
    implementation and the progress that is made and perhaps
    further refinement with the scrutiny that comes about.
        But there was something that did come about, and I do not
    know if you saw this, I guess it was in Sports Illustrated this
    last week, posted from Switzerland, and I just want to run
    through with you some of the events that take place that sort
    of adds to our not full confidence. It adds to our skepticism
    in terms of being fully effective, the new Ethics Committee.
        I read, ``John Kim was indicted in September on Federal
    charges that he lied to investigators and entered the U.S. with
    a fraudulently obtained green card.'' Mr. Kim, a member of the
    IOC--his son, I'm sorry.
        ``Kim received a severe warning from the IOC earlier this
    year for alleged ethics violations.
        ``Asked last Wednesday whether Kim's status was under
    review as a result of his son's indictment, Director-General
    Francois Carrard said, `There are no facts as far as we are
    concerned. It would be a matter for the Ethics Commission'.''
        Sent to the right place. Those are my words.
        The story reads, ``Commission members, however, said they
    have no power to initiate further investigations on the case,
    which IOC spokesman Franklin Servan-Schreiber said is `closed
    until there is new proof'.''
        ``Ethics commissioner member Robert Badinter said that `we
    will not be Scotland Yard'.''
        It goes on.
        How does that comport with the power that the Ethics
    Committee has on obviously a case that is pretty recent versus
    back in the 1980's or even earlier in this decade?
        Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, I would say a few things.
        No. 1, the commission is still very much a work in
    progress. As I said in my earlier testimony, in the summation
    of my testimony, while we have adopted the code, we have
    adopted the bylaws, we are now in the process of writing rules
    and regulations and finding an administrative officer, an
    ethics officer, a special representative.
        And, by the way, it is my view that we ought to pick that
    person, the administrative officer, before we finish the
    drafting of the rules and regulations, because he or she should
    have some role to play there.
        On the question of whether or not we go into matters that
    are in the past and prior to the creation of the commission or
    prior to the perfection of the commission's activities, it is a
    very thorny issue. My friend, Mr. Badinter, also said at one
    point, or one of my fellow members did, that we are a forward-
    looking commission, and indeed we are.
        And you finally then get to the question, where do you
    close a matter? Do you go all the way back to the very earliest
    selection process and review the whole thing? I don't think so.
    Do you take a look at new allegations and new charges that were
    not considered? I certainly do think so. Is the commission a
    self-starter? Yes, in my view it is.
        And without any allegation of misconduct, it seems to me
    that if the administrative officer or his staff or the
    commission or any member of the commission ascertains that
    there is a reason to believe that there has been an infraction
    of the code or of appropriate conduct, that they should be a
    self-starter and go forward with it.
        But there has to be a dividing line someplace. And while we
    cannot go back and review everything that has ever happened, I
    do think that the commission, that the administrative officer,
    should be open to taking a look at anything that looks like it
    ought to be looked at and that perhaps may not have been looked
    into before. But it is like prior jeopardy in the legal
    parlance. You have to stop someplace.
        Mr. Upton. You would not necessarily close the door on this
    investigation, which is pretty recent?
        Mr. Baker. I would not close the door on that or any other
    investigation. If something new comes up that is clear it was
    not considered, then I think it is entirely appropriate for the
    Ethics Commission to take a look at it.
        Mr. Upton. Ms. DeGette.
        Ms. DeGette. Well, Senator, I really agree with what you
    have just said in terms of independent investigatory authority.
    Because something that I am very concerned about hearing in the
    testimony today so far is this testimony about, well, we never
    investigated abuses because no one reported them to us. And of
    course, as we know, if any organization is going to engage in a
    culture of corruption, you are not going to have reporting
    because everybody is going to back each other up.
        So I guess I would like to hear from you what you think
    that the Ethics Committee will be doing in its regulations to
    empower it to have this independent investigatory authority. I
    never got what I considered to be a very clear answer from Mr.
    Samaranch as to how we are going to break this cycle that has
    built up and how we are actually going to investigate whether
    it is happening, whether or not we have a specific allegation
    of abuse by a specific individual.
        Mr. Baker. Well, I think, first of all, you might like to
    have a little insight into how we finally derived the wording
    of the ethics code. One of the most energetic debates we had
    within the commission was whether or not there is a positive
    requirement for those who participate in Olympic activities to
    report a violation. Some said, well, you know, we just cannot
    do that. We would turn ourselves into, as one member said, into
    a bunch of McCarthyites. I said, well, in my view, you cannot
    have an effective ethics code unless you have a corresponding
    requirement that you report what you find.
        Ms. DeGette. Right.
        Mr. Baker. And while that is not dealt with directly in the
    ethics code, I think finally there is a unanimous view that the
    Ethics Commission has the positive responsibility to
    investigate whatever comes to their attention in whatever way.
        Ms. DeGette. But no proactive responsibility was put on IOC
    members to report, is what you are saying, and that kind of
    disturbs me.
        Mr. Baker. It is not spelled out in the code itself. But I
    say now, in my view, not only does the Ethics Commission have
    that responsibility, but I believe the Executive Committee has
    that responsibility, the IOC has that responsibility, and I
    think anybody involved, including national committees, should
    have, and I believe does have, the responsibility under the
    code to tell us if they see a violation of provisions of the
    code.
        Ms. DeGette. I understand what you are saying. I saw Mr.
    Duberstein nod. Do you think it will be possible, as we flush
    out these committee rules, to have some kind of affirmative
    responsibility to report any gifts that are received or trips
    that are taken or so on?
        Mr. Baker. Well, I hope so. Yes, on trips that are taken, I
    certainly think so.
        Ms. DeGette. Well, to follow up on the gifts, Mr. Samaranch
    just said a few minutes ago that he thinks the gifts should
    just be banned since they are an adjunct to the trips, and the
    trips are bad. So I will look forward to that change.
        Mr. Baker. By the way, I have a view of that. I don't think
    you ought to ban the trips. I think the trips are useful. I
    think what ought to happen, and I have said this, but it is not
    incorporated in the policy directives, I think what ought to
    happen is the IOC itself should pay for those trips.
        Mr. Duberstein. Which is, in fact, the recommendation of
    our commission.
        Mr. Baker. Exactly.
        Mr. Duberstein. But the IOC went----
        Ms. DeGette. So is that going to lead to another change in
    the rules, do you think? I might happen to think the trips
    would be useful, too, but the IOC should pay. But that is not
    what the IOC did.
        Mr. Baker. No. It is not in the rules and, really, it is a
    matter of policy, I think, absent any specific provision. What
    I am saying is I would feel better if it were done that way.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Duberstein, feel free to jump in. Do you
    feel it would be helpful to have some kind of hotline, where
    people could report some kind of potential abuses?
        Mr. Baker. That was discussed also, as we debated and
    finally adopted the ethics code. Many corporations do have
    that. They have a hotline not only to make it easier for people
    to report allegations of misconduct and violations of the code,
    but also so they can do it anonymously.
        Ms. DeGette. Right. Well, do you think a hotline will
    happen? We are talking about all these ideas, and maybe they
    are good ideas, but I do not hear this happening.
        Mr. Baker. We are still a work in progress, and that is my
    view, but I guess I have not given up on that yet.
        Ms. DeGette. All right. Just one last question, if I may.
    And by the way, we have enormous respect for you, for the other
    members of the panel, everybody who is working on this. We know
    you are all very diligent, and you are all very well respected.
    The concern I have got, and someone I think on the other side
    mentioned this in the previous questioning, what happens when
    you are all gone?
        How can we institutionalize an Ethics Committee that will
    not be primarily or even solely reliant on personalities and
    the goodwill of the vice chairman and of you good folks?
        Mr. Baker. Well, I appreciate the compliment, and I usually
    decline to think about what happens after I disappear.
        Ms. DeGette. Just after you leave the committee.
        Mr. Upton. We will use the John McCain example. We will
    give you some dark glasses and prop you up like he is going to
    do with Alan Greenspan.
        Mr. Baker. I would agree. But you are doing here the best
    thing you can do, and that is to ventilate these issues, to
    call public attention and to the attention of the IOC
    apparatus. Believe me, I know firsthand the IOC is listening to
    this and the Executive Committee is listening to it, and they
    are taking to heart the suggestions that you have made, that
    the Ethics Committee makes. This is the most effective thing
    that can be done.
        The Congress of the United States has no jurisdiction over
    the IOC. Maybe we can get at it in some indirect ways. But the
    surest way to deal with this, in my view, is to make sure it is
    a prominent, well-ventilated issue.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Burr.
        Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And given as much time
    as you spent with Senator Thurmond, Senator Baker, I don't
    expect you to go anywhere anytime soon.
        Let me set the record straight. And I don't think Mr.
    Kissinger meant specifically what he said, but I have
    questioned individuals, the chairman of the Ethics Committee,
    who is the vice president of the Executive Committee, and I
    have not questioned his character or his integrity, I question
    structurally whether the ability to serve as the chairman of an
    Ethics Committee and the responsibility he then had as a vice
    chair or vice president of the Executive Committee could in
    fact be performed by the same individual. Clearly, if you
    believe that that works, then I can accept that.
        I think the question that we all have about this process is
    structure. Is the structure in place that outlasts all of us
    and is one that the IOC can turn to in troubling times?
        So let me get to maybe not what the Ethics Committee is
    doing but how you envision the Ethics Committee handling
    certain things. Do you envision the Ethics Committee
    recommendations to be transparent or will they be closed at the
    Executive Committee level?
        Mr. Baker. Let me take them in reverse order. Should the
    deliberations of the ethics committee be totally transparent?
        Mr. Burr. Maybe not the deliberations but the findings of
    the Ethics Committee.
        Mr. Baker. The findings certainly should be transparent.
    The deliberations, you may have cases where you would want to
    protect the innocent or make sure that you protect sources or
    for other reasons that you would want to hold in confidence
    some of the deliberations of the commission.
        Mr. Burr. But you would expect the findings of the Ethics
    Committee that you turn over, based upon the structure that I
    understand, to the Executive Committee of the IOC to be open,
    those recommendations?
        Mr. Baker. I don't believe it is dealt with anyplace in our
    bylaws or our proposals, but I would expect that to be so, yes.
        Mr. Burr. Do you envision the Ethics Committee having the
    capabilities of disciplining IOC members or can that only be
    done under the structure by the Executive Committee?
        Mr. Baker. I don't think the Ethics Commission actually
    will have any authority to sanction or punish anyone. What we
    do is act as a fact-finding group, make a recommendation to the
    Executive Committee, and perhaps then from the Executive
    Committee to the full IOC. But we have no authority as an
    Ethics Commission to do that.
        Could I say a word about Judge Mbaye?
        Mr. Burr. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Baker. I met Judge Mbaye before I agreed to be on this
    commission, but I must tell you I am mightily impressed by him.
    He is careful, and he is deliberate, but he is also determined,
    and he is determined to see this undertaking works. And the
    fact that he is also a member of the Executive Committee does
    not really bother me at all. Perhaps it might at some future
    time, but I really am not really concerned about that, and I am
    certainly not concerned with Judge Mbaye.
        Mr. Burr. If this were not the IOC and this was a
    corporation that you served on the board of and that
    corporation set up an Ethics Committee within its company and
    the Chair of the Ethics Committee was in fact the vice
    president of the board, would you have a problem with that?
        Mr. Baker. Well, I was on a board, and before I went on the
    board I was asked to draw a code of ethics. And then after I
    got there, I became a member of the audit committee, which had
    responsibility for overseeing the performance of the ethics
    code. We had no chairman. We were a committee. But had we had a
    chairman, and were it a member of management, I don't think it
    would have bothered me. Because we had a majority of directors,
    outside directors. As a matter of fact, all but one was an
    outside director on the audit committee. And it never occurred
    to me that there was anything wrong with that.
        And, honestly, I don't think I will worry about this.
        Mr. Burr. Again, my question is not toward the integrity or
    capabilities of Mr. Mbaye, it is more toward the structure. Is
    that the structure we want for the future?
        Let me go on. Do you envision that the Ethics Committee can
    investigate charges on their own, or would they have to be
    directed by the Ethics Committee?
        Mr. Baker. Well, that is a very good question. I have heard
    expressions of several variations on that subject. My own
    personal view is that the Ethics Commission, and more likely
    the ethics officer, should have free rein to investigate
    anything that comes to their attention or that they suspect.
    And if it is in writing, that is fine, but they might even
    require it to be in writing. But I don't think there should be
    any restriction on the scope of the permissible inquiry that
    the Ethics Commission can make.
        Mr. Burr. According to an IOC press release dated October
    28, 1999, it stated that the Ethics Committee plans to develop
    within 12 months a process by which the Olympic parties will
    certify that they will comply with the letter and spirit of the
    IOC code of ethics. Let me just ask you, why will it take so
    long to develop?
        Mr. Baker. Well, I am not so sure it will. But I do think,
    as I said earlier, that it is as important that we have an
    educational program as it is that we have a code. Because those
    who are potentially impacted by this code or by the rules and
    regulations must be aware of the fact that not only the
    commission itself is behind these provisions but so is the top
    management, so to speak, of the IOC.
        I have no view on how long it will take. It has taken us a
    long time to get as far as we are, and it is still very much a
    work in progress.
        Mr. Burr. But you do see that as a vital part of the
    compliance by bid cities?
        Mr. Baker. The compliance part is important, and it is
    going to take awhile. And to be absolutely honest and candid,
    you don't get instant agreement within this commission on every
    item that comes up. It takes awhile for it to percolate through
    and to develop a consensus.
        Mr. Burr. That must be odd for you, after leaving the
    legislative branch up here, not to have full agreement?
        Mr. Baker. Absolutely unheard of.
        Mr. Burr. Last question. Is the Ethics Committee currently
    investigating any allegations of wrongdoing? Not asking for
    specifics, I am just asking in general.
        Mr. Baker. If I may, Mr. Burr, I think I will reserve on
    that for the moment.
        Mr. Burr. The gentleman certainly has the right to do that,
    and I respect that.
        I thank the Senator, and I thank Mr. Duberstein.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton.
        Mr. Barton. I thank the chairman.
        I want to comment on something that Senator Baker said in
    response to an earlier question, that the U.S. Congress does
    not have direct jurisdiction over the International Olympic
    Committee. That is very true. I am told, though, that the U.S.
    Government directly gives several hundred million tax dollars
    every Olympic cycle to the IOC, or USOC, indirectly through our
    Tax Code another several hundred million, and then U.S.
    corporations through sponsorship and commercial dealings
    several billion dollars. So I think there is a reasonable right
    of the Congress to be concerned about this, and I know that you
    share that.
        Senator Baker, I may not have this quote exactly right, and
    I would beg your excuse before the fact. But when I was a lad
    watching the House and the Senate growing up in Texas, I
    remember a certain Senator on a certain committee saying
    something to the effect, ``What did he know and when did he
    know it?'' Do you recollect who said that and when that person
    said that?
        Mr. Baker. I also recall that at lunch, on the day before I
    said it, with my press secretary Ron MacNamy, where I said we
    have to summarize this thing some way. It is drifting away. And
    I am going to ask what did the President know and when did he
    know it. And my press secretary said, ``No, don't use that, it
    doesn't have any clout.'' And I was about half convinced.
        But I do think it summarized the whole thing, and I don't
    think it is inappropriate to this inquiry. And it should be
    extended beyond just the President. It should be extended as
    well to the management of the IOC and specifically to the
    Ethics Commission. As long as I stay on the Ethics Commission,
    I intend to make sure that everything is possible for me to
    know about appearances of impropriety or about allegations of
    impropriety. That may be very difficult, but I feel that is the
    responsibility of the management and of the commission to do.
        Mr. Barton. Well, I want to commend you, Senator Baker, for
    having the courage in the early 1970's, as part of the Select
    Committee on what was commonly called the Watergate
    Investigative Committee, as a member of the minority party in
    the House and the Senate, to make that statement, to stick to
    your guns. Ultimately, the fact that a person of your
    commission and your eminence asked that question led to the
    resignation of the President of the United States. And I think
    President Samaranch, who is still in the room, is to be
    commended for appointing, for lack of a better term, what we in
    Texas would call a posse that puts people of your eminence and
    Dr. Kissinger and Senator Mitchell and some of the
    international community on it.
        But I would point out that, to use that analogy a little
    further, if the sheriff or President Samaranch sends the posse
    in the wrong direction, you can look all day and have the best
    sharpshooters and bloodhounds and troubleshooters and not find
    anything. So I am a little concerned about the responsibility
    for implementation, as the other members are, and I have a few
    questions for you in that regard.
        Sports Illustrated reports that of the 112 members on the
    IOC board as of February, 90 were appointed by President
    Samaranch. Is that concurrent with what your understanding is
    of the current make-up of the IOC?
        Mr. Baker. I have no reason to dispute that at this point.
        Mr. Barton. If that is in fact true, how independent do you
    think the current IOC board membership can be in implementing
    all of these various reform measures, given the fact that the
    incumbent president intends to remain in office?
        Mr. Baker. Let me regress for a minute and say that
    throughout my participation in this inquiry and the
    construction of the ethics code, I could not have asked for
    more cooperation than I have had from President Samaranch. I
    have talked to him privately, I have talked to him in groups,
    and I came away convinced that he was fully dedicated in a
    manner of trying to clean this up, so to speak, and that he
    fully supported our effort to draft a code that would
    institutionalize this new regime. So I have a very high regard
    for President Samaranch. I know that he testified effectively
    this morning, but I wanted to add that.
        Now, on the independence of the IOC, the very best way that
    you could do that, I think, is the way that we talked about a
    moment ago, and that is to make sure that the deliberations the
    IOC, of the Ethics Commission, the executive committee are all
    transparent to the maximum appropriate extent, and that as you
    point out, the Congress--in particular this committee--keep
    track of the evolution and development of this work in progress
    so that you can publish, so that you can call the country's
    attention to the successes and perhaps the failures of our
    efforts to institute a new day at the IOC. I really don't have
    any fear of undue influence by President Samaranch. I think he
    is well meaning and dedicated, I think he has given
    distinguished service, and I really have no reason to think
    that that would change.
        Mr. Barton. Are we going to have a second round, Mr.
    Chairman, on this panel?
        Mr. Bryant [presiding]. I have been told that it's up to
    me. That could be dangerous.
        Mr. Baker. Would the chairman accept a suggestion that if
    we have a second round, that we have sandwiches?
        Mr. Bryant. Only Mr. Upton might think on it. The chairman,
    the real chairman will be back here shortly. I will certainly
    leave it to his discretion. I suspect he will, if there are----
        Mr. Barton. Let me ask you one more question, and then I
    will defer my other series for the second round, if we have a
    second round.
        Why should not the reforms that are being implemented for
    the IOC board members not also be applied to the office of the
    presidency and the other executive offices?
        Mr. Baker. Well, I have listened to that question and Dr.
    Kissinger's answers. To tell you the truth, I haven't thought
    about that. But part of the reason I haven't thought about it,
    I guess, is because I have become such an admirer of President
    Samaranch. But I will think about it, and I will see that the
    matter is addressed and properly debated in the Ethics
    Commission. I am not----
        Mr. Barton. Dr. Kissinger's basic response was that he
    hadn't thought about it too much either, and he just assumed
    that whoever assumed the presidency would honor the spirit and
    the letter of the reforms to the rest of the membership. I
    would simply offer suggestions to your committee that the
    reforms on travel and acceptance of gifts and reporting and
    transparency be formalized for the Office of the Presidency and
    the other executive offices if for no other reason than to
    assure congruity and conformity.
        Mr. Baker. I thank you for the suggestion and I will see
    that it is passed on. I will promise to pursue the matter. I
    might also say, Mr. Barton, that my dad, who was in Congress
    years ago, taught me that if I ever testified before a
    congressional committee to always make sure that I didn't speak
    more clearly than I thought.
        Mr. Barton. We appreciate this panel testifying without the
    benefit of interpreters. That helps us. Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Upton. We have a little problem with the time because I
    know that--we are going combine Panel III and IV together. I
    know that some of those athletes will not be able to stay much
    longer because of transportation. So if we can, I would like to
    conclude with this round. If we have a passing question, come
    see me. Let me go to Mr. Bryant first.
        Mr. Bryant. Thank you. Mr. Duberstein and Senator, I would
    like, if either one of you have opinions on two questions that
    I have, if you could maybe express those rather succinctly, and
    we will try to move this along. I think we probably took a
    little longer than we anticipated with our first panel. But in
    terms of this Ethics Commission, is it too early to determine
    whether or not the members of the IOC--I don't know, perhaps I
    am assuming there has been some feedback--are taking this
    seriously, because I mentioned the culture that we feel. We
    heard a lot about that in the first hearing, that is sort of
    out there. In addition to that--this is not my second question,
    but in addition--are they going to take it seriously; are there
    powers that this commission will have, the special
    representative will have to get their attention?
        Mr. Baker. Mr. Bryant, I think that the IOC itself and the
    staff of the IOC and perhaps those who know of our
    deliberations, country committees and the like, do take it very
    seriously indeed; and there have been lots of suggestions about
    what should or should not be included in the code or the bylaws
    or the implementation plan.
        Once again, I think the surest way to make certain that the
    reforms survive and endure beyond the life of this commission
    or even this executive committee is to make sure that groups
    like this committee continue to have an interest in it. I know
    it is intrusive and unpleasant and an inconvenience to the IOC
    to have hearings like this, but it is the surest guarantee that
    these issues will be addressed and they will persevere in their
    effort to create a new day.
        Mr. Bryant. Mr. Duberstein, do you want to add anything to
    that?
        Mr. Duberstein. The only thing that I would add is our
    commission and Senator Mitchell and I had concerns, until the
    time that we traveled to London to meet with Mr. Samaranch, Mr.
    Carrard. We spent a good bit of time with them. Subsequently,
    we have talked with one or both of them on a number of
    occasions and became convinced of their not only dedication to
    reform, but to the transparency of the IOC and to the more full
    participation and representation at the IOC. I think it is
    significant that Mr. Samaranch came here today to appear before
    this committee. I agree with Congressman Barton as far as
    jurisdiction, but the fact is that Mr. Samaranch came here and
    testified and took all the questions that were asked. I think
    that should suggest to you that the commitment to reform on Mr.
    Samaranch is something that he is now living every day. I think
    that is reassuring.
        Mr. Baker. Could I add to that just for one moment? I am
    talking a little out of school, but I could tell you that there
    are many people on the IOC structure who thought it was
    inappropriate and unwise for President Samaranch to appear
    here. He persisted from the beginning, saying that he felt he
    should, and he did, and I am glad he came.
        Mr. Duberstein. I agree.
        Mr. Bryant. This will call for a short answer one way or
    the other, but both of you if you could answer this, both
    members of the panel, based on your experiences thus far as a
    member of the IOC Ethics Commission, are you satisfied with the
    progress that has been made to implement the necessary
    procedures to ensure the Ethics Commission will be successful
    in overseeing compliance with IOC rules and the ethics code?
        Mr. Baker. Yes, I am. There is always many a slip between
    the cup and the lip, but--I will repeat what I said earlier.
    This was not a cut-and-dried deal. There was a lot of
    controversy about the provisions of the code. It was finally
    unanimously adopted. I think the commission is fully on board
    and enthusiastic. I think the executive committee is. I believe
    that President Samaranch is, and that's way down the road. That
    is coming along.
        Mr. Duberstein. I do agree with what I observed and my
    conversations with Senator Baker.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Oxley.
        Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first thank both
    of you for excellent work on behalf of the International
    Olympic Movement. It has been spectacular and I think your
    presence here today points that out.
        This whole issue has become one that the press has focused
    in on essentially because of bribery or at least alleged
    bribery and as a result of trying to get a bid for a particular
    city. And I suspect that had that not happened, we wouldn't be
    here today and a lot of the allegations that floated around for
    years probably would have continued to go unnoticed. But as a
    result of that, the bribery allegations, a lot of good reforms
    have come out of it.
        As I mentioned to the other panel, to President Samaranch,
    Congress last year passed a bill that I introduced with
    Chairman Bliley to implement the OECD convention against
    bribery of foreign public officials. We have had in this
    country a history of legislation dealing with foreign corrupt
    practices. Senator Baker, you are well aware of that. Mr.
    Duberstein, you are as well. In many cases we took the lead. In
    many cases we were the only country that had a similar type of
    legislation. And it was in many ways a disadvantage for our
    companies insomuch that we lost billions of dollars in
    contracts overseas over the years as a result of our strict
    adherence to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
        Finally over the OECD leadership and the convention, the
    anti-bribery convention gives an opportunity for all of the
    countries to essentially sign on to that and put us on the same
    level that everybody else is. As a matter of fact, as many of
    you know, the laws in some countries actually rewarded
    companies for providing bribes, actually allowed companies to
    write it off on their taxes.
        So we have come a long way and I think the U.S. has taken
    that leadership and part of that was this anti-bribery statute
    that we were able to pass last session. One of the provisions
    in the legislation said that for the first time, briberies of
    officials of international organizations would be illegal under
    our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The IOC was not on the list
    of organizations covered because it was simply not covered by
    the International Organization Immunities Act. In drafting the
    bill, it did take into account the possibility that other
    organizations might need to be added to those subject to the
    FCPA. This provision allows the President to designate new
    organizations as subject to the FCPA by executive order. I,
    along with Chairman Bliley, wrote to the President in March--
    March 26, as a matter of fact--raising the issue. I understand
    that the Mitchell commission also raised that issue.
        Mr. Chairman, I will just quote briefly from the letter
    that Chairman Bliley and I sent to the President in March. ``We
    made it clear during this process that we expected prompt
    action by the administration to implement the treaty, including
    encouraging other nations to expand their own anti-bribery
    laws. The implementing legislation gave you the specific
    authority to add international organizations such as the IOC
    via executive order to the list of organizations covered by the
    Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, our Nation's tough anti-bribery
    law.''
        We go on to quote USOC president William J. Hybl in which
    he wrote to the president asking that you take this step
    recommended by the commission. In making this request, Mr. Hybl
    states, ``The United States Olympic Committee fully supports
    this recommendation by the Special Bid Oversight Commission and
    respectfully requests that you issue such an order.''
        As Mr. Hybl points out in his letter, issuing such a
    Presidential executive order would make it illegal to bribe an
    IOC official under the FPCA.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
    this letter to the President be made a part of the record.
        Mr. Upton. Without objection.
        [The letter follows:]

                          U.S. House of Representatives
                                          Committee on Commerce
                                                         March 26, 1999
    The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
    President of the United States of America
    The White House
    Washington, D.C. 20502
        Dear Mr. President: The recent events regarding the ethical lapses
    concerning the International Olympic Committee (``IOC'') raise serious
    issues that must be addressed promptly. Like all Americans, we were
    shocked and discouraged to learn that bribery and other illicit
    inducements may not only be common in the Olympic site selection bid
    process, but also that these practices allegedly were employed by some
    members of the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for the Olympic
    Winter Games of 2002 (``SLOC''). The very notion of IOC members
    profiting through their association with the Olympics is anathema to
    the diligence and dedication the world's athletes show in preparing for
    Olympic competition.
        We worked together last year to successfully pass the implementing
    legislation necessary for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
    Development (``OECD'') Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign
    Officials in International Business Transactions. We made it clear
    during this process that we expected prompt action by the
    Administration to implement this treaty, including encouraging other
    nations to expand their own anti-bribery laws. The implementing
    legislation gave you the specific authority to add international
    organizations, such as the IOC, via Executive Order, to the list of
    organizations covered by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (``FCPA''),
    our nation's tough anti-bribery law. We did this so you could act
    promptly, without seeking additional legislation, in a circumstance
    just like this. Given that you signed our legislation into law last
    fall, we are interested in learning why you have not exercised your
    authority in this regard in the four months since the scandal first
    broke.
        Furthermore, on March 1, 1999, Senator George Mitchell presented
    the Report of the Special Bid Oversight Commission to the United States
    Olympic Committee (``USOC''). This Report reviewed the circumstances
    surrounding Salt Lake City's bid to host the Olympic Winter Games and
    recommended improving the policies and procedures associated with the
    Olympic bidding process. Addressing the need for the IOC to make
    fundamental changes to increase its accountability, the Commission
    encouraged ``the USOC to consider requesting the issuance of a
    presidential Executive Order that names the IOC `a public international
    organization' within the meaning of FCPA.''
        Accordingly, on March 3, 1999, USOC President William J. Hybl wrote
    you, asking that you take this step recommended by the Commission. In
    making this request, Hybl states: ``[t]he United States Olympic
    Committee fully supports this recommendation by the Special Bid
    Oversight Commission, and respectfully requests that you issue such an
    Order.'' As Mr. Hybl points out in his letter, issuing such a
    Presidential Executive Order would make it illegal to bribe an IOC
    official under the FCPA.
        In light of the foregoing, namely that you now possess the specific
    authority to take action and a recommendation to do so from this
    nation's own Olympic Committee, do you intend to issue an Executive
    Order designating the IOC as subject to the FCPA? If you do not plan to
    issue such an Order, please include an explanation of your decision not
    to act.
        During our consideration of the implementing legislation, we made
    it clear that convincing other nations to ratify and implement the
    Convention was critical to its success. If we want to return integrity
    to the Olympics, we urge you to encourage as many nations as possible
    not only to ratify and implement the OECD Convention, but do so in a
    way that specifically makes bribery of IOC members illegal under their
    own anti-corruption laws. We are interested in learning what you have
    done in this regard. Accordingly, please describe the steps taken by
    the Administration, if any, to encourage other nations to implement the
    OECD Convention in a manner so as to make bribery of an IOC official
    illegal. Also, please identify, as of the date of this letter, the
    nations the Administration has contacted to urge them to implement the
    OECD Convention in such a manner as to specifically make the bribery of
    IOC officials illegal. We would greatly appreciate your response to our
    questions by April 13, 1999.
        Fairness, clear rules and objectivity are critical in the sporting
    world. The Olympic spirit reflects the highest ideals in this respect,
    or at least it should. Athletes spend years of hard work in training in
    order to pursue the Olympic dream. Their tireless dedication to
    excellence should not be sullied by corruption, or by acquiescence to
    corruption.
        If you have any questions about this request, please contact us or
    have your staff contact Mr. Edward Hearst of the House Commerce
    Committee staff at (202) 226-2424. We look forward to hearing from you
    on this important matter.
                Sincerely,
                                           Tom Bliley, Chairman
                                                  Committee on Commerce
                                     Michael G. Oxley, Chairman
                        Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials

        Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask
    both of the you, Mr. Duberstein and Senator Baker, do you think
    the President should designate the IOC as an organization
    subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?
        Mr. Duberstein. Yes.
        Mr. Baker. So do I.
        Mr. Oxley. Mr. Duberstein, would you require a host nation
    to be made part of the OECD Anti-bribery Convention and make
    illegal bribery of the IOC members illegal?
        Mr. Duberstein. I think that would be quite useful,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Oxley. Senator Baker.
        Mr. Baker. I have a different view. I have no objection to
    that, but I feel like before a country can be considered as a
    host country, a host committee, that they should make a
    positive affirmation of their commitment to comply with the
    code of ethics, and the code of ethics will also cover that
    point.
        Mr. Oxley. The idea would be that there would be at least
    an incentive there for any prospective host country to adopt
    the Anti-bribery Convention as a means of assuring that the
    bribery would not take place. Is that a reasonable assumption?
        Mr. Baker. I think so. I have no objection to it. But once
    again, my experience in this context is with the ethics code.
    We considered that in the ethics code, whether or not
    subscribing to the provisions of the ethics code ought to be a
    condition precedent to considering a country as a host country.
        Mr. Oxley. Mr. Chairman, we still await responses by the
    administration to our letter regarding any positive movement
    toward including the IOC under the anti-bribery statute. And
    perhaps we could work together to make certain that the
    administration understands how serious this committee is and, I
    am sure, how serious these gentlemen are about following
    through on that idea.
        Mr. Upton. I would just like to say that I would like to
    work with you on that. Though I thought the administration was
    trying to seek, though, in a little different form, but they
    were in fact trying to get the IOC underneath the Foreign
    Corrupt Practices Act. I thought they had sent that signal as
    poorly written.
        Mr. Oxley. Under the legislation, as I indicated, the
    President by executive order could do that today, and it has
    not been forthcoming. I think it is important that we make the
    administration understand how serious we are about that issue.
    I thank the Chairman for his indulgence in allowing me to sit
    in on the subcommittee and I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you very much. I would like to say that a
    number of us will have additional questions that we will submit
    in writing.
        A couple of us have questions that we would like to pursue
    in person, and I will first recognize Ms. DeGette.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I
    just have two questions.
        Senator, you testified a few minutes ago, at least I
    thought that you testified that the Special Representative can
    conduct or can gather evidence and conduct investigations on
    his or her initiative. But as I read the minutes adopted this
    weekend, they note that the Special Representative proceeds
    with the approval of the Commission, or if it's not meeting, of
    the Chairman. So I read those minutes that they could be
    interpreted in a slightly different way than your testimony.
    This raises the whole issue we have been talking about today,
    which is that these minutes really need to be fleshed out a lot
    more clearly. I think that you have got a lot of work cut out
    for you.
        Based on that, I have two questions. First of all, do you
    think that the IOC should consider elevating the Special
    Representative to a higher status than it is now, so in fact
    that office can have independent investigative authority?
        Mr. Baker. I don't think there is any doubt but that the
    fair intendment of the ethics code in the bylaws is that the
    Special Representatives--Special Representative should be
    independent and should have the budget and the staff to carry
    out his or her duties.
        I guess I would verse that a little different on the
    question of whether or not they could proceed with the
    concurrence of the Executive Committee or Ethics Commission. I
    said earlier, and I believe and I hope that my fellow
    commissioners believe, that the Special Representatives--
    Special Representative has the full authority to follow
    whatever leads occur to him or her. They require no
    authorization from the Ethics Commission or anyone else to
    pursue them. The Special Representative has no authority to
    sanction. The Ethics Commission has no authority to sanction,
    but I think the Special Representative should be fully
    empowered and I believe is fully empowered to pursue any lead
    that occurs to him.
        Ms. DeGette. Following up on that. I know your staff, in
    particular Kevin Jones, has been very helpful to our staff in
    trying to work this through. This just points out to me we are
    seeing confusion in the minutes adopted this weekend. We are
    seeing clarifications that are needed. I am wondering if we can
    try to have a series of follow-up conversations to see how the
    details are really being fleshed out with the first one of them
    to occur the first week of February of next year.
        Mr. Baker. Sure, I would be glad to. Thank you for your
    remarks about Kevin, who has been very helpful to me in this
    whole matter. He does it as I do it without any employment with
    the IOC.
        May I reiterate, this is still a work in progress. We are
    still trying to create a structure here and I welcome your
    observations and we will take account of them.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very quick.
    I just have three questions.
        First of all, I heard your complimentary comments on
    President Samaranch. I am sure those are sincere and well
    taken. But I would assume that Senator Baker and Mr. Duberstein
    would agree that there are other men and women of eminence and
    integrity in the world that could also serve as President of
    the IOC. Do you agree with that?
        Mr. Baker. Certainly so.
        Mr. Barton. The second question deals with independent
    spousal and family travel and recipient of gifts. Are some of
    these reforms that are going to be put in place, do they deal
    with that issue which would be separate from the IOC membership
    itself, or is that still an open question?
        Mr. Baker. No, I think they will be dealt with as a matter
    of policy as well as a matter of structure. I reiterate what I
    said before. It was not adopted as policy by the Executive
    Committee or the Commission, but my own view is that country
    visits are great but they ought to be paid for by the IOC. I
    must tell you, having your wife along is a major advantage. If
    the IOC will pay for it, I have no objection to it.
        Mr. Barton. My question, Senator, is not on a spouse or
    family member attending an official visit. My question is on an
    independent spousal or family visit, which has occurred
    repeatedly from the Office of the Presidency on down the IOC.
    These are independent visits where the IOC member or the
    executive officer is not there. The example that I alluded to
    was the president's wife attending Atlanta and making no bones
    about the fact that she wasn't interested in looking at the
    potential venues. She wanted to go shopping and wanted to see
    some of the cultural sites of the South. My question is
    independent family/spousal visits, not attending or an official
    visit.
        Mr. Baker. I know trouble when I see it. I am not about to
    talk about a wife attending these meetings. I take your point
    and I understand.
        Mr. Barton. It is something that needs to be looked at. I
    am just bringing to it to your attention.
        Mr. Baker. I will adhere to that.
        Mr. Barton. There are a number of reports over the years
    that have alluded to that.
        My last of my questions is somewhat more complicated. If
    you want to cogitate on it and present a formal response for
    the record because of time, I understand that. But I am told
    when you attended your first IOC either Executive Committee
    meeting or maybe preliminary session that you appeared--you
    came back and were appalled at the lack of any regular order. I
    know you are from the Senate and we sometimes in the House
    think that the Senate doesn't have any regular order, but we
    have a Rules Committee and a Jefferson's Manual, and we adhere
    to certain procedural rules. Apparently when the IOC conducts a
    meeting, there are no rules, as in whatever the presiding
    officer makes them at that meeting.
        Should it be made in order that you actually recommend a
    set of procedural rules so that the way votes are taken, the
    way items are put on the agenda, the way things are brought up
    for consideration, all of the things that we take for granted
    in a democracy, but appear to be done, if at all, very murkily
    in the IOC hierarchy?
        Mr. Baker. It is a pretty informal group, at least the
    Ethics Commission is. I will acknowledge to you that after my
    first meeting I was tempted to resign. But then I thought
    better of the whole thing and made my recommendations and many
    of them were adopted. I think that it is a worthwhile endeavor.
    But I have no--I see no crying need for a formal code of
    procedure for the Commission. I have never been to an IOC
    meeting or Executive Committee meeting so I can't speak to
    that. But I think the Commission works okay. Judge Mbaye runs
    it in a very effective manner.
        As I repeat, in the first meeting I certainly got off to a
    rough start. We had some pretty enthusiastic disagreements on
    some points. But it all came together, it is working as a
    group. I think it is effective. I think the code they have
    adopted is good, perhaps even excellent. I think that the
    bylaws that have been adopted are good and relevant and I think
    that our next big challenge is to find the right Special
    Representative, our administrative officer. But I have come a
    long way since that first meeting when I was sort of nonplused
    by the way that it went. But I think things are going well and
    I think they will continue.
        Mr. Barton. I was told that at last week's meeting, one of
    the motions was made on a particular reform measure, and there
    were 90 members present who were allowed to vote and the vote
    was called and 10 voted for it and it was moved that it was
    adopted. In the U.S. Senate, if the vote were 10 to 80, the
    nays would have it. I think there is work to be done in that
    area and I would commend that to your Commission to look into.
        Mr. Baker. One of my law partners who is chairman of the
    firm, always at firm meetings says, I perceive a consensus.
        Mr. Barton. I thank the panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you again, both of you, and Dr. Kissinger
    has left early to catch his transportation. We appreciate very
    much your testimony. I just want to say that we look forward to
    hearing both your frustrations and the words of success as this
    moves forward in the future. I know that you will be willing
    and able to communicate it to this panel. We appreciate very
    much your time and wish you a very happy holiday season. Thank
    you. Good to see you.
        If we could have the third and fourth panels assemble. I
    know that in particular Bonnie Blair has a 3 o'clock plane that
    I am told is on time. I made it to National in 6 minutes, so
    that may be an Olympic record, and you are supposed to be
    faster than me. But if at this time we could have the remaining
    two panels together, Mr. John Naber, Mr. Bill Stapleton, Mr.
    Robert Ctvrtlik, Ms. Bonnie Blair, Mr. Kerrie Strug, Mr. Kevin
    Szott, Mr. Billy Mills, and Mr. Peter Westbrook come to the
    table.
        As you know, our process is taking testimony under oath. If
    you raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Upton. We will start with Ms. Blair who still has a
    chance to catch the flight. You can take any chair. We know who
    you are, you have been identified. We need that mike.
        Your statement in its entirety will be made a part of the
    record. Thank you.

        TESTIMONY OF BONNIE BLAIR; JOHN NABER; BILL STAPLETON,
      CHAIRMAN, USOC ATHLETES ADVISORY COUNCIL; ROBERT CTVRTLIK;
      BILLY MILLS; KERRIE STRUG; PETER WESTBROOK; AND KEVIN SZOTT

        Ms. Blair. Can everybody hear me? Obviously, it kind of
    seems already that everybody knows who I am. In my original
    statement, I said good morning but I think now it is afternoon.
    We do appreciate and, I guess, on behalf of the all of the
    athletes, you letting us be here and in a sense kind of speak
    our minds as well.
        I am Bonnie Blair. I have been in four winter Olympics,
    consecutive Olympics, starting in Sarajevo in 1984 and going on
    through Lillehammer in 1994. I was able to have the, I think,
    the great fortune to be able to win 5 Olympic gold medals and
    one bronze for myself as well as the United States. As of right
    now, that's the record for the most medals for a female
    American, which that is something I am still proud of.
        During the course of the Olympics, being able to be up on
    the medal stand is something that is difficult to express in
    words what that feeling is like. Having that medal draped
    around your neck, hearing the Star Spangled Banner played,
    there is nothing quite like it ever in my wildest dreams. I was
    lucky enough to be able to do that five times.
        But through all of that and the great victories that I have
    had, one of the most greatest victories that I felt was a race
    where I actually didn't receive a medal, where I actually
    placed fourth in the 1500 in Lillehammer. That was a personal
    best for me.
        So I think a lot of times for us, especially as athletes,
    when you achieve something that is beyond your wildest dreams,
    that is success. I think success comes from a lot of different
    areas in life; in the Olympics, in everything that we do.
    Sometimes success just doesn't always mean finishing first. But
    for sure as an athlete, as an Olympian, I didn't go to the
    Olympics not thinking of gold. That was something that was
    obvious in all of our minds. Like I said, success comes on a
    lot of different levels. To me, striving for a personal best
    was something that I was just as proud of achieving as it was
    the Olympic medals that I received as well.
        I think also as a competitor, as an Olympian, you can't be
    afraid to compete. Whatever the level, whatever the race, you
    go out there and give it everything that you have got. And
    maybe sometimes people think of being scared of something. It's
    kind of iffy. But I guess part of that also has to come with
    the possibility of knowing that you might have to accept change
    and risk. Because, for sure, as athletes a lot of things can
    change: your age, your health, your condition. But you always
    have to be willing to be up to the challenge of the change, of
    taking that risk.
        I think that's one of the things where the IOC has come up
    against something. They know that they have had to make a
    change. They have had to make something different, to do
    something different, to try to always be the best that you can
    be. And that's what is happening.
        I know as an Olympian, I have been just as disappointed as
    a lot of you have of the things that have happened over the
    course of the last year. But they know that they have to make
    change. They are having to do something different. In my eyes,
    what has gone on over the last year, especially over this last
    weekend, they are taking those steps to make the change. I
    think all of us here were the ones that were going to keep
    backing then. We are going to keep supporting them and
    challenging them to keep making it better and to be the best
    that they can be.
        I have definitely been proud of my relationship with the
    Olympic Committee, starting off with speed skating as a whole
    here in the United States with our Olympic Committee and being
    a part of the Olympic Movement worldwide. It is definitely a
    position in my life that I know is going to carry on for a
    lifetime. And I want to continue to work with them, hopefully
    try to keep making things better so that they can be the best
    that they can be for the future of what our Olympians are going
    to be. I know that they are going to make the change. To me it
    has been obvious and I think that we have to stick with them
    and try to help them as best we can. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Bonnie Blair follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Bonnie Blair
        Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name
    is Bonnie Blair. I am a recently-retired Olympic speedskater and I am
    pleased to appear before this committee.
        I have had the tremendous good fortune and the high honor of
    representing the United States at four consecutive Winter Olympics:
    Sarajevo in 1984, Calgary in 1988, Albertville in 1992, and Lillehammer
    in 1994. During the course of my Olympic competition I won five gold
    medals which, I understand, is a record for an American female
    Olympian.
        It was a thrill each time I stepped up on the platform and heard
    the Star Spangled Banner play as the gold medal I won was placed around
    my neck. But to me, ``winning'' is a relative term. The greatest
    victory I ever experienced was my finish in a race in which I did not
    receive a medal, but in which my performance far exceeded any of my
    previous competitions in that event. That, to me, was a victory because
    I had achieved something I never dreamed I was capable of achieving,
    although I had been working hard to prepare.
        Don't get me wrong, as an athlete, and as an Olympian, I always
    skated for the gold. But I am saying that there are other measures of
    success--in life as in sport. Being the best that you can be, without
    fear of failure. We have to recognize and honor even our smallest
    triumphs, the personal-best-goals that we set for ourselves, even if
    they seem less than noteworthy to others. That is the Olympic ideal,
    and is at the base of what motivates all of us as we prepare for
    competition, whether in the Olympic Games or in life.
        The successful athlete knows that you can't be afraid to compete,
    whatever the pressure, whatever the race. This brings me to a bit of a
    contradiction and that is, in order to be successful consistently, we
    need to be flexible enough to change and risk. For an athlete,
    conditions change. Age, experience, health and conditioning change.
    Equipment and technique change, too. If I had resisted change as a
    competitor, I would have been left behind long before I experienced the
    success I did. We see this element of change manifesting itself in the
    global environment, too. Attitudes change, policies change, even
    governments. Why? Because the bottom-line goal is to make things
    better.
        I have personally been troubled by the events surrounding the
    International Olympic Committee as they have unfolded over the last
    year. I believe these problems have served as a detrimental distraction
    from the Olympic ideals of competition and personal excellence, and
    have forced the concentration of the athletes onto matters unrelated to
    their quest and pursuit of excellence.
        The way I see things, the International Olympic Movement is on the
    cusp of great and much-needed change. It must not fear change, but
    welcome it as a competitive challenge to make it a better organization;
    responsive to athlete interests and respectful of the ideals it has
    always represented. The athletes, who are the backbone and reason for
    the Olympic Games deserve to have the honor and nobility restored to
    the great tradition that is the Olympic Movement. For that matter, so
    do the world citizens who make up the audience that cheers for the
    victors, weeps for the tragic figures and ultimately exalts in every
    athlete's participation in the Games.
        From what I have read over the weekend, the IOC has taken the first
    steps toward restoring the integrity of the Olympic Movement and I
    encourage them to continue their progress. In this we, the Olympic
    athletes, want to be a part of the process because we truly care. We
    will not let you fail because we will bring the same energy toward the
    restoration of the Olympic ideal that we brought to our preparation for
    competition as Olympians and Olympic Hopefuls.
        My association with the Olympic Movement is a major factor in who I
    am and I am proud of my association with it. The current difficulties,
    I believe, are only temporary, and we are now on the road back. Let all
    of us who really care about the Olympic Movement be part of the
    restoration process, applaud the successes, however seemingly
    insignificant, and help the IOC be the best that it can be. That is the
    Olympic spirit, the Olympic way, and I know that a characteristic
    Olympic effort will yield a result that will make everyone involved a
    winner.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent to
    ask Ms. Blair one question before she leaves?
        Mr. Upton. Sure.
        Ms. DeGette. Ms. Blair, as you have heard, sitting through
    the whole testimony today, our real concern is that the IOC be
    as good as it can be also, and that's why Congress has really
    been trying to pressure for these reforms for a long time. What
    I would like to ask you is, is there concern--I might ask the
    rest of the athletes this later--is there concern among the
    athlete community that Congress's efforts to clean up the IOC
    is going to somehow result in retaliation against the U.S.
    athletes?
        Ms. Blair. I certainly hope not. I think one way to look at
    it is that everybody is trying to make the steps to make it
    better. I think John Naber will talk a little bit more on his
    end and what he has been involved in. I think that's been a big
    forefront on the athlete part. But I think it is coming from
    all different areas as well as from the sponsorships, those
    people taking a stand, too. But I think in a sense it is kind
    of like everybody coming together to make that wheel spin in a
    perfect circle so that we can be the best that we can be in all
    different areas.
        Ms. DeGette. So you think that the athletes support this
    effort to make the IOC reform?
        Ms. Blair. I think the athletes always want to have
    whatever is best. I think as far as the athletes go, a lot of
    the things that happened, you never really touch them
    specifically. We go to the Olympic Games and we compete. We are
    kind of like in tunnel vision. A lot of the things that happen
    on the outskirts beforehand, we don't have a lot of anything to
    do with that. So our main focus was always to go out there and
    strive to be the best that we can be. I think for anything, you
    always wanted to be the best that you can be, whatever the
    circumstances. Obviously, we have been hit with a battle of a
    lot of frustrating circumstances. I think in the long run it is
    going to make it bigger, better, and stronger.
        Mr. Upton. I don't mean to cut you off, but if you are
    going to make your flight, you better go.
        Ms. Blair. I guess I will try.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
        Again, I regret that we needed to put these panels
    together, but as you all know, we had some starting problems
    this morning because of the airport trouble and whatnot. I
    think really at this point, because of the time constraints,
    even though a wonderful video was prepared and certainly I
    intend to watch it, we will not do it at the liberty of
    everybody else that has been waiting.
        Oh, do you want to watch it? All right. We will roll the
    videotape as they say. But I do want to say, too, in putting
    this panel together when the video was made, I know that John
    Naber is not shown on the video and he on his own has received
    5 gold medals and 1 silver and that needs to be certainly
    recognized. But let's roll the tape. Thank you.
        [Videotape shown.]
        Mr. Upton. We appreciate the USOC doing that. I only wish
    it was about a couple of hours longer. It was really terrific
    and I appreciate your efforts on behalf of this country. We
    appreciate your willingness to come today as well. We are sorry
    about the schedule. Those things happen. At least we didn't
    have 10 votes today that would have required us to get up and
    back. We appreciate your willingness to appear as one panel as
    that will save a little bit of time.
        At this point all of your statements will be made part of
    the record in their entirety. If you could limit your remarks
    to no more than 5 minutes, hopefully a little bit shorter, that
    would be terrific. We will start with Mr. Naber. Thank you very
    much.
        You need to pass those mikes down as well. And also we want
    to make a unanimous consent request that the report, which you
    had a large degree in helping to write, of your organization is
    now made a part of the record as well, by unanimous consent.

                         TESTIMONY OF JOHN NABER

        Mr. Naber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my
    remarks, I want to acknowledge that although I won my gold
    medals underneath the flag of the U.S. Olympic Committee and
    the USA, I am also a member of Character Counts Sports. I am
    also a member of OATH, Olympic Advocates Together Honorably,
    and the Healthy Competition Foundation which are a lot of
    different organizations that care about what is good in sport.
        As part of that I want to acknowledge that the Olympic
    motto is ``Citius, Altius, Fortius,'' which is swifter, higher,
    stronger. Not swiftest, highest, strongest. It is not about
    winning, it is about getting better. As Bonnie Blair just said,
    her losing race was one of the ones she was most proud of.
        It is because of that philosophy of personal improvement
    that I offer my remarks and it is in that spirit which I hope
    they are received. I know we are limited on time so I just want
    to cover four quick points and one underlying commonality that
    goes through them all.
        First of all, whenever I watch professional sporting events
    on television, football, basketball, baseball, it makes me wish
    I was a better athlete. Whenever I watch the Olympics, it makes
    me wish I was a better person. It is the stories of individuals
    overcoming obstacles and trying their best, not just about
    winning. It is that that I love about the Olympics. Even the
    International Olympic Committee's own stated fundamental
    principles say, and I quote, ``that the Olympic Movement is a
    philosophy which seeks to create a way of life based on the joy
    found in effort, the educational value of good example, and
    respect for fundamental ethical principles.''
        ``The goal of the movement is'' and I continue quoting ``to
    contribute to building a better world by educating youth
    through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind
    which requires mutual understanding and the spirit of
    friendship, solidarity, and fair play.''
        I think everybody on this panel would be perfectly happy if
    the IOC merely lived up to its own statement of fundamental
    principles. Now, with the commitment of fair play and
    sportsmanship, the Olympic Games, currently five wonderful
    gifts from this community: significant government funding for
    host city infrastructure; generous availability and access over
    the public airwaves; vast tax-deductible corporate
    sponsorships; the unbridled enthusiasm of wide-eyed spectators
    and young kids; and the undying affection of those of us who
    are the focus of the games, the athletes themselves.
        With so many stakeholders, surely you have to call the
    Olympic Movement a public trust. It should be protected by the
    public for the good of all humanity. Now, the report, as
    recently suggested by the IOC Commission, the IOC 2000
    Commission, that were unanimously accepted are wonderful. The
    abuses that brought those things to light, the bid city
    scandal, frankly was like an iceberg that rips out the side of
    the ship. But though it did make the changes possible, it would
    have been unthinkable 13 months ago.
        So it is without any sarcasm that I join the rest of the
    speakers when I say congratulations to Juan Antonio Samaranch,
    IOC Executive Board, and the 110th council, the Congress in
    Lausanne, for accepting all of these responsibilities. In my
    view, it turned this 105-year-old luxury liner a full 15
    degrees to port. They made a big change in the last year for a
    luxury liner.
        While many of the accepted reforms have the promise of
    potential change, they are still vulnerable to manipulation and
    abuse. If the reforms are not both implemented and enforced in
    a manner that is in keeping with those fundamental principles,
    the ship is destined to spring a leak and sink once again.
        Let me begin with the first of four issues, the ethics. If
    we pretend that all people who ever hold or will hold an IOC
    post are always ethical and always make good decisions, perhaps
    you don't need a fully functioning, ever vigilant proactive
    investigator. Presumably, the number of lifeboats on the
    Titanic were perfectly adequate for the trip they intended to
    take. In sport, however, accidental violations of a rule are as
    common as ethical lapses are in life. At the Olympic Games, the
    athletes enjoy a clearly defined set of rules and well-trained
    officials whose only job it is to bring those transgressions to
    light.
        Well, though the scandal has precipitated the creation of
    the Ethics Commission, the measure of their efficiency or
    efficacy is not their credentials--they are all above reproach,
    they are all fabulous people--but rather, the method by which
    they were chosen, the independence of their thinking, the
    transparency of their process, and the binding authority of
    their decision. Maybe the word ``independence'' has lost
    something in the translation, but I didn't see clear
    independence reflected by some of these reforms. If each member
    of the Ethics Committee is hand-picked behind closed doors, has
    no authority to root out ethical lapses but only makes
    suggestions that must be ratified by the Executive Board, then
    this group will be no more successful than the individual
    conscience of each IOC member. Giving the Ethics Commission the
    responsibility to eliminate the perception of IOC misconduct
    without giving them the power to do so, it is like finding a
    man drowning 20 feet from shore, tossing him a 15-foot rope and
    saying that you have met him more than halfway.
        The creation of their Special Representative post is a
    great first step. But his or her selection process and
    responsibilities and the independence and the loyalties are
    still unclear.
        Let's move on to the second area, performance enhancing
    drugs, which has the ability to be the single greatest thorn in
    the Olympic Movement's side because it attacks the very
    validity of the gold medals themselves. The great Norwegian
    speed skater and humanitarian, Johann Olav Koss, was approached
    by a pre-teen Olympic hopeful who said, Mr. Koss, what kind of
    drugs did you have to take in order to win the gold medals?
        That skepticism affects the winners and the cheaters alike.
    Sadly, any critics of the IOC can now add to their complaints
    any dissatisfaction they may have with the results of pending
    drug testing, and it needs pointing out that many of the
    international federations have indicated their unwillingness to
    play along with the international drug testing programs. The
    difficulties are substantial, with unproven new testing
    protocols, sophisticated drug users remaining one step ahead of
    the authorities, even the rumor of concealed positive drug
    tests for fear of offending or in any way embarrassing the
    Olympic Movement. In the aquatic vernacular, I would say either
    the net is too loose, the fish are too smart, or somebody is
    playing catch and release.
        It's a wonder to me then why the IOC wants to remain in the
    word's cross-hairs with this responsibility. For the results of
    all drug testing to be universally believable, we have to
    remove the impression that there might be any incentive to
    conceal a guilty person's guilt. A zero tolerance additive is
    believable only from a truly independent body.
        No. three, the third area of concern is the duration of the
    IOC terms--the two are frequently used to curtail the runaway
    power of entrenched position--is the application of term
    limits. This method allows any organization the opportunity to
    gradually build into the system a polite way of allowing new
    blood onto the committee and encouraging those with decades to
    leave service without a hint of rancor of scandal. The current
    new members, however, will be elected to 8-year terms with the
    possibility of unlimited reelections by their fellow members.
    Unlike U.S. corporations or other groups, they not accountable
    to the vast body. They only have to receive their votes from
    their own brothers and sisters. Since the votes are cast by IOC
    members, the possibility of the same group electing itself over
    and over again is real and frightening. Furthermore, since all
    of their 8-year terms begin January 1, they all come up for
    renewal at the same time, eliciting the possibility of a votes-
    for-votes scandal, and that's also frightening.
        In the Olympic Games, the defending champion or current
    world record holder doesn't get a bye into the finals or a head
    start into the race. He or she is not automatically to return
    to the games 4 years later. Each victory must be fairly earned
    and each battle won on the merits on that date. The chance of
    an upset is what keeps the challengers working so hard and at
    the same time keeps the veteran on his toes.
        Here is the fundamental truth. There is no room for
    entitlement at the Olympics and there shouldn't be in IOC
    membership.
        My final area of concern is athlete representation, pretty
    much moot at this point, I am delighted to say. Recent rules
    allow for these new athletes to join the IOC, but they have to
    leave the IOC 8 years after their most recent Olympic
    appearance, which ties their athletic ability to their term,
    and it is in fact a de facto term limit. I don't mind getting
    new blood on the committee. I think it is unfair to issue term
    limits to the athletes while not issuing term limits to the
    rest of the IOC. We want a level playing field.
        The criteria to serve as a representative of the active
    Olympians, also, I should note, the election timing stinks. To
    hold an election in the middle of the Olympic Games when
    athletes are at their most heightened critical moment in their
    life, it is really unfair. It seems a bit flawed, and each
    election could easily be a popularity contest with the public
    name of the medalists as opposed to their legitimate desires to
    serve the good of the movement.
        Last is their voice on the Executive Board. If you are
    going to put these athletes on, let them vote and choose their
    representative to the Executive Board right now. That has to be
    approved by the IOC president, although perhaps that may change
    in the near future.
        The overriding concern, the fundamental common flaw in all
    of these four areas, in my opinion it is called the lack of IOC
    accountability. While they created the Ethics Commission, I
    don't know that they have agreed to abide by every decision
    that the Commission makes. While they have reduced the age
    limit, they have put no limit on their own terms, thereby
    indicating a reluctance to let go of the positions until the
    last possible moment. They have created an international drug
    testing program. They seem reluctant to let it loose to allow
    the system to work without their influence. And while they have
    added seats for athletes, they have limited the pool of the
    athletes they can choose from, and in fact, limited the length
    of the athletes' terms to frankly their most athletically
    fruitful years.
        Though they have shown a recent willingness to be
    inclusive, the system is still stacked in their favor because
    there is no authority to which they willingly hold themselves
    accountable. There is no system of checks and balances and far
    too many decisions seem to be made behind closed doors and by
    claim.
        Olympians may be the finest athletic specimens on the
    planet, but even they are held accountable to the rules of
    support, the official decisions, the governing bodies, the
    testers for drugs, and, of course, the IOC.
        After accepting all 50 reforms, though, I have to say the
    IOC bought my vote. At least they bought the benefit of my
    doubt. I am willing to trust the IOC to be genuine in their
    call for democracy, transparency, and responsibility. I know
    many IOC members personally and I can vouch for their motives
    always being for the benefit of the movement without seeking
    personal glory or gain. We must remember that every IOC member
    is in fact a volunteer. They are giving of their time.
        Juan Antonio Samaranch did concern me, though, by his
    comments earlier in the day when he said, ``My first
    responsibility is to the IOC members.'' He said that today.
    Even so, we must remember that without accountability to
    others, unprincipled and expeditious choices become easier to
    make and, sadly, easier to overlook. Leaders need to be
    accountable to someone other than themselves, not just in word
    but in deed. There must be an ongoing means for an independent
    review of the IOC and an occasional inspection of this luxury
    liner's moral compass to maintain her true heading.
        By announcing this area well in advance, Mr. Chairman, you
    put all of the players on notice that their decisions will be
    made public, that their critics will be heard, and that their
    deeds will have to stand up to the scrutiny of media attention.
    I won't repeat the phrase that Reagan said before--okay, I
    will: Trust, but verify.
        [The prepared statement of John Naber follows:]
                        Prepared Statement of John Naber
        Before I begin my remarks, I want to make clear that though I won
    my medals for the United States of America, and am the democratically
    elected president of the US Olympians (our nation's Olympic Alumni),
    and serve on the CHARACTER COUNTS! Sports Advisory Board, I sit before
    you today as one of many members of OATH (Olympic Advocates, Together
    Honorably), the only truly independent, international, athlete-led
    organization of Olympians in the world. I am grateful for this
    opportunity to share thoughts and observations that I've gathered
    during my over twenty three years in the Olympic movement.
        Because we are limited for time, today, I'll be focusing my remarks
    on four areas of discussion, as they pertain to the recently adopted
    IOC reforms, and the one common bond they seem to share. But let me
    begin by calling attention to the reason I am glad to be here.
        The Olympic Motto of ``Citius, Altius, Fortius'' means ``Swifter,
    Higher, Stronger''. . . not ``Swiftest, Highest, Strongest''. The
    Olympic Games should be about personal and professional improvement,
    not about winning at all costs. This quest for improvement reflects the
    athlete's desire to set new records, to enhance performance, to improve
    themselves while following the ideals of sportsmanship and fair play.
    It is in that spirit that I seek to point out any imperfections or
    suggestions for the purpose of improving the Olympic movement and I
    hope my remarks will be delivered for the future benefit of all
    Olympians and stakeholders.
                      the olympic games as a public trust:
        When I watch professional sporting events on television, (the Super
    Bowl, NBA Playoffs or World Series), it makes me wish I was a better
    athlete. But when I watch the Olympics, it makes me wish I was a better
    person, because of its collection of young men and women trying to work
    hard and overcome obstacles to reach their personal potential and
    dreams, without any realistic hope for financial security.
        The International Olympic Committee's own Charter includes a
    statement of Fundamental Principles, in which the purpose of the
    Olympic movement is described as (and I quote) ``a philosophy . . .
    (which) seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort,
    the educational value of good example and respect for fundamental
    ethical principles.'' The goal of this movement is (and I quote again)
    ``to contribute to building a . . . better world, by educating youth
    through sport, practiced without discrimination of any kind . . . which
    requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity
    and fair play.''
        With its commitment to fair play and sportsmanship and all that is
    best in the world of sport, the Olympic Games enjoy significant
    government funding for host city infrastructure, generous availability
    and access over the public airwaves, vast tax-deductible corporate
    sponsorships, the unbridled enthusiasm of wide eyed spectators and
    children from around the world, and of course the undying affection of
    the focus of the Games, the athletes themselves. With so many
    ``stakeholders'' surely the Olympics can be called a ``public trust,''
    one that needs to be protected by the public for the good of all
    humanity.
        The reforms recommended by the IOC 2000 Commission, and recently
    accepted by the IOC General Session last week are a remarkable
    testament to the disinfectant power of sunlight. The abuses that were
    brought to light by the ``Bid City Scandal,'' like an iceberg that rips
    out the side of the ship, have made changes possible that would have
    been unthinkable a mere 13 months ago.
        Had these changes come about on their own, without public pressure,
    I would have been among the first to champion the IOC for its
    progressive stance, and forward thinking leadership.
        Even so, it is without any sarcasm that I now sincerely applaud
    Juan Antonio Samaranch, the IOC Executive Board and the 110th Session
    Congress for overhauling this 105 year old ``luxury liner'' called the
    International Olympic Committee, and steering her a full fifteen
    degrees to port in little more than a year.
        The reforms suggested by the IOC 2000 Commission go a long way
    towards making sure the ship never hits that same iceberg again, but
    historically, the people at the helm have shown little evidence of
    their willingness to be accountable to the concerns of the ship's
    investors, passengers or crew. It's for that reason that I am now
    cautiously optimistic when I am told that the gash in the hull has been
    patched, and we're ready to resume full speed, without at the same time
    receiving adequate guarantees of the craft's future safe passage.
        While many of the accepted reforms have the promise and potential
    of great positive change, the structure of those reforms is still
    vulnerable to manipulation and abuse, and, if the reforms are not
    implemented and enforced in a manner that is in keeping with the IOC's
    own Fundamental Principles, the ship is destined to spring a leak, and
    sink once again.
                               ethics commission:
        The first area of my concern is potentially the most far-reaching
    reform, which was made in the creation of the Ethics Commission and the
    new position of the Special Representative. While their work is not yet
    done, I want to share my enthusiasm for their task ahead. Mr. Samaranch
    himself noted ``There has been a breach of trust between the IOC and
    the public, and it will take time to heal.'' We should not expect
    immediate results, but I am looking forward to the prompt and adequate
    resolution to any remaining cases pertaining to the ``votes-for-
    bribes'' issue or any other ethical lapses as well.
        If we assume that all people who hold or ever will hold a seat on
    the IOC are fundamentally good and wise, and will always follow each
    and every rule, ethical or otherwise, then there's probably not going
    to be a need for a fully functioning, ever vigilant, proactive
    investigator. Presumably, the number of lifeboats on the Titanic was
    perfectly adequate for the smooth voyage that was anticipated.
        In sport, however, accidental violations of a rule are as common as
    ethical lapses are in life. Sometimes ignorance of the rules is to
    blame, or perhaps the strength of the temptation is also too much to
    bear. At the Olympic Games, the athletes enjoy a clearly defined set of
    rules, and well trained officials whose only job is to bring any
    transgressions to light.
        In my Olympic swimming races, eight competitors performed in front
    of about 20 trained officials. The officials were not there because the
    IOC expected someone to break the rules, but rather to give everyone
    another reason not to. Their presence also insured that the eventual
    winners would not have to see their victories disputed.
        The existing Ethics Commission members each have reputations that
    are impeccable and beyond reproach, but to blindly trust that all
    ethical lapses will disappear because the IOC put really ethical people
    on a commission, is like entrusting the repair of four cavities, three
    partial crowns and a root canal to someone who has good teeth, instead
    of a dentist's diploma.
        Though the scandal has precipitated the creation of the Ethics
    Commission, the measure of its efficacy is not the credentials of the
    members, but rather the method by which they were chosen, the
    independence of their thinking, the transparency of the process and the
    binding authority of their decisions.
        If each member is hand-picked behind closed doors, and has no
    authority to root out ethical lapses but only to make suggestions for
    further ratification, this group will be no more successful than the
    conscience of each IOC member. Giving the Ethics Commission the
    responsibility to eliminate the perception of IOC misconduct, without
    giving them the power to do so is like finding a man drowning twenty
    feet from shore, tossing him a fifteen foot rope, proudly claiming
    you've met him more than half way.
        The primary responsibility of the Ethics Commission should be to
    create a lasting document, an ``Honor Code,'' with a clear and specific
    definition of appropriate (and inappropriate) conduct, with remedies
    attached. The USOC has a similar document already in place for its
    various coaches. Only after we understand this document, can we begin
    to measure it's likely impact. Rules have been in place before, but the
    people also must follow them. Just as the liberty of a nation can be
    traced to its citizens' adherence to well written laws, so too, the
    reputation of the IOC will depend on its members' willingness to follow
    these guidelines.
        Naturally, this document must be made easily available to the
    public.
        I also commend the IOC on the creation of the ``Special
    Representative'' post. It is a great first step, but his/her selection
    process, job responsibilities, independence, powers and loyalties are
    currently unclear.
        Early in my swimming career, I was caught and disqualified for
    doing an illegal turn. I never made that same mistake again, for two
    reasons. 1) the prompt execution of appropriate punishment made me a
    better person (I learned my lesson), and 2) I knew the ``stroke & turn
    judge'' would still be watching over me the next time I swam. The
    ongoing threat of being caught put me on my best behavior, and
    eventually helped me earn a reputation for honesty as well as
    excellence.
                        world anti-doping agency (wada):
        Now, let's move on to the second area of my concern, the use of
    performance enhancing drugs which is the single greatest threat to the
    Olympic Games, because it attacks the very validity of the gold medals
    themselves.
        The great Norwegian speed skater and humanitarian, Johann Olaf
    Koss, was approached by a pre-teen Olympic hopeful, who asked ``What
    kind of drugs did you have to take in order to win your gold medals?''
    This attitude of skepticism affects the ``clean'' and ``dirty''
    champions alike.
        I am delighted to see the progress made on this issue by the IOC.
    Their commitment of financial ($25 million) and other resources has not
    gone unnoticed or unappreciated. The decision to create the World Anti-
    Doping Agency (WADA) is long overdue.
        Sadly, any critics of the IOC can now add to their complaints any
    dissatisfaction they may have with the results of the pending drug
    testing, and it needs pointing out that some of the International
    Sports Federations have indicated a reluctance to ``play along.''
        The difficulties are substantial, with unproved or new testing
    protocols, sophisticated drug users remaining one step ahead of the
    authorities, or even the rumor of concealed positive results so as to
    avoid official embarrassment. In the aquatic vernacular, either the net
    is too loose, the fish are too smart or someone is practicing ``catch
    and release.''
        Even so, for the results of all drug testing to be universally
    believable, we have to remove the impression that there might be any
    incentive to conceal an athlete's guilt. A ``zero tolerance'' attitude
    is believable only from a truly independent testing body.
        I've had a life-long admiration for IOC member and fellow Olympic
    swimmer, Richard Pound. His work on WADA has been relentless and
    perhaps thankless as well, and yet, even so, I still believe that it is
    in the Agency's best interest to be completely independent,
    transparent, and accountable to all the passengers on board, where
    there can be no suspicion about the fairness of the testing or the
    reliability of the published results.
                                ioc term limits:
        The third area of concern to me is the duration of the IOC terms.
        When it comes to IOC membership, I believe that someone's age is
    irrelevant to their ability to serve the Olympic cause so therefore the
    IOC's established age limits are irrelevant, but limiting the length of
    time someone may sit on the IOC is not.
        A tool frequently used to curtail the runaway power of entrenched
    position is the application of term limits. This method allows any
    organization the opportunity to gradually build into the system a
    polite way of allowing ``new blood'' onto the Committee, and
    encouraging those with decades of service to leave without a hint of
    rancor or scandal.
        Though the IOC 2000 recommendations included regular elections for
    all members, (one eight year term allows members to attend four Olympic
    Games, two summer and two winter), but the reforms did not go far
    enough.
        Current and new members, however, will be elected to eight year
    terms, with the possibility of unlimited re-elections, by their fellow
    members.
        Since the votes are cast by other IOC members, the possibility of
    the same group voting for each other year after year, is both
    disturbing and real. Further, all existing members will be up for
    renewal at the same time, and without staggered terms, the likelihood
    of a ``votes-for-votes'' scandal is frightening. Besides, for an
    organization like the IOC, it is the addition of new members, added
    regularly, that will allow it to keep on top of the significant issues
    that concern all stakeholders. If the IOC decided that it's wise to
    give their own President a limit to the number of years he/she may
    serve, why not then make the General Membership also subject to this
    same restriction?
        In the Olympic Games, the defending champion or current world
    record holder doesn't get a ``bye'' into the finals, or a head start in
    the race. He or she is not automatically invited to return to the Games
    four years later. Each victory must be fairly earned, each battle won
    on its merits on that day. The chance of an upset is what keeps the
    challengers working so hard, and at the same time, keeps the veterans
    ``on their toes.''
        There is no room for ``entitlement'' at the Olympics, and there
    shouldn't be in the IOC membership.
                       ``active athlete'' representation:
        My final area of concern is also my favorite issue, athlete
    representation.
        Much of the progress made in the allocation of power to the
    athletes themselves is due to the work by members of the IOC's Athletes
    Advisory Council (AAC). Their professional behavior and devotion to the
    movement has made it possible for a greater role for athletes in the
    future of the IOC. In fact, ten AAC members were recently placed on the
    IOC, a clear step towards a spirit of inclusiveness and cooperation.
        The recent change in the rules now allows for fifteen (15) seats on
    the IOC to be reserved for ``active athletes'' (as defined as someone
    who participated in the Olympics during the past four years) to be
    elected (by other Olympians), but also must resign eight years after
    their last Olympic competition. This is a de-facto term limit to which
    the other IOC members are not subject.
        Though I'm told it's a mere formality, those that are elected by
    their peers still have three more hurdles to cross. This ``potential
    gauntlet'' includes the new IOC ``Selection Committee'' which must
    approve their qualifications, followed by a review by the IOC Executive
    Board, and finally the election by the IOC General Session.
        While I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that seeks to
    include the opinions of today's competitors, this particular reform
    falls short in providing true accountability on a level playing field
    in three areas.
                               ioc interference:
        First, if the IOC truly seeks to have the unvarnished opinions of
    the athletes included in discussions, the athletes should also be
    trusted to elect someone with their own best interests in mind, without
    fear of being overruled or edited by the IOC.
        Criteria to serve as the representative of the active Olympians
    should not be limited by current athletic prowess, but rather the
    ability to gather the confidence of the various Olympic performers. If
    they have to leave the IOC, let it be for term limits (shared by all
    members) and not the falling off of their athletic skills.
        The athletes' concerns might be better addressed by someone with
    years of experience, someone like a Donna de Varona, who swam to gold
    in 1964, served as an Olympic television announcer for years, lobbied
    on the Hill for the Amateur Sports Act and Title IX, Co-Founded the
    Women's Sports Foundation and recently was Chairperson for the Women's
    World Cup of Soccer. Under current rules, the Olympic athletes would
    not be allowed to elect her as their representative.
        Let the athletes elect whom they want, and then they'll get the
    representation they deserve.
                                election timing:
        Secondly, the election process is sadly ill timed.
        For most competitors, the Olympic Games symbolize more than a
    sporting contest. It's a Mecca for personal dreams and ambitions.
    Living in the village and meeting the international cast, seeing the
    sights and hearing the sounds, all of it is to be relished for a
    lifetime.
        To hold a campaign and election in the midst of the Olympic Games
    themselves, when the athletes' minds must necessarily be on more
    pressing issues, seems a bit flawed, and can easily result in a
    popularity contest instead of an election.
        To put it another way, making the ship's passengers themselves
    stand the midnight watch in the rain, just might take a bit of fun out
    of the cruise.
        Voters need to listen to the candidates articulate their positions,
    and clearly affirm their willingness to devote the time and energy
    necessary to serve. And without a recall option, those elected are not
    accountable to their athletic peers, but only to their new brotherhood,
    the IOC.
                        athlete on ioc executive board:
        Thirdly, the concerns of the ``active athletes'' should be
    addressed at the Executive Board by a representative chosen by the
    ``active athletes,'' not appointed (or even approved) by the IOC
    President.
        Good governance should not be measured by the possibility of having
    a contrary point of view reach the IOC Executive Board, but rather the
    impossibility of the IOC to prevent such conflicting opinions from
    being heard.
        To discover the openness and accountability of this ``overhauled
    organization,'' we only have to ask ourselves, ``What response might we
    expect if the IOC doesn't like the contrary opinions of a potential
    member?'' and ``What can they do about it under this new system?''
        While I'm not suggesting that opposition to the IOC's policies
    should serve as an automatic qualification for membership. Most
    responsible organizations don't avoid, but rather seek the dissenting
    point of view.
                            the overriding concern:
        What do these four areas have in common? In my opinion it's the
    lack of IOC accountability. While they created the Ethics Commission, I
    don't know that they've agreed to abide by every decision the
    Commission makes. While they've reduced the age limit, they've put no
    limits on their own terms, indicating a reluctance to let go of their
    positions until the last possible moment. While they've created an
    international drug testing program, they seem reluctant to set it loose
    to allow the system to work without their influence. While they've
    added seats for the athletes, they've limited the pool the athletes can
    choose from, and in fact limited the length of the athletes' terms to
    their most athletically fruitful years.
        Though they have shown a recent willingness to be inclusive, the
    system is still stacked in their favor, because there is no authority
    to which they willingly hold themselves accountable. There is no system
    of checks and balances, and far too many decisions seem to be made
    behind closed doors, or by ``acclaim.''
        Olympians may be the finest athletic specimens on the planet, but
    even they are held accountable to the rules of their sport, the
    officials, their governing bodies, the drug testers, their coaches, and
    of course the IOC.
        If I wanted to be cynical, I might see these reforms as a way for
    the IOC to give lip-service to the outrage of public opinion, but in
    fact, I am trusting the IOC to be genuine in their call for democracy,
    transparency and responsibility. I know many IOC members personally,
    and their motives have always been for the betterment of the movement,
    without seeking personal glory or gain.
        I shared membership on the 1976 Olympic Team with Anita DeFrantz,
    and rejoiced at her election to the IOC. I served with Jim Easton on
    the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee, and I know Dick Pound has
    always tried to make each decision with the best interest of the
    athletes in mind, I've seen no duplicity there.
        But even so, we must remember that without accountability to
    others, unprincipled and expeditious choices become easier to make and
    easier to overlook. The leaders need to be accountable to someone other
    than themselves, not just in word, but deed.
        There must be an ongoing means for an independent review of the
    IOC, an occasional inspection of the ship's ``moral compass'' to
    maintain her true heading.
        The ``danger radar'' needs to be on alert for potential ``crises on
    the high seas,'' and most importantly, the passengers on board (those
    who paid for their ticket with years of athletic effort and personal
    sacrifice) deserve the service one might expect on such a well
    traveled, historically significant and world renowned vessel.
        We realize that for these reforms to be effective, they need time
    to work. New members have recently been added to the IOC, and I have
    faith that changes are (or soon will be) on the horizon. After the
    IOC's overwhelming endorsement of all fifty IOC 2000 recommendations,
    the IOC leadership is entitled to my cautious but optimistic support.
    Rest assured, I will not be the only person keeping a close eye on the
    goings on in Lausanne.
        By announcing this hearing well in advance, Mr. Chairman, you put
    all the players on notice that their decisions will be made public,
    that their critics will be heard, and that their deeds will have to
    stand up to the scrutiny of media attention. In your action, I can see
    the wisdom of Ronald Reagan's quote of the Russian idiom, ``Trust but
    verify.''

        Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Stapleton.

                       TESTIMONY OF BILL STAPLETON

        Mr. Stapleton. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
    subcommittee, I am a former Olympic swimmer. I competed in the
    1988 Olympic Games in Seoul, South Korea. In my professional
    life I'm a lawyer and represent Olympic and professional
    athletes, one of whom, Lance Armstrong, this year's winner of
    the Tour de France, recently testified here on Capitol Hill
    regarding government funding of cancer research. In my role as
    a sports attorney and agent, I hear the views of actively
    engaged world class athletes every day, and I am here to share
    their thoughts with you.
        Most importantly, I am also here today in my capacity as
    the Chairman of the United States Olympic Committee's Athletes
    Advisory Council, a duly elected body within the USOC, which
    represents the interests and perspectives of current and
    recently former athletes who, presumably, are or at least
    should be the foundation of the Olympic Movement. As you can
    imagine, I have heard quite a bit of feedback from athletes
    around the world in the past year. I am happy to report that
    athletes like Lance Armstrong are much more concerned about
    preparing to win Olympic medals and repeat Tour de France
    victories than they are about corruption in the IOC. However, I
    am disappointed to report that most athletes that I have talked
    to consider what happened in Salt Lake to be business as usual
    within the IOC, and they have little faith in reform.
        This is the first of what are now three hearings into the
    International Olympic Committee bid scandal in which athletes
    have had a prominent presence. While I appreciate this
    opportunity to be here, this emphasis on Olympic sport
    officials is appropriate because the controversy is not about
    Olympic athletes, but about those who may have abused an
    athlete support institution for self-aggrandizement. In doing
    so, they have damaged the reputation and image of the formal
    institutions they represented.
        But fortunately, the image of the Olympic Movement and the
    athletes who are at its heart have been left unscathed. Indeed
    I have seen survey results that confirm that the support and
    respect for America's Olympic athletes is at its highest point
    ever. Frankly, most athletes who train for Olympic competition
    don't care that much about the scandal because they are too
    busy preparing to represent their country in the Olympic Games
    in Sidney and in Salt Lake.
        But for those of us whose careers are behind us, such as
    many of those on this panel, who are committed to preserving
    the tradition of excellence of the Olympic Games and increasing
    opportunities for tomorrow's Olympians, we are furious with
    what has been done in the name of and at the expense of the
    world's Olympic athletes and their noble aspirations. Perhaps
    the problem is that athletes have not been permitted to be
    involved in the process to the extent that we should, and that
    we must be permitted to be more visible and active in setting
    the course for the governance of the Olympic Movement. This
    scandal might end up being the best thing that could happen to
    the IOC and the International Olympic Movement because it has
    forced an examination, not just of the IOC's processes but also
    of its culture, and has revealed serious deficiencies.
        Action to correct these deficiencies was initiated by the
    IOC this path weekend. We applaud what they accomplished and
    the spirit in which the IOC membership dealt with this
    difficult matter. But I submit that the corrective process has
    just begun and that there is much still to be addressed and
    remedied before meaningful progress is realized.
        When this scandal was first revealed, the USOC commissioned
    its own investigative body, headed by Senator George Mitchell,
    to examine the USOC practices and to make a series of
    recommendations, a number of which relate to the IOC. The USOC
    Athletes' Advisory Council considers the Mitchell Commission's
    recommendations to be extremely important to ensuring that the
    scandal does not repeat itself.
        We are disappointed with the IOC's disposition of some of
    these Mitchell Commission recommendations. Significant athlete
    participation in the governance of Olympic institutions is, in
    my view, a necessity. What constitutes significant is open to
    debate, but in the United States, by both Federal statute and
    USOC policy, a minimum 20 percent participation of athletes of
    all Olympic sports governing bodies is required.
        In this country, the Congress, with the leadership of
    Senator Stevens and certain important Members of the House,
    passed the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, which was recently
    amended in 1998. That statute requires the U.S. Olympic
    Committee and the national governing bodies it recognizes to
    set aside 20 percent of the membership or voting power of their
    governing boards and committees for actively engaged or
    recently competed world-class athletes elected by athletes.
        As I am certain no one from the USOC or national governing
    bodies will dispute, these athlete representatives have
    fundamentally and positively impacted the governance of Olympic
    sports in this country. These athlete representatives bring
    with them to the board room the knowledge gained from having
    recently competed at an elite level in their sport. In
    addition, these athletes are directly accountable to the
    athletes that elected them.
        The IOC has finally recognized the athletes who participate
    in its governance, but I believe the athlete quota on the newly
    configured IOC, a mere 15 out of a board comprised of 115
    people, is insufficient and suggests tokenism. Further, these
    athlete representatives, some are not elected by their peers,
    but are selected through an undemocratic process which I would
    phrase as co-optation, whereby an elite panel, appointed by the
    IOC leadership, selects and recommends candidates for
    membership.
        Finally, given that an individual is only eligible to serve
    as athlete representatives in the IOC for the period of 4 years
    after they compete in the Olympic Games, given that few, if
    any, athletes have time available to both compete at an elite
    level and serve as an IOC member, this limit effectively limits
    athlete participation to the 4-year period after they last
    competed. This limit does not allow time for an athlete IOC
    member to come up to speed on the relevant issues and to become
    politically viable.
        As a result, I suspect the athlete voice will be tolerated,
    but it cannot be completely effective. I believe this is a
    recipe for maintaining the status quo and is a significant
    obstacle to the realization of true reform.
        Further, it appears that the concept of limits is the most
    elusive, if not nonexistent, quality to the term limits
    proposal adopted this past weekend. I find this provision in
    the reforms to be the most offensive. First, the effect of the
    new provision is minimal on current IOC members, so it may be
    decades before the current membership is appreciably altered.
    The provision adopted merely substitutes a renewable 8-year
    term for a much longer term that lasted until the IOC member
    turned 80 and imposes a mandatory retirement age of 70, but, as
    noted, exempts current members.
        Under this system, it is unlikely that entrenched interests
    will continue to dominate unchecked as they always have. It is
    these entrenched interests and failure by these IOC members to
    enforce self-control that contributed significantly to the mess
    we are in today. More importantly, when this infinitely
    renewable term limit is viewed alongside the clearly defined
    term limit for athlete representatives, it is clear that the
    only IOC members with true term limits are athletes.
        The Mitchell Commission made a number of recommendations
    that would make the IOC more transparent and accountable, such
    as annual audits, disclosure policies and the creation of an
    enforcement mechanism. In so many of these areas, the reforms
    that were adopted partially addressed a deficiency, but did not
    go far enough. The audit provision, for example, prescribes
    annual audits of IOC finances, but allows public disclosure
    only quadrennially. Rather, in addition, the need for an Office
    of Compliance was confirmed, but was not established.
        The most important question, however, is how will these
    reforms be implemented? I encourage this committee to continue
    its oversight. The IOC could put anything down on paper, but
    unless these provisions are translated into practice in a
    manner consistent with the spirit in which they were adopted,
    they are just words. The key to effective implementation is a
    formal mechanism for enforcement and the will of the current
    IOC membership whose tenures have been protected to enforce
    proposals that may be contrary to the individual interests of
    some. I seriously question whether that will exists, but am
    willing at the moment to give them the benefit of the doubt.
    Nevertheless, I encourage its new athlete IOC members, although
    small in number, to bring to their jobs the same dedication to
    vigilance in this process that they brought to their own
    preparation for Olympic competition. I think the future of the
    IOC is somewhat in their hands, and I urge them to strive for
    meaningful reform.
        I am thankful that this Congress has opted to insert itself
    into this important issue, and I believe that if it had not
    done so, we would not be confronted with a reformed IOC today.
    However, I urge the members of this committee to study very
    carefully the impact of any legislation currently pending or
    that might be introduced that would negatively impact the IOC
    as this legislation might have a serious impact on America's
    athletes who are training for Sidney and Salt Lake City
    Olympics.
        Thank you for being willing to take your time on this
    issue, which is important to all the American athletes who have
    realized or hope to realize their Olympic dreams.
        [The prepared statement of William J. Stapleton follows:]
     Prepared Statement of William J. Stapleton, Chairman, USOC Athletes'
                                Advisory Council
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I myself am an
    Olympian, having competed in the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul, South
    Korea in swimming. In my professional life, I am a lawyer and represent
    Olympic and professional athletes, one of whom, Lance Armstrong, this
    year's winner of the Tour de France, recently testified here on Capitol
    Hill regarding government funding of cancer research. In my role as a
    sports attorney and agent, I hear the views of actively engaged world-
    class athletes every day and I am hear to share their thoughts with
    you. Most importantly, I am also here today in my capacity as the
    Chairman of the United States Olympic Committee's (``USOC'') Athletes'
    Advisory Council (``AAC''), the duly elected body within the USOC which
    represents the interests and perspectives of the current and recently
    former athletes who, presumably, are, or at least should be, the
    foundation of the Olympic Movement. As you can imagine, I have heard
    quite a bit of feedback from athletes around the world in the past
    year. I am happy to report that athletes like Lance Armstrong are much
    more concerned about preparing to win Olympic medals and Tour de
    France's than they are about corruption in the IOC. However, I am
    disappointed to report that most athletes I have talked to consider
    what happened in Salt Lake to be business as usual within the IOC and
    they have little faith in reform.
        This is the first of what are now three hearings into the
    International Olympic Committee (``IOC'') bid scandal in which athletes
    have had a prominent presence. While I appreciate this opportunity to
    be here, this emphasis on Olympic sport officials is appropriate
    because this controversy is not about Olympic athletes, but about those
    who may have abused an athlete support institution for self-
    aggrandizement. In so doing they have damaged the reputation and image
    of the formal institutions they represented, but fortunately, the image
    of the Olympic Movement and the athletes who are at its heart have been
    left unscathed. Indeed, I have seen survey results that confirm that
    the support and respect for America's Olympic athletes is at its
    highest point ever.
        Frankly, most athletes training for Olympic competition don't care
    that much about this scandal because they are too busy preparing to
    represent their country in the Olympic Games in Sydney next September.
    But for those whose careers are behind them, such as many of those on
    this panel, who are committed to preserving the tradition of excellence
    of the Olympic Games and increasing opportunities for tomorrow's
    Olympians, we are furious with what has been done in the name, and at
    the expense of the world's Olympic athletes and their noble
    aspirations. Perhaps the problem is that the athletes have not been
    permitted to be involved in the process to the extent that we should,
    and that we must be permitted to be more visible and active in setting
    the course for the governance of the Olympic Movement.
        This scandal might end up being the best thing that could have
    happened to the IOC and the international Olympic movement because it
    has forced an examination not just of the IOC's processes, but also of
    its culture, and has revealed serious deficiencies. Action to correct
    these deficiencies was initiated by the IOC this past weekend; we
    applaud what they accomplished and the spirit in which the IOC
    membership dealt with this difficult matter. But I submit that the
    corrective process has just begun, and there is much that must still be
    addressed and remedied before meaningful progress is realized.
        When this scandal was first revealed, the USOC commissioned its own
    investigative body, headed by Senator George Mitchell, to examine USOC
    practices and to make a series of recommendations, a number of which
    relate to the IOC. The USOC AAC considers the Mitchell Commission's
    recommendations to be extremely important to ensuring that this scandal
    does not repeat itself. We are disappointed with the IOC's disposition
    of some of these Mitchell Commission recommendations.
        Significant athlete participation in the governance of Olympic
    institutions is, in my view, a necessity. What constitutes
    ``significant'' is open to debate, but in the United States, by both
    federal statute and USOC policy, a minimum twenty percent participation
    of athletes on all Olympic sport governance bodies is required. In this
    country, the Congress, with the leadership of Senator Stevens and
    certain important members of the House, passed the Amateur Sports Act
    of 1978, which was amended in 1998. That statute requires the U.S.
    Olympic Committee and the national governing bodies it recognizes to
    set aside 20% of the membership or voting power of their governing
    boards and committees for actively engaged or recently active athletes
    who are elected by athletes. As I am certain no one from the USOC or
    the national governing bodies will dispute, these athlete
    representatives have fundamentally and positively impacted the
    governance of Olympic sports in this country. These athlete
    representatives bring with them to the board room table the knowledge
    gained from having recently competed at an elite level in their sport.
    In addition, these athletes are directly accountable to the athletes
    that elected them.
        The IOC has finally recognized that athletes should participate in
    its governance, but I believe that the athlete quota on the newly-
    configured IOC--a mere fifteen out of a board comprised of one hundred
    and fifteen people--is insufficient, and suggests tokenism. Further,
    these athlete representatives are not elected by athletes, but are
    selected through an undemocratic process known as ``cooptation,''
    whereby an elite panel appointed by the IOC leadership selects and
    recommends candidates for IOC membership. Finally, given that
    individuals are only eligible to serve as athlete representatives in
    the IOC for the period of four years after they compete in the Olympic
    Games; given that few if any athletes have time available to both
    compete at an elite level and serve as an IOC member while still
    actively competing, this limit effectively limits athlete participation
    to the four year period after they last competed. This limit does not
    allow time for an athlete IOC member to come up to speed on the
    relevant issues and to become politically viable; as a result, I
    suspect the athlete voice will be tolerated but it cannot be effective.
    I believe that this is a recipe for maintaining the status quo, and is
    a significant obstacle to the realization of true reform.
        It appears that the concept of ``limits'' is the most elusive, if
    not non-existent, quality of the term limits proposal adopted this past
    weekend. First, the effect of the new provision is minimal on current
    IOC members, so it may be decades before the IOC's current membership
    is appreciably altered. The provision that was adopted merely
    substitutes a renewable eight-year term for a much longer term that
    lasted until the IOC member turned 80, and imposes a mandatory
    retirement age of seventy, but, as noted, exempts current members.
    Under this system it is likely that entrenched interests will continue
    to dominate unchecked, as they always have; it is these entrenched
    interests, and failure by these IOC members to enforce self control,
    that contributed significantly to the mess that has brought all of us
    here today. More importantly, when this infinitely renewable term limit
    is viewed alongside the clearly defined term limit for athlete
    representatives, it is clear that the only IOC members with true term
    limits are the athletes.
        The Mitchell Commission made a number of recommendations that would
    make the IOC more transparent and accountable, such as annual audits,
    disclosure policies, and the creation of an enforcement mechanism. In
    so many of these areas the reforms that were adopted partially
    addressed a deficiency, but didn't go far enough. The audit provision,
    for example, prescribes annual audits of IOC finances, but allows
    public disclosure only quadrennially. In addition, the need for an
    Office of Compliance was confirmed, but was not established. Rather, it
    was turned over to the newly-created Ethics Commission for study and
    possible future action, and that Ethics Commission has apparently
    adopted the position that it will not investigate allegations that
    arise in the future about bid-related misconduct affecting Salt Lake
    City or earlier bids.
        The most important question, however, is how will these reforms be
    implemented? The IOC could put anything down on paper, but unless these
    provisions are translated into practice in a manner consistent with the
    spirit in which they were adopted they are just words.
        The key to effective implementation is a formal mechanism for
    enforcement and the will of the current IOC membership, whose tenures
    have been protected, to enforce proposals that may be contrary to the
    individual interests of some. I seriously question whether that will
    exists, but am willing, at the moment, to give them the benefit of the
    doubt. Nevertheless, I encourage the new athlete IOC members, although
    small in number, to bring to their jobs the same dedication to
    vigilance in this process that they brought to their own preparation
    for Olympic competition. I think the future of the IOC is somewhat in
    their hands, and I urge them to strive for meaningful reform in the
    same way that they sought in their competitive endeavors the glory of
    sport and the pursuit of excellence.
        I am thankful that this Congress has opted to insert itself into
    this important issue and I believe that if it had not done so we would
    not be confronted with a reformed IOC today. However, I urge the
    members of this committee to study very carefully the impact of any
    legislation currently pending or that might be introduced that would
    negatively impact the IOC, as this legislation will have a serious
    negative impact on America's athletes who are training for the Sydney
    and Salt Lake City Olympics and beyond.
        Thank you for being willing to take up this issue, which is
    important to all of America's athletes who have realized or hope to
    realize their Olympic dreams.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Ctvrtlik. Did I say it right? I listened to that tape.

                      TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CTVRTLIK

        Mr. Ctvrtlik. Excellent, and I submitted a written report
    that maybe you can make an official record, and I will try to
    stay within your 5-minute time limit. Your stamina and
    endurance is amazing.
        Chairman Upton, members, thank you for inviting me here
    today. As the tape did show, I am a three-time Olympian, two-
    time medalist, representing the United States of America. I am
    sorry that I didn't have time to relay what has really happened
    this last weekend over in Lausanne to the prior two speakers,
    because I think their testimony might have been a little bit
    different. But, as you know, we all are volunteers, and we can
    only be in so many places at one time.
        I accepted your invitation a few days ago to testify as an
    elected member of the IOC Athletes Commission. What that means,
    that is elected at the Olympic Games by all the athletes of the
    world. I have also recently been named to the IOC session as of
    36 hours ago.
        For the last 14 years, I represented the United States on
    the volleyball court. In 1988, I was fortunate enough to win a
    gold medal, and in 1992 I was unfortunate enough to shave off
    all my hair when we won the bronze medal. And in 1996 I saw the
    Olympics from a completely different light, when we lost by one
    point before we made it to the medal stand. So I feel
    competitively I know what the Olympics brings to athletes.
        But in the last 2\1/2\ years, since I was elected by the
    athletes to the IOC as a representative, I began to see the
    sports administration side of the movement. I have served on
    the IOC Sports Environment Commission, the IOC 2000 Reform
    Commission this whole year, and I just recently was nominated
    or appointed to the World Antidoping Agency.
        But today we want to talk about what reforms--to talk about
    the reforms in taking care of the Olympic Games, which, as John
    mentioned, I do consider as well to be a public trust. But I,
    as opposed to the previous two speakers, have every confidence
    that what was enacted over these last days will be the first
    step in regaining that trust.
        Not too many people realize that President Samaranch was
    the one that was instrumental in getting all 10 elected
    athletes on the IOC 2000 Reform Commission. We weren't just
    wallflowers on the Commission. We were on the plenary session,
    we were in on the executive board, as well as in every working
    group.
        We were allowed the microphone alongside Dr. Kissinger, Mr.
    Bhoutros Bhoutros-Ghalli, some of the American representatives,
    Mr. Peter Uebberroth and Mr. Dick Ebersol, and there was
    something somewhat magical that happened when athletes took the
    floor as opposed to sleeping, some of the members; it seemed
    like everyone seemed to sit up and really listen to what the
    athletes had to say.
        In consultation with members of the Mitchell Commission and
    the United States Olympic Commission athlete representatives,
    we came up, as the IOC Athlete Commission representatives in
    the Reform Commission--on the Reform Commission, we came up
    with five major recommendations that we would like the IOC
    Commission to enact. The first, we wanted to make all of the
    active athlete commission members IOC members for the length of
    their term. Second, we definitely wanted to have one athlete
    elected to the executive board, the highest governing body
    within the IOC Movement. Third, we wanted to give the athletes
    power to elect their own chairman, because as we have heard
    earlier today, the chairman within the IOC has quite a bit of
    sway on how the meetings are conducted. We also wanted our own
    budget, and we wanted to lengthen the terms from the present 4
    years to 8 years so that we can make the relationships that you
    need within the IOC to compete and put forth ideas against
    powerful international federation presidents, as well as the
    different NOC representatives.
        Once again, this was a wish list. We put these things
    forward; we presented them in our different commissions. What
    happened this last weekend, after some small negotiated
    changes, we achieved major victories in every one of the five
    categories, the recommendations that we put forward.
        Now, you might say, as Bill Stapleton just alluded to,
    maybe we should have 20 percent as opposed to 15 percent, or
    have two people on the executive board as opposed to one. But
    the propositions and recommendations we put forward were
    accepted with almost unanimous vote by the IOC members.
        Personally, I can say I am very proud to have been a part
    of this throughout this last year, as I think it is going to go
    back in the history as one of the most pivotal weekends in the
    history of the IOC.
        But just to conclude, 10 active athletes have been elected
    to the IOC no less than 3 days ago, and these 10 were very
    symbolic of the Olympic Movement. Just like the Olympic
    Movement itself, we have stories of our highs and lows as well
    as the obstacles that we had to overcome to achieve our
    excellence. But within the 60,000 living Olympians, the stories
    that all of us have, they are just typical of the sacrifice and
    dedication that we have put forth. But on behalf of the nine
    elected active athletes on the IOC Athletes Commission that
    were present through all of the reforms this entire year, I can
    say we fully, 100 percent, unanimously supported the findings
    that have been passed this last week during the 110th IOC
    session. We have been pleased and honored to be equal
    participants, not on the outside of the IOC, but we were
    inside, being able to talk to anyone we wanted, make the
    arguments that we wanted, and, as was done by Hassiba Boulmerka
    in one of the sessions, she took 20 to 25 minutes of everyone's
    time to make one argument.
        We are not resting on the laurels of what they just passed.
    We understand this is not the conclusion, the end of the race,
    but as athlete members who are now on the inside, we will be
    extremely vigilant. All the future sessions are on television.
    It will be very difficult for the IOC members not to heed
    publicly what the IOC athlete elected representatives want to
    put forth.
        So, rest assured we will be very vigilant to safeguard the
    Olympic ideals that all of us here have worked to embody and
    just thank you for your time. I will answer any questions at
    the end that you have. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Robert Ctvrtlik follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Robert Ctvrtlik, Member, IOC Athletes Commission
        Chairman Upton, Congressman Klink, Members of the Committee, thank
    you for inviting me here today. I am Bob Ctvrtlik, a newly-elected
    member of the International Olympic Committee, three-time Olympian, and
    two-time medal winner representing the United States of America.
        I accepted your invitation some days ago to testify as an elected
    member of the IOC Athletes Commission who was actively working on IOC
    reform. Today, I am one of the first active athletes ever elected to
    the IOC. As a result of the fundamental reforms passed this weekend,
    all 10 elected members of the Athletes Commission are now voting
    members of the IOC.
        For 14 years, I represented the United States of America on the
    volleyball court, competing in the Olympic Games of 1988, 1992, and
    1996. I have been blessed to have experienced Olympic competition from
    different perspectives: from the Gold medal platform in 88, the Bronze
    medal platform in 92, and from the floor when in 1996 I left my heart
    on the court when we lost our last match before the medal round--by one
    point.
        Since my playing career ended 2\1/2\ years ago, I have been working
    on the sports administration side of the Olympic Movement. This started
    at the 96 Olympic Games, where I was one of the seven Summer sport
    athletes elected to serve on the IOC Athlete's Commission. Since my
    election to the IOC, I have served as the athlete representative on the
    IOC Environmental Commission and the important IOC 2000 reform
    commission that reviewed the IOC's structures and policies and
    recommended the 50 reforms passed this past weekend in Lausanne. I
    should also mention that a couple of weeks ago, I was appointed to the
    World Anti-Doping Agency--another major achievement of the Olympic
    Movement.
        We're here today to talk about the reforms and taking care of the
    Olympic Games. I consider them to be a public trust. I have every
    confidence that the reforms enacted by the International Olympic
    Committee will go a long way to restore this trust. I would like to
    share with you my impression of the process that has occurred over the
    last year.
        President Samaranch, who during my years on the Commission has
    always supported the rights of the athlete, maneuvered around
    opposition to have all elected members of our commission placed on the
    IOC reform commission. We were included at all levels, in the plenary
    session, in the working groups, and also on the executive board.
        We were allowed the microphone alongside world leaders such as Dr.
    Henry Kissinger, Mr. Bhoutros Bhoutros-Ghalli, Mr. Peter Uebberroth and
    Mr. Dick Ebersol. If we had a view it was not only tolerated, but
    encouraged. From day one, I had the feeling that the world leaders and
    the IOC members seemed to pay special attention when one of the
    athletes would take the floor.
        Through consultation with other athlete leaders, we came up with a
    list of five reforms we felt were critical to making the athletes a
    permanent and effective part of the governing structure:

     Making all of the Athlete's commission members IOC members
            with full voting rights;
     Electing at least one athlete to the executive board;
     Giving the Athlete's Commission the power to elect our own
            chairman;
     Providing the Athlete's Commission our own budget; and
     Lengthening the term of the athlete representatives so that
            they would have enough time to develop the relationships needed
            to effect policy.
        Once again, this was a wish list, and we were determined to achieve
    as much of this as possible.
        Compare this list with the following selection of reforms that were
    adopted by the 110th session of the IOC are:

     Athletes will elect nominees for the chairman of the Athlete's
            Commission and the President of the IOC will appoint someone
            from our list.
     We will elect a nominee or nominees for the Executive Board,
            and the entire session will vote on which of our nominees they
            select.
     We will be granted a budget to be used to advance the
            Athlete's Commissions agenda.
     The length of terms for future Athlete Commission Members will
            be extended to 8 years from the current 4. (In addition they
            will also be staggered)
     Most importantly, all elected athletes will become IOC members
            with complete voting rights for the length of their terms.
        We were able to achieve, after some small-negotiated modifications,
    major victories in all of the categories in which we asked the IOC to
    change. Now of course, some people might say you should have gotten 17
    members instead of 15, or some small change such as that. But in
    general, the IOC included us in the process, listened to our ideas,
    presented them to the IOC Members, and passed them with a nearly
    unanimous vote. We feel these gains are a major victory for the
    athletes of the world. And personally, I am very proud to say I was a
    part of the commission during this last year.
        To conclude, the ten active athletes elected to the IOC four days
    ago are very symbolic of the Olympic Movement. Just like the Olympic
    Movement itself, we all have stories of our highs and lows, as well as
    the obstacles we had to overcome to achieve excellence. But within the
    60,000 living Olympians, our stories are just typical of the sacrifice
    and dedication that we all have had to put forth. On behalf of the
    other nine elected athlete representatives, and as representatives of
    the athletes of the world, let me make it clear the majority of
    athletes FULLY support the reform measures passed by the 110th IOC
    Session.
        We have been pleased and honored to be equal participants with the
    IOC as we have worked on reform during this last year. Rest assured, we
    are not resting on our laurels, and we do not take our new
    responsibilities lightly. But in the future we will be vigilant to
    safeguard the Olympic Ideals that we have all worked so hard to embody.
        Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you very, very much.
        Mr. Mills.

                        TESTIMONY OF BILLY MILLS

        Mr. Mills. Chairman Upton and members, with my colleagues
    on my right making the comments they have, I think I would like
    to very quickly recapture on October 14th, 1964, dusk was
    falling over Tokyo, Japan, and the final lap of the Olympic
    10,000-meter race was under way. Mohammed Gamoudi from Tunisia,
    Ron Clarke, the world record holder from Australia, and Mills,
    an unheralded distance runner from the United States, were
    racing shoulder to shoulder, battling for the lead.
        The announcer went something to the effect with 100 meters
    to go, ``Clarke is passing Gamoudi; no, it is Gamoudi; it is
    Clarke, Clarke is in the lead. Gamoudi is refusing to let
    Clarke go by. Clarke is in the lead. Here comes Mills, here
    comes Mills. He won. He won.''
        That one fleeting moment in time for me was magical. I felt
    like I had wings on my feet. I was told the moment was
    electrifying, and the world had just witnessed one of the
    greatest upsets in Olympic history.
        However, that moment was not what I took from the Olympic
    Games. What I took was the true sense of global unity through
    the dignity, through the character, through the beauty of
    global diversity, and this sense of unity through diversity is
    the true feeling of the Olympic ideal and also the destiny I
    seek for mankind.
        ``Swifter, Higher, Stronger,'' as my colleague said, is the
    Olympic motto, not the swiftest, not the highest, not the
    strongest.
        I will quickly reflect back, as a young Indian boy living
    on the reservation, orphaned, poverty, and, for a brief moment
    of time, living in the back seat of an old car, I had a dream.
    I dreamt constantly of the Olympic Games. At that point I
    started taking quotes from Greek mythology, from Native
    American values, and truly tried to start living my Olympic
    dream.
        Socrates said, ``With achievement comes honor, and with
    honor comes responsibility.'' That, to me, is our Olympic
    ideal.
        Being half Sioux Indian, being half white, in a struggle
    when I was going into high school, a struggle with Brown v.
    Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas, 1954, I felt I did not
    belong. The full-blooded Indian called me mixed-blood; the rest
    of the world, European ancestry, African ancestry, called me
    Indian. Both cultures in a sense rejected me. I found a third
    culture that was global, a culture that I call sport, and the
    Olympic dream and the Olympic ideals became part of my culture,
    part of my life.
        I took the Sioux Indian concept of a warrior into sport
    with me and truly believed the concept also paralleled the
    Olympic ideals, for to a great extent America looked on us as
    mascots. But I tried to live the ideals of a warrior.
        There are four values the warrior centers his or her life
    around. You become responsible for yourself. Then you help
    others become responsible. You humble yourself to all creation.
    You are no better or no less than one another, or no less than
    all of God's creations. You learn the power of giving, and the
    first thing you learn here is respect and love yourself, so we
    can all respect and love one another. Then the warrior takes
    responsibility, humility and the power of giving and centers
    that around his or her core of spirituality. Therein
    constitutes the definition of a Lakota, a Sioux Indian warrior.
        Aristotle said all warriors seek to fulfill four spiritual
    steps: The warrior seeks to be unique; the warrior seeks to
    belong; the warrior seeks to make a creative difference to
    society; the warrior seeks to understand. These are all values
    I find represent the true sense of the Olympic ideals.
        Greeks have stated that the Olympians in the past were
    chosen by the gods. I say if you find your life's passion, and
    you live your passion through values, following your own free
    will, you will be led down a path to your destiny, and, yes,
    your destiny is God-given.
        I feel sport without value is meaningless. Sport used to
    teach life values is sacred, and that is the true sense of the
    Olympic Games to me.
        So as an Olympian today, I honor the true values, the true
    ideals of the past Olympics. I celebrate what I feel today has
    become an intelligent and adaptive program of change in the
    Olympic Movement, and I truly imagine, in closing, our future
    Olympic Games promoting global unity through the dignity,
    through the character, through the beauty of global diversity,
    and, yes, perhaps future Olympians will again be chosen by the
    gods.
        [The prepared statement of Billy Mills follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Billy Mills
        On October 14, 1964, dusk was falling over Tokyo, Japan and the
    final lap of the Olympic 10,000-meter race was underway. Mohammed
    Gamoudi from Tunisia, Ron Clarke, the world record holder from
    Australia and Billy Mills, an unheralded distance runner from the
    United States raced shoulder to shoulder, battling for the lead.
        With 100 meters to go, the announcer was shouting, ``Clarke is
    passing Gamoudi, no, it's Gamoudi, it's Clarke! Clarke is in the lead .
    . . Clarke refuses to let Gamoudi by . . . here comes Mills; here comes
    Mills . . . he won! He won!''
        That moment was magical for me. I felt like I had wings on my feet.
        I was told the moment was electrifying and the world had just
    witnessed the greatest upset in Olympic history unfold.
        However, that one fleeting period in time was not what I took from
    the Olympics.
        What I took was the true sense of global unity through the dignity,
    the character and beauty of global diversity.
        This sense of unity through diversity is the true feeling of the
    Olympic ideal and the destiny I seek for mankind. ``Swifter, Higher,
    Stronger'' is the Olympic Motto, not, ``Swiftest, Highest, Strongest.''
        As an orphaned Indian boy, while living in the back seat of an old
    wrecked car several weeks, I dreamed of the Olympic Games. I took
    quotes from Greek mythology and Native American values and started
    living my Olympic Dream. Socrates said, ``With achievement comes honor
    and with honor comes responsibility.'' This to me is our Olympic ideal.
        Being half-Sioux Indian and half-white in a country struggling with
    ``Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas, 1954,'' I felt I did not
    belong. The full-blood Indian called me mixed-blood; the white called
    me Indian. With both cultures rejecting me, I found a third culture
    called sport. The Olympic Dream and the Olympic ideals became my
    culture.
        I took the Sioux Indian concept of a warrior into sports with me
    and truly believed the concept also paralleled the Olympic ideals.
        A warrior lives his or her life around four values: 1. You become
    responsible for yourself. Then you help others become responsible. 2.
    You humble yourself to all creation. We are no better and no less than
    all God's living creations. 3. You learn the power of giving and the
    first thing you learn to give is respect and love to yourself so you
    can respect and love others. 4. Then the warrior takes responsibility,
    humility, and the power of giving and centers them on his or her core
    of spirituality. Therein constitutes a Sioux Indian Warrior.
        Aristotle said all warriors seek to fulfill four spiritual steps.
    1. The warrior seeks to be unique. 2. The warrior seeks to belong. 3.
    The warrior seeks to make a creative difference to society. 4. The
    warrior seeks to understand. The are all values I find in the true
    sense of the Olympic Ideals.
        Greeks have stated that the Olympians were chosen by the Gods. I
    say, if you find your life's passion and live your passion throughout
    values following your own free will, you are led down a path to your
    destiny and your destiny is God-given.
        Sport without value is meaningless. Sport used to teach life values
    is sacred. So today, as an Olympian, I honor the true Olympic ideals of
    the past and celebrate what I feel are positive attempts to return to
    the true Olympic ideals.
        I imagine our future Olympic Games promoting global unity through
    the dignity, character and beauty of global diversity. Perhaps future
    Olympians will once again be chosen by the Gods.
        Thank you.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Ms. Strug.

                        TESTIMONY OF KERRI STRUG

        Ms. Strug. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. I am Kerri Strug, and I was a member of the gold
    medal women's gymnastics team in Atlanta in the Summer Games of
    1996. After listening to the panel of seasoned veterans and
    eloquent speakers, perhaps I was asked to come here today to
    bring more of a naive, innocent perspective, because as a young
    athlete it is hard to understand the scope of the Olympic
    Movement. You go through years of training, and your focus is
    on yourself and becoming the best you can be and just the
    thrill of competition. I think every athlete just fantasizes
    about what it would be like to be there, to be in the Olympic
    Games, to be surrounded by the greatest international athletes
    competing with the world watching. I mean, that is a dream come
    true.
        Once you are at that Olympic level, your mentality has to
    shift from just focusing on you to focusing on your team and
    your country. The level of commitment is intense, and the
    support you feel from your teammates and countrymen is really
    exhilarating.
        The Olympic family starts small with getting to know your
    national teammates, and then once you are at the game, it
    encompasses the entire Olympic Village. I was fortunate to
    compete in two Olympics, Barcelona in 1992 and Atlanta in 1996,
    and the feelings of friendship and camaraderie that I
    experienced there will definitely shape the rest of my life.
        It is amazing for me to see that although all of us
    competitors have different backgrounds and cultures, and there
    is definitely a language barrier, we are able to communicate
    and exchange ideas, dreams and goals.
        I feel incredibly blessed that I was allowed the
    opportunity to participate in the Olympic Games, and I have had
    an unbelievable amount of support from my family, my friends
    and supporters of the Olympic Movement. I would not trade any
    of those experiences for anything in the world.
        I know that change in the Olympic structure is inevitable,
    but the value of the games should definitely supersede the
    politics. I just hope that the world will continue to come
    together, and hopefully competition will provide a venue for
    dreams to be realized, because that is the most important
    thing.
        Being here today I think really opened my eyes, because I
    have always seen the Olympics through one tunnel, one vision,
    one perspective, and I think maybe it would be beneficial if
    the rest of us did as well, because it is ultimately about the
    athletes. Thanks.
        [The prepared statement of Kerri Strug follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Kerri Strug
        Good Morning Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I am Kerri
    Strug and I was a member of the gold-medal Women's Gymnastic Team in
    1996 in Atlanta.
        As a young athlete, it is hard to understand the scope of the
    Olympic Movement. You go through years of training and are focused on
    being your best and the thrill of competitions. When you finally make
    it to the Olympic level, your feelings are indescribable. I think every
    athlete fantasizes about what it would be like to be there. To be
    surrounded by the greatest international athletes, competing with the
    world watching is a dream come true. Once your are at the Olympic
    level, your mentality shifts from you to focusing on your team and
    country. The level of commitment is intense and the support you feel
    from your teammates and countrymen is exhilarating.
        The Olympic Family starts small with getting to know your national
    teammates and then grows in scope to encompass the entire Olympic
    Village. I was so fortunate to be able to compete in two Olympics,
    Barcelona in 1992 and Atlanta in 1996. The feelings of friendship and
    camaraderie that I experienced there will shape the rest of my life. It
    was amazing to think that although all of the competitors had language
    barriers, we were able to communicate and exchange ideas, dreams and
    goals.
        I feel incredibly blessed that I was allowed the opportunity to
    participate in the Olympics. I had an unbelievable amount of support
    from my family, friends, and supporters of the Olympic Movment. I
    wouldn't trade my experiences for anything in the world. I know that
    change in the Olympic structure is inevitable, but the value of the
    Games supercedes the politics. I hope that the world will continue to
    come together in healthy competition and will continue to provide a
    venue for dreams to be realized.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Mr. Westbrook.

                      TESTIMONY OF PETER WESTBROOK

        Mr. Westbrook. Good afternoon, Representatives and members
    of the committee. I would like to thank this subcommittee for
    permitting me to speak before it. I take great pride as a
    witness in sharing what the Olympic Movement has done for me
    and for the youth of the Peter Westbrook Foundation.
        I want to thank you and compliment you on your, I guess,
    persistence with reform to the IOC. I really thank you on that.
        I would like to share a few statistics with you for a
    particular reason. As you know, I am the president of the Peter
    Westbrook Foundation. I am a six-time Olympian/bronze medalist
    in the Olympic Games. I am a six-time Pan-American team member,
    gold medalist in 1983 and 1995. I am a 13-time U.S. national
    champion. I was chosen as the flag bearer for the United States
    at the Olympic Games at Barcelona at the closing ceremony. I
    was also chosen as the flag bearer at the Pan American Games in
    1999 at the opening ceremony. I am an Athletes' Advisory
    Council member.
        I say all this because I was considered to be an at-risk
    youth. I was an at-risk inner-city youth. I was raised in a
    single-parent home in the housing project of Newark, New
    Jersey. There were many times when we didn't have enough food
    to eat or have the proper clothing to attend school. Crime and
    negative stimuli were running rampant in my community, and
    negative stimuli started to affect my life.
        I was extremely fortunate to be introduced to the Olympic
    sport of fencing at Essex Catholic High School in New Jersey. I
    started to excel and was then offered a full fencing
    scholarship to attend New York University. There I began my
    Olympic training, and my life changed dramatically. I was no
    longer considered to be an at-risk youth, but an Olympian and a
    bronze medalist of the United States of America.
        Were it not for the grace of God and the Olympic sport of
    fencing, I would not be here before you today, but rather a
    statistic. This is why I and Olympian Robert Cottingham, in the
    room now, district representative for Congressman Payne,
    started the Peter Westbrook Foundation in February 1991. It is
    a nonprofit organization that seeks out high-risk inner-city
    youth and teaches them the discipline of fencing.
        The Foundation is changing children's lives. The program,
    which solicits and relies on private and public funding, has
    been in existence for the last 9 years. We operate year-round.
    There is a Saturday and an after-school program. There are
    approximately 100 boys and girls from the ages of 9 to 19 years
    old.
        I am pleased to share with you House Members, committee
    members, that in the academic area this year, Harvey Miller, an
    at-risk youth, was introduced to our program. This high school
    junior had nothing but Fs on his report card for the last 2
    years. This year in his first tournament in Charlotte, North
    Carolina, at the national championships, he took fifth place.
    In addition, Harvey is at present an honor roll student and
    taking day and night classes and Kaplan's SAT course. He has
    his mind set on attending college and on becoming an Olympian.
        My last area I would like to share with you
    Representatives, I am so proud of their athletic
    accomplishments. This year our youth have won men's and women's
    Division I NCAA championships and United States men's and
    women's national championships in both team and individual
    events. For the last 4 years, our athletes have represented the
    United States at the junior and senior world championships. One
    individual, Akhnaten Spencer-El, was ranked No. 1, I repeat,
    No. 1, in the world in the Under 20 category. The youth capped
    it off by representing the United States at this year's Pan
    American Games in Winnipeg, Canada, by winning a silver and
    three bronze medals. It just makes me feel so good inside.
        This is a dream come true for me. This is a dream come true
    for the youth of our organization and for the youth of America.
    I am so proud, as you can tell, and I am so honored. It brings
    me great joy to witness all that has taken place before my
    eyes.
        I must say President Bill Hybl and the United States
    Olympic Committee have been instrumental in supporting our work
    and our struggle. President Bill Hybl and the USOC have also
    been financially supportive of our youth in our struggle for
    the last 7 years, and for that I am extremely, extremely
    grateful. I am also thankful to the many lives we are able to
    change together.
        I am confident that the USOC will continue not only to
    support the Peter Westbrook Foundation, but similar grass-roots
    programs that embrace high-risk inner-city youth through
    athletics.
        I would like to say I thank God for all of his magnificent
    blessings, and I thank Him for giving me the opportunity to
    work and touch the lives of so many of our children. I also
    thank the USOC for assisting me in achieving my goals and the
    goals of so many of our youth.
        In closing, I would like to say if you can only change one
    person's life, that one person may be able to go out and change
    thousands more. I thank you so much, members and
    Representatives.
        [The prepared statement of Peter Westbrook follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Peter Westbrook, President, Peter Westbrook
                                   Foundation
        Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.
        I would like to thank this Subcommittee for permitting me to speak
    before it. I take great pride as a witness in sharing what the Olympic
    Movement has done for me and for the youth in the Peter Westbrook
    Foundation.
        I would at this time like to share a few statistics with you. I am
    Peter Westbrook, President, Peter Westbrook Foundation; 6-Time
    Olympian/Bronze Medalist, 1984 Games; 6-Time Pan-American Games Team
    Member/Gold Medalist, 1983 & 1995; 13-Time United States National
    Champion; Flag Bearer--Closing Ceremonies, 1992 Olympic Games,
    Barcelona, Spain; Flag Bearer--Opening Ceremonies, 1995 Pan-American
    Games, Mar Del Plata, Argentina; and Member, Athlete Advisory Council,
    U.S. Olympic Committee1I was considered an at-risk, inner-city youth. I
    was raised in a single-parent home in the housing projects of Newark,
    New Jersey. There were many times when we didn't have enough food to
    ear or have the proper clothing to attend school. Crime and negative
    stimuli were running rampant in my community. The negative stimuli
    started to affect my life.
        I was extremely fortunate to be introduced to the Olympic sport of
    fencing in Essex Catholic High School. I started to excel and was then
    offered a fencing scholarship to attend New York University. There I
    began my Olympic training under Csaba Elthes. My life changed
    dramatically and I was no longer considered an at-risk youth, and went
    on to become a six-time Olympian and Bronze Medalist for the United
    States.
        Were it not for the grace of God and the Olympic sport of fencing,
    I would not be here before you today, but rather, a statistic.
        This is why Olympian Robert Cottingham, Jr., District
    Representative for Congressman Donald M. Payne, and I started the Peter
    Westbrook Foundation, a non-profit organization that seeks out high-
    risk, inner-city youth and teaches them the discipline of fencing.
        The Peter Westbrook Foundation is changing children's lives. The
    program, which solicits and relies on private and public funding, has
    been in existence for the last nine years. The program operates year-
    round. There is a Saturday Program and an After School Program. There
    are approximately 100 boys and girls from the ages of nine to 19 years
    old involved.
        In addition, the Peter Westbrook Foundation addresses the academic
    arena. This year, Harvey Miller, an at-risk youth was introduced to our
    program. This high school junior had nothing but F's on his report card
    for the last two years. This year, he attended his first tournament,
    held in Charlotte, North Carolina. At this Division II National
    Championship, he finished 5th. Harvey is at present an Honor-Roll
    student taking day and night classes and taking Kaplan's SAT
    preparatory course for college. He has his mind set on attending
    college and becoming an Olympian.
        This year our youth have won the Men's and Women's Division I NCAA
    Championships ad the United States Men's and Women's National
    Championships in both team and individual events. For the last four
    years our athletes have represented the United States at the Junior and
    Senior World Championships. One individual, Akhnaten Spencer-El, was
    ranked number one in the world in the Under-20 Division and capped that
    off by representing the United States at this year's Pan-American Games
    in Winnipeg, Canada, winning a silver and three bronze medals.
        Some of our youth will compete in next year's Olympic Games in
    Sydney, Australia and we have more targeted for the 2004 Olympic Games
    in Athens, Greece.
        This is a dream come true for me, for the youth of our
    organization, and for the youth of America. I am so proud and honored.
    It brings me great joy to witness all that has taken place before me.
        U.S. Olympic Committee President Bill Hybl and the U.S. Olympic
    Committee as a whole have been instrumental in supporting our work and
    struggle. President Hybl and the U.S. Olympic Committee have been
    financially supportive of our youth for the last seven years and for
    that I am extremely grateful. I am also thankful for the many lives we
    are able to change together. I am confident that the U.S. Olympic
    Committee will continue not only to support the Peter Westbrook
    Foundation, but similar grass roots programs that embrace high-risk,
    inner-city youth through athletics.
        I thank God for all of His blessings and thank Him for giving me
    the opportunity to work and touch the lives of so many of our children.
    I also thank the U.S. Olympic Committee for assisting me in achieving
    my goals and the goals of so many of our youth.
        If you can only change one person's life, that one person may be
    able to change thousands.
        Thank you.

        Mr. Upton. Terrific. Thank you.
        Mr. Szott.

                        TESTIMONY OF KEVIN SZOTT

        Mr. Szott. Thank you. Good afternoon to the committee. I
    appreciate the opportunity to come here and speak to you.
        Being the sole representative of the USABA, which is United
    States Association of Blind Athletes, and also USA Judo, I
    would like to take the opportunity to explain a little bit
    about the Paralympics, for those of you who may not be familiar
    with the structure of it.
        Basically there are five disabled sports organizations that
    represent those with cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury,
    amputee, blind, and dwarfs and midgets. These five
    organizations compete 10 to 14 days after the Olympic Games.
    They will be from October 18 to 29 in Sydney, Australia. There
    will be approximately 5,000 athletes and 110 countries
    represented. We value the opportunity to compete as much as
    anyone does. Able-bodied, disabled-bodied, we go through the
    dedications, the struggles, the triumphs, the pitfalls of
    competing.
        But the other part to our story is that this is a vehicle
    that allows us to demonstrate our abilities, and instead of
    people looking at what we can't do, they look at what we can
    do. Once they get past that, that gives us the opportunity to
    really express all our talents and our skills. So especially
    with the recent legislation in the United States, the
    Disabilities Act and those types of legislation, this a major
    vehicle for us to continue that movement ongoing.
        So when I hear of what occurred in Salt Lake City, me, as a
    citizen of the United States, I was embarrassed. As an athlete
    I was angered that someone would try to taint what is such a
    pure message of just competition in athletes and athletics.
        The saying goes, don't shoot the messenger for the message.
    In this case I would love to be able to shoot the messenger for
    tainting the message. Unfortunately, I don't see how we can do
    that without affecting the athletes. I hope that this
    committee--you are here looking out for our best interests.
        As an athlete, unfortunately, you know, the President was
    here answering to you. As an athlete, I wish that I could sit
    him down so he could answer to me, because we are what the
    games are all about, and when the show starts, when the whistle
    blows and the bell goes off, it is all about the athletes, and
    that is where the focus is, not in the organization.
        So I appreciate your efforts, and I would just ask as you
    go through this process to please remember that anything that
    may occur at the IOC level, the USOC level, will eventually
    trickle down to the end user, which is us, so I wish you would
    please keep that in mind as you go along.
        I started to dream back when I was basically in seventh
    grade to be an Olympian. I chose track and field. I wasn't able
    to excel high enough in that particular sport to pursue my
    Olympic dream, and at the age of 30 I picked up the sport of
    judo, basically to try to be competitive at the Paralympic
    level. I never thought I would be in the position I am now at
    36 to be fighting for an Olympic spot, trying to become the
    first blind athlete in the history of the Olympic Games.
        The Olympics has always been the purest of ideals to me,
    and it really upsets me as an individual to see it turned the
    way it has been turned.
        I just want to thank you for your time. I want to wish you
    a good holiday, and God bless the USA.
        [The prepared statement of Kevin Szott follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Kevin Szott
        Hello and good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee
    and all guests and dignitaries. My name is Kevin Szott and I represent
    the United States Association of Blind Athletes and USA Judo. I am here
    today to talk to you about my experience as a Paralympian.
        I would first like to take this opportunity to explain the
    Paralympic format. The Paralympics consists of five disabled sports
    organizations dealing with physical limitations including: people who
    are blind, amputees, people with spinal cord injuries, dwarfs, and
    cerebral palsy. These five groups compete in nineteen different sports.
        The competition is fierce and as intense as any of you have ever
    seen before. There are five thousand athletes from over one hundred
    countries, all having two things in mind: winning a gold medal and
    changing people's perceptions.
        I have been a disabled athlete for twenty-two years and in this
    time I have seen many changes. The number and quality of the athletes
    has grown exponentially. The changes, however, did not end there. The
    abilities of the athletes began to overshadow the disabilities. People
    are looking at disabled persons in a whole new light. They have started
    to ask questions about our disabilities and have begun to wonder about
    their own limitations. In my life and in the lives of other disabled
    athletes, the Paralympics have played a major role in effecting this
    epiphany. The games continue to help us gain momentum toward the
    understanding and acceptance by today's society. This is what makes the
    Paralympics different from the Olympic Games: the triumph of the human
    spirit, in life and in sport.
        This is why I ask you, when making decisions about the IOC, to
    remember the message. The message is still pure and untainted by money
    or greed. The competition and the athletes are what the games are all
    about: we train for years, not for money or political gain, but for
    pride and to be the best, period. This is the purity of the message and
    is why millions of people watch the games every four years. Who will be
    the heroes and who will overcome the greatest odds to win the gold?
    Greed and money have allowed the messengers to forget about the
    message. They took the athletes' hard work and dedication and made
    financial gain for themselves. The worst part of this insult is that
    these same people were entrusted to govern our games. The messengers
    are guilty of reckless disregard of the message they were entrusted to
    maintain.
        If you could punish the messenger without harming the message, I
    would be behind it one hundred percent. I can not see a way for this
    governing body to accomplish this objective. The USA has been
    embarrassed and internationally ridiculed, and we can not change that
    fact. We will only make it worse if we try to punish the messengers.
    The only people who will suffer are your own American athletes. Please
    remember that if you punish the messenger, that you will ultimately
    punish the message. Protect your athletes, do not repeat previous
    mistakes and punish American athletes for something in which they had
    no part.
        Thank you for your time and patience. Have a great day and God
    Bless the USA.

        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you very much.
        I have to say that when I came downstairs this morning
    about--it seems like about 12 hours ago, but it wasn't, I
    didn't really want to leave the room next door when I got to
    meet all of you, knowing certainly a little bit about your
    struggle and usual great success in the field. As we tell you a
    little bit about us and our subcommittee action, you know, this
    subcommittee has been here a long time, and this is a terrific
    committee for all of us to serve on because we have so much
    jurisdiction.
        As chairman of this subcommittee, and my predecessors, I
    know, would say that, Joe Barton was one of them who was here
    earlier, our job is to go after fraud and abuse and
    mismanagement wherever we can find it, to identify it and then
    work with chairmen like Mr. Oxley, who is not here just to pick
    up tips as a coach-player of the Republican versus Democrat
    teams, whether they be baseball or basketball, but to really
    seek the legislative change so that we don't have to have
    further hearings on it, so it is done, so that it is finished
    and we can move on.
        This year we have looked at Medicare fraud, we have looked
    at Medicaid, we have looked at banking irregularities,
    insurance, Department of Energy problems with the release of
    secret information to the Chinese, a whole host of things over
    the year. We have had literally a hearing every week. It is
    quite unusual for any committee in the Congress to actually
    conduct a hearing when Congress is out of session. But when we
    began these questions last spring, we were actually hoping not
    to have a hearing. We were hoping that the Atlanta folks were
    straight and narrow, and it was only Salt Lake City, of which
    John McCain and the good work that the committee over in the
    Senate pursued would be the end of it.
        But, alas, it wasn't, and, in fact, we did find enormous
    irregularities, with a credit to the staff on both sides,
    Republican and Democrat, who spent Memorial Day weekend
    traveling down to Atlanta, looking through literally 6,000
    boxes, correcting misinformation that was given to the
    committee. A former Attorney General, Griffin Bell, came back
    to us with a report admitting there were mistakes, big
    mistakes. And in a hearing in October that we had, in essence
    we decided we are not really here to slam people's fingers in
    the drawer, that the period of discovery was over, we wanted to
    look at the next challenge, that of reforming the committee and
    to make sure that the enforcement mechanism was in place.
        That is really what our job is today, to ask some very
    tough questions. We don't have all the answers yet. That is
    clear. The work has not been done. But as we listened to your
    story, I just want to give you the assurance we are going to
    continue our oversight. Mr. Waxman on the Democratic side and
    others--it was too bad Mr. Klink was not able to be here, but
    his plane never did leave Pittsburgh this morning. But
    Republicans and Democrats want to get to the bottom of this.
    Whether it takes legislation or not, we are going to get to the
    bottom of this. We are going to have continuing hearings. We
    accept and embrace your constructive criticism of what might go
    on. We have a number of questions.
        For me, you heard some other members ask this question a
    little earlier today, but we have heard some rumblings about
    penalties to the American athletes. We saw that--at least I
    read about that, and I can remember watching the Olympics in
    Korea, and though I was never a boxer, I know a few points
    about that, and I thought, in fact, our athletes were
    discriminated against. I couldn't imagine that some of our
    athletes there weren't on the top rung of the stage when that
    anthem, when the wrong anthem, I guess, was played.
        As I read some literature about that since these hearings
    were held, and though we have heard good comments from people
    that have testified, no, we haven't heard any rumblings, what
    the Congress has done has been pretty good, you are on the
    right track, thank goodness things began to move, I guess I
    would like to know what you have heard as athletes from your
    peers, whether they be from this country or any other, about
    the actions that we took.
        We are not afraid to go after fraud and abuse, because it
    has got to be corrected. And I have to say that if the Olympics
    had not moved on the track that they did, that they would be in
    real jeopardy in the future. We heard that from advertisers, we
    heard that from corporate sponsors that began to think about
    and did pull the plug on future sites. But as you are here, I
    would be interested to know what you have heard about the
    actions of this committee and trying to seek the truth and to
    correct it.
        Mr. Szott, I guess we will just go down the list. Since my
    red light is on, I will pass the baton to my colleagues. Maybe
    just some quick answers yes or no, what you have heard or
    haven't.
        Mr. Szott. For the most part I think what the athletes here
    have said is accurate. Most of the athletes right now are more
    concerned about themselves. And as long as the games are going
    on, they don't involve themselves in a whole lot of the
    politics of what is going on with the IOC. For me personally in
    the sport of judo, the athletes at the Olympic training center
    where I train, they were offended, embarrassed about what
    happened here on our soil. What we heard from around the
    different countries was really not too much as far as ridicule
    or criticism about what went on. I guess some people had
    commented before, some people assume it is just the way the
    business goes. So in the long run, as far as the short term, a
    lot of the athletes haven't really commented.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Westbrook.
        Mr. Westbrook. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I as an athlete haven't
    heard too much about reverberations against the athletes. But,
    for sure, I am so happy that you are looking into it, because
    the athletes would inevitably suffer because of the funding and
    the sponsorship. So I think we are all quite aware that if this
    was not looked upon and dealt with immediately, as you are
    doing, it would have just--I can't even think about the
    effects, the sponsorship, the Olympic Games, maybe no funding
    for the athletes whatsoever. I just thank you for that.
        Mr. Upton. Ms. Strug.
        Ms. Strug. I think obviously like everyone else has said, I
    don't know if I need to kind of go over it again, but we were
    kind of disappointed, and it is definitely a reflection on the
    athletes. And hopefully I think obviously with the objective
    sports, is not the athletes, they cannot suffer, but subjective
    perhaps. So I am glad you are getting down to it.
        Mr. Upton. But to rephrase my question, have you heard
    about any possible retribution that may be out there toward
    American athletes by judges or whatever?
        Ms. Strug. I have not.
        Mr. Upton. From your peers?
        Ms. Strug. No, I have not.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Mills.
        Mr. Mills. I have not either, but what I have heard and it
    is also part of my very strong feeling, is that it was to be
    expected what, eventually happened with the International
    Olympic Committee, because I feel strongly and other athletes
    have shared this with me, as we go global with our free
    enterprise system, there is only one downside to the beautiful
    system we have, and that has been somewhat profit at all costs.
        In the beginning profit polluted the streams, the air, the
    soil. Environmental scientists have corrected that. Profit went
    into politics, profit at all costs. Character assassination,
    McCarthyism. Profit at all costs has gone into sport. It is
    okay for an athlete to abuse their spouse because they are a
    multimillion-dollar athlete, or it is okay to take steroids or
    performance enhancing drugs to win gold medals. So then the
    logical thing was it is okay to take bribes to award the game
    somewhere. And as we discussed that as athletes, we felt that
    true responsibility got back into America. As we go global with
    our free enterprise system, we have to monitor our own
    downside, our only downside, and we are doing that, and for
    that I am thankful.
        The other comment I will make is with John Naber we were at
    the World Association of Olympic Winners, and the concern of
    the athletes I talked to there was not so much the
    International Olympic committee, but how within our own world
    as athletes we monitor ourselves so we can eliminate drug
    abuse, we can eliminate sexual abuse among coaching, et cetera.
    I think all of it is for the better of the sport, to get back
    to the Olympic ideals that I expressed in my comments.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Ctvrtlik.
        Mr. Ctvrtlik. Thank you. I would just say that from what I
    have heard, and I fortunately or unfortunately am dealing with
    athletes that are not just Americans but from all around the
    world, they are concentrated on athletics. They want to win a
    gold medal. They are training, just like most of our stories
    here. That was our goal in our life and that is what we
    concentrated on. They are not worried about the politics of
    sport. I can say athletes are very appreciative of the work you
    have done up to this point.
        I just want to kind of reiterate that the charter was
    changed. Athletes now have a mechanism to have a voice. The
    Olympic Games do not control world sports. For some reason, the
    public has this idea that the IOC is all powerful, and they are
    not. International federations control sports. The National
    Olympic Committees, they control the sports. So if you are
    talking about retribution against American athletes, then we
    have to talk about the people picking the judges that control
    sports. That is the international federations.
        None of the athletes, this is not a concern for them. But
    it is a very valid concern, and you bring it up. But the IOC is
    not the body that controls the sports. They are just trying to
    keep all the different factions together. Thank you.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Stapleton.
        Mr. Stapleton. Well, I won't enter into a debate with Bob
    with the IOC athlete representation and its effect, but my
    comments did not go to fraud, they went to lack of financing.
    When you say the Olympics were going to be in a world of hurt,
    that is what I was referring to when I said American athletes
    could suffer. I am not paranoid enough to believe there are
    judges out there that are going to punish Americans, at least
    on the playing field, and I hope that is not the case.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Naber.
        Mr. Naber. One of the good things about our system in this
    country is that you get to hear dissenting points of view. I
    think good governance is not measured by having the right or
    the ability to hear a dissenting point of view, but it is the
    impossibility of keeping that viewpoint out of it.
        So what I guess I am saying is I am going to say something
    the Olympic Committee will not like to hear. That is, you asked
    have I heard is there a possibility of retribution? Come on. Of
    course. The election to choose Italy over Switzerland for the
    20006 Olympics has been disputed in the media as a reaction to
    Hodler's commentary at the Olympic Committee level.
        Is that saying that the IOC has it out for the United
    States? Not necessarily. But how can we not think that somebody
    out there is not going to hold this discussion or others like
    it against us? I don't know if we are going to see an American
    elected to the presidency of an international sports federation
    for years. Does that matter? Yes, to some people. There could
    easily be repercussions.
        But we are talking ethics, folks, and the measure of ethics
    is the ability or the willingness to do the right thing, even
    if it costs more than you are willing to pay.
        Don't back off. Don't let any possible repercussions have
    any bearing in this issue. Do what is right and get it done
    with.
        Mr. Upton. Well, we certainly intend to do that. I know my
    5 minutes has expired, so I will re-turn on the light. Ms.
    DeGette.
        Ms. DeGette. Thanks you, Mr. Chairman. Most especially I
    thank all of you. You inspire all of us. Frankly, to us you may
    be the last committee on the agenda, but to us you are really
    the first committee, because several of you said this: The
    games are what it is about and the athletes are what it is
    about, and we need to make sure that the Olympics can continue
    untarnished, and that is to express the purpose of
    international competition and all of the good things that you
    so articulately talked about much more so than myself.
        I will tell the chairman, certainly Mr. Waxman and all of
    us on the committee, Mr. Klink and myself included, intend to
    work very hard to make sure that the rules that were
    promulgated by the IOC, which are a good first step, will
    actually be carried out. So I will work with you too on this.
        Mr. Upton. Absolutely.
        Ms. DeGette. Let me start out, Mr. Naber, by asking you, I
    think I hear what you are saying, that this committee should
    continue even if there are repercussions, because it is the
    right thing to do.
        Let me ask you and then any of the rest of you who would
    like to participate, I would love to hear your view too. If you
    could make one recommendation to the IOC about some change they
    could make in how they have been operated, what would that one
    recommendation be?
        Mr. Naber. Well, the one recommendation I would make to us
    is to not make it personal. The IOC members are good
    intentioned. They are good in integrity, it is hard to measure
    perhaps, but they don't mean ill will to the Olympic Movement.
        But if I were to advise them, it is strictly on the issue
    of the appearance of impropriety. Doing anything that might
    look suspicious, whether it looks like the decision is made
    behind closed doors and we declare it by acclaim, whether it be
    the appointment of a relative of an IOC member for any
    position, whatever it may be, stop it. Term limits goes a long
    way to addressing the appearance of a good old boy's club.
        Mr. Stapleton. I would just say, if I could change one
    thing that I think they really got wrong was the term limits
    issue. You know, it is like every 8 years having a vote at my
    country club about whether they are going to kick me out or
    not, and there is a group of people, and 3 outside people, and
    they are going to decide; but actually 4 of those 7 are from
    the inside, and it is unlikely unless I do something really
    ridiculous that I am going to get thrown out. I think that is
    at the root of the corruption of the IOC. That is why they got
    off track.
        Mr. Upton. Any other thoughts? Mr. Mills?
        Mr. Mills. Term limits. But also what bothered me, I think,
    was when they grandfathered in people and also whether or not
    there was the commitment to--I know you have to stop somewhere,
    but if there was some indication of corruption and fraud, will
    they still go back and investigate it?
        Ms. DeGette. Anyone else? Yes?
        Mr. Ctvrtlik. I would like to say, I have been there for
    every meeting and I have volunteered I don't want to know how
    many days this year, and my wife is going to kill me when I get
    home, as a matter of fact, but we were there. I don't have
    anything to add. Everything that bubbled up from the athletes
    around the world, we presented and they passed. I don't know,
    there is always something more you could want, a little bit
    more, or you could ask for this or that. Sure, the athletes, we
    could be 200 members and take over the whole IOC, but we have
    asked for reasonable things and they were very responsive all
    throughout the entire year. Personally as a representative, you
    can't ask for anything more. Thank you.
        Ms. DeGette. Let me turn the tables a little bit then. What
    one piece of advice would you give to us as Members of Congress
    and this Oversight Committee as we proceed with our dealings
    with the IOC? What is the one thing you think we should do? Mr.
    Stapleton?
        Mr. Stapleton. I think you should continue to schedule
    hearings, and I think that is the best thing you can do. I
    think the threat of legislation is a bad thing. They understand
    in Lausanne that you can take away tax deductions and all of
    the things we could do to disrupt the Olympics. In my
    experience over there, sitting in IOC meetings, is the last
    thing they wanted is Americans reminding them about how much
    power we have. So I think inserting yourselves in a meaningful
    oversight role by scheduling regular hearings is a very
    positive step. As a former athlete and one who represents
    athletes, I would feel good about that.
        I think when we start rattling our saber is when we get in
    trouble, and when they put us in at arm's length and don't want
    to listen.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Westbrook is nodding in agreement.
        Mr. Westbrook. Yes.
        Mr. Mills. I also would encourage the committee to
    encourage the major Olympic sponsors to come back into the
    fold: The corporate America save the Olympic Games, corporate
    America could destroy the Olympic Games. I think a lot of the
    problems we are facing within the International Olympic
    Movement is the only downfall of the free enterprise system. In
    a free world, how do we monitor profit at all costs, what is a
    bribe? So I think we need at this point the major corporate
    Olympic sponsors stepping forward and endorsing the change and
    going forward together.
        Mr. Naber. If I could just supplement, there are some
    stakeholders that were not represented in this room today. At
    least they didn't speak at the microphones. I would go out of
    your way to find a representative from the sponsor community.
    You did well to select somebody from both, because they are an
    independent international athlete-led organization. But the
    sponsors, the IAFs, the NOCs, they have a legitimate right to
    be heard.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. I would just like to say we actually, when we
    began to formulate our thoughts about the hearing, we were
    going to have the sponsors, but then they at the last minute
    were not able to come. Because of the size and the time
    element, we decided we would save it for another day.
        Coach Oxley.
        Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Excuse me. ``All Star'' Oxley.
        Mr. Oxley. Thank you. I will have to brag, since the
    Republicans won the baseball game 17 to 1 and won the
    basketball game by 31 points.
        Let me first of all thank all of you for being here. I have
    been a huge Olympic fan for years. I guess the first one I can
    remember is the Helsinki games in 1952. Mr. Mills, I think you
    were on the team with Bob Shuel in Tokyo. Bob was a Miami
    university graduate, my alma mater, in Dayton. And Kerrie
    Strug, you might be tiny, but you are my hero. You are
    terrific. John Naber, maybe they didn't have a tape old enough
    to cover your exploits. I don't know. But I enjoy watching all
    of you. I think that it is shared by all the members.
        I had a question, and it may be premature, but I am
    wondering exactly how the athletes from other countries are
    looking at this issue. Is it perceived by those athletes as a
    unique problem with Salt Lake City or Atlanta, or is it
    perceived as a real problem with the entire Olympic Movement? I
    know that some of the athletes, including Koss from Norway, is
    on the committee. Maybe Bob would best answer that. What is
    your sense about what the other athletes from other countries
    are feeling about this?
        Mr. Ctvrtlik. Just feeling about the reforms?
        Mr. Oxley. Not only about the reforms, but what brought us
    to the reforms.
        Mr. Ctvrtlik. One thing that is fairly interesting on the
    Athletes Committee, the meetings we have, when we are
    discussing an issue, there is something, it is just interesting
    that I might be talking to one of our representatives from
    China or Johann Koss from Norway or anywhere around the world,
    and we have quite a bit of discussion, but we don't have that
    much trouble coming to consensus, because we have all
    sacrificed and all given so much to this movement that we think
    very similarly.
        So I think that the comments that you have heard as far as
    what the athletes feel, it is amazingly representative of what
    you have heard today.
        Mr. Oxley. Let me change the subject just briefly, because
    someone had mentioned performance-enhancing drugs. It seems to
    me we have come a long way in trying to deal with that issue.
    For those of you who have gone through that, and I assume it is
    virtually all--I am not sure, Mr. Mills, you probably had to go
    through it back in 1964--it was not a problem. But those of you
    who had to go through with it, let me ask, are you comfortable
    with the accuracy of the drug testing, and, if not, are there
    changes you would recommend? I know that General McCaffrey has
    been involved in some of our issues, our so-called drug czar.
    He has been active in taking the lead in that. I think
    particularly about the Butch Reynolds situation. I don't want
    to necessarily single him out, but there was some question as
    to the accuracy of the testing in that regard.
        Just kind of give me an idea about where we are and maybe
    where we ought to be in terms of enhancement and the drug
    testing area.
        Mr. Szott. Being in a sport, especially in my division as
    heavyweight where it is a big issue, unfortunately my
    background is in physiology, and I think the problem with the
    testing innately is it is always behind the drug user. I mean,
    by the time they are able to test something, the drug user has
    found a way around it, so they are always playing catch-up.
        I really can't foresee a paradigm in which you can control
    or anticipate every opportunity. If a person is willing to
    cheat, to me it has always been a moral decision. If a person
    is willing to cheat, they will always find a way. I think you
    can only clear out so much of it, but there will always be some
    of it in the sport.
        Mr. Naber. There are a lot of examples of athletes who win
    races 1 year and get caught with drugs the next, and that
    immediately casts suspicion on how on Earth did they pass the
    test the year before. There is a swimmer from Ireland who won
    three gold medals in Los Angeles, and rumors were rampant, but
    everyone called those rumors sour grapes, because well,
    obviously you lost and she won. A year later she turns out with
    an amount of alcohol in her system as a masking agent that
    would have killed an ox. So everyone says aw, maybe we didn't
    catch her and consequently maybe the rumors have a lot more
    credence.
        So, yes, I think there is no question the opinion of the
    athletes is we are testing, we are looking, we are just not
    catching enough of them, and how are they getting away? It goes
    back to my analogy of smart fish, a loose net, or catch and
    release.
        In any case, unless it is purely independent, there is
    always going to be an incentive to conceal positive results or
    just not to catch them. If I can say I tested everybody on the
    Olympic team and they all tested clean, then I am no longer
    culpable. Well, that is only good until one of the guys gets a
    positive test a year later and now your whole system is
    culpable.
        So by making it independent, I suggest that we put it out
    to bid, and now the integrity of the lab is on the line, not
    the integrity of the ethics of the Organizing Committee. I am a
    real believer in the need, and though I trust and love Richard
    Pound, a wonderful guy doing a great job, but I think we have
    to make it beyond suspect. Many of the athletes are very
    suspect.
        Mr. Oxley. Just briefly, if you could educate me, what is
    the regime now of testing? How soon before the Olympics? Does
    this go on constantly, or is it just during the Olympics? How
    does that work?
        Mr. Ctvrtlik. Like I mentioned earlier, the international
    federations, what happened in February there was--the IOC
    convened world governments and all the international
    federations and athlete representatives. There was a World Drug
    Conference over in Lausanne, because what--it was ridiculous
    how it was happening in the past. Each federation had their own
    list of banned subject substances. These international
    federations are extremely strong and the IOC does not tell an
    international federation what to do. They ask and they
    negotiate and try to work it out.
        So the major breakthrough happened at this conference. All
    of the international federations signed on to this same drug
    ban list, which was the first step. Then the International
    Olympic Committee, they tried to keep working. They are putting
    money behind different labs. They just put another $1.75
    million for research for the drug for EPO.
        But the next step is the World Anti-doping Agency, which
    they have--it has been created, it is going to be up and
    running by Sydney. But as far as catching people using drugs,
    the only way, and I think everyone on this panel will agree, is
    out-of-competition testing. There is no mechanism yet to do
    that around the world. So this World Anti-doping Agency, one of
    the major goals is consistency, as John Naber just said, but it
    is also to have an African runner know that when he is tested,
    he is getting the same test as a volleyball player in Long
    Beach, it is being recorded the same and being tested the same.
    And I think that is the biggest goal, and as athletes, if we
    feel comfortable that this is occurring, that will be a huge
    step in combating the proliferation of drug use.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Naber. You asked the protocol of testing. A drug
    doesn't have to be in your system on the day of the Olympics to
    have benefited you and given you a gold medal. You can use a
    drug in January. It helps you train really well for 6 months.
    By the end of the 6 months, you come off the drug, it is no
    longer in your system and you don't test positive. So just
    testing at the Olympics or just testing a month before, in and
    of itself does not catch all the cheaters. So you have to have
    random, out-of-competition testing. The IOC has just introduced
    this drug passport. So once you become eligible to be
    considered for the Olympics, you have to have this passport and
    make sure you get tested regularly. A lot more detail than you
    need today, but there is a big process.
        Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have made us all
    proud. We are glad to have you here.
        Mr. Upton. We are really glad to have you here. I know that
    I speak for the entire committee and Chairman Bliley as well.
        Again, just to piggyback a little bit on Mr. Oxley's
    comments, I am very interested in pursuing the drug policy, not
    only in the Olympics, but in sports, whether it be the NCAA or
    major league baseball, football, tennis, I don't care. We are
    going to go and take a look at it. In fact, it is one of nine
    things I talked to Mr. Samaranch about. I know he met with
    former General McCaffrey yesterday, and I would look to have
    him come up, General McCaffrey come up and testify as well.
    That is one of our potential hearings next year. So we may be
    getting some thoughts there, too.
        Again, I want to compliment all of you on your testimony
    and your willingness to come at your own expense today and
    really spend a considerable amount of time.
        I also want to again thank the staff, not only the staff
    that is behind us here on the dais but on the other sides of
    these walls, that have really done an outstanding job for a
    number of months making sure that we are prepared and that we,
    in fact, had terrific witnesses and allowed us to interact.
        Jan tells me I am chairing the last hearing of the century.
    Maybe. We will see. Thank you, Jan.
        But, again, we appreciate it. You are excused. We look
    forward to your input and your thoughts certainly in the months
    ahead. And for those of you that are still hoping to be a
    future Olympian, Mr. Westbrook, since 1976, I don't know if you
    are intending to be there again.
        Mr. Westbrook. No.
        Mr. Upton. No? Kevin, best of luck to you, for sure. God
    bless all.
        [Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]