[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DOES THE U.S. OLYMPIC COMMITTEE'S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IMPEDE ITS
MISSION?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 19, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
86-055 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
__________
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER COX, California EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Vice Chairman BART GORDON, Tennessee
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BART STUPAK, Michigan
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, GENE GREEN, Texas
Mississippi KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine
MARY BONO, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska HILDA L. SOLIS, California
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
David V. Marventano, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan JAN SCHALKOWSKY, Illinois
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Vice Chairman EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JIM DAVIS, Florida
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
MARY BONO, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
LEE TERRY, Nebraska GENE GREEN, Texas
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
DARRELL E. ISSA, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana (Ex Officio)
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, a U.S. Senator from the State
of Colorado................................................ 8
Gardner, Rulon, 2000 Greco-Roman Wrestling Champion, United
States Olympic Committee, National Headquarters............ 47
Godino, Rachel, Chair, Athletes' Advisory Council, United
States Olympic Committee, National Headquarters............ 28
Marbut, Robert, Chairman, National Governing Bodies' Council,
United States Olympic Committee, National Headquarters..... 39
Martin, William C., Acting President, United States Olympic
Committee, National Headquarters........................... 22
McCarthy, James P., Jr., Member, Board of Directors, United
States Olympic Committee, National Headquarters............ 43
Ryun, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Kansas.................................................. 14
Schiller, Harvey W., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Assante US................................................. 34
(iii)
DOES THE U.S. OLYMPIC COMMITTEE'S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IMPEDE ITS
MISSION?
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stearns, Upton, Cubin,
Shadegg, Bass, Terry, Stupak, and Green.
Staff present: David Cavicke, majority counsel; Ramsen
Betfarhad, majority counsel; Brian McCullough, majority
professional staff; Will Carty, legislative clerk; and Chris
Knauer, minority investigator.
Mr. Stearns. Good morning, the subcommittee will come to
order. Without objection, the subcommittee will proceed
pursuant to Committee Rule 4E. So ordered, the chair recognizes
himself for an opening statement.
At this time of heightened international tension and the
possibility of war looming, devoting congressional attention to
sports might not seem a high priority at first glance.
But in the context of the Olympics we recognize the value
of the unifying qualities of international athletic
competitions that highlight our similarities and ignore our
differences.
And there is no competition more important or richer in
tradition than the Olympics. Their ability to inspire national
pride and provide a sense of identity, in addition to
fulfilling the dreams of athletes to compete at the highest
level, serve a purpose higher than being just another sporting
competition.
Over the past few months, internal problems within the USOC
have surfaced, ultimately resulting in the resignation of
several of its top officials.
While I do not wish to downplay the significance of these
events, it is apparent that they have been the catalyst in
focusing attention on a broader range of issues relating to the
USOC and the Olympics movement.
It has been 25 years since the Amateur Sports Act
recognized the USOC and provided it with its mission. If
nothing else, the recent events have provided everyone involved
with the Olympics with an opportunity to put everything on the
table for examination, with the intention of improving the
organization and preserving the Olympic ideal.
The U.S. Olympic movement is, without question, better off
today than it was prior to 1978. Yet the degree of negative
attention that has been attached to the USOC regarding these
events, recent events, has reached a fevered pitch, often
characterizing the USOC as ineffective, dysfunctional and
having lost its direction.
Given some of the hyperbole, I was expecting an eminent
collapse, similar to the corporate failures this committee
investigated this year.
To be sure, the USOC does appear to have some problems,
and, like any organization, has room for improvement. Whether
the internal problems are attributable to one-time personnel
conflicts or rather problems inherent in the structure that
will inevitably surface again is a question that is critical to
the continued success of our Olympic movement.
The USOC has responded to the criticism by appointing a
ten-person internal task force to examine governance and ethics
issues. Additionally, an independent five-person commission has
been appointed to review the USOC and provide recommendations
to Congress.
These are welcome developments and I look forward to
reviewing their conclusions. My one concern is that
recommendations have been made in the past and have never been
implemented.
Despite the recent blemishes, the USOC has been and
continues to provide funding and services for athletes at
levels unimaginable 25 years ago.
The legislation enacted in 1978 was a necessary tool to
implement the changes and has been extremely successful in
fulfilling its intent, by many accounts.
However, that was then and this is now. Much has changed in
the past 25 years, during the USOC's evolution. Athletes are
better. International competition is stronger.
The demands of the USOC to meet these challenges are
greater.
The name of the act alone appears to be a misnomer, as many
Olympians today are not amateurs, but rather professionals.
From the NBA basketball players to the NHL hockey players, it
is a far cry from the 1980 Miracle on Ice, the U.S. hockey team
that brought home the gold in Lake Placid.
The one constant that has not changed is the value
Americans place on the Olympics and the trust we place in the
USOC as caretaker of what many consider a national treasure.
It would be tragic if the recent problems of the USOC
undermine the success that so many individuals have dedicated
their lives to create.
USOC is a unique organization with a mandate unlike any
other, comprised of both paid professionals assigned to operate
the organization, and heavily dependent on volunteers from a
broad constituency.
Observations have been made that it has resulted in a
structure that can work to the detriment of fulfilling its
mission. I was surprised to discover how broadly USOC
membership is.
From the community-based organization at the local level,
all the way to the elite athletes that represent the U.S. in
the Olympics, Para-Olympics and the Pan American Games, it is
no wonder that a board of directors of 122 members,
representing such diverse constituents, would inevitably
present managerial difficulty.
Whether or not this needs to be changed is clearly open for
discussion. Any changes will obviously affect member
organizations differently and need to be considered carefully.
While it is appropriate to examine ways to improve the
structure and efficiency of the USOC, it is equally, if not
more important, to examine its mission itself.
The USOC has been many things to many groups. The tradeoffs
of a broad mission versus a narrowly focused purpose are clear.
The USOC can be a jack-of-all trades and do it with
reasonable success. If, however, we want it to be the best
Olympic organization for the athletes, then we may have to
lighten its load of responsibilities.
Any restructuring effort would be premature before we
consider what the Olympic movement should be and hear from all
the relevant parties.
With that question in mind, I look forward to the beginning
of our productive dialog this morning. Today we have expert
witnesses representing the USOC, the national governing bodies;
the Athletics Advisory Council, the independent commission
reviewing the USOC; current athletes; and of course, our
distinguished colleagues from the house and senate.
With that, Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for holding
this hearing as we examine the structure and recent problems
with the USOC.
And I want to thank our witnesses for being here and I am
sure they will provide testimony for us today. I, for one, I
have Northern Michigan University in my district.
It is the only Olympic Education Center in the country. I
have personally seen how hard these athletes work, train, and
dream toward their Olympic goals.
But for this dream they sacrifice much and I, once again,
want to bring up, as I did 2 years ago, I feel the USOC does
not help our Olympic Education Centers.
They will give athletes from other countries scholarships
and education in this country, but our own people, they do not
help at all.
So I am not real happy with the USOC and the way they treat
our Olympic athletes. But without a doubt, and going off your
statement, Mr. Chairman, the USOC does need our help.
As I said, 2 years ago, the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee conducted a lengthy investigation into the
International Olympic Committee and various aspects of the USOC
following the tawdry bidding process affiliated with both the
Salt Lake City and the Atlanta Games.
What the subcommittee found in that investigation was
appalling. Bribes were rampant, IOC Representatives were
showered with gifts and services of all kinds to lure the games
to the cities of Atlanta and Salt Lake City.
All-expense paid trips were tossed to IOC members like
candy. Moving fees, condos, airline tickets, college tuition,
cash, and even medical services were among the long list of
gifts lavished on corrupt IOC members to secure bids.
Clear and overwhelming evidence was uncovered illustrating
that the IOC, its representatives, and many involved in the
bidding process were operating completely out of the
organization's control.
In short, Mr. Chairman, the system was out of control.
Rather than behaving as a shining beacon of hope and good will,
the example set by the IOC became close to extinguishing the
Olympic flame for good.
I bring up the IOC in this early investigation because it
was the USOC that was responsible for aggressively overseeing
and preventing these unseemly activities, at least insofar as
the bid city behavior was concerned. While true that neither
Atlanta nor the Salt Lake City bid committees invented this
behavior, nobody at the USOC was apparently minding the store.
To view breakdowns that occurred with both the Atlanta and
Salt Lake bids was to observe not only a failed IOC structure,
but also a failed USOC structure.
Through these scandals it was clear, early on, that major
problems plagued the USOC and its construction. It was also
clear that major changes would be required to prevent the kind
of problems we now find ourselves addressing today.
That the USOC continues to grab dubious headlines, even
after the earlier scandals of both Salt Lake and Atlanta, is a
sad testament to the organization's continuing flaws.
And while the USOC's intended mission is clearly to serve
the athlete, it nonetheless appears too often to serve its own
interests while leaving its original mission obscured by
politics, in-fighting and a bloated bureaucracy.
To be fair, I would say that some of the blame rests
clearly on Congress. It is the Congress that essentially
created the USOC and has oversight responsibility over its
structure and its activities.
Nonetheless, congressional involvement with the USOC has
been absent and only tends to surface once a major problem
arises.
While I generally support a hands-off policy or approach,
where practical, I believe that Congress must play a greater
role in overseeing the direction of the USOC, particularly
through this challenging period of restructuring. The plight of
our U.S. athletes, the only real mission of the USOC, is too
important to allow this organization to continue in stumbling
along.
So how did we get to where we are here today, yet again,
examining a failed Olympic-related organization? It was clear
after the emergence of the Salt Lake City and Atlanta scandals,
that not only would a full restructuring of the IOC be
necessary, but so too would a restructuring be needed at the
USOC.
During these earlier scandals, plenty of commissions, task
forces, and blue ribbon panels were formed. Vast details were
given regarding how the Olympics' governing bodies failed to do
their duties and how scandals arose.
A clear accounting of who shot who was examined by Congress
and by the media. What didn't occur, however, was consistent
follow-up with particular emphasis on the USOC.
As the IOC and the USOC made promises to re-tool their
respective governing structures and various commitments were
made to build compliance programs into their organizations,
scant review occurred to determine if these systems were
adequate or even functioned.
One only need review the first Mitchell report commission
after the Salt Lake City scandal to recognize that clear,
structural problems existed at the USOC, and that these would
require major surgery to prevent future problems.
As the USOC slipped from the radar, however, many deeper
issues went unaddressed and unnoticed by Congress. That is why
we find ourselves, yet again, in this room attempting to fix
the USOC.
It will now be the attempt of this committee to work with
our Senate friends to begin the process of fully looking into
these matters.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by raising a note of caution.
While it is important to focus on the structure of the USOC,
the subject of today's hearings, we must not forget that the
USOC is part of a larger governing body, the IOC.
The IOC cannot and should not be ignored from this inquiry.
If continued examination and accountability are not directed at
the IOC, like we are now doing with the USOC, I fear another
scandal will emerge with the IOC, but will yet again result in
muddying the USOC.
In short, in an attempt to re-tool the USOC must also
involve an examination of not only how the IOC has been
restructured, but also how it interacts with the USOC.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome today's inquiry and the many
witnesses that will testify today. I look forward to working
with you and the many witnesses to begin addressing the
problems facing the USOC.
I would ask that if we start this project that we stay with
it. I would also suggest that as we begin to address the
problems associated with the USOC, we again reacquaint
ourselves with some of the issues still facing the IOC.
The IOC now and in the future will affect how the USOC
ultimately functions. With that, Mr. Chairman, I am over my
time, but thank you.
I was working off two different statements here for the
benefit of----
Mr. Stearns. Good job. I thank you colleague. Gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Upton.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. First of all, I welcome
the two members that are here and certainly the panel to
follow.
It was under my chairmanship of the oversight
investigations subcommittee two congresses ago that we in fact
did expose a number of real problems with the Olympic bidding,
both in Atlanta, Salt Lake and at the IOC.
And I have to say our purpose of the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee was to in fact look where there
were problems, and we found them.
And we thought at the time that when the blue ribbon
commission was established, led by Senator Mitchell, Senator
Baker, Howard Baker, Ken Duberstein and Henry Kissinger, that
in fact with an ethics committee it would be solved.
But we found that there was little follow-through. I wand
to call it a sham, but in essence they were not given the power
that they needed to see corrective changes made, and all of us
were disappointed, to say the least.
It is important that this committee and this subcommittee
take the hearing today and look at constructive changes so that
we can, in fact, look at legislation.
To work with the Senate, with Republicans and Democrats, to
restore the luster of what every American wants the Olympics to
be.
Whether it be in this country or overseas, as well. I look
forward to this hearing. I look forward to working with
Chairman Stearns to make sure that, in fact, we pursue
legislation, but we never get into that situation again.
I look forward to hearing the testimony and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleague. The gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Shadegg. The gentleman from Colorado, Arizona,
Arizona.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for holding this important and timely hearing and I also want
to thank our witnesses for being with us and I look forward to
their testimony.
There is no doubt that the Olympics have inspired millions
of Americans and left indelible impressions of inspiration,
achievement and sportsmanship on both young and old.
Just last year, at the urging of my daughter, who is a
rabid fan of Olympic ice skating and also of my son who is a
fan of both Olympic hockey and skiing, the Shadegg Family
enjoyed the inspiration of attending the Olympics.
The history of those games is remarkable. Just think of a
few examples. The United States upsetting the vaunted Soviet
hockey team at Lake Placid.
Or the sight of Keri Strugg sticking her landing to spite
an injured ankle. Or the falls of Dan Jansen before he rose up
in triumphed.
Fortunately, those and many other great moments are the
ones that stick in people's memories when they think of the
Olympics, not the dark moments.
The bribery scandal which preceded the Salt Lake City
Olympics or the recent in-fighting in the U.S. Olympic
Committee.
However, that should not detract us from examining the
organization of the USOC. In deed, since the USOC in many ways
is the group that oversees how many in the world view the
United States, it must step up to the challenges of its
Ambassadorial role.
As such, we need to ensure that the Olympic Committee's
focus is on athletes and not on its own management
difficulties.
Athletes need focus and direction to be successful. But
from all evidence, the USOC lacks focus and directions.
Athletes need to maintain strict discipline to achieve
performance.
And yet from all evidence the USOC is undisciplined. It has
bloated salaries and high expenses. Athletes need to have
support to win.
And from evidence, the USOC can do a better job of
supporting our athletes. Mr. Chairman, I am loathe to have the
U.S. Congress get into the day-to-day management of the USOC.
However, it maybe wise to have the Congress set out some
direction for the committee as we move forward.
Today, across America, young people are training hard to be
able to compete at their highest, possible level. It seems to
me that our focus needs to be on enabling that training and
facilitating those athletes to continue and remove any
unnecessary burdens or barriers.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
and working with you on this issue so that we might improve the
circumstances under which our athletes train and prepare for
the Olympics.
I thank you and yield back my time.
Mr. Stearns. And I thank my distinguished colleague from
Arizona, Mr. Shadegg. And the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. Terry. Waive.
Mr. Stearns. Okay, waive.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wyoming
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this timely hearing.
I would like to welcome my colleagues, Senator Ben Nighthorse
Campbell and Congressman Jim Ryun.
Their testimony and presence today, as both Olympic athletes and
overseeing legislators, will provide invaluable insight into the U.S.
Olympic Committee's current state of affairs.
The U.S. Olympic program exudes the very essence of the American
Spirit. It provides unspeakable opportunities to any man, woman or
child who dares to dream big enough. The message is clear to all with
the ambition--your hard work, determination and God given talents can
soar here.
A fellow Wyomingite who embodies that very thing is a member of the
second panel. Against all odds in the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney,
Australia Rulon Gardner upset the three-time Olympic Greco-Roman
champion from Russia and took home the Gold Medal.
This tremendous victory will forever be remembered and celebrated.
It instilled and reignited the spark of hope in all who aspire to such
athletic excellence.
While these triumphant moments will remain, the time has come to
shed light on another aspect of the Olympics. The U.S. Olympic
Committee (USOC).
In recent months, a number of troubling factors within the USOC
have come to light. It is first and foremost an unfortunate situation
that potentially compromises our fundamental belief in what has been a
tremendous source of pride.
That is why we must examine the structure and mission of the USOC.
It is my hope the testimony heard today will shed further light on what
necessary steps might be taken to strengthen the Olympic movement in
our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I yield back the remainder of my time.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman, Committee
on Energy and Commerce
Last year this Committee investigated and uncovered several high
profile corporate failures. The details of the corruption and
mismanagement that were the undoing of these former high flyers are
legendary now. So when a non-profit organization experiences the type
of problems that precipitated the resignations at the USOC recently, it
is noteworthy but may seem minor in comparison.
Yet there is a difference when the organization under discussion
holds our national trust, as does the USOC. The dreams, hopes, and
inspiration for many Americans are often traced to an Olympic hero. It
is for this reason that the recent stumbles of the USOC have garnered
so much attention.
The ideal of integrity the Olympics represent should be the
singular focus and governing factor in every decision made by the USOC.
It is not clear whether the resignations of USOC officials indicate a
systemic problem or if they were a single random event. Regardless, the
USOC faces a problem: we are a forgiving nation, but we do not always
forget. Restoring the integrity of our Olympic movement and the trust
of the people is of paramount importance not only for today's athletes,
but also for future generations of aspiring athletes.
The USOC has taken the initial steps necessary to restore its image
by forming an internal task force and appointing an independent
commission to perform separate reviews. Very few of us are neither
experts on managing a multi-million dollar non-profit nor experts on
the needs of the diverse sports organizations that are served by the
USOC. We will therefore rely heavily on the recommendations of the
experts involved.
I believe Congress can aid in this process as well. We should not
be viewed as an adversary; we are here to assist you in any way we can.
Perhaps the biggest help we can provide is through a process of
education and discussion. There is a lot on the table to discuss, and
it is not clear that downsizing, streamlining, or making changes at the
margins to the organizational structure will take the USOC where it
needs to be. While some changes are a forgone conclusion, the size and
scope of any changes should reflect and be compatible with the USOC's
mission.
Defining the USOC's mission appears to be the most important issue
we need to discuss. The USOC's responsibilities are numerous and
varied. Should they be charged with facilitating participation in local
communities and providing services duplicative of other organizations?
While many voices need to be heard, we should not shy away from this
opportunity to examine and define the USOC's responsibilities. It has
been 25 years since Congress created the USOC. To say this is a vastly
different country now than it was then is an understatement. Perhaps it
is time that the USOC reflect these changes.
I thank the Subcommittee Chair for assembling this excellent panel
of experts. I look forward to hearing their views and continuing the
dialogue with all interested parties.
Mr. Stearns. With that, we will move to our first panel. It
is a pleasure to welcome two very distinguished Members of
Congress and former Olympians who will testify.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado served in the
House from 1987 to 1993, and it now in his second term in the
Senate. Prior to his service he was a Rancher, Horse Trainer, a
Teacher, Designer of jewelry and is a Judo Champion.
The Senator was on the U.S. Judo Team in the 1964 Olympics.
Our other colleague from the House, Congressman Jim Ryun of
Kansas is now in his fourth term.
The Congressman participated in three Olympics and won the
silver medal in the 1500 meter run in 1968. In addition to
being a world class athlete, Jim Ryun has served as a
Motivational Speaker, Author and Consultant.
So I welcome, sincerely, both of my colleagues and I
appreciate your time. We will start off with Senator Campbell.
STATEMENTS OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO; AND HON. JIM RYUN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for showing an interest in this issue and conducting this
hearing. And I am just delighted to be here with my colleague
and a team member.
Even though we were on different Olympic teams, once you
are an Olympian you are sort of the teammate of everybody that
has passed before you and after you.
And I am just delighted to be here with a, not only a very
fine Congressman, but a world-renowned athlete too, as Jim was.
I want to tell you that we are very proud in Colorado that
the United States Olympic committee is housed in our State.
When I was in the legislature it was only a few years after the
decision was made to transfer an Air Force Base, which was
government property, to the Olympic committee to be their
headquarters and their training facility.
And in those days many of us worked very hard on the
Colorado legislature to get, as an example, in-State tuition of
young athletes who wanted to train there and also go to school,
to waive the in-State requirements for doctors, if they were
doctors from other States who would come to the Olympic
committee to practice medicine for the athletes.
We even passed a bill in the legislature to allow people
paying their State income tax to check off a dollar to go
directly to the Olympic Committee. Which, for a while, raised
about $200,000 for the team.
I think in this whole dialog, if I can take just a moment,
that there are thousands of supporters of the Olympic team and
there many unsung heroes, Nutritionists and Coaches and
Trainers and on and on.
And when we talk about the problems that are basically
management problems, I think we tend to cast a broad net and
maybe paint with a very broad brush.
But having the Olympic committee in our State, I can tell
you the vast majority of people that have anything to do with
the Olympic Games are just hard working and dedicated to trying
to make youngsters be the best they can be.
We are very proud of all the people that win gold medals as
any American would be. But for everyone that wins that, there
are literally hundreds and hundreds that are trying equally
hard, but just didn't quite make it.
But we think that citizenship and fair play and dedication
to effort is an equally important mission for the U.S. Olympic
Committee.
I have been here almost 18 years now, and for a while there
were three of us, Senator Bill Bradley and Tom McMillan, who
was a colleague of yours and you knew very well.
And for years, you know, it was a very proud, being noted
by the Olympic team that they didn't get any government help.
Unlike many States in which sports are controlled by a
bureaucrat at government level that pretty much dictates and
mandates everything that goes on in that amateur sport.
That is the way the Soviet Union did and many of the
communist countries still do today. We have always been proud
of the fact that government has had kind of a hands off
approach to it.
But times are changing. And during the years that Tom and
Bill and I were here, we formed what was called an Olympic
Caucus of House members and Senate members who were interested
in the Olympic movement.
And basically it was kind of a bumper group that would step
in and have some voice if some of our colleagues it may, it
should be nationalized or the charter should be changed
someway.
And so we were very careful with that. Well, the need sort
of went down and so Bill and Tom both left and now its just me
on the Senate side with Jim on the House side.
But clearly the problems that we face with the Olympic
Committee, I think, need to be distinguished from the average
rank and file people that are working every day to make it a
better committee.
Now, of course, there is big money involved in the Olympic.
Not only the money they raise, but the money we put in to,
through indirect funding.
I saw one number that said the Salt Lake Games might have
been over $4 billion expense for the Federal Government if you
factor in, not only all the security, which was considerable.
ATF was there. The FBI was there. The military was there,
as you know. But also the infrastructure that goes to build,
for instance, off-ramps from the main thoroughfares to the
Olympic venues.
That is almost done at taxpayers' expense. We provide that
money through our transportation bills and transportation
appropriation committee.
So we do have a vested interest in kind of watching how a
taxpayer's money is spent. We, as you know, have done two
hearings on the Senate side under the authority of their Senate
Commerce Committee, with Senator McCain chairing.
And in those two hearings we, I think we clearly recognized
it is time to make some changes and as Congressman Stupak
mentioned, there have been some attempts to have some internal
change done, but they have not gone very far.
That is probably not as easily said as done because when
you have a large board and almost everybody on that board
represents an individual sport that may not have anything to do
with another sport, there is always some turf involved and some
worries about whether they may be left out if there is a
change.
And we understand that. But the thing really was brought to
a head when there was a recent recognition by several members
of the Ethics Committee based on a disagreement between the CEO
of the Olympic committee and the President of the Olympic
committee.
Both thought they had a certain amount of authority, which
apparently was not well defined in their by-laws about who had
which authority to be spokesman at international levels.
In any event, at the end of the two hearings, as you
mentioned, Senator McCain did authorize an independent
commission of five people, and they are supposed to report back
to the U.S. Senate by the 30th, with their recommendations on
what they are to do from a Federal level.
In having lunch with Senator McCain yesterday, he told me
we were going to move forward for sure under his authority and
will be revising the Amateur Sports Act of 1978.
Senator Stevens wrote that bill, by the way, and he is our
President Emeritus, the President Pro Tem, excuse me, in the
U.S. Senate now, as you know. When this, as it has been called,
this functionalism came to light, I don't think that is where
the beginning was.
As I look back on where things began to go wrong, it seemed
to me that when the Olympic Committee, about 4 years ago, or
maybe a little more, authorized a study that was called the
McKinsey report, that came back and recommended that the
Olympic committee be run more like a corporation.
I think that is where some of the people began to lose
their way. The Olympic committee is big money, no question
about it, and I think they have to have some good corporate
practices there in order to manage it well.
But it is also a non-profit and it is also a system of
training young people. It is a little different mission, maybe
a big different mission than a straight corporate board would
do.
And in my view, what happened after that was that there
were at least a few people that began to develop what I call a
cultural privilege in what I deem to be a real abuse of how
money is spent.
And some of the numbers that we got back, I mean it just, I
couldn't believe some of the first ones we were getting back.
But how much money was being spent that I considered wasteful
or self-serving.
In any event, Senator Stevens and I subsequently made a
trip out to the United States Olympic Committee to talk to the
athletes, the coaches, the management people were there.
And there was an awful lot of newspaper print, as you might
guess, and television attention before we even got there.
We have, our office has a satellite office in Colorado
Springs. We started getting a lot of calls from people that
actually worked at the Olympic Committee, volunteering
information of mismanagement, of things that they thought were
wrong, that shouldn't be.
And we told them that we, you know, I am your Senator so
they have a right to come in and talk to me, obviously, but we
didn't want them to just come in and be finger pointing and
gossiping and, you know, he said, she said and so on.
But if they had some documentation that they thought would
be of interest to the U.S. Congress, they should provide that.
We ended up with a book, I think, between an inch and a
half and two inches thick of documentation. Which we very
frankly now don't know what to do with.
Some of that information was leaked to the press before we
even got it, so it is already public knowledge. Some of it, I
am not an attorney, but after reviewing some of it, Senator
Stevens said he thought some of it bordered on violation of
fraud laws, at least, and maybe other things.
But when we talk about what we do with that information
now, one of the things that I personally would like to avoid,
very frankly, is dragging our team through any more mud.
While at the same time, fixing the problems that have
gotten them in trouble in the first place. We have had
suggestions that we turn it over to the GAO and ask for an
independent audit of how the finances are being handled.
We have had a suggestion that we turn it over to the
Justice Department to see if any civil rights violations have
been made or any fraud laws have been broken, things of that
nature.
But in the meantime, some of the people that were really at
the center of the storm have resigned and have left. The
President of the USOC has resigned, Ms. Markmeyer resigned.
Mr. Ward, who was the CEO, resigned. His right-hand helper,
I forgot his name, I am sorry, it slips my mind right now, also
resigned.
And so I am not sure to what end it would do with all this
information. However, I will tell the chairman of the committee
you are interested in looking at it and he will be happy to
provide that to you.
But since not being an attorney, what I saw in reading that
sounded much more in the realm of white collar crime. I
thought, well, if we go forward with it and some of the people
who are really responsible for this are gone, what would we end
up doing?
Slapping somebody on the wrist? Promoting more and more bad
stories about a basically good willed organization? And so
there we are in that quandary.
But Senator McCain has indicated that when we get back the
report from this independent commission, which will be here on
the 30th, he intends to move forward with some changes in the
Amateur Sports Act.
I think, very frankly, under the new leadership of Bill
Martin from the University of Michigan, as Congressman Upton
very proudly has said, I think we are really beginning to turn
the corner.
His experience is renowned and his credentials, I think,
are just sterling. And more than anything else, his heart is in
the right place.
And knows that the emphasis has got to be on our young
people more than anything else. But we will be doing something,
probably accepting some of their recommendations, too, that
would be my guess.
And we are hoping that they will, as you mentioned, they
have an internal committee also working on how to streamline.
They will probably come forward with some suggestions and that
will be coupled with what the independent commission recommends
to and we will go from there.
But as I mentioned before, the vast majority of people that
have been tainted with this, unfortunately, have been done so
very unfairly.
Having visited out there and knowing some of the athletes
themselves, when I went around and talked to them, many of them
are doing a terrific job and they are really focused on 2002,
and we hope to get this behind us, long before 2002.
And when the games will be Athens, instead of letting this
hang over our head any longer. And we fully recognize that
sometimes you have different problems at different levels.
The IOC clearly has some problems. The USOC has some
problems also. The organizing committee, as it was in Salt
Lake, also had problems.
Sometimes they work in concert and sometimes, very frankly,
they don't work very well together. And some of their decisions
are made somewhat independently of each other.
But I would hope that our young athletes would not be
distracted and I am very thankful that you invited some of
them, that are actually in competition now, and not retired
like some of us old-timers or retired like some of the recent
ones that are just coaching now.
Some that are actually going to be in Athens and are going
to be in competition themselves will be able to testify, and I
am looking forwards to that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a U.S. Senator from
the State of Colorado
Thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing me to testify today. As you
know, I have a vested interest in this issue, not only as senior
Senator of the state where the USOC is headquartered, but also as one
of Congress's two current members that are former Olympians.
My time as a member of the U.S. Olympic Team provided me with
considerable opportunities that I might not otherwise have had and
fostered lifelong friendships that I will always treasure.
I was literally raised in the Olympic movement and without it, I
would probably be a member of another institution, but one with bars
and guards. Because of these memories, I decided that I would do what I
could to help other athletes have the same experiences that I did.
I first started working to help the USOC as a member of the
Colorado State Legislature where I worked on legislation providing a
state income tax check-off to raise money for the USOC. I also worked
on language to give tuition waivers to out-of-state student athletes
training in Colorado and to waive in-state certification for doctors
working at USOC headquarters.
Since I have been a member of Congress, I have been one of the
strongest supporters of the Olympic movement.
As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have been
working for the last six years to provide the USOC with a new office
building in Colorado Springs.
I have worked to provide $14 million for the USOC's drug-testing
administration that has been provided directly to USADA (United States
Anti-Doping Agency) so that the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control
Policy) does not have administration powers or any other oversight.
Congressional oversight is something we have tried to avoid since
the creation of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. Former Senator Bill
Bradley, Former Representative Tom McMillan, and I formed a bipartisan
caucus with other members who believed in the Olympic ideals to act as
a buffer against any potential Congressional oversight of the Olympic
team.
After all of the difficulties the USOC has had over the past few
years regarding financial mismanagement, ethics improprieties, and
massive organizational dysfunction, it became apparent that Congress
did need to step in. While not providing direct support to the USOC,
this government has a great interest in the USOC as it has provided
millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to support Olympic
events here in the U.S. and worldwide.
As you know, the Senate Commerce Committee held two hearings this
year to look into ethics violations only to discover many deeper
problems in organizational difficulties. Following these hearings, many
current and former employees and athletes came forward, both publicly
and anonymously, to express their feelings and views and let me and my
staff know of their complaints.
Let me just say that it was eye opening to see the huge travel
budgets, unnecessarily large severance packages, and bloated salaries,
all occurring while athletes are having to live day to day and, in some
cases, finance much of their own training in order to compete for their
country.
But through these hearings and media reports, we are all aware of
what's been said and it is not necessary to dwell on it as long as it
is recognized that these improprieties cannot occur again. Now is the
time to move beyond these problems to create a new Olympic organization
that will better serve its mission to promote the Olympic ideals and to
develop and prepare our nation's athletes to compete against the rest
of the world.
I will credit the USOC for creating a task force to look at its own
problems. But given everything I have come across through the ethics
investigations, I don't know who can be trusted.
This is why Senator McCain, Senator Stevens, and I have created an
independent commission to look at the necessary changes at the USOC. We
have our ideas, but I think that we'd like to avoid imposing Congress's
will through legislation, if that is at all possible.
But at the same time, legislation and Congressional oversight isn't
impossible and I must remind everyone involved that it can be done and
will be done if necessary.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Senator.
Our colleague, Jim.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM RYUN
Mr. Ryun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to sit here with my
friend and fellow Olympian, Senator Campbell, who by the way
isn't really a bad fencer.
We have had a little competition with that along the way.
Senator Campbell. To enlighten you, Mr. Chairman, someone
got the two of us into a fencing match. Neither of us knows a
broad sword from a foil, but we did our best.
Mr. Ryun. And we had a good time sharing that experience
and it really was a good experience, with the Olympic committee
here in Washington.
And I trust that this subcommittee's investigation and the
continuing cooperation with the USC will actually yield some
strong solutions to the problem facing the Olympic Committee.
Let me begin by first of all echoing some of the concerns
that Ben has expressed with regard to the Olympic movement and
how far it reaches into the fabric of American society.
When you consider the athlete, we often focus upon him.
There is usually a coach, there is a sponsor, there are
sometimes children, if they are old enough. You have the
support groups that go with it.
So, it reaches deep when you think of how the process is
completed. Usually starting on a local level, then a State
level and then a national level. And then you have to meet
certain qualification standards and work your way through the
process.
My only point in highlighting that is that whatever you do
here it is important that it is done right, because it does
send a very clear message to the young people of this country,
many of whom have high aspirations of maybe winning an Olympic
medal, or at least being a part of the Olympic movement, and
being a part of the Olympic team.
For over 100 years the aim of the Olympic movement has been
to build a peaceful and better world by educating youth through
sport by bringing together athletes from all countries in
sincere and impartial competition by sharing mutual
understanding bound by friendship, solidarity and fair play
that is a part of the Olympic spirit.
As a three-time Olympic athlete, I have experienced first-
hand the pinnacle of Olympic spirit. I have also fully
appreciated what a positive force the USOC can be on young
athletes.
Created to, in the words of the USOC's current institution,
and I quote, may the world's best national Olympic committee
help U.S. Olympic athletes achieve sustained competitive
excellence while inspiring all Americans and preserving the
Olympic ideal.
The committee has often lived up to its calling and its
mission. However, scandal has followed scandal over the past
several years and this is deeply, deeply troubling.
Although these actions probably have not interfered with
the training success of our athletes, they have certainly
tarnished the image of the USOC and the Olympic movement.
Mr. Chairman, I hope your subcommittee, through this and
other similar hearings, will discover some of the root causes
of these scandals and associated problems.
Whether the causes are structural or lack of transparency,
poorly realized mission and strategy, or some other reason, the
need to restore confidence in the USOC is very important to the
continued success of the Olympic movement.
Some of the problems with the USOC are easy to identify.
For instance, and you highlighted this a moment ago. With a 122
board of directors, along with their unusually layered
management structure, including paid staff and volunteer
executives, it is hard to imagine how effective the structure
can be in carrying out its mission.
However, other problems, along with their corresponding
solutions, are not so easily visible. This is one of the
reasons I appreciate the recent comments and actions of USOC
President Bill Martin.
You had created a task force called by Mr. Martin and is
charged to review the USOC from top to bottom and to devise
major structural changes in policy revisions.
I have heard the group will focus on six areas. Ethic
behavior; governance and organizational structure; maintenance
of sensitive, confidential and proprietary information;
communications policies; openness; transparency in disclosure;
and fund raising efficiency.
This is the first tremendous step and I applaud Mr. Martin
for this actions. I hope the task force will review and develop
strong recommendations for the structural changes needed to
address the problem plaguing the USOC.
During this process I encourage the task force to remain
focused on the well-being of the athletes. A much needed
streamlining of the organizational structure and more open and
transparent environment and the required confidence building
measures needed to repolish the image of the Olympic Committee.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for the opportunity to be
here and provide a statement to the subcommittee. I would be
happy to entertain any questions some of the members might have
at this time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Ryun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Ryun
Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to sit here with my friend and fellow Olympian, Senator
Campbell, and provide you some personal thoughts on the US Olympic
Committee. I trust that this subcommittee's investigation and
continuing cooperation with the USOC will yield strong solutions to the
problems facing the Olympic Committee.
For over 100 years the aim of the Olympic Movement has been to
build a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport, by
bringing together athletes from all countries in sincere and impartial
competition and by sharing the mutual understanding bound by
friendship, solidarity and fair play that is the Olympic Spirit.
As a three-time Olympic athlete, I have experienced first-hand the
pinnacle of the Olympic Spirit and also fully appreciate what a
positive force the USOC can be on young athletes. Created to, in the
words of the USOC's Constitution, ``Lead the world's best National
Olympic Committee: Help U.S. Olympic athletes achieve sustained
competitive excellence while inspiring all Americans and preserving the
Olympic ideal,'' the Committee has often lived up to its calling and
mission.
However, scandal has followed scandal over the past several years.
This is deeply troubling. Although these actions probably have not
interfered with the training and success of our athletes, they have
certainly tarnished the image of the USOC and the Olympic movement.
Mr. Chairman, I hope your subcommittee, through this and other
similar hearings, will discover some of the root causes of these
scandals and associated problems. Whether the causes are structural, a
lack of transparency, a poorly-realized mission and strategy, or some
other reason, the need to restore confidence in the USOC is very
important to the continued success of the Olympic movement.
Some of the problems with the USOC are easy to identify. For
instance, with a 123-member board of directors, along with an unusual
and layered management structure including paid staff and volunteer
executives, it is hard to imagine how effective this structure can be
in carrying out its mission. However, other problems, along with their
corresponding solutions are not so easily visible.
This is one of the reasons I appreciate the recent comments and
actions of USOC President, Bill Martin. The newly-created Task Force,
called for by Mr. Martin, is charged to review the USOC from top to
bottom to devise major structural changes and policy revisions. I have
heard that the group will focus on six areas: ethical behavior;
governance and organizational structure; maintenance of sensitive,
confidential and proprietary information; communications policies;
openness, transparency and disclosure; and fundraising efficiency. This
is a tremendous first step, and I applaud Mr. Martin's judicious
actions.
I hope this Task Force review will develop strong recommendations
for the structural changes needed to address the problems plaguing the
USOC. --During this process, I encourage the Task Force to remain
focused on the well-being of the athletes, a much needed streamlining
of the organizational structure, a more open and transparent
environment, and the required confidence-building measures needed to
re-polish the image of the Olympic Committee.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for this opportunity to provide a
statement to your Subcommittee. I would be happy to entertain any
questions you or other Members may have.
Mr. Stearns. I thank both of my colleagues. I really don't
have questions. I think, Senator Campbell, I am struck by three
things you said.
I don't think the American people realize that $4 billion
was spent by taxpayers on the Olympics. I mean I had never
heard that number.
Senator Campbell. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that about a
year ago Senator Stevens and I and several members of the
Appropriations Committee traveled to Greece.
We went to several other countries too, but we did go to
Greece. We already have Americans in Greece now training people
for any potential terrorist event for the Athens games.
That is to the extent we go as Americans to help other
countries make sure that their games are safe for athletes, for
officials and for coaches.
Mr. Stearns. Big financial commitment.
Senator Campbell. Well, we are financing those people,
Americans that are over there. But there were some, we talked
to the Prime Minister of Greece and several of the cabinet
members who assured us that it would be safe.
The venue would be completely done and all of those other
things. And I hope it is. But our interest, of course, was
making sure that it, that we are participating.
So even when the games are not in this country, we do
provide some of the money.
Mr. Stearns. Your other comment that a culture of privilege
has developed, is obviously a concern. And then this book that
you mention.
I am sort of nonplused, like you, what to do with it,
because you don't want to damage further. But if you have
individuals that have committed fraud and there is criminal
activity, that, I think, is important.
So, perhaps, a question I have is do you think this book
should be given to Mr. Martin?
Senator Campbell. We have offered to let Mr. Martin review
it, if he would like to.
Mr. Stearns. Okay, okay.
Senator Campbell. As I mentioned, some of it had already
been leaked to the press before we got, so it is already common
knowledge.
Mr. Stearns. Okay.
Senator Campbell. We were also very careful that the people
who provided this information would not be at the end of some
retribution by mid-management or upper-management people.
Mr. Martin has assured me that is not going to happen. And
I have assured the people in Colorado Springs that will not
happen either.
And, although, I have to tell you that when we originally
went out there, both Senator Stevens and I thought that because
it was a federally chartered institution that the employees
would be protected as government officials are by the Whistle
Blowers Act, and they are not.
And so Senator Stevens has indicated one of his first
efforts in this whole restructuring is going to be protection
for employees of the Olympic committee in that bill.
Mr. Stearns. I think that is important. Having gone through
the Oversight Committee on Enron and Worldcom and Qwest and
Imclone, the Whistle Blower protection is extremely important.
So I think obviously that should be part of legislation.
Mr. Stupak, do you any questions.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Chairman, if I may, can I make another
comment. I know the committee takes very seriously the charge
and the process of oversight.
But I might just remind you that every 4 years literally
billions of people watch the Olympic. Now having said that,
there is a great deal of interest in what is going on here.
We often think of this as being just a national issue, but
the rest of the world is watching what is going to happen with
the USOC.
So, you know, I know you take that seriously, but there is
a larger audience out there and that is why it is important
that we get it right this time.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank both of
our witnesses for being here and let me thank them for the
help. On this side of the House we have been spear-heading the
Olympic Education Scholarships, and both Senator Campbell and
Jim Ryun have helped us out on those scholarships to try and
help some of our athletes to get an education while they train
to represent their country in their chosen sports.
I want to thank them for their help there. Senator
Campbell, what in your mind has really broken down over the
years regarding the USOC? I know you have done this----
Senator Campbell. If I could put it in a perspective, going
back to my era, which I was on the 1964 team, we have come a
long way.
In those days you were pretty much on your own until the
trials. I mean you supported yourself. If you got hurt, you
were on your own.
There was no medical support, nothing, I mean that was it.
And if you didn't have a job, and in fact, some people actually
lost their jobs. When they would make the team, they would be
fired for losing time at work.
And after we won our trials we would simply get together in
a designated city, which was a kick off. We would get our
uniforms issued and so on and then go to wherever the games
were.
And then when you came back, you were totally on your own
again. Little by little that has changed now. So if a young
athlete wants to try out now, in fact, even if they are not in
the top level of their skill.
If they are just interested in doing it, there is an avenue
where they can train and work their way up. And in fact, I
think there is about, oh, maybe 11 or a dozen full-time teams
that train year-round at Colorado Springs.
Others train in Lake Placid, as you know, and some other
places. But they have come along way. I went and visited the
doctors when I was out there, the trainers, and ate with some
of the team members.
And I kept thinking that when I was going through that,
boy, if we could have only had this. So all that has been made
available because of the good will of every Mom and Pop that
sends $10.
And, of course, the big corporation sponsors that are very
interested in what we are doing. Because when I was there I
happened to talk to the people from McDonald's, and encouraged
them to stick with us.
This is going to get ironed out and they shouldn't let
their confidence be shaken. But at you probably know, several
sponsors have already said that they are a little worried and
wondering whether they should pull their sponsorships or not.
And we, I am the first one to try and discourage them from
doing that because it is going to get better. We have come a
long way and now we have to realize that because of this new
management problem, we have got a long way to go yet.
But I look forward to doing that and I know we can. But it
seemed to me, as I mentioned earlier, it began to change when
the McKinsey Report was issued.
Which basically says they should move more toward a
corporate management style.
Mr. Stupak. Jim, anything you want add on that?
Mr. Ryun. Just that you really are dealing with a lot of
different jurisdictional issues, and it is hard to get it right
because, you know, Ben's needs and for what he was doing were
different than, say, the track and field athletes' needs.
And so with those dynamics, even though you need a
sponsorship and I am saying that is an essential part of it,
you had to pull those things all together and to make it work.
And I think, you know, really what we are looking at here
is kind of like a family relationship. And it is the refining
of those particular characteristics that is going to lead to
better management and a better program.
But it is a painful process, as well.
Mr. Stupak. Well, 2 years ago we looked at what had
happened with Salt Lake and Atlanta. And, again, as I said in
my opening, we did our investigation and then they said they
would reform, things would get better.
And here we are 2 years later, going through basically the
same allegations and the same problems. Do you believe Congress
will need to do more oversight, not only of the USOC but also
the IOC? Senator?
Senator Campbell. Well, we have very limited ability to
oversee what the IOC does, as you know. Much more with the
USOC, but I think the time has come that we have to.
I am not sure, very honestly, Congressman Stupak, I am not
sure that they can reform themselves to the degree they need
to.
It is a complicated, difficult thing. And we have 122
members on that board. And many of them, you know, they
represent a lot of different sports.
Mr. Stupak. True.
Senator Campbell. In fact, when I looked at the list, the
new list of all the sports, I didn't recognize some of those
sports. I didn't know what they were.
And even when I went out to the Olympic committee the other
day and I watched women's weight lifting and women's wrestling
and some other things.
I know wrestling and I know weight lifting, but my group,
you know, it was pretty much a man's sport. A lot of changes
have been made. And with every change there comes a
constituency and an agenda for that particular sport.
So when you have 122 members on that board, many of the
members are much more interested in their own sport and their
agenda than they are of the total picture.
And then you add to that about $150 million a year that the
USOC is raising now, you can see it complicates it. A few years
ago, about 3 or 4 years ago, there was several groups that were
leaning on Senator Stevens to revise the Sports Act and require
the Olympic committee to divide up some of the money based on
the percentage to their sports.
And Senator Stevens and I went out and did a hearing at
that time. And we rejected that notion. We thought the Olympic
committee was very capable of deciding how much money went to
each one of the sports, the governing bodies of each sport.
But clearly, money itself has changed the dynamics of the
movement.
Mr. Stupak. Jim, would you care to comment?
Mr. Ryun. I would say clearly money has changed the
dynamics but it has been a positive influence. And I can
remember 1964, as well, and how hard it was for the athletes
just to make the team, and they had to provide for their own
support.
While money has created an avenue of making it possible, it
has also created the problem. So it is worth the battle. You
know, one of their recommendation is greater transparency. I
agree with that.
And somehow we have to take, put the polish back on the
Olympic Committee, the U.S. Olympic Committee, so we can move
ahead of our sponsors.
Because it is not very far off before we will again be
putting together an Olympic game.
Senator Campbell. If I could add one comment to that. One
of the things, I wish I had brought the charts over that we had
staff make for our hearings over on the Senate side.
But one of the things that I got very interested in when I
thought that there was some mismanagement about how the money
was used was the Forbes study about 6 months ago.
That studied the top 200 non-profits about most efficient
use of money. The Red Cross was at the top, as I remember, that
had like an 85 percent efficiency rating, meaning only 15
percent went to overhead and the other 85 went to what their
mission was.
The Olympic committee was one of the three worst, the three
bottom ones with something like a 65 percent efficiency rating.
That told me that there was a lot of money going to other
places than what their mission should of been, which was to the
athletes.
And then we, we tried to get some comparative charts made,
well we did get them made, of how the Red Cross is an example
and some of the other ones, how their lines of authority go.
How there chain of command goes. And then we did one of the
Olympic Committee. One of the people testified that it looked
like a bowl of spaghetti.
And when I first saw it, the first thing I thought was it
looked like something you might see in a Rorschach test. There
were all kinds of lines going all kinds of ways.
I mean I couldn't even figure the thing out about who had
responsibility to who. But clearly they have some structural
problems that need to be changed.
And some of that they can probably do internally and some
of it we have got to do. One of the things that I noted was
that one of the people that resigned from the Ethics Committee,
in fact, was working for a person who he would then have to
judge, he would have to judge his behavior as a member of the
Ethics Committee.
Well, that puts them both in a very uncomfortable and
precarious position. You are working for a guy who you are
going to have to judge his ethical behavior when he does
something wrong?
Tough place of anyone to be. So they need a lot of
structural changes and hopefully we will be able to do that
using some more efficient systems of governance.
Mr. Stupak. Thanks.
Mr. Stearns. Thanks, gentlemen. The gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank
you both and the witnesses following as well. And sadly for me,
there are a number of different pressing scheduling conflicts.
We have a mark-up downstairs in Energy and I have a
briefing over on the Capitol floor. I just want to say that
what you have said underscores the need for a fix and I know
that we can work together.
And I have the greatest confidence in Bill Martin to
provide us the best and most honest advice so that we can, in
fact, do what every American wants us to do.
And I appreciate your help on this and look forwards to
your continued leadership. And yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, gentleman. Anyone else wish to ask
questions to colleagues? Barbara?
Ms. Cubin. No, thank you.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. Thank you very much for your time and we
appreciate your thoughts. If now the second panel will come
forward.
We have two members who want to introduce two of the
people. I will allow them to do so and I will mention the other
individuals.
Rachel Godino, Chair, Athletes' Advisory Council, United
States Olympic Committee, National Headquarters. Harvey
Schiller. Dr. Schiller is President and Chief Executive Officer
of Assante.
He is 1 of the 5 persons of the task force that Senator
McCain has put together. Robert Marbut, Chairman, National
Governing Bodies' Council, United States Olympic Committee.
Jim McCarthy, a member, board of directors, United States
Olympic Committee, National Headquarters. I will let me, please
have a seat and I will let my colleague, Fred Upton, introduce
the acting chairman.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Chairman, you don't know how much I
appreciate introducing an amazing blue guy to a Florida guy
after the Orange Bowl win on January 1.
And as I had the great privilege of saying such to your
Governor, Jeb Bush, when he testified on Medicaid last week, as
well, particularly in the big house, the committee hearing room
downstairs.
But I just want to say that Bill Martin has stepped in at
the University of Michigan several years ago and there has not
been a complaint out there.
He has done a terrific job at bringing excellence back on
the athletic field, but also the desire on academics as well.
And he record in the private sector and now at the
prestigious University of Michigan, is unparalleled. And even
though he is in this spot, as President of the USOC, almost by
default, I guess you could say.
This was not something that he was looking forward to. But
he has spent an enormous amount of time. He has the respect of
the committee that is there and certainly of me and so many
different members.
We welcome you and your testimony and look forward to
working with you in the years ahead. Go blue.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleague. The gentlelady from
Wyoming.
Ms. Cubin. Is this on? It is really my privilege to
introduce a member of today's panel who hails from Star Valley,
Wyoming.
His run to, in 2000, to the Olympic gold, took him to a
match with one of the, a man who some people consider one of
the greatest athletes of our time in the heavyweight greco-
roman wrestling event.
And Rulon, in an upset, upsetting to everyone on the
Russian side, beat him, became a gold medal winner and
certainly we are proud of him for that.
Some, as I said, some people call it an upset, but I call
it hard work, dedication and a never say die attitude that
Rulon has and that he projects every place he goes.
I want to tell you a little bit about him. I know him
personally and Rulon was offered a lot of money after he won
that to go into the WWF or WWE or whatever those things are
that none of us watch.
And a lot of money, more money than I have got. And he
turned it down. And he said, you know, Barbara, he said, what
good is that much money if I go home to Star Valley and I can't
look anybody in the eye.
And that is the kind of man that he is. And I am very proud
to introduce our gold medalist winner, Rulon Gardner.
Mr. Terry. Well the gentle lady yield for a minute. Mr.
Gardner, will you state for the record where you went to
college?
Mr. Gardner. Well, first I started with Junior College in
Idaho, and then of course big red, University of Nebraska.
Mr. Terry. Thank you.
Ms. Cubin. I left that out just so we could do that.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleagues.
I welcome all the panelists, and Mr. Martin, we will let
you start.
STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM C. MARTIN, ACTING PRESIDENT, UNITED
STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS; RACHEL GODINO,
CHAIR, ATHLETES' ADVISORY COUNCIL, UNITED STATES OLYMPIC
COMMITTEE, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS; HARVEY W. SCHILLER, PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSANTE US; ROBERT MARBUT,
CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL GOVERNING BODIES' COUNCIL, UNITED STATES
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS; JAMES P. MCCARTHY,
JR., MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, UNITED STATES OLYMPIC
COMMITTEE, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS; AND RULON GARDNER, 2000
GRECO-ROMAN WRESTLING CHAMPION, UNITED STATES OLYMPIC
COMMITTEE, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Martin. Good morning and thank you Mr. Chairman, and
Congressman Upton, thank you for those very embarrassing
comments you made about me. But I sure do appreciate it.
Members of the committee, my name is Bill Martin. I am the
Director of Athletics at the University of Michigan and I am
serving as Acting President of the United States Olympic
Committee.
My experience at Michigan appears to be a parallel of what
I am facing at the USOC as its volunteer leader. I came to the
position as Athletic Director after spending my professional
life in private business.
The University's Athletic Program was in need of financial
and organizational reform and I was asked to bring to that test
the skills and experience that I gained from business.
I am now being asked to participate in a similar process at
the United States Olympic Committee. While the USOC has many
challenges that certainly need to be addressed, at its core it
is a magnificent organization who has dedicated, professional
staff and committed volunteers performing in the highest
tradition of the Olympic ideal.
Look back just a year ago to Salt Lake City where American
athletes captured an unprecedented 34 medals. Today, in spite
of the unsettling events of the past 8 weeks, the important
work of the USOC and our national governing bodies continues
without disruption, in a world class manner befitting our
athletes.
They have not missed a single training session and access
to critical support areas, such as coaching, sports science,
sports medicine, training facilities and residence centers has
not been impacted.
In competitions across the spectrum of summer and winter
sports, American athletes are distinguishing themselves, and in
so doing raising hopes and expectations for similar successes
in the Pan Am Games this summer, in the Olympic Games in Athens
next year.
Not allowing the recent events to become a distraction, is
a true credit not only to the athletes but also to the
dedicated men and women of the USOC and NGB who work to support
them.
The success of American athletes, however, does not permit
us to escape the hard truth that events over the past few
months have been an embarrassment to the organization, a
disappointment to Congress and the American people who have
entrusted to the USOC the privilege of conducting America's
Olympic affairs.
The good that has been and continues to be accomplished by
the USOC has been obscured and attention has been shifted from
America's athletes to our organizational gymnastics.
Immediate attention and corrective action is required. Let
me briefly outline what I see as the major challenges and what
we are doing to correct them.
Three inter-related areas lie at the base of the
organizations recent difficulty. USOC management, structure and
accountability.
Almost equally important is the need to identify and agree
on the USOC's mission, or more realistically agree on how to
balance the many and often competing missions of the USOC as
demanded by ourselves, our constituent organizations, Congress
and the American people.
The USOC is governed by a 122-person board of directors
that meets but twice a year and a 23-person executive committee
that sets policy, hires management and tends to the day-to-day
affairs.
The USOC board is headed by a volunteer President elected
by the board. The responsibilities of the President are a bit
unclear and seem to vary from incumbent to incumbent.
But it is primarily a policy versus a management position.
One function that is not the responsibility of the President,
however, is the management of the permanent USOC professional
staff, most of whom are located at USOC Headquarters in
Colorado Springs.
The staff and a budget of nearly $125 million a year are
managed by a CEO who is hired and supervised by the executive
committee.
As you are probably aware, that position was recently
vacated. Historically, there have been too often tensions
between the President and the CEO.
Congress established the USOC as a private entity that is
to receive its funding, not from the Federal Treasury, but from
private sources, such as payment for domestic broadcast rights,
sponsorship revenues, licensing fees and so forth.
Originally, the USOC's principle responsibility was to
field teams for the Olympic and Pan Am Games, to which was
added, by amendment in 1998, responsibility for the Paralympic
Games, as well.
But there are numerous other responsibilities enumerated in
the Act, as well as that range from the obligation for
coordinating and providing technical information on physical
training to promoting grass-roots developments of amateur
athletic programs.
Frequently, these mandated responsibilities come into
conflict with one another and certainly put them in competition
for the USOC's fixed resources, which as just noted, must be
generated privately.
Since it is Congress to which we are ultimately
accountable, the USOC needs Congress to tell us exactly what it
considers are mission should or should not be.
What it should not be, however, is really what brings us to
this hearing today. By the USOC's conduct of this last year, it
appears to be an organization in turmoil, although, as
previously noted, its routine operations and athlete
development and support programs are continuing uninterrupted.
While I believe that the public picture is somewhat
distorted, the perception is as serious an indictment as its
reality, and I am embarrassed for the organization for which I
have respect and affection.
But I also recognize the gravity of both perception and
reality and have committed to a program of remedial action that
includes the following.
First, a governance and ethics review task force has been
appointed to study and make recommendations addressing a
variety of issues ranging from ethical behavior to a new
governance structure.
Second, at the request of the Senate Commerce Committee,
the USOC agreed to a proposal for a creation of an independent
council, that the USOC will fund, of distinguished Americans
who will examine all aspects of the USOC's operation and
structure and submit a report containing recommendations for
remedial action to the appropriate committees of the House and
Senate, as well as the USOC.
And third, the USOC has received and will accept the most
generous offer from long-time Olympic supporter, David
D'Alessandro, CEO of Olympic sponsor, John Hancock, for the
conduct by a recognized national accounting firm of a
comprehensive audit of the USOC's accounting and business
practices.
I and my colleagues are embarrassed that there is even a
question about the adequacy of the USOC's ethical standards and
reporting practices, because this organization, more than any
other, not only should stand upon the foundation of the highest
ethical principles, but should serve as an example of integrity
to all Americans, particularly the young.
I hope and trust that you Members of Congress would join us
in this restorative effort and suggest two areas where you can
be of particular assistance.
We need your help in defining and focusing the USOC's
missions and responsibilities. We need clear and consistent
guidance regarding what Congress expects the USOC to do, and
how it expects us to do it.
Second, we need Congress' help in developing and
implementing an organizational plan that will convert the
USOC's government apparatus into a more professional and
streamlined body that can better serve America's Olympic
athletes and America's Olympic interests.
I thank you for your support and look forward to having you
as an active partner as we jointly move forward to restore
America's Olympic organization to its position of prominence
and effectiveness that this Congress and the American people
expect and deserve.
[The prepared statement of William C. Martin follows.]
Prepared Statement of William C. Martin, Acting President, United
States Olympic Committee
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Bill Martin. I am the Director of Athletics at the University of
Michigan and I am serving as the Acting President of the United States
Olympic Committee.
My experience at the University of Michigan appears to be a
parallel of what I am facing at the USOC as its volunteer leader. To a
certain degree I am serving in a volunteer capacity as the Michigan
Athletic Director, inasmuch as I came to the position not in a
continuation of a career in athletics, but after spending my
professional life in private business. The University's athletic
program was in need of financial and organizational reform and I was
asked to bring to that task the skills and experience that I gained
from business. I am now being asked to participate in a similar process
at the United States Olympic Committee.
I have only been a member of the executive leadership of the USOC
for a few months. I was elected a Vice President last November and then
succeeded to the Presidency on an acting basis five weeks ago. I have,
however, been involved with the organization for many years because of
my association with the Olympic sport of sailing, whose National
Governing Body, a member organization of the USOC, is the U.S. Sailing
Association. I have been involved with U.S. Sailing for over twenty
years and served as its president. Consequently, I have both an
outsider's as well as a new insider's view of the USOC and have some
definite opinions about the USOC.
While the USOC has many challenges that certainly need to be
addressed, at its core it is a magnificent organization whose dedicated
professional staff and committed volunteers are performing in the
highest tradition of the Olympic ideal. Look back just a year ago to
Salt Lake City where American athletes captured an unprecedented
thirty-four medals. Today, despite the unsettling events of the past
eight weeks, the important work of the United States Olympic Committee
and our National Governing Bodies continues, without disruption, and in
a world-class manner befitting our athletes. They have not missed a
single training session, and access to critical support areas such as
coaching, sports science, sports medicine, training facilities, and
residence centers has not been impacted. In competitions across the
spectrum of summer and winter sport, American athletes are
distinguishing themselves and in so doing, raising hopes and
expectations for similar successes in the Pan American Games this
summer, and the Olympic Games in Athens next year. Not allowing the
recent events to become a distraction is a true credit not only to the
athletes, but also to the dedicated men and women of the USOC and NGB's
who work to support them.
The success of America's athletes, however, do not permit us to
escape the hard truth that events over the last few months have been an
embarrassment to the organization, and a disappointment to this
Congress and the American people who have entrusted to the USOC the
privilege of conducting America's Olympic affairs. The good that has
been and continues to be accomplished by the USOC has been obscured,
and attention has been shifted from America's athletes to our
organizational gymnastics. Immediate attention and corrective action is
required.
Let me briefly outline what I see as the major challenges and what
we are doing to correct them.
Three interrelated areas lie at the base of the organization's
current difficulty: USOC management, structure, and accountability.
Almost equally important is the need to identify and agree on the
USOC's mission, or, more realistically, agree on how to balance the
many and often competing missions of the USOC as demanded by ourselves,
our constituent organizations, Congress, and the American people.
The USOC is governed by a 123-person board of directors that meets
but twice a year. Meeting on a more frequent basis--every two months--
is a 23-member Executive Committee that sets policy, hires the
executive leadership of the USOC, and attends to more immediate issues
that cannot await semi-annual action by the full board.
One Member of Congress rhetorically asked how, with governing
entities of such an unwieldy size, the USOC ever accomplishes anything.
The answer is that we do, but it is a struggle. But in addition to the
size of these governing boards, challenges arise because of their
composition. Unlike a typical corporate board of the type with which I
am most familiar, the USOC governing boards are comprised almost
exclusively of ``insiders,'' that is, people who represent USOC
constituent organizations and often place priority on their narrow
constituent interests. These are all fine people but one would expect a
greater representation of independent board members with no association
with the USOC and any branch of what we refer to as the ``Olympic
Family.''
The USOC Board of Directors is headed by a volunteer President
elected by the Board, the office that I am filling on an interim basis.
The responsibilities of the President are a bit unclear and seem to
vary from incumbent to incumbent, but it is primarily a policy versus a
management position, with additional responsibilities dealing with
representation of the USOC internationally. One function that is
definitely not the responsibility of the President, however, is the
management of the permanent USOC professional staff, most of whom are
located at USOC headquarters in Colorado Springs. The staff, and a
budget of nearly $125 million a year, are managed by a Chief Executive
Officer who is hired and supervised by the Executive Committee. As you
are probably aware, that position was recently vacated. Historically,
there have too often been tensions between the USOC's CEO and its
President.
Having a CEO accountable to a 23-person Executive Committee and a
123-person Board, and to myriad other committees and constituencies, is
an invitation either to chaos, or to no accountability at all, either
of which can spell disaster for an organization. But this leads to the
next question of the accountability of the USOC to Congress.
The USOC is chartered by Congress through legislation enacted in
1978, ``The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act,'' that sets
forth certain rights, privileges, and obligations of the organization.
As the entity recognized by the International Olympic Committee as the
National Olympic Committee for the United States, it is also subject to
the same provisions of the Olympic Charter as are the 199 other
National Olympic Committees for the countries each represents. Such
provisions are far ranging, including, for example, the requirement
that National Governing Bodies affiliated with sports on the program of
the Olympic Games must constitute a voting majority on a National
Olympic Committee's Board of Directors.
Congress established the USOC as a private entity that is to
receive its funding not from the federal treasury, but from private
sources such as payments for domestic broadcast rights, and from
sponsorship revenues, licensing fees, and individual contributions.
Originally, the USOC's principal responsibility was to field teams
for the Olympic and Pan American Games, to which was added by amendment
in 1998 responsibility for the Paralympic Games as well. But there are
numerous other responsibilities enumerated in the Act as well that
range from the obligation for coordinating and providing technical
information on physical training, to promoting grass-roots development
of amateur athletic programs. Frequently these mandated
responsibilities come into conflict with one another, and certainly put
them in competition for the USOC's fixed resources which, as just
noted, must be generated privately.
All of this comes down to the question of just what Congress, to
whom we are ultimately accountable, wants the USOC to do.
Unfortunately, it seems that individual Members have differing views on
what our mission should be as evidenced by a hearing conducted eight
years ago in which we were heavily criticized for devoting too much
attention to elite programs, and not enough to grass roots development.
But in that same year legislation was introduced that would require us
to undertake major new responsibilities for elite disabled athlete
programs. However, there was no accompanying provision for financial
assistance that would enable the USOC to perform this task.
Consequently, to fulfill this new Congressional mandate the USOC would
have had to divert resources from other areas, such as grass roots
development.
I realize that the matter of priorities is something with which you
elected representatives have to deal every day, and if you choose a
course contrary to your constituents' interests you may pay the price
at the polling place the following November. It is somewhat the same
for us, and we have nearly as many competing constituency groups as
each of you. But I raise this matter merely to demonstrate that since
it is this Congress to which we are ultimately accountable, the USOC
needs Congress to tell us exactly what it considers our mission should
or should not be.
``What it should not be,'' however, is really what brings us to
this hearing today. By the USOC's conduct of this last year it appears
to be an organization in turmoil although, as previously noted, its
routine operations and athlete development and support programs are
continuing uninterrupted. While I believe that the public picture is
somewhat distorted, the perception is as serious an indictment as its
reality, and I am embarrassed for the organization for which I have
respect and affection. But I also recognize the gravity of both the
perception and the reality and have committed to a program of remedial
action that includes the following:
1. A Governance and Ethics Review Task Force has been appointed to
study and make recommendations addressing a variety of issues
ranging from ethical behavior to a new governance structure.
Many of the Task Force's recommendations can and will be
instituted administratively, others may require legislative
changes to the Amateur Sports Act, and still others will have
to await the recommendations of an independent review
commission that will be submitting its own report on or before
June 30th of this year.
2. At the request of the Senate Commerce Committee the USOC agreed to a
proposal for the creation of an independent panel, that the
USOC will fund, of distinguished Americans who will examine all
aspects of the USOC's operations and structure and submit a
report containing recommendations for remedial action to the
appropriate committees of the House and Senate, as well as to
the USOC. Because of its independent posture our interaction
with the panel will only be at their invitation, but I have
communicated the USOC's pledge to cooperate fully in whatever
way we are asked.
3. The USOC has received and will accept a most generous offer from
long-time Olympic supporter David D'Alessandro, CEO of Olympic
Sponsor John Hancock, for the conduct by a recognized national
accounting firm of a comprehensive audit of the USOC's
accounting and business practices.
I and my colleagues are embarrassed that that there is even a
question about the adequacy of the USOC's ethical standards and
reporting practices because this organization, more than most any
other, not only should stand upon the foundation of the highest ethical
principles but should serve as an example of probity and integrity to
all Americans, particularly the young. Newspaper accounts of recent
days and months belie that notion but I still believe that the
transgressions that besmirched the USOC's reputation were exceptions.
Nevertheless, I and my colleagues are committed to doing all that we
can to restore the USOC's reputation for integrity, and returning it to
a position that is as deserving of respect and support as are the young
men and women we have the honor to serve.
I hope and trust that you Members of Congress will join us in this
restorative effort, and suggest two areas where you can be of
particular assistance:
1. We need your help in defining and focusing the USOC's mission and
responsibilities. As previously discussed, the Ted Stevens
Olympic and Amateur Sports Act sets forth a variety of areas
for which we are responsible but sets no priorities, and offers
no assistance for addressing them. We need clear and consistent
guidance regarding what Congress expects the USOC to do, and
how it expects us to do it.
2. We need Congress' help in developing and implementing an
organizational restructuring plan that will convert the USOC's
governance apparatus into a more professional and streamlined
body that can better serve America's Olympic athletes, and
Olympic interests. This will require some fundamental changes
that may be painful to some of the USOC's current leaders and
constituents, but with Congress' assistance and support the
overall Olympic Movement will ultimately be better for it.
I thank you for your support, and look forward to having you as
active partners as we jointly move forward to restore America's Olympic
organization to the position of prominence and effectiveness that this
Congress and the American people expect and deserve.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Martin, thank you. I just wanted to tell
the panel, we have a, Mr. Ridge is giving a security briefing
now, and most of the members went to that.
I have decided to continue the hearing. I know many of you
came from out of town and I want to get your opening statements
and questions on record.
Many of them probably will come back after noon, but I just
want to alert that to you. So, and also I just remind all of
you, our opening statements are generally 5 minutes.
And so you will see that red light after 5 minutes, just
for your information. And we welcome Ms. Godino.
STATEMENT OF RACHEL GODINO
Ms. Godino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
today about the Olympic movement in the United States and for
your interest in this topic, particularly as our Nation faces
the prospect of war.
My name is Rachel Mayer Godino. I am a 1992 Olympian in the
sport of figure skating and I serve as the elected chairperson
of the Athletes' Advisory Council, the AAC of the United States
Olympic Committee, the USOC.
The AAC is composed of Olympic, Pan American, and
Paralympic athletes who are democratically elected by their
peers to represent the interests and protect the rights of
America's athletes.
It is truly an honor to represent and lead such a
distinguished group. I imagine the question of whether the
USOC's organizational structure impedes its mission has been
raised, in part, because of the conflicting images of the USOC.
On the one hand, it is a troubled organization. There are
the recent ethical issues, questions about financial reporting
and the revolving door in the positions of leadership at the
USOC.
On the other hand, are America's athletes. They have
performed phenomenally, winning 97 medals in Sidney, 34 medals
in Salt Lake City, and they have continued to be extremely
successful in the 13 months since Salt Lake.
Great athletic performance and dysfunctional bureaucracy.
Which one of these is the true reflection of the USOC. The
answer is both, today.
The USOC is doing some things right. First, the USOC
continues to help American athletes achieve their Olympic
dreams.
Second, the USOC has improved its ability and the ability
of each national governing body to target dollars and resources
where they will most impact athletic performance.
The positive results of that are being seen on the field of
play. Third, the USOC is protecting athletes' rights. Part of
the genesis of the 1978 Amateur Sports Act was the lack of
protection for athletes' rights.
The processes and principles incorporated into the USOC
constitution as a result of that 1978 Act, have been used and
tested repeatedly since their inception.
They have proved to be so successful, that consideration
should be given to codifying these principles in the Ted
Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.
Last, athletes, defined in the Act as those who have
competed in the Olympic, Pan American or Paralympic Games or
the World Championships in the last 10 years, bring a unique
voice and perspective to both USOC and the NGBs.
And both NGBs and athletes, those who know and live sport,
should continue to have a meaningful voice in the governance of
the USOC, and continue to have some forum for debate, such as
that provided by the AAC today.
The USOC can also be improved in many ways. First, the USOC
faces the challenges of fulfilling many diverse purposes and
serving many stakeholders identified in the Act and in the USOC
organic documents, which limited resources.
Many people have described the USOC as trying to be all
things to all people. But given limited resources, choices must
be made. The USOC cannot be all things to all people.
Is the primary goal to win the medal count at the Olympic
Games? What about the Paralympic and the Pan Am Games? What
about promoting sport for all?
To date, neither the USOC nor Congress has effectively
answered these fundamental questions. An analogy can be made to
an athlete training.
The elite athlete has one ultimate goal, to win an Olympic
medal. In order to meet that goal, the athlete must make
choices. Delaying education and job opportunities, moving away
from family and friends, all to attain the ultimate goal.
The choices are difficult, but they must be made. The USOC
today lacks this laser focus and the political will to make
difficult decisions.
Furthermore, all of the groups represented on the board of
directors are there because they are identified as having a
stake in the Olympic movement.
But the lack of clear priorities leads to an ineffective
decisionmaking process and fights over limited resources. I am
sure that all of you can relate to the frustrations and
inefficiencies of resources being doled out based on personal
agendas, rather than principle decisionmaking.
Overall, the USOC structure should promote operating in the
best interest of the organization, rather than in the interest
of a particular member or group.
And going forward, a distinction must be made between
representation for purposes of input, and representation for
purposes of decisionmaking. Second, the rules and
responsibilities of the staff, vis-a-vis the volunteers, must
be defined and implemented.
Third, similar to the USOC, the structure of NGBs can be
made more efficient and streamlined. If economies and scales
can be realized with the NGBs, additional resources can be
directed to athletic performance.
Fourth, even with a perfect organizational structure,
leadership is about people. Selecting the right people for the
leadership positions is critical for future success.
Fifth, a system of accountability should be implemented.
Board review processes and increased transparency are a place
to start.
And last, as noted earlier, the USOC is one of the only
countries in the world that does not receive direct government
funding.
Instead, the USOC relies on corporate sponsors, television
and private donors. These dollars are largely contributed so
that companies and people can be associated with the Olympics
and Olympic athletes.
However, the dollars raised must fulfill many objectives
beyond helping U.S. Olympic athletes. The revenue models should
be examined, particularly with respect to fulfillment of
objectives outside of helping U.S. Olympic athletes achieve
sustained competitive excellence.
So in sum, does the USOC's organizational structure impedes
its mission? The short answer is yes. The recent attention has
potentially, has provided a potentially powerful and positive
impact, forcing the organization to make change.
I am confident that the ongoing reform process, through the
internal USOC commission and through the commission appointed
at the direction of the Senate Commerce Committee, will create
a USOC that is capable of enabling American athletes to reach
their full potential.
U.S. Olympic movement and its underlying ideas are
resilient. Our athletes, the very reason the USOC exists, are
strong and performing well.
Setting new records on the field of play and continually
striving to make Americans proud. Not only by their athletic
excellence, but also by conducting themselves with honor and
integrity.
America's athletes continue to take pride in their efforts
and we hope the American public will, as well. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Rachel Godino follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rachel Mayer Godino
Chairman Stearns and members of the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade, and Consumer Protection: Thank you for the opportunity to speak
to you today about the Olympic Movement in the United States, and for
your interest in this topic. My name is Rachel Mayer Godino. I am a
1992 Olympian in the sport of Figure Skating, and serve as the elected
chairperson of the Athletes' Advisory Council (AAC) of the United
States Olympic Committee (USOC). The AAC is composed of Olympic, Pan
American, and Paralympic athletes elected by their peers to represent
the interests, and protect the rights of America's athletes. It is
truly an honor to represent and lead such a distinguished group of
dedicated and accomplished athletes.
My testimony is based on my years as an athlete, my experience as
an Olympian, and my service on the USOC Board of Directors, Executive
Committee, and the AAC.
I imagine that the issue of whether the U.S. Olympic Committee's
Organizational Structure Impedes its Mission has been raised because of
the conflicting messages of the USOC brought to light in recent months.
On the one hand, is an organization that seems unable to manage itself,
illustrated by the recent ethical issues, questions about financial
reporting and effectiveness, and the revolving door in the positions of
USOC leadership. On the other hand, are America's athletes. They have
performed phenomenally winning 97 medals at the 2000 Summer Olympic
Games in Sydney and 34 medals at the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake
City. America's athletes have been and continue to be highly successful
on the field of play in the 13 months since Salt Lake despite the
recent turmoil within the USOC. Great athletic performances and
dysfunctional bureaucracy--which is the true reflection of the USOC?
The answer, at this time, is both.
I will address what I believe the USOC is doing well and where it
can be improved. Like many other individuals committed to making the
USOC the best National Olympic Committee in the world, I believe that
recent events should be viewed as an opportunity to make difficult but
necessary changes to the USOC. The unique circumstances we are
presented with today make change possible in a way that it has never
been before.
WHAT IS THE USOC'S MISSION AND STRUCTURE?
A bit of background is necessary to delve into this topic. The
mission of the USOC as stated in Article II of the USOC Constitution is
to ``Lead the world's best National Olympic Committee: Help U.S.
Olympic athletes achieve sustained competitive excellence while
inspiring all Americans and preserving the Olympic ideal.'' Section 2
of Article II says that the ``USOC shall fulfill its mission on a basis
consistent with Section 220503 of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur
Sports Act (``the Act'') which sets forth the purposes of the USOC.''
The Act identifies thirteen purposes that range from obtaining the most
competent representation in the Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic
Games, to the expansive goal of promoting and encouraging physical
fitness and public participation in amateur athletic activities. In
sum, the USOC has a broad mission and multiple specific objectives.
The organizational structure of the USOC is a complex mosaic. There
are multiple constituent groups of the organization, several of which
require some detailed explanation. The Board of Directors and the
Executive Committee are the two bodies empowered with decision-making
authority; the National Governing Bodies (NGB) Council and the AAC, are
the two constituent groups codified in the 1998 Amendments to the Act.
Each of these entities plays an important role in the current
organizational structure of the USOC.
The 120+ member Board of Directors is composed of one
representative from each of the 45 NGBs for Olympic and Pan American
sports, 25 elite athletes elected by their peers, 4 representatives
from the Armed Forces, 17 representatives from Community and Education
Based member groups such as the NCAA and YMCA, 8 members from the
``public sector'', 5 Vice Presidents, 5 past presidents, 3 U.S. members
of the International Olympic Committee, and more. Suffice it to say
that the Board is large, diverse and not particularly agile. According
to the USOC Constitution, the Board of Directors has ``ultimate
authority over the business, policies, affairs, and activities of the
USOC . . .'' (Article XII USOC Constitution). However, the sheer size
of the Board makes the exercise of its written authority virtually
impossible.
The USOC Executive Committee is comprised of 20 members who also
reflect the diverse constituencies of the USOC. Though smaller than the
Board, the Executive Committee also faces decision-making challenges
for broader structural reasons described later in this testimony. The
Executive Committee is charged with establishing policies and
overseeing the conduct of the business and affairs of the USOC, and is
subject to direction by the Board of Directors.
The NGB Council consists of one representative from each of the 45
Olympic and Pan American sports. Each NGB determines its own method of
appointment or election of one representative to this body. In addition
to serving as members of the NGB Council, each of these representatives
also serves on the Board of Directors.
The AAC, the group for which I serve as Chairperson, is comprised
of one democratically elected athlete representative from each Olympic
and Pan American sport. The athletes in each sport who represented the
U.S. at the Olympic and/or Pan American Games or World Championships in
the last ten years elect one representative to the AAC. In other words,
those that have trained and competed together for years, elect one of
their peers to serve as their athlete representative. The AAC also has
two Paralympic athlete representatives--one from summer sports and one
from winter sports. I will provide additional detail on the AAC later
in this testimony. The AAC and the NGB Council are both advisory in
nature.
In order to have a complete sense of the parameters within which
the USOC operates and how it functions, it is also important to realize
that the USOC is unlike other large non-profit organizations in its
revenue model. Only a small portion of USOC revenue comes from
fundraising and individual donors. Instead, the USOC generates the most
significant portion of its revenue from television rights and corporate
sponsors who pay for the use of the Olympic rings. Some of these
sponsors are domestic; some sponsor the Olympic movement worldwide
through the International Olympic Committee. This revenue model is more
similar to a for-profit corporation than a non-profit. The USOC is also
different from other National Olympic Committees, most of which receive
substantial funding from their respective governments, while the USOC
relies on sponsors and the American public for its funding.
When the underlying structure outlined above is combined with
limited resources to meet multiple purposes of diverse constituencies,
the result is a unique set of challenges for the USOC.
WHAT IS THE USOC DOING RIGHT?
First, the USOC is helping American athletes achieve their Olympic
dreams. Americans should be proud to know that the talented and hard-
working individuals who are America's Olympians and Olympic hopefuls
continue to perform exceptionally well. Johnny Spillane recently won
the gold medal in Nordic Combined at the World Championships in Italy,
becoming the first American ever to claim top honors in this event in
World or Olympic competition. Keeth Smart is now ranked number one in
the Fencing Men's Sabre world standings, the highest ranking ever
attained by a U.S. fencer. Weightlifter Shane Hamman (an AAC member)
thrilled the crowd at the Titan Games in San Jose, California, with a
lift of more than 500 pounds. Sarah Hughes, Michelle Kwan, and Sasha
Cohen stand a good chance of sweeping the medals at the World Figure
Skating Championships here in Washington D.C. next week. These
individuals and hundreds of others like them are the reason that we
must find a way to resolve the organizational challenges facing the
USOC.
Second, the USOC continues to develop its relationship and
partnership with NGBs. Over the last few years, despite challenges, the
USOC has improved its ability, and the ability of each NGB, to target
dollars and resources where they will most impact athletic performance.
The results are being seen in the great successes on the field of play,
as described above.
Third, the USOC is protecting athletes' rights. Part of the genesis
of the 1978 Amateur Sports Act was the lack of protection for athletes'
rights. The USOC, with Congress' help, has been helping to protect
athletes' rights since then. Article IX of the USOC Constitution
states: ``No member of the USOC may deny or threaten to deny any
amateur athletes the opportunity to participate in the Olympic Games,
the Pan American Games, the Paralympic Games, a World Championship
competition, or other such protected competition . . .'' (Article IX,
USOC Constitution). A process to resolve disputes and to expeditiously
remedy a situation is also defined. Problems will always arise, and
there will always be attempts to suppress athletes' rights. As a
result, these processes and principles have been used and tested
repeatedly since their inception in the late seventies. They have
proved to be so successful that consideration should be given to
codifying these principles in the Act.
Furthermore, the 1998 amendments to the Act created the role of the
Athlete Ombudsman. The Ombudsman provides ``independent advice to
athletes at no cost about the applicable provisions . . .'' of the
USOC, NGBs, and Paralympic sports organizations, and assists in
mediating disputes. The Athlete Ombudsman position has been highly
effective in resolving disputes avoiding costly legal proceedings for
NGBs, the USOC, and athletes.
Fourth, in whatever new structure for the USOC emerges, NGBs and
active athletes must continue to have a forum for debate such as that
provided by the AAC today. Elected athletes bring their individual
sport experiences to the AAC for the good of all athletes. This
structure makes it significantly less likely that personal agendas will
rule the day. In fact, the AAC has often been called the ``conscience''
of the USOC. The AAC also serves as a source of leadership development
for the organization. Athletes who might not otherwise be involved in
the movement have a place at the AAC. As noted earlier, the Act
provides that athletes who have competed at the World, Pan American,
Paralympic, or Olympic level in the last 10 years qualify to serve as
athlete representatives. Furthermore, athlete representatives must
constitute twenty percent of all USOC and NGB committees. Similar to
athletes' rights, these fundamental principles of athlete
representation have been tested. If these principles were not protected
in the Act, they most certainly would have been changed by the various
agendas over the years. I submit today that these tenets should
continue to be protected. Athletes, as defined in the Act, bring a
unique voice and perspective to NGBs and the USOC. NGBs must also
continue to have a meaningful voice in the governance of the USOC.
Lastly, the USOC recognizes the need for change. This may be one of
the few topics on which you would get unanimous agreement from all
parts of the USOC, and perhaps even from the American public, sponsors,
and Congress. Unfortunately, the knowledge that change is necessary is
not new. The USOC has recognized the need for change in the past and as
a result, has held round table discussions, appointed task forces,
commissioned studies, and more. Precisely how the organization should
be changed has been, and continues to be, the subject of significant
debate. However, the first important hurdle, accepting that change is
necessary, has been cleared.
HOW CAN THE USOC BE IMPROVED?
Given the recognition that the structure of the USOC can be
improved, below are several specific areas of potential improvement.
First, the USOC faces the challenge of fulfilling many diverse
purposes and serving the many stakeholders identified in the Act and in
the USOC organic documents, with limited resources. Many people have
described the USOC as trying to ``be all things to all people''. But,
given that limited resources are a fact of life, choices must be made--
the USOC cannot be all things to all people. Is our primary goal to win
the medal count at the Olympic Games? Should we put a stronger emphasis
on high profile sports such as Skiing and Swimming? What about less
well known Olympic sports like Modern Pentathlon and Archery? Where do
Paralympic and Pan American athletes fall into the list of priorities?
What about the purpose of promoting sport for all? Where one comes out
on these questions has a significant impact on allocation of resources
(including financial resources, facilities, staff time, etc). Yet, to
date, neither the USOC nor Congress has effectively answered these
fundamental questions.
An analogy can be made to an athlete training. The elite athlete
has one ultimate goal--to win an Olympic medal. In order to meet that
goal, the athlete must make choices. For example, the athlete may
forego education and job opportunities, move away from family and
friends, and miss important family events, all for the purpose of
attaining the ultimate goal. These choices are difficult, but must be
made. The USOC today lacks this laser focus and the political will to
make difficult decisions.
Two related issues arise from the lack of clear purpose and
priority: an inefficient, and perhaps ineffective, decision-making
process, and the resulting bitter fights over limited resources. While
the USOC may have expansive and even lofty goals, and serve broad
constituent groups, a distinction must be made between representation
for purposes of input, and representation for purposes of decision-
making. All of groups represented on the Board are there because they
are identified as having a ``stake'' in the Olympic movement. But, when
everyone gets to decide what to do with the resources, and there is an
absence of clearly defined and agreed upon priorities, a culture of
indecision is fostered. Decisions get ``undone'' by unspoken factors
and inaction. Volunteers trying to serve their constituents undermine
difficult decisions made by staff. In short, decisions are driven by
self-interest. I am sure that all of you can relate to the frustrations
and inefficiencies of resources being doled out based on personal
agendas rather than principled decision-making. While the USOC has made
some improvements in this area, the organization, and the athletes it
serves, would benefit greatly from both clear priorities and a
streamlined and effective decision-making process. Any decision that
has staying power--whether right or wrong--would be better than the
indecision and lack of clarity that we face today. Overall, the USOC's
organizational structure should promote operating in the interest of
the organization rather than the interests of a particular member or
constituency.
Second, the roles and responsibilities of the staff vis a vis the
volunteers must be defined, and volunteers and staff must actually act
in accordance with the defined roles and responsibilities. As you may
know, in 2000 the USOC amended the Constitution and Bylaws to transfer
many responsibilities from the volunteers to the professional staff as
a result of the 1999 McKinsey & Co. study. However, I believe that the
USOC failed to implement critical changes to the culture and everyday
practice to complete the transformation envisioned. Today, there is
still no broad consensus as to who has the responsibility or authority
to do what in certain key areas such as international relations.
Strategies to ensure that the roles and responsibilities of volunteers
and staff are both defined and practiced must be part of the
recommendations for improvement.
Third, similar to the USOC, the structure of NGBs can be more
efficient and streamlined so they can better fulfill their
responsibilities. Approximately half of the NGBs have hired a new
Executive Director in the last two years, and some have had multiple
Executive Directors in the last two years. This instability is less
than optimal. Furthermore, it's possible that economies of scale can be
gained particularly among small NGBs. If economies of scale can be
realized, additional resources can be directed to athletes on the field
of play.
Fourth, even with a perfect organizational structure, leadership is
about people. Selecting the ``right'' people for the leadership
positions is critical to future success. Of course, given the current
structure, the lack of clear purpose and prioritization of goals, and
the lack of definition in roles and responsibilities, the selection
process is difficult and easily manipulated for self-interest. The USOC
must first have clarity of purpose, roles, and responsibilities. The
organization will then be in a position to recruit and retain the
``right'' leaders that are so critical for future success.
Fifth, a system for accountability to sponsors, Congress, the
American public, and athletes should be implemented. Therefore, built
into recommendations for improvement should be a review process that
provides for thoughtful and evolutionary change on a regular basis. One
way to ensure internal accountability is to implement a review process
for the Board of Directors. Such a review process could include a full
Board evaluation, individual self-assessments for each director, and
peer reviews of each other. External accountability can be improved
through increased transparency.
Sixth, as I noted earlier, the revenue model of the USOC is unique.
The USOC is one of the only countries in the world that does not
receive government funding. While U.S. athletes compete against
countries like Australia and China who get significant direct financial
support from their Ministries of Sport, the USOC relies on corporate
sponsors, television, and private donors for funding. These dollars are
largely contributed so that companies and people can be associated with
the Olympics and Olympic athletes. However, the dollars raised must
fulfill many objectives beyond helping U.S. Olympic athletes achieve
sustained competitive excellence. The revenue model should be examined
particularly with respect to fulfillment of objectives outside of
helping U.S. Olympic athletes achieve sustained competitive excellence.
Lastly, the USOC faces a changing and increasingly competitive
landscape. The level of athletic performance worldwide continues to
improve making it more and more difficult for the U.S. to achieve
sustained competitive excellence. The needs of athletes are also
changing. For example, the average American athlete competing at an
elite level is older today than a decade ago. In 2004 in Athens, the
average female athlete will be 29, and the average male athlete will be
30. It is more and more common for athletes to delay education and job
opportunities until later in life. Part of this is because there are
more opportunities to make a living in sport, but in many cases, it is
just about pursuing the love of the game to its ultimate level at the
Olympic, Pan-Am, or Paralympic Games. Without focus and attention on
the changing competitive landscape and needs of our athletes, the USOC
will be adrift on a course to mediocrity. However, by addressing the
organizational challenges facing the USOC, and getting back to the
business of sport, we can chart a course to excellence. We must do so
for the sake of America's athletes.
CLOSING
Does the USOC's organizational structure impede its mission? The
short answer is ``yes''. The recent attention, though negative, has a
potentially very powerful and positive impact, forcing the organization
to make change.
To that end, the independent Commission appointed at the direction
of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
and the USOC's internal Ethics and Governance Commission have begun to
address and will recommend changes to the organizational structure. I
am confident that these ongoing reform processes will create a United
States Olympic Committee that is capable of enabling American athletes
to reach their full potential. Based on the scope of change being
considered and discussed here today, in the media, and in the USOC
family, I believe that changes to the Act will be necessary, and that
many of you will therefore be directly involved in improving the USOC.
Furthermore, I am certain that all of you as members of Congress will
be lobbied regarding the structure of the USOC. My greatest hope is
that principled decision-making rather than self-interest will rule the
day.
The U.S. Olympic Movement and its underlying ideals are resilient.
Our athletes--the very reason the USOC exists--are strong and
performing well, setting new records on the field of play and
continually striving to make America proud, not only by their athletic
excellence, but also by conducting themselves with honor and integrity.
America's athletes continue to take pride in their efforts, and we hope
that the American public will as well.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you.
Dr. Schiller.
STATEMENT OF HARVEY W. SCHILLER, JR.
Mr. Schiller. Thank you. I do want to mention that I
support the comments made about Bill Martin. Not just because I
have two degrees from Ann Arbor, but I think he is--and for
your attention, Congressman Stearns, I was the Commissioner of
the Southeastern Conference. So, I will say something good
about Florida, too.
And there are probably a few others. I was the head of
World Championship Wrestling, and Rulon, you did the right
thing by turning them down.
Chairman Stearns, distinguished members of the U.S. House
Committee on Energy and Commerce. Ladies and gentlemen, thank
you for the opportunity to talk to you today.
I have previously served as Executive Director of the U.S.
Olympic Committee. That term is called Chief Executive Officer.
And also I was a volunteer member of the USOC Board of
Directors and a member of their Executive Committee as a
volunteer.
I also now serve as a member of the five-member independent
committee that was discussed by Senator Campbell. And I also
serve as chair of the Management Committee of New York City's
bid for the 2012 games.
Well, the views I express today are my own and they are
based upon my service since the end of my tenure in 1994. It is
safe to say that in all my years of service to sport in
America, from the school and college world, to every amateur
and professional level, I have never seen a more destructive
collapse of an organization's image, reputation or
effectiveness as we have seen with the U.S. Olympic Committee.
Perhaps it is because it is an organization of diverse
membership. Sports like basketball, archery, swimming and
yachting, have very little in common with each other.
Both in the way their athletes are trained, selected and
evolve, as well as their financial resources. And the question
really is, why should the Congress today really pay attention
to this, especially while we are on the brink of war?
Now why is it that this is so important for the American
public? It is because I believe that in peace time the U.S.
Olympic team has rallied the American public as none other.
And I think that is an important statement to make to every
individual that is in this country. The performance of Jesse
Owens. We have said the 1980 Olympic Team, ice skating team,
the, all the others that have been before them have meant so
much to the American public.
Last night I had the unique opportunity of appearing at the
Sullivan Award in New York City. Sarah Hughes won the award,
but this award previously was given for the top amateur athlete
in the United States.
Even that is confused in today's terms. The difference
between amateur and professional and how that goes forward. And
I am sure that will be a lot of attention as we move forward.
I think that there are some very, very specific things I
would like to recommend. First, the role and purpose of the
organization must be defined.
The USOC presently serves more masters than it possibly
can. We have to reorganize the existing executive committee as
the main leadership committee of the organization.
I believe that a majority of this committee must be
independent. Next, I believe that we should reduce the current
board of directors in size. We have to change its
responsibilities, its voting power of the current members.
The USOC's nominating committee should be made up of
independent directors. We should reestablish the positions of
first, second and third vice presidents, to eliminate a lot of
the political in-fighting that has happened in the past.
We must have continued oversight, both in accountability
and the way money is spent for the organization. And there is
something else I would like add as a final note.
We are about the only country in the Olympic movement that
does not have a Minister of Sport that works directly with
government.
And it may be time to think about some way of coordinating
all of the interests among all of the government entities as we
move forward.
And that is just a suggestion, again, based upon the
effectiveness of many, many other countries in dealing with
their Olympic movement.
There are certainly many other changes that are probably
worthwhile discussing. I believe that the athletes of this
country deserve the very best from the leadership.
At the same time, I think we have to be careful. This
organization can't fail. It cannot go out of business. We have
to make sure, as it moves forward, that it does the right
things.
I also would like to add that New York is a candidate city
for the games of 2012. It needs the support of a stable and
successful United States Olympic Committee to have the chance
of making this bid a reality. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Harvey W. Schiller, Jr.
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harvey W. Schiller, President, Assante US
Chairman Stearns, distinguished members of the U.S. House Committee
on Energy and Commerce, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the United States Olympic
Committee (USOC), its history and organizational structure. My name is
Harvey W. Schiller and I currently serve as President of Assante US, a
financial services company and also as Chair of the Management
Committee of NYC2012, the United States candidate city to host the
Summer Olympic Games in the year 2012. I have served as Executive
Director (the position has since been renamed ``Chief Executive
Officer'') of the USOC, as an officer of a National Governing Body
(NGB) of Olympic Sport, as well as a volunteer member of the USOC's
Board of Directors and Executive Committee.
First, I would like to recognize the many contributions made by
members of Congress, as well as by local and state governments in
support of the Olympic Movement, its athletes, and the dreams and
aspirations of so many Americans. From providing the services of the
Armed Forces for security, to creating coin programs to help finance
the training of athletes, the support of each of you and our government
has helped enable our Olympians to accomplish what otherwise would have
been an impossibility. I would also like to recognize the members of
your committee, Congressman Steve Buyer, a fellow graduate of The
Citadel and Congresswoman Heather Wilson, a graduate of The United
States Air Force Academy and a former student during my tenure at the
Academy.
The views I express today are my own, based on my Olympic service
and observations of the USOC since the end of my tenure as Executive
Director in 1994. The performance of our athletes, coaches, and
officials in past Olympic and Pan American competitions has been
extraordinary. The accomplishments of our disabled athletes in
Paralympic and world championship competitions have been second to
none. The U.S. Olympic Committee itself has done many things well. It
has protected athletes' rights to compete; established comprehensive
drug-testing protocol; provided expert logistical support for Olympic,
Pan American, Paralympic and World University Games; established
national training centers for athletes and accomplished a long list of
other successes. However, in all my years of service to sport in
American, from the school and college world to every amateur and
professional level, I have never seen a more destructive collapse of an
organization's image, reputation, or effectiveness.
The USOC is an organization with a diverse membership, unique needs
and limited resources. The constituent groups of the USOC range from
National Governing Bodies of Olympic, Paralympic and Pan American sport
to community-based organizations such as the Boys and Girls Club.
Unfortunately, these diverse membership groups compete for the
organization's limited funding, representation and recognition. The
diversity of interests and oft self-serving needs among the members of
the current Board of Directors indicates a need for structural change
to insure the primary goal of the USOC as defined by the Olympic and
Amateur Sports Act is met, namely: ``to promote and coordinate amateur
athletic activity in the United States.'' The USOC is does not benefit
from the collegiality usually seen in organizations such as the NCAA
and other sports associations. The National Governing Body for a sport
such as Archery has little in common with the NGB of Basketball. Boxing
and Equestrian are dramatically different sports, not only on their
fields of play, but in their social and economic compositions as well.
While the Olympic Team may appear as an integrated unit during Opening
Ceremonies, the National Governing Body for each of the sports
represented on that team are far fields apart. Each one competes with
the others for sponsorships, media coverage, and even athletes
themselves. Add to this mix the desire for non-Olympic sports to be
added to the Olympic program, the special challenges of Disabled Sports
Organizations, the particular needs of the armed forces, community
based and religious entities, school and college communities, and state
organizations. Only then can you begin to understand what
differentiates the USOC from other charitable organizations. In
addition, the current size and structure of the various sub-committees
and Board of Directors not only impedes its mission, it creates waste,
ethical challenges, and loss of opportunity for America's youth.
The future holds even more significant challenges for this
country's Olympic Committee. Today, the USOC depends heavily on Olympic
Games television and sponsorship revenues for a large percentage of its
income. Not only will it be more difficult for the USOC to raise
sponsorship dollars in this country's current economic climate, but the
recent events have created an image of waste and inefficiency. Both of
these factors will continue to reduce the pool of funds available to
the USOC and its athletes. Additional stress is placed on the USOC's
budget as it becomes more expensive to adequately fund sports teams and
the organization's operating costs continue to rise. The current
expense of operating the USOC is driven in part by the travel and
meeting costs associated with volunteer committees, wasteful protocol,
as well as by the costs of maintaining a large paid staff. Forbes
magazine has identified the USOC as one of three non-profits that
failed to meet its minimum standard for fund-raising efficiency and
warned that the USOC's overhead is too high and it doesn't spend enough
money on its programs. All of these factors demand careful
consideration of developing a more streamlined and efficient structure
of the USOC.
There have been numerous attempts in the history of the USOC to
improve the governance structure of the organization. During my tenure
as Executive Director, the organization eliminated the House of
Delegates, a cumbersome quadrennial meeting of over 600 individuals. We
established a Code of Conduct for team members, increased involvement
of athletes, and even created an independent Ethics Committee. In past
years there have also been additional attempts to change the
organization's constitution and operating procedures, including
engaging independent entities, such as McKinsey and the Steinbrenner
Commission, to study and make recommendations to the governance
structure of the USOC. However, while many valid recommendations have
been made, most have not been implemented by the USOC. There is no
question that change must now occur.
I do feel that although the USOC may need some repair of its
current structure, the required changes may not be as dramatic as some
would suggest. The interface of volunteers and paid staff is no
different at the USOC than it is in thousands of other non-profit
organizations across the nation. I personally served under three
different USOC Presidents during my tenure at the USOC, witnessed
numerous changes in the composition of the Executive Committee and saw
an almost 75% change in the leadership of National Governing Bodies. I
also found that the majority of individuals were fully dedicated to the
success of the Olympic Movement. Most volunteers give much of
themselves, their resources and their time to serve the needs of their
respective organizations, the USOC and the Olympic Movement as a whole.
However, the many accomplishments of the USOC and the athletes it
supports seem to have been obscured in recent years by frequent changes
of leadership and internal conflict. There have been significant
cultural changes in the USOC since my tenure as Executive Director. The
role of the elected president and the duties associated with the
position have certainly changed since the days of General Douglas
Macarthur and William Simon. Today, the president and other officers of
the USOC are engaged in much unnecessary travel both domestically and
internationally than is required. Defining the roles of both volunteers
and staff will help eliminate extraneous expenditures of both time and
financial resources. While there are certainly many changes that would
help the organization move forward, no change will be effective without
a sound governance structure that can support the appropriate
individuals in leadership positions. The USOC must recruit, develop,
and maintain quality leaders to be successful. Participation should not
be based on the rewards of protocol or Olympic junkets. We all will
need to work together to insure the best leaders are selected,
supported, and retained, and that the focus of the organization remains
on America's athletes. It will take time, money and strong leadership
to implement the necessary changes.
As a start, I believe the following proposals regarding the
governance structure of the USOC should be both examined and
considered:
Define the role and purpose of the Organization. The USOC
presently serves more masters than it possibly can.
Reorganize the existing Executive Committee, which would then
function as the principal governing body of the USOC. The new
Executive Committee would include the USOC President, IOC
members, athlete representatives, and independent members.
However, a majority of Executive Committee members would be
independent of the general USOC membership. The Executive
Committee would appoint a Chairperson from its independent
members and the CEO of the USOC would continue to be a member
of Executive Committee. The specific responsibilities of the
CEO and staff vis a vis the volunteer leadership would need to
be determined by the CEO and the Executive Committee.
Reduce the current Board of Directors in size with changes in
responsibilities and voting power of the current members. The
role of the new Board of Directors would be shifted from acting
as the principal governing body within the organization to
becoming more of an advisory group to the reconstituted
Executive Committee. The members of the Board of Directors
should continue to represent the diverse interests of the
organization's constituent groups and should reflect the
objects and purposes of the U.S. Olympic Committee.
Restructure the USOC's Nominating Committee, which is
currently appointed on a quadrennial basis to make
recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding the
officers and public sector members that the Board of Directors
will then elect. The Nominating Committee is currently
comprised of members representative of the USOC's various
constituent groups, each of which brings an inherent bias to
the process. The Conference Board Commission on Public Trust
and Private Enterprise has recommended that such nominating
committees of private corporations be comprised of individuals
outside the corporation and who would be more able to
objectively consider appropriate individuals for leadership
positions. The USOC would benefit from following this sound
practice.
Reestablish the positions of First, Second and Third Vice
Presidents to allow for an orderly transition if the Office of
President should become vacant. This would help to eliminate
the political in-fighting that often occurs during this period
of change.
Continued oversight of revenue and expenses to insure
accountability of the highest order.
There are certainly many other changes that would help the USOC
move forward and I only offer these recommendations as a start. The
USOC and its members have been blessed with a multitude of individuals
who have given much to the Olympic Movement. The athletes of this
country deserve the very best from their leadership. In addition,
America's great cities deserve the chance to be viable competitors in
the contest to host future Olympic Games. New York is the candidate
city of the United States for the Games of 2012, and it needs the
support of a stable and successful United States Olympic Committee to
have the chance of making its bid become a reality.
Representative Stearns, I stand ready to help you and this
Committee in any way possible to enable America's athletes, the Olympic
Movement, the USOC and its members be the best that they can be. Thank
you again.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Dr. Schiller.
Mr. Marbut.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MARBUT
Mr. Marbut. Good morning. My name is Robert Marbut, I come
out of the sport of Pentathlon. I started as an athlete and
moved over to the administration.
I also serve as chair of the National Governing Body
Council, and in that role I end up serving on the Executive
Committee too.
I think before I go into sort of what the future is, there
are some common misconceptions about NGBs, National Governing
Bodies. So, if you will, I will quickly go through those.
The National Governing Bodies for each Olympic, Pan
American and winter sport, there is a separate National
Governing Body.
They are sanctioned by the USOC. They are affiliated with
the International Federation which represents, through the IOC,
their separate 501(C)(3) or non-profit organization.
The NGBs are really the workhorses of the USOC. We do the
training, identification, recruiting, development, programming,
et cetera, of the athletes.
In many ways, the NGBs produce the athletes and the
athletes in turn produce the success on the playing surface.
They produce the performance results.
As we look to--the sad thing of what has happened recently,
is it has lost so much of what is good going on. What Rachel
has talked about.
Our athletic performance on the playing field is at an all-
time high. Jim's sport of skiing is having their best season
ever, skiing and snowboarding.
My sport of modern pentathlon, our men's team have come
from nowhere to be No. 2. We have a husband and wife team who
are likely to both win medals next year at the Olympics.
So a lot of good things are happening. There is a great
partnership between NGBs and the USOC. In particular, the games
preparation division of sports performance. So a lot of good is
happening.
But there is a lot that needs to be improved. As we move
forward, I think there are 12 critical success factors that we
need to work on.
First is leadership. Ultimately, this organization needs
the right people in leadership. And if you don't have the right
people, you have, you have a fundamental problem.
No matter how good your structure is, if the people are
wrong, it is not going to work. I think the nominating
committee got it right a couple of years ago, but the politics
of the board overrode the recommendation of the nominating
committee.
The second is we have extremely murky and turbid roles. We
have layers and layers of role ambiguity between the CEO and
the President, between the volunteer and the paid staff.
And that needs to be cleared up. We also need to
streamline. We are too complex, we are too convoluted. We have
a 120 some odd board.
Really that is a board of stakeholders. Then we have an
executive committee of 20, and it is really serving as the
functional board.
And then the officer's work group is really then serving,
filling the role of the executive committee. The clear thing,
when we go to the restructuring, is we have to have an absolute
clear mission first before you start deciding how to
restructure.
We have 13 objectives that we were given by Congress. We
need some help in understanding which one is the most
important, which one is the least. Which ones need to stay,
which ones need to go.
Beyond these three, and I will quickly go through these,
there are some other critical success factors, I think, as we
go forward.
We need to have stable revenue sources. The NGBs, in
particular, as it relates to coaches and staff. We need to have
stable, adequate and predictable fund raising and revenue
streams. It is absolutely critical.
The fifth, is as we move forward I think we need to move to
quad-base budgeting or 4-year budgeting. So much of what we do
in the first year of a quad, is very different than a last year
of a quad.
Winter is different than summer. Pan Am is different than
summer. So we need to look through that and I think moving to a
4-year budgeting basis is important.
The sixth is in the 1998 rewrite, we were given the new
responsibility, the additional duty of developing elite
Paralympians.
But again, that came to us as an additional responsibility,
but no extra funding came with it. It is analogous to military
mission creep without increasing revenue streams.
And we have had mission creep all through this. You know,
from 1978 to, you know, at several different points in time.
We need to have a clarification of responsibilities. And if
we are going to take on additional responsibilities, I think
some funding needs to be brought in with that.
We need to have optimization through economies of scale. We
need savings of NGBs at the USOC and how the NGBs and the USOC
goes.
We need to continue to promote the positive relationships
between the Athletes' Advisory Council and the National
Governing Body. The ninth is, as Harvey said, it is critical we
bring the Olympics back to America, for all sorts of reasons.
And we need to promote the USOC within the IOC structure to
do that. Ten is the NGBs and the athletes are really the
masters of success.
We are the experts at the playing field and we need to
maintain that role and function and voice and role. Eleventh,
is as we go through this restructure I think we need to be
mindful of the unintended consequences that happen often when
you go through restructuring.
We have to make this restructuring right. And finally, we
need to start focusing on performance and not politics. And
thank you very much for letting us all come today.
[The prepared statement of Robert Marbut follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Marbut, Chair, USOC National Governing
Bodies Council
Good morning Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the
Subcommittee. My name is Robert Marbut and I am Chair of the United
States Olympic Committee's ``National Governing Bodies Council.'' I
come from the sport of Modern Pentathlon, whose NGB I head as Executive
Director. By dint of my chairship of the NGB Council I also serve on
the USOC Executive Committee and have been an ex-officio member of the
Officer's Workgroup.
A ``National Governing Body,'' or ``NGB,'' is an autonomous
organization responsible for all matters related to the governance,
development, and conduct of an individual sport. There being only one
National Governing Body for each sport, an NGB receives its recognition
from the United States Olympic Committee after demonstrating that it is
complying with numerous specific requirements enumerated in the Ted
Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. Currently there are forty-five
NGB's for sports on the program of the Olympic and/or Pan-American
Games.
The NGB's are the workhorse of the Olympic Movement, and we have a
great deal of work ahead of us to prepare our athletes for the major
international competitions for which Congress gave the USOC the
responsibility for ``obtaining for the United States the most competent
representation possible in each event of the Olympic Games the
Paralympic Games, and the Pan American Games.'' These competitions are
right on our doorstep. We are just 121 days away from Opening
Ceremonies of the Pan American Games in Santo Domingo, and 513 days
from Opening Ceremonies for the next Olympic Games in Athens. Upon
their conclusion, just 548 days from now, the Athens Paralympic Games
will be held, and 1,064 days from now, the next Olympic Winter Games
will be held in Torino, Italy.
For 47 of the 48 months between Olympic Games it is the NGB's that
recruit the athletes and provide the training, coaching, and
competition opportunities that help them achieve elite status. At the
end of the process each NGB, utilizing criteria prescribed by its
international federation, selects its athletes for the Olympic,
Paralympic, or Pan American Games and hands them off to the USOC, which
then takes the responsibility for entering, outfitting, and
transporting them to the competition in question, and while there
providing all the additional support designed to deliver them to the
medal podium following their respective competitions.
But I do not want to minimize the importance of the USOC's role in
the development of the athletes. The USOC is the major and invaluable
partner of each NGB, and its involvement in and support of all aspects
of their operations and athlete programs is vital to their success. One
of the most important contributions they make is financial, and without
this USOC support many NGB's could not exist. But beyond the financial
support are the myriad services the USOC provides ranging from access
to world-class training centers, modern sports science and sports
medicine programs, administrative assistance, logistical support, legal
and financial guidance, and assistance with a multitude of tasks and
programs that enable the NGB's to focus on their principal objective,
developing world-class athletes.In recent days much has been written
about certain USOC problems. While they may warrant public attention I
regret that they have distracted from all of the positive
accomplishments of the USOC and our NGB's, starting with unprecedented
success at last year's Olympic Winter Games and continuing through the
present in competition after competition and in sport after sport.
The Sports Partnership group and the International Games
Preparation divisions of the USOC have been doing an outstanding job in
helping NGB's and athletes achieve maximum athletic performance. These
groups within the USOC continue to provide invaluable resources to
NGB's and athletes. I should note that one significant accomplishment
occurred recently in my sport, Modern Pentathlon, where an American
husband and wife couple, Vaho and Mary Beth Iagorashvili, individually
had top finishes in the this season's World Cup. Both have the
potential of making history at the Olympics by medaling for the United
States next year in Athens.
We have momentum and I am deeply concerned that these current
problems will distract the USOC and the NGB's from our joint
preparations for the major competitions that are just ahead. Further, I
am concerned that the public controversy involving the USOC will spill
over to the NGB's, thus deleteriously impacting the ability of many of
them to attract corporate sponsorship dollars from entities that fail
to distinguish between the USOC and its constituent members. In short,
we need to put an end to this controversy as soon as possible, and as
members of the Olympic Family the NGB's want to be part of that
process. Let me briefly summarize what the NGB's consider to be areas
of the USOC that require attention.
Congress has given the USOC a wide variety of many responsibilities
that range from promoting physical fitness to conducting sociological
surveys to preparing elite athletes for international competition.
Recently, in 1998, Congress added to this list by requiring the USOC to
assume the new responsibilities for elite disabled activities. Congress
passed this requirement onto the USOC and NGB's without providing the
financial means to perform this new task. If the Congress is going to
require the USOC and NGB's to undertake additional responsibilities, it
is hoped that additional means will accompany these additional
responsibilities.
One of the most important responsibilities of the USOC is dispute
resolution involving NGB's. The type of dispute in question might
relate to a challenge by a competing organization to serve as the NGB
of a given sport, claiming that the incumbent is not complying with the
provisions of its own charter, or is not adequately serving the
interests of its athletes.
The USOC's process for resolving such disputes involves a seemingly
endless series of bureaucratic inquiries, hearings, and study periods
before a final decision is rendered, which can sometimes literally take
years. Granted, many of these procedures are mandated in the Amateur
Sports Act but the USOC, nevertheless, has to streamline its processes
so that NGB's can focus on their primary mission--the preparation of
its athletes for elite competition--rather than adherence to protracted
bureaucratic procedures.
Funding is a principal concern of all organizations, and the NGB's
are no exception. Some of the larger NGB's, such as USA Tennis, are
less dependent on USOC funding because their respective sports attract
major corporate sponsors and through them, significant revenues.
However many of the smaller sports have a very limited base of
participant and spectator interest and, therefore, do not have access
to the same level of sponsorship dollars as their more visible
counterparts. These latter NGB's need more financial assistance from
the USOC through creation of innovative marketing programs that
identify new sources of revenue, or enable NGB's to partner with the
USOC in a joint effort.
On a practical level the USOC can offer more services to the NGB's,
particularly in the administrative areas, that would permit a greater
share of scarce NGB funds and limited NGB manpower to be devoted to
athlete programs. What I am thinking of is assistance in areas such as
payroll, accounting and bookkeeping, where individual NGB's may be
employing people full time to attend to these matters that otherwise
might be provided more economically, and possibly more professionally,
through a central provider such as the USOC.
Finally, the USOC has to be stabilized, and quickly. The events of
the last three months and the resultant attention in the press have
impacted not only the USOC itself, but has cascaded down and is dousing
the entire Olympic Family--athletes, NGB's, and potential Games hosts
such as New York City--in a bath of uncertainty and disfavor. It is
affecting the ability to raise funds, to organize new programs, and
even to attract volunteers to conduct activities dependent upon unpaid
labor.
As we work together to re-build USA's Olympic Committee, there are
12 Critical Success Factors in my opinion that we need to focus on
addressing. The first 3 deal directly with the major underlying reasons
for many of the recent problems we have been facing:
1--Leadership is about people . . . in my opinion, the USOC Nominating
Committee got it right 3 years ago . . . had it not been for
the politics of the Board that overrode the Nominating
Committee's recommendation, most, if not all the problems we
have faced over the last 3 years would never had occurred . . .
we must strengthen our nominating process.
2--The roles between the CEO and the President are extremely murky and
turbid . . . even the best of leaders would have problems with
such excessive layers of role ambiguity between these 2
positions . . . we must clarify the roles between our top
volunteer and our top paid executive.
3--Our governance process is too complex and convoluted, and needs to
be streamlined . . . we must clarify and then codify the
overall operating structure . . .
--the current Board of 120'ish has been really operating as a board
of stakeholders,
--the current Executive Committee has been really operating as the
operating Board,
--the officers group has been filling the role of an executive
committee.
Beyond these 3, there are 9 additional Critical Success Factors
that go beyond the problems related to the current crisis:
4--The USOC must be successful at revenue generation through
coordinated funding and bundled marketing opportunities . . .
NGB's need stable, adequate and predicable funding streams to
support our coaches and athletes.
5--Interrelated to #4 would be to mandate a 4-year Budgeting process in
regards to USOC funding to NGB's and Athletes.
6--During the last re-write of the Sport Act, the USOC and NGB's were
tasked with the additional task of developing elite
Paralympians, but no funding was provided for this additional
mandate.
7--We need to search for savings through the optimization of economies
of scales within NGB's, within the USOC . . . and between the
USOC and NGB's.
8--We must have a structure that promotes positive working
relationships between the AAC and NGBC . . . the working
relationships between the AAC and the NGBC are at an all time
high, but that has not always been that way.
9--It is critical to bring the Olympics back to the USA . . . in order
to be successful in winning the NYC 2012 bid, we must strongly
position the USOC within the IOC . . . we must also support NGB
leaders in attaining leadership positions within their
respective International Federations (IF's).
10--Throughout this restructuring process and beyond, the NGBC and the
AAC must have a meaningful and active role within the USOC . .
. the NGB's produce the athletes who in turn produce athletic
performance . . . we are the experts in the creation of
athletic success.
11--As we work together to restructure the USA's Olympic Committee, we
must be vigilant to the law of unintended consequences . . . we
must move expeditiously, but more importantly, we must get this
restructuring right.
12--Finally, we must focus on athletic performance, not politics.
I make no apologies nor offer any excuses for some of the actions
at the USOC that have precipitated this current crisis, but I believe
it is now time to move on and get back to work. While remedial action
must, and will be taken, the major focus now needs to return to the
athletes, and how we can best serve them. So I say to this Committee
that you are a valued member of the Olympic Family and we welcome your
involvement and support at this critical time. I thank you for taking
the time to convene this forum today which I understand to be one
intended to find ways to make the United States Olympic Committee a
better organization. I believe that this new partnership will yield
positive results. I want to express our sincere appreciation for your
interest and involvement.
I am optimistic that working together, we can all make USA's
Olympic Committee stronger and more effective. The sooner we get back
to our mission, the better off we all will be . . . thank you!
Mr. Stearns. Thank you.
Mr. McCarthy, we welcome your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JAMES P. McCARTHY, JR.
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. My name is Jim McCarthy. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to discuss whether the U.S.
Olympic Committee's organizational structure impedes its
mission.
By way of background, for the last 23 years I have been
actively involved as a volunteer after being a competitor in
cross country skiing, with the United States Ski and Snowboard
Association, the recognized NGB for skiing and snowboarding in
the United States.
As a member of USSA's board of directors, I had an
opportunity, a number of years ago, to play a leadership role
in reducing that organization's governance structure from three
separate boards with over 100 members, to one board with 21
members, while at the same time transitioning from an
organization that was volunteer-governed and volunteer-operated
to an organization that was volunteer-governed and staff-
operated.
I am happy to say I think as part of that reorganization
our athletes in skiing and snowboarding this year have had an
absolute record-setting year.
Johnny Spillane in Nordic Combined, won a gold medal, our
country's first ever, at the World Nordic Championships. And
Bode Miller led our Alpine Team to six medals at the World
Alpine Championship.
Since 1999, I have been USSA's designated representative to
the USOC Board of Directors. And since December 2000, 1 of the
5 national governing body members of the executive committee.
The opinions that I share with you today are my own. They
are based on my observations and they don't reflect the
opinions of either the USOC or USSA.
In answer to the committee's question of whether or not the
organizational structure of the USOC interferes with or impedes
attaining its mission, my answer is a resounding yes.
Something is clearly wrong within the USOC. The real
question is what is it? And I am going to give you my opinion
in that regard.
Beginning with the concept of all things to all people,
which I think flows, unfortunately, from a combination of our
mission statement and the 13 purpose clauses referred to in the
Amateur Sports Act.
The mission statement is very clear. It has lead the
world's best National Olympic Committee. Help U.S. Olympic
athletes achieve sustained competitive excellence while
inspiring all Americans and preserving the Olympic ideal.
Unfortunately, when we turn to the Act, which is
incorporated into our mission statement, we find that we are as
responsible for reducing obesity in the United States as we are
winning Olympic medals.
We are responsible for fitness and for the Olympics. It is
a very long way from the couch to the podium. If we are going
to do both of these things, we probably won't do either one of
them very well.
We need to focus our mission on what it is Congress and the
United States public wants us to do. I think the second problem
within the USOC is politics.
With a mission statement broad enough to include the local
running club, Weight Watchers and lead athletes, the membership
of USOC board has grown.
With approximately 123 board members, officer elections
every 4 years, running for office has replaced running faster
as a primary activity of the USOC board.
Governance by lobbying replaced governing policies as
political support was rewarded with supposed plum assignments
or favorable treatment of your organization.
In 1998, or excuse me, 1988, the Steinbrenner Report
advised that it is more important to operate the USOC as an
efficient organization, than as a perfectly representative form
of democracy.
Unfortunately, we have continued to function more
politically than effectively. Possible solutions include a more
limited commitment to representative government, selection
rather than election of leaders, elimination of patronage based
on political support, transparency and adherence to adopted
organizational policies.
My third issue is what does the USOC do? And Robert has
just referred to the fact that the USOC is really an umbrella
organization which serves athletes and NGBs.
The NGBs, in fact, are the entities which supply the
services to the athletes on a regular basis. There are 45 NGBs
and in 2001, for comparison, if the USOC contributed
approximately $40 million to athletes and NGBs, the NGBs on
their own raised another $370 million.
There are over 1,000 staff people that work for the 45
NGBs. So the USOC is really the top of the pyramid. I think it
is very important to define again what the USOC does and what
it is expected to do in the near, near and long-term future.
Finally, I believe that part of the process should be a
serious look at the business models for NGBs that is created
implicitly within the code.
Right now the Act provides that NGBs will be autonomous in
the governance of their sport. Now as indicated earlier, with
45 NGBs, there are wide variations from sport to sport and
capability resources and athletic requirements.
I think that is another area that needs the attention of
Congress as well as the USOC. Finally, the USOC is about noble
goals.
It provides inspiration in a cynical world and helps
fulfill the dreams and ambitions of athletes. The staff and
volunteers of USOC build podiums for athletes to stand on.
They do not stand on them. By regaining our focus on
athletes and athletics, the USOC can begin to regain and
rebuild its reputation and credibility. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of James P. McCarthy, Jr. follows:]
Prepared Statement of James P. McCarthy, Jr.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: My name is James P.
McCarthy, Jr. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss whether the U.S. Olympic Committee's Organizational
Structure impedes its mission.
For the last 23 years, I have been actively involved as a volunteer
and, for a brief period, a paid professional with the United States Ski
and Snowboard Association (USSA) the USOC recognized National Governing
Body (NGB) for skiing and snowboarding in the United States. During
that period, I have served in virtually every volunteer position within
USSA from local club organizer to Chairman of the Board including a
stint as the association's interim CEO.
As a member of USSA's Board of Directors, I had the opportunity to
play a leadership role in reducing the organization's governance
structure from three (3) separate boards with over 100 members to one
board with twenty-one (21) members while at the same time transitioning
from an organization wherein volunteers performed both governance and
day-to-day operational functions to an organization governed by a
volunteer board but operated by full time staff members.
That reorganization took place in the mid 1990's and I am pleased
report that since then USSA has virtually doubled the funds available
for athletes and athletic programs allowing the Association to provide
the consistent programs and support necessary for athletic success. The
athletes' accomplishments at this year's World Championships speak for
themselves: a first ever gold medal won by Johnny Spillane in Nordic
Combined at the Nordic World Championships; a record setting six (6)
medals including three (3) medals by Bode Miller at the World Alpine
Championships; and consistently excellent performances at the World
Free-Style and Snowboard Championships.
Since 1999 I have been USSA's designated representative to the
USOC's Board of Directors and, since December, 2002, one of the five
(5) National Governing Body's Council's (NGBC) representatives on the
USOC's Executive Committee.
The opinions I share today with you are from based on my
observations as a volunteer for almost a quarter of a century in sport
organizations ranging from grass roots programs to the Olympics. The
opinions are my own and do not represent position of either the USOC or
USSA. I have no authority to speak for either organization.
THE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE'S QUESTION
After living through the last two (2) months of constant turmoil,
controversy, and disappointment swirling around an organization as
noble in purpose as the United States Olympic Committee, my quick
response to this Committee's question about the USOC's organizational
structure impeding its mission is a resounding: YES. Doesn't the mess
made speak for itself? Something is clearly wrong. But what's the
problem?
How does an organization with an accumulation of accomplishments as
impressive as the USOC's go in less than a year from helping athletes
win 34 medals at the Salt Lake City Olympics to looking like a bad soap
opera?
ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE.
I think the answer is ``things are never as simple as they seem''
and the USOC gives new meaning to that old saying--beginning with its
Constitutional Mission Statement. While the first section seems
straightforward and well focused, even expected:
``Lead the world's best National Olympic Committee: Help
U.S.Olympic athletes achieve sustained competitive excellence
while inspiring all Americans and preserving the Olympic
ideal.''
The second section of the same statement incorporates by reference
to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (the Act) a wide
ranging litany of ``purposes'' which give the USOC apparent
responsibility for all aspects of physical fitness in the United
States.
Suddenly, the well focused mission of the USOC possibly measurable
by medal counts at Olympic games has turned into a confusing set of
goals which could just as well be measured by reductions in the
national level of obesity as by counting Olympic medals. It's a very
long way from the couch to the Olympic podium. To expect the USOC to
fulfill all of these purposes, and do them all well, is unrealistic and
confusing.
The mission of the USOC needs to be clear and focused. The fuzzy,
wide ranging mission possibilities inherent in the second part of the
USOC's mission statement tempt the organization to try and be all
things to all people. As a result, Board membership expands, precious
resources are diverted to non-mission specific activities and the role
and function of the USOC becomes muddled.
POLITICS
With a mission statement broad enough to include the local running
Club, Weight Watchers, and elite athletes, the membership of the USOC
continued to grow. With approximately 123 board members and officer
elections every four years, running for office replaced running faster
as a primary activity for the USOC Board. Governance by lobbying
replaced governing policies as political support was rewarded with
supposed plum assignments or favorable treatment of your organization.
Although the 1988 Steinbrenner Report advised,
``It . . . (is) . . . more important to operate the USOC as as
efficient organization than as a perfectly representative form
of government.''
the USOC has continued to function more politically than efficiently.
Possible solutions include a more limited commitment to
representative government, selection rather than election of leaders,
elimination of patronage based on political support, transparency, and
adherence to adopted organizational policies.
WHAT DOES THE USOC DO?
The USOC can be described a number of different ways: travel
agency; franchiser; regulator: joint marketing agency; trade
association; and, provider of resources to athletes and NGBs. The
reality is all these descriptions and more are accurate as the role and
purpose of the USOC continues to evolve. What is important is for the
USOC to begin defining what it does and what it expects to do in the
near, mid, and long term future.
WHAT THE USOC DOES NOT DO.
While most people are surprised to learn Olympic athletes are no
longer amateurs as Avery Brundage used that term, they would probably
be even more surprised to learn the USOC is not the primary provider of
services to athletes. Except for the two weeks of the Olympics, the 45
National Governing Bodies (NGBs) recognized by the USOC provide
coaching service, athletic programs, competitions and support to
aspiring athletes. As a result, the NGBs become the linchpin
organizations in the delivery of services to aspiring athletes and the
USOC is only as good as its member NGBs.
USOC's NGB resource allocation policy has moved from a formula
driven system to a performance based system customized for the needs
and programs of each NGB. While this has been a positive step, the USOC
needs to continue to improve and expand services to NGBs, and thereby
to athletes. Ultimately, the USOC should develop models of ``best
practices'' for athlete development, coaching, programming, and Olympic
sport business management.
As part of this process, the business model implicitly established
for NGBs in the Act needs to be reviewed on a regular basis. All
aspects of sport have changed dramatically since 1978 but the standards
established in the Act have not changed materially since then.
CONCLUSION
The USOC is about noble goals. It provides inspiration is a cynical
world and helps fulfill the dreams and ambitions of athletes. The staff
and volunteers of the USOC build the podiums for athletes to stand on,
they don't stand on them. By regaining its focus on athletes and
athletics, the USOC can begin to regain and rebuild its reputation and
credibility. It is my sincere hope that some of the suggestions above
will be of help in that process.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you.
Mr. Gardner, welcome.
STATEMENT OF RULON GARDNER
Mr. Gardner. Thank you. It is a pleasure for an athlete to
be here to represent my country and also the sport of
wrestling.
My name is Rulon Gardner. I am a Greco-Roman Wrestler and a
member of the 2000 Olympic Wrestling Team. You may remember me
for the Sidney Olympic Games: I am the dairy farm boy who
defeated the undefeated Olympic Champion, three-time gold
medalist, Aleksandr Karelin from Russia.
My fellow athletes gave me the ultimate honor in asking me
to carry the flag during the closing ceremonies in Sidney.
Winning an Olympic gold medal was my lifelong dream and
something that I could have not accomplished by myself.
I give credit to my family, which has supported me my
entire life. I give credit to my coaches, that helped prepare
me and completely fulfill my dream at the Olympic games.
But I also have to give credit to USA Wrestling, the
National Governing Body of the sport of amateur wrestling in
the United States, as well as the U.S. Olympic Committee.
Without the Olympic family supporting me financially, as
well with the training facilities and the international
competition, I would have never been able to accomplish my
dream of winning a gold medal.
The great sport of wrestling has allowed me so many
opportunities that the sport has let me challenge myself as an
athlete and as a person.
It has taught me to help set high goals and to work hard to
achieve them. Wrestling is the reason that an overweight kid
with a learning disability from Wyoming has developed the
ability and the honor to come here and speak to you today.
We are here to answer the one question, does the Olympic
Committee organizational structure impede its mission? I do not
pretend to be an expert on the organization, nor do I know the
full history of the USOC and its administration.
What I can tell you is how the athletes feel about the
current controversy and how it affects us directly. I, as an
Olympic athlete, remind you that the Olympic Committee was
formed to help us win Olympic medals.
It is not about professional staff members, volunteer board
members or various committees. The Olympic committee is formed
to help Rulon Gardner and his fellow athletes realize their
Olympic dreams.
This current controversy has been upsetting to the athletes
because we truly care about the Olympic movement. However, the
hubbub about the USOC has not affected my ability to train, nor
has it taken the support away from me. Not yet.
I still have access to the Olympic Training Center in
Colorado Springs, where I live. My coaches are still running
practices daily. I still have the opportunity to eat at the
dining hall and lift in the weight room.
None of the support checks from the U.S. Olympic Committee
have bounced yet. Just a joke. I have been able to focus on
wrestling and getting prepared for the 2004 Olympic Games in
Athens, Greece.
In fact, right during the craziest time last month, I had
the honor to represent the U.S. in a tremendous international
competition created by the USOC, called the Titan Games.
You may have not heard about that because of the media that
was focused on the Senate hearings and the board members and
the staff members who were running all around the United
States.
Now this controversy will affect me directly as an Olympic,
after Olympic sponsors stop their support. And if individual
Olympic donors decide to find another cause.
If we let this focus of the Olympic movement go away from
the athlete to other things, then I will be hurt. We all have a
job here to help the Olympic movement in the United States.
It is my job to be a champion athlete, and it is your job
to help me to get to the podium. If changing the way that the
U.S. Olympic Committee does business helps me to be an Olympic
medalist, then I support it completely.
If finding new leadership to run our professional staff
will help me provide more resources for the athlete, then I
completely am on board.
We expect our professional staff or volunteer leaders or
elected officials to represent the U.S. Olympic movement with
integrity.
We expect their best efforts and the commitment to
excellence. That is what we expect out of every athlete every
time we compete to represent our Nation.
To sum things up, I ask you all to remember the athlete in
your work with the USOC. We do not need to tear down the
Olympic Committee to the point to where the athletes are hurt.
There is nothing wrong with positive change if we make the
USOC better able to support the athletes. Thank you for caring
about the U.S. Olympic movement and allowing an athlete to come
speak to you today.
[The prepared statement of Rulon Gardner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rulon Gardner
My name is Rulon Gardner. I am a Greco-Roman wrestler and a member
of the 2000 U.S. Olympic Team. You may remember me from the Sydney
Olympic Games. I am the Wyoming dairy farm boy who defeated the
unbeaten three-time Olympic champion Alexander Kareline of Russia for
the gold medal. My fellow Olympians gave me the ultimate honor of
asking me to carry the U.S. flag in the Closing Ceremonies there.
Winning the Olympic gold medal was my life-long dream, and
something I could not have achieved by myself. I give credit to my
family, which has supported me my entire life. I give credit to my
coaches, who helped prepare me completely for the Olympic Games.
But I also give credit to USA Wrestling, the national governing
body for wrestling in the United States, as well as to the U.S. Olympic
Committee. Without the Olympic family supporting me financially, as
well as with training facilities and international competition, I would
have NEVER been able to capture that gold medal for America.
The great sport of wrestling has allowed me so many opportunities.
The sport has let me challenge myself as an athlete and as a person. It
has taught me to set high goals and to work hard to achieve them.
Wrestling is the reason that an overweight kid with learning
difficulties has developed to the point where he has been asked to
speak to the U.S. House of Representatives today.
We are here to answer the question: ``Does the U.S. Olympic
Committee organizational structure impede its mission.''
I do not pretend to be an expert on organization. Nor do I know the
full history of the USOC and its administration. What I can tell you is
how the Olympic athletes feel about the current controversy and how it
affects us directly.
I, as an Olympic athlete, remind you that the Olympic Committee was
formed to help us to win Olympic medals. It is not about professional
staff members, or volunteer Board members or various committees. The
Olympic Committee was formed to help Rulon Gardner and my fellow
Olympic athletes to realize their dreams.
This current controversy has been upsetting to the athletes,
because we truly care about the Olympic movement.
However, the hubbub about the USOC has not affected my ability to
train, nor has it taken away the support that I need. Not yet.
I still have access to the U.S. Olympic Training Center in Colorado
Springs. My coaches are still running daily practices. There is still
food in the dining hall, and equipment in the weight room. None of my
support checks from the U.S. Olympic Committee have bounced. I have
been able focus on wrestling, and getting prepared for the next Olympic
Games in Athens, Greece.
In fact, right during the craziest times last month, I was honored
to represent the USA in a tremendous international event created by the
USOC called the Titan Games. You may not have heard about that, because
the media was too busy chasing Senators and Board members and staff
members all over the country.
Now, this controversy will affect me directly if the Olympic
sponsors stop their support, and if the individual Olympic donors
decide to find another cause. If we let the focus of the Olympic
movement go away from the athletes to other things, then I will be
hurt.
We all have a job here to help the Olympic movement in the United
States. It is my job to be a champion athlete. It is your job to help
me get to that podium.
If changing the way that the U.S. Olympic Committee does business
helps me to be an Olympic medalist, then I support it completely. If
finding new leaders to run our professional staff will help provide
more resources to the athletes, then I am completely on board.
We expect our professional staff, our volunteer leaders and our
elected officials to represent the Olympic movement with integrity. We
expect their best effort and a commitment to excellence. That is what
you expect out of every athlete every time we compete and represent our
nation.
So, to sum things up, I ask you all to remember the athlete in your
work with the USOC. We do not need to tear down the Olympic Committee
to the point that the athletes are hurt. There is nothing wrong with
positive changes, if they make the USOC better able to support its
athletes.
Thank you for caring about the Olympics, and for allowing an
athlete to give his opinion.
Mr. Stearns. Well, Mr. Gardner, I would say also that we
are also honored to have you here, too. And your humility is a
tribute to your success. So I think it has been favorable to
both of us.
Let me start. Mr. Martin, I come to these questions with a
sense, a pre-experience of the Olympics back when it was
started.
And I guess, is there any reason today that we should go
back and return to the distinction between an amateur and a
professional?
I mean, as I recollect when it started, it was all amateur.
And now you have these professional athletes. I mean, I will
ask, this is something I can ask all of you, so maybe just a
short answer.
The first, is there any reason to consider returning to a
distinction between amateur and professional in the Olympics?
Mr. Martin. From my perspective here in the country, I
would love to see nothing but what we traditionally consider
amateur athletes----
Mr. Stearns. So returning to the original idea of just
seeing amateurs.
Mr. Martin. Exactly. But that decision is made by each
sport's international federation. And some sports adopt,
anybody can come participate. And others have put limits on it.
I believe, and probably Dr. Schiller could speak more
appropriately on this subject than I can, but the International
Olympic Committee has taken the position, we want the best
athletes, regardless if they are amateurs or professionals, to
participate in the Olympic Games.
That is one reason why they are trying to get golf in, so
you can get Tiger Woods involved in the Olympics.
Mr. Stearns. I mean, it looks like it is moving toward, I
mean just a gut feeling, if we are moving toward money here.
Mr. Martin. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. And we are not moving toward, the idea to
allow amateurs to compete.
Mr. Martin. Exactly.
Mr. Stearns. And then at that point these amateurs can
become professionals. I will just go right down. Rachel.
Ms. Godino. It is an interesting and complicated problem.
In my sport of figure skating, there is no amateur or
professional any longer. They are eligible and ineligible to
compete in certain events.
And everyone makes money. And so it is a very complicated--
--
Mr. Stearns. So professionals come back in and participate
and then they go out?
Ms. Godino. There is no distinction.
Mr. Stearns. And so they make their money and they come
back, and the amateurs who are competing don't make any money,
but they are competing with the professionals.
Ms. Godino. The World Figure Skating Championships, which
is here in Washington, DC next week and you should all go, is,
there are people, many of the competitors there make six
figures from skating.
And so, and there is no distinction between them--it is not
true in every country. And it is not true for every single
competitor.
But some of them make a lot of money and some of them don't
make any money. Very complicated problem.
Mr. Stearns. You can't give a yes or no? The question is
would, should we return to the amateur status for the Olympics,
yes or no?
Ms. Godino. I think you can have noble pursuit of sport
even if you are making money doing it. And I think that is what
you are really getting after with the amateurs.
That there is something very noble about the pursuit of
sport that is not complicated by dollars. But I don't think it
necessarily has to be complicated by dollars.
I think the Olympic ideals can be embodied by----
Mr. Stearns. Do you think there is a compromise, a
compromise can be implemented?
Ms. Godino. I hope so.
Mr. Stearns. You stay with the status quo?
Ms. Godino. It is very different in different sports. There
are 45 sports and most of them make no money. I mean most of
the sports, as Senator Campbell said earlier, he looked at the
list of sports and hadn't heard of a lot of them.
There are a lot of sports, very unknown athletes that
scrape by below the poverty line, even with the support that
the get from NGBs and from the USOC.
To train full-time they live under the poverty line. And so
there is a huge disparity, and I am not sure it is an easy
problem to solve.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you. Dr. Schiller.
Mr. Schiller. I think in additional to having the best
athletes participate, that has always been the goal of the
games themselves, that a lot of the changes were made to avoid
a lot of the hypocrisy that had existed before.
For example, in basketball, it had always been said it
wasn't that professional were left out, it was the NBA players
were left out.
Because we know that the Eastern Bloc countries handled
their sports very differently than others. And the eligibility
rules were very, very conflicted, as they are in many, many
sports today.
I will say that it is still unclear. Sometimes there are
age restrictions. Sometimes there are financial restrictions.
And in fact, if you go back to the earliest days, from the
DeCoubertin days, really that was more of an exclusive group of
people that participated rather than an inclusive.
And the role of amateur before really kept more people out
than it kept in. I think it is too late, I think the horse is
out of the barn.
I think we are going to see more and more professionalism
move its way in. And I don't think we can change it.
Mr. Stearns. So we should, we cannot return to the idea in
1978, where it is just amateur athletes?
Mr. Schiller. I don't think we can, but at the same time it
is clear that in this country the main source of athletes in
the Olympic movement, as well as world competition, has been
the school and college community.
And we have to be very, very careful that those people do
not get excluded because of the rules that have changed.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Marbut?
Mr. Marbut. The old ideals of Avery Brundidge and Pierre de
Coubertin I think would be great to strive for. But I don't
know how you put the toothpaste back in the tube.
And it really becomes an IOC and International Federation,
as mentioned. I come from a small summer sport. We produce the
smallest amount of Olympians.
My Olympians get about $20,000 to $30,000 to support
themselves. But they are having to work out 50 to 60 hours a
week. I have a five sport, sport, if you will. And so they are
going 50, 60 hours a week, so there is no way to have a full-
time job.
If you couldn't financially give them support, they are not
making money they are just using that money to pay their bills
and barely make it.
Sort of living on the poverty line, as Rachel says. So to
get money is not always to say you are making money. Maybe you
are using the money just to get by.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. McCarthy?
Mr. McCarthy. Well, I think we all might long for the days
of Avery Brundidge and a simpler life. I think, in fact, we
have got to deal with the situation as it is.
And I think most Olympic athletes lined up really as poorly
paid professionals. But in the traditional use of the word
amateur, not amateurs, I don't see that as a particular
problem, other than perhaps on the poorly paid side.
Athletes now are continuing their careers long after
college. We have people in their thirties who are still
competing.
In order to enable them to do that at a world class level,
they have to train virtually full-time. It almost precludes
making a living through any other source.
Mr. Stearns. When the ``Dream Team'' comes and plays we
have our NBA athletes compete, other countries have their
amateur athletes or they have their professional athletes too?
Mr. McCarthy. No, they have professionals also. It is all
professional.
Mr. Stearns. Well, one sport I know it is true in hockey
and certainly I believe it's true in basketball. And, Mr.
Gardner?
Mr. Gardner. Well, back to the amateur aspect of it, do I
think or would I like to see it? Yes, I would.
Mr. Stearns. Just like to see amateur as opposed to
professional coming in?
Mr. Gardner. Correct. I would like to see amateur. Because
you look at about 95 percent of the athletes, 95 percent of the
athletes will never make a dime, probably, off of Olympic or
the Olympic movement because about 95 percent of the athletes
are out there every day committing 100 percent to training,
they don't have the opportunity.
Me, personally, I got a degree in teaching and wouldn't
start teaching until I would be in my mid-thirties, compared to
somebody who started teaching in their late or early twenties,
and the pay scale would be completely messed up if I went in
and tried to jump in there then.
But I think one of the things that makes the Olympic
movement so special, is I had an opportunity to meet Randy
Johnson, professional baseball player.
And I talked to him, and I said, Randy, you are such a hero
of mine. And he says, no, you Olympic athletes are my heros
because you dedicate your whole life, without very little
financial opportunity to make any type of money.
He says you are what I look up to as a person. And hearing
that from an athlete of Randy Johnson, it really meant a lot to
me.
But then also, in the National Governing Body of Wrestling,
we receive about $900 a month and that is our monthly income
from USA Wrestling.
And there are so many athletes out there who are basically
below the poverty line who are out there every day trying to
make nickels and dimes trying to financially support themselves
just to try to fulfill their dream.
And very, very few athletes get the opportunity to fulfill
their dream.
Mr. Stearns. I think what Randy Johnson says hits to sort
of what I sense the idea, the idealized thought of a man or
woman dedicating, in an amateur way, to become an Olympic
winner.
And all the sacrifice, emotional and financial and family
and everything, is sort of an idealized dream. Yet, when you
throw in all the professional athletes who are jumping in, who
are making a million--I mean the NBA guys are making $5, $10,
$20 million.
And you throw all that together in the mix, it seems, as an
outsider, that you are throwing money into this and you are
losing some of the idealized thought process for this whole
thing and why it started.
And I am hearing from many, Mr. Martin, these people are
not willing to put the toothpaste back--it is already out. And
they are saying, basically, there is too much politics, there
is too much money and we can't do it.
So I think what you have to tell us, as Members of
Congress, we have the ability to try and do it anyway. There
might be too much politics for us. There might be too much
money, I don't know.
But it certainly, when we start this process, and this
five-member task force comes back with their recommendations,
the thought process should be what is best for America and what
is the original intent of the Olympics.
And is it now become a hodge podge of all these folks
making $5 or $6 million coming back. So I am going to allow
each of us to have 10 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated
earlier, in my opening statement, Northern Michigan University
is the only Olympic education center. And we try to allow the
athletes to get an education while they train.
And you mentioned 50 or 60 hours of training or whatever it
is for an Olympic athlete or one who is planning to be an
Olympic athlete. They put in all their time and we don't do
enough to help them with an education so they can get a job,
because most of the sports don't pay any money.
Up at Northern, our sports up there are like speed skating,
short track, luge, boxing, greco-roman wrestling, biathlon.
These aren't sports that you would get, if you are a promising
athlete, come out of high school and get some scholarship to do
it, so that is why the Olympic education center is so important
to us.
And I was frustrated when I said in my opening statement
that Congress has a responsibility. Because when I came to
Congress in 1993, we had authorized Olympic education
scholarships, but we never funded them.
So we fell down on the job. The last 4 years now we have
been able to get some funding, thanks to a number of members
who have helped us with that cause.
But the other frustration I see at Northern Michigan
University, you talk about the NGBs, yeah, NGBs you call them.
Northern Michigan gets approximately $125,000 to run basically
six sports.
They also get money for operating costs. So they receive
about $85,000 for athletic trainers. They get medical supplies
and they get four 15-passenger vans. So the total they get from
USOC, for support, is $210,000.
You can't run a program like that. The Olympic scholarships
are not for operating costs, they are for the athletes. At
Northern we even have athletes who are high school students.
We bring them into our communities, we put them into our
high schools. These are the promising young. This is a farm
team, if you will, for America's athletes at Northern Michigan
and some of the other training centers we have around the
country.
And my frustration is we sit here, and I have been on this
committee for some time. We had the Salt Lake scandal, we had
the Atlanta scandal, and now we have these scandals.
To see all this money involved, and then here is a center
that is trying to provide education for our athletes to do
things, and the money just seems to go elsewhere, and that is a
little frustrating for us.
And the only reason why Northern got probably $125,000 this
year for operating costs, is probably because of you, Mr.
Gardner, because you won a gold medal there and we have greco-
roman wrestling, one of the few places that have it.
If you had not have won that medal, we probably would have
gotten zip from USOC, and Northern would have to get the money
out of the regular operating costs for the other educational
programs.
So my frustration, I guess the question I would have it
what is the one thing each of you would recommend, what is the
one or most important thing we need to do to fix the USOC?
So if we just went down the line. Starting with you, Mr.
Martin, what is the one thing you would recommend that we
should do in Congress?
Mr. Martin. Congressman Stupak, you should know I am a
little biased. I am from the Upper Peninsula, to begin with.
But the magic wand question you have just asked.
If you had a magic wand, what would be the one thing you
would fix? I would clearly focus and delineate the mission.
Mr. Stupak. Ms. Godino?
Ms. Godino. I wholeheartedly agree. That clarity of mission
would go a long way toward helping us allocate resources
efficiently and effectively.
Mr. Stupak. Dr. Schiller?
Mr. Schiller. Adding to Mr. Martin, I have an honorary
degree from Northern Michigan and it is a wonderful opportunity
for so many people.
I would have to add it is really fully defining the role of
what the committee should be doing and not be doing.
Mr. Marbut. Stop the mission creep.
Mr. McCarthy. Clearly defining the mission.
Mr. Gardner. As an athlete, I appreciate first Northern
Michigan and Ivan Ivanoff, the coach up there for the
wrestling.
But personally from an athlete's point of view, I wish that
people would go down and walk through the Olympic training
center and look at the wrestling and all the different sports
and everything and realize what the Olympic committee is about.
Who represent the athletes and to help each and every
athlete reach their full potential and reach their dream to win
a medal.
And if we could bring it back on the athletes, that is what
I wish we could do.
Mr. Stupak. I agree and we just changed, up at Northern, we
just moved our Olympic education center into the Superior Dome,
as we call it up there, just to get it out of the, well it was
old classrooms where they actually wrestled.
And now we have got it actually into the Dome, so it is a
little bit better now. But, Mr. Martin, you mentioned the USOC
Board of Directors is well over 122, 123 people or whatever it
is, and comprised or composed mostly of insiders.
I mean who are the insiders and how do they ultimately
become a board member.
Mr. Martin. Congressman, by insiders we are referring to
people who are a member of the broader Olympic family. They
either represent a specific sport, such as myself, I was on the
board for a term and a half as the board member representing
the sport of sailing.
But there are other board members representing the Boy
Scouts and the Girl Scouts. All votes are not even. We have
proportional voting.
And the majority of the votes go to the Olympic sports. We
have athletes on the board. They get on the board because they
are an athlete, because they represent one of the 45 sports or
they might represent education-based organizations.
The NCAA has representation. The High School National
Association has representation. The CYO, the Police Athletic
League, et cetera, et cetera.
So all the different constituencies in the country who are
involved one way or another in amateur sports want a seat at
the table and have been given at seat at the table.
Mr. Stupak. Well, you asked Congress, and I think there was
much agreement on the board, I am sorry, the panel here, and
asked us to assist in refining and focusing the mission, your
mission.
And perhaps eliminating some of its diverse and unrelated
responsibilities. What responsibilities would you like to see
us eliminate so you can help it. I heard mission creep and it
seems like we keep expanding it.
So how do you, what would, to be efficient, to be
effective, to keep control so we don't have these scandals,
what should we start eliminating? We have got to start
eliminating something here?
Mr. Martin. Well, I think if you go back and look at the
amendments to the Act in 1998, and some of the requirements in
there that we directly would be involved in grass roots
development, at the base level with kids.
I think we should take a hard look at that area. I am
certain fellow panelists can come up with other specific areas.
But you can't be all things to all people. We have to focus
our mission, preferably, I believe the American public wants us
to, on winning medals in the Olympic and Pan Am Games. I think
that is our fundamental mission.
And you have to put everything else on the table for
discussion.
Mr. Stupak. Anyone else care to get on the wrong side here
and say some things you would like to eliminate? I mean,
seriously.
Mr. Schiller. I think, focusing down a little bit, the
members that Bill had mentioned that ranged from Jewish
Community Centers, Church of Latter Day Saints to the armed
forces. My hope would be that they would continue to work
through the other member organizations, the National Governing
Bodies.
Because they become more of a feeder to them. And what
really conflicted is we tried to serve too large a community at
the USOC level.
When really the sports bodies are the ones--in fact, in
most of these cases there is dual representation. In a sport
like boxing, for example, boxing has representatives from the
armed services that compete in their national competitions, but
yet you still have the armed services represented on the board
in another role.
So I think tuning that down, at the same time I think we
have to recognize that in this country we do not have equal
sport opportunities for every American.
And there has to be some level of responsibility for that.
That is where we are conflicted at the national level. We just
don't have any focus on that.
And I think that is something that Congress ought to be
thinking about.
Mr. Stupak. Yes, Mr. McCarthy?
Mr. McCarthy. I think when you look at the produce clauses,
the variety is incredible. From fitness standards to setting
goals for amateur athletics in the United States.
It is so broad that any organization that is loosely
related to it can petition for membership in the USOC. And I
think that is in part what has contributed to the growth of the
board.
But it also dilutes the mission of, in my judgment,
supporting Olympic athletes at the very highest level. And the
grass roots programs having to be taken care of by other
entities.
Mr. Stupak. Yes, sir.
Mr. Marbut. If you look through the 13, it seems to me we
need to get through seven, eight of those out, you know,
quickly.
I think the harder ones get into, you know, you want the
red meat. The question is, what about Paralympians. That comes
out of the IOC. That was added in 1998. Is that a role you want
us to take?
If so, I would argue, as we get the addition mission creep,
we need to get additional revenue. I think there are two
issues.
One is of focus and one is of revenue. And if we can cut
the 13 down to 3 or 4 or 1 or 2, would be ideal, and anything
beyond the core, please give us some resources to help us do
that.
That would be, that is a personal argument on that because
as we get additional items, that takes the revenues away from
the core mission.
Mr. Martin. Congressman, just a follow-on comment to Robert
Marbut's comment about Paralympians. They are truly an
integrated part of the Olympic movement.
And in no way do we want to divulge them from it. And I
didn't want his comments to reflect--they are a part of us. We
are happy to have them.
Obviously that creates resource challenges to fund them,
but they are every bit as an Olympian as Rulon is.
Mr. Stupak. Well, Congress really doesn't give any money to
USOC, whether it is Paralympics or anything. We really don't,
other than maybe a little bit of money we give on the
scholarships, now.
I tell you other countries give their sports, Sports
Minister, I think you called what other countries have? Do they
all, they all subsidize their athletics, do they not?
Mr. Martin. That is exactly right. I can give you a very
concrete example, going back probably 12 years ago. The U.S.
Sailing Center for training our Olympic Sailors is down in the
Miami area.
And I would be down there training myself and I would see
the Canadians role in, in brand new vans that said Canadian
Sailing Team on the side with the sponsors and sponsored by the
government.
And our guys were living in the back of VW buses. These
guys had hotel rooms, et cetera. I mean there is tremendous
dichotomies across the world.
Amateur sports and the Olympics, global, I think is far
more important to other countries than, frankly, it is here in
this country.
Mr. Stupak. So the frustrations we see with operating costs
at Northern Michigan, most other countries would just subsidize
it right out?
Mr. Martin. That is right.
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, you know, we have asked a lot of
questions on things that should be eliminated and things we can
do to improve upon it.
You know, the Senator testified earlier, Senator Campbell,
that they have actually gone out to Colorado Springs, and maybe
it is a trip that we should all take, especially those of us
who have been around for the last 3 or 4 years on this issue,
and try to look at the mission and define it and try to nail
its focus.
And maybe going out there would be somewhat of some help.
Especially then we would get the chance to pick the minds of
the staff and the athletes that are out there.
And I will invite you to Northern Michigan, too.
Mr. Stearns. I think, I say to my colleague that is a good
suggestion, particularly, and then you have a little bit more
time.
You have the opportunity to see it and sometimes being in
the environment gives you a lot of better feel than perhaps
many of us going in and out of hearings.
You can see we have a hearing on homeland security with
Governor Ridge and Secretary Rumsfeld, as we speak, from 11 to
12. A lot of members aren't here.
Then the members are all there and everybody is focused on
it. In Congress sometimes we have a problem with multi-tasking,
which is a problem.
I think what I am going to do is I am going to ask one
general question, and then perhaps you would and we are going
to close shop here.
The general question I have is touching on what Mr. Stupak
mentioned, is how do we downsize? That seems to me--I sense,
among all of you that some way, through your written testimony,
you want to protect the tenet of athlete representation on the
USOC and the National Governing Board committees.
Can the athlete's interests be protected with less than 20
percent membership if the structure is downsized? What is the
best way for adequate representation?
I think, by asking you to think in terms of getting this
toothpaste back in the tube. You know, so maybe I will just
start left to right, if give me a quick answer here and then I
will let my colleague speak.
Mr. Martin. Anytime you deal with the turf challenge it is
a very difficult issue. I think you focused on one of the key
constituents that we have to make certain have adequate
representation, the athletes themselves.
I don't know what the magic number is myself, but I have
found, in my tenure at the Olympics, that the athletes are
young, they are exciting.
If you heard earlier, there is a provision that any athlete
who is involved on the board is held to participate in either
the Olympic, Pan Am or International Games within the last 10
years.
So perhaps Rachel is getting too old to even participate
anymore. I mean it is a shame, but you look at it, that is the
requirement.
That is one group that we clearly have to protect. But with
age does come some experience. And whether it is 10 percent or
20 percent, I think we can work that out internally.
Certainly with Dr. Schiller and his independent commission,
I think they can provide us the guidance. I don't think there
is one magic number.
Mr. Stearns. Okay, I don't necessarily need for each of you
to answer, but, I mean, if you have a real strong feeling about
this and can be more specific, that would be helpful, instead
of general. Yes.
Mr. Marbut. It seems to me if you get down to the size of
15ish to 21, as a real operating board, I think it is
important.
I think you need to have the 20 percent rule, which is now
becoming an international standard for the athletes, I think is
very appropriate.
I think the next group you add in is the NGBs, because the
performance. But I don't think you need, we need to move to
representative democracy rather than the direct democracy.
You know, we need to have reps representing, rather than
all 45 in such like that. And then I think you balance it off
with the public sector members is the balance of the committee.
And I think you would have the athletes protected. You
would have the people who know how to create the performance
protected, and then you have the outside that Harvey was
talking about.
Mr. Stearns. Okay, anyone else, just quickly. Yes, sir, Mr.
McCarthy? Go ahead, we will take you first and then I will take
Godino.
Mr. McCarthy. Inherent in creating a 20 percent number is
creating a constituency and then every other constituency looks
at what is our number.
On the other hand I think on balance having the athletes
involved is a net positive. I think there are two, depending on
what the mission is, there are two core constituencies, the
athletes and the NGBs.
Those are the inside constituencies. And I think as a
matter of good governance, you want both of those groups
involved so that the organization, at a governance level, knows
what is going on internally.
But also on the board I think we want to look at people who
can bring us out that experience in marketing, television,
finance, legal, what have you, that enriches the governance
experience for the organization.
Mr. Stearns. Okay.
Ms. Godino. Thank you. Three thoughts, very quickly. The 20
percent athlete and the 10-year rule, as it is known, that you
have to have competed in the last 10 years, have both been
tested and they have worked well.
And as Robert mentioned, they have been adopted in other
international federations and at the IOC as a general rule, a
good rule of thumb.
So it has been tested at, I think, it is a fair number.
There needs to continue to be some forum for debate for both
national governing bodies and for athletes.
The AAC and NGB Council serve as that now. Those groups
don't have to be on the Board, but they serve as a forum for
debate for athletes to get together and talk about issues and
come to some conclusions on things for National Governing
Bodies to do so, and I think that is important.
And related to that, my third point is that you can have
representation for purposes of input and discussion and there
is a different type of representation that might be necessary
for decisionmaking.
And that is an important distinction that we haven't
necessarily made. Anybody who has to have input, gets to be
part of the decisionmaking today.
Mr. Stearns. Okay.
Mr. Gardner. Just something real quick. INGB represents
over 200,000 wrestlers who represents the three different
styles, Greco-Roman, Freestyle and Women's wrestling at the
Olympics.
So we have 200,000 athletes who are represented by USA
Wrestling and it comes in and has one voice at the board. And I
think it, the NGBs have such a great responsibility and they
handle it so well.
If we could look into NGBs and figure out how we could
utilize them more to bring them into effect too, because they
make such a great impact to, you know, the U.S. Olympic
Committee.
Mr. Schiller. Mr. Chairman, may I just make--when I said
something about the armed forces before, I want to make sure,
that is one of the most important groups that we have had in
our history.
In fact, General Douglas MacArthur is former President of
the U.S. Olympic Committee. General Patton was a participant
and pentathlete, and some of the previous Executive Directors,
Don Miller, and I am a 24-year veteran of the armed forces.
So I do want to say that their contributions have been
absolutely significant in our history. In 1920, in the Antwerp
Games, we wouldn't have, we brought our athletes over there on
troop ships from World War I.
So they have been with us from the beginning.
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, just sort of closing up here. You
know, Senate has their five-person commission that is probably
going to get back with the Senate.
Mr. Martin has done a couple of things to get things going
to do some review. I guess, you know, in the House, we should
be working either with the Senate or here, because we do have
oversight responsibility to make sure that these
recommendations or suggestions and focus for the USOC is done
and completed.
I guess my question is or my concern is, how much time do
we really have here? We don't want a shadow to be cast over
future games. So how much time are we talking about doing these
commissions, doing this internal work and getting it done?
What kind of timeframe would you give us, Mr. Martin or
someone? What kind of timeframe should we really try and get
this thing done in? And I am not trying to say a timeframe will
drive what we do, but give us some sense of where we have to
go?
I want to move past all these problems we have had from
Salt Lake, Atlanta to USOC to move on with this whole thing. So
what kind of timeframe would you look at?
Mr. Martin. The Senate committee set June 30, for Dr.
Schiller and his colleagues to report back their
recommendations.
And I think that is a very defining date. We are working
toward completing our own internal work and turning it over to
Dr. Schiller's committee prior to that time, so they have the
benefit of our own internal review.
And then it will be here for Washington, the House and the
Senate to deal with.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. I thank my colleague and we are going to
adjourn. I just would conclude by saying that this is going to
require, it appears, an attempt by us, on the House and Senate,
to rewrite the 1978 bill.
And Mr. Martin, if you and Dr. Schiller and others, could
in anyway, initiate from your side what you would like to see
in this bill, somehow, I think that would be helpful.
And I know you have just taken over as Acting President,
and you don't want to create a firestorm, but I think after
this commission with, I think it is important that you have to
step up and take some political capital here and to tell us
what we should do is right.
Because you know it better than us and we don't want to
oversee something without your full participation. So
regardless of what the commission says, I think you, Mr.
Martin, should participate.
I want to thank all of you for coming, I know how valuable
your time is. And I appreciate your participation. The
committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]