[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 112 (Wednesday, September 20, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8811-S8812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S8811]]
           FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR THE 2002 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I could not believe my ears yesterday 
afternoon when I heard the Senator from Arizona take out after my home 
State and my home city.
  On behalf of the people of Utah and America, I express our outrage 
over the notion that supporting our country's Olympic Games could be 
termed either ``parochial'' or ``pork barrel.'' Nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  I frankly do not agree with every provision the committee recommends 
either. But, I do not question the motives or sincerity of my 
colleagues who put it there.
  Yesterday, the Senator from Arizona specifically questioned the level 
of federal support for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. 
It is, of course, his right to oppose such assistance. But, before he 
walks further down the plank, I would like to provide a few facts. 
Perhaps the Senator will reevaluate his position.
  First, the report just issued by the General Accounting Office, 
``Olympic Games: Federal Government Provides Significant Funding and 
Support,'' is flawed in several respects. I am sorry that the Senator 
from Arizona has relied so heavily on this document to form his 
opinions about the Salt Lake Games.
  Foremost among the problems with the GAO report is the fact that it 
errs in categorizing a number of projects, specifically in the 
transportation area, as ``Olympic'' projects. In fact, these are 
improvements to transportation infrastructure that would have been 
requested regardless of whether Salt Lake had been awarded the Olympic 
bid.
  I would be happy to show the Senator from Arizona the details of the 
I-15 improvements and why they were necessary to repair road and bridge 
deterioration, implement safety designs, and relieve congestion. None 
of this has anything to do with the Olympic Games. Local planning for 
this project was actually begun in 1982, 13 years before Salt Lake City 
was awarded the Games.
  GAO itself implies that the inclusion of these projects as Olympic 
projects is misleading. The report states on page 8: ``According to 
federal officials, the majority of the funds would have been provided 
to host cities and states for infrastructure projects, such as highways 
and transit systems, regardless of the Olympic Games.''

  The major effect of the 2002 Olympic Games on this project is the 
timetable for completion. Quite obviously, we cannot have jersey walls 
marking off construction zones and one-lane passages during the Games.
  Moreover, while Utah has sought and received some federal assistance 
for the project, the I-15 reconstruction project has been funded 
substantially by Utah's Centennial Highway Fund, which was established 
in 1997 and funded by an increase in the state's gasoline tax. This 
fact seems to disappear from the radar screen during these debates.
  The GAO report also ascribes the TRAX North-South light rail system 
to the Olympic expense column. This, too, is not the case. The full 
funding agreement for the North-South light rail project was granted by 
the U.S. Department of Transportation in August 1995, less than two 
months after Salt Lake was awarded the Games. Clearly light rail was 
not initiated because of the Games.
  While the light rail system will certainly benefit Olympic spectators 
during the Games, that is not why Salt Lake City and communities south 
of the city built it.
  Salt Lake is growing by leaps and bounds. More and more people 
commute into the city--not unlike the Washington metropolitan area. It 
is a city that is striving to reduce air pollution by encouraging the 
use of public transportation. That is why they built light rail.
  I would like to point out to my colleagues that the General 
Accounting Office did another report entitled, ``Surface 
Infrastructure: Costs, Financing and Schedules for Large-Dollar 
Transportation Projects.'' In this 1998 report, the GAO evaluated 
Utah's major transportation projects for the House Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee. This report concluded that both the I-15 
and light rail projects were being efficiently run and were well within 
budget. Many of the contracts were being awarded at costs lower than 
expected. Yet, this fact was not included in the debate yesterday.
  The Department of Transportation Inspector General issued a report in 
November 1998 concluding that the I-15 reconstruction project was on 
schedule and that the cost estimates were reasonable. It also praised 
Utah's use of the ``design-build'' method of contracting on this 
project. This fact was similarly omitted from the discussion yesterday.
  Contrary to the impression left by the Senator from Arizona, the Salt 
Lake Olympic Committee, SLOC, has never sought to ``sneak'' anything 
into an appropriations bill. Mitt Romney and his staff have been open 
about every dime being requested.

  Those transportation projects which are necessary to put on the 
Olympic Games in 2002 were delineated in a transportation plan 
submitted to and approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The 
funds being requested were detailed in that plan.
  The Senator from Arizona yesterday implied that these so-called 
``pork barrel'' appropriations for the 2002 Winter Games were an 
outgrowth of the Olympic bribery scandal which has embarrassed my home 
state. His comments were most unfortunate for many reasons--not the 
least of which is his suggestion that these appropriations requests are 
in any way improper is just wrong.
  SLOC made its budget publicly available to the press. It has briefed 
officials at federal agencies and at the White House. SLOC has 
regularly visited with members of Congress including members of the 
House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Right from the outset, SLOC 
outlined their plans and budgets and has provided periodic updates. 
These updates have showed lower requirements for federal assistance. 
But, again, this fact was not mentioned in the GAO report or by the 
Senator from Arizona.
  A second criticism of the GAO report is its comparison of federal 
support for the Los Angeles Summer Games in 1984 to federal assistance 
for the Salt Lake Games in 2002. Simply put, this is an apples to 
oranges comparison.
  First, the Salt Lake Olympic Committee has fully integrated planning 
for the Paralympic Games with the Olympic Games. The Paralympics did 
not even exist in 1984. In 1996, Atlanta chose to have two separate 
organizing entities.
  Second, the Senator from Arizona may not have noticed, but there have 
been an estimated 7,282 reported terrorist attacks since 1984. Let me 
refresh my colleagues' memories. These attacks have included: Pam Am 
Flight 103 in 1988; the World Trade Center in 1993; the Oklahoma City 
Federal Building in 1995; the Tokyo subway in 1995; Khobar Towers in 
1997; and U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
  Not all of them have been on the front pages of major newspapers, but 
this startling number demonstrates the need for enhanced security at an 
international event like the Olympic Games. The same level of security 
provided for the Los Angeles Games would most likely be inadequate for 
the Salt Lake Games. It is essential that we provide security based on 
the situation in the year 2002.
  Security and counterterrorism are legitimate federal duties. I am 
glad the Secret Service is getting $14.8 million for communications 
infrastructure. I want our law enforcement personnel to have the best 
equipment available, not just for the Salt Lake City Olympics, but at 
all times.

  I do not believe that the Secret Service, FBI, and other security 
agencies are buying disposable products. This equipment will be well 
used to keep Americans safe in cities all across America.
  Third, and perhaps most importantly, by the GAO's own calculation, 
only $254 million is requested for planning and staging the Games, not 
the $1.3 billion figure cited yesterday. I would like to note that this 
is roughly 25 percent of the entire budget for the Salt Lake Games.
  If that seems like a lot, let us review the point made by the 
Congressional Research Service in its 1997 report, ``Financing the 
Olympic Games Held in the United States, 1904-1960: A Brief Overview,'' 
and noted by the GAO. In

[[Page S8812]]

1960, Squaw Valley received an appropriation of $20 million to assist 
in staging the Winter Olympic Games--about 25 percent of the total 
budget for the Games.
  Let me be clear that I am not advocating an automatic 25 percent 
federal subsidy for a host city. But, I wish to make the point that 
this level of assistance is not unprecedented and could be construed as 
quite modest when compared with governmental subsidies foreign cities 
receive from their national governments.
  Before I conclude, Mr. President, I would like to make one final 
point.
  The Senator from Arizona suggested yesterday that the USOC should not 
consider bids of cities that do not have the capacity to host the 
Games.
  Well, Mr. President, that would eliminate every city in America from 
hosting an Olympic Games, summer or winter. No city--not even New York 
or Los Angeles--could put on a 21st century, multi-week, international 
event like this entirely on its own.
  Think about this: Lake Placid, New York, has hosted the Winter Games 
twice, in 1932 and in 1980. But, in 1990, Lake Placid had a population 
of fewer than 2500 people. There is no way metropolitan Salt Lake City, 
with a million people, let alone Lake Placid could host these Games 
under the proposed McCain criteria.
  Allow me to suggest, Mr. President, that America itself will host the 
2002 Winter Olympic Games, just as it did in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Lake 
Placid, or Squaw Valley. An American bid city is selected by the United 
States Olympic Committee for its organizational ability and world class 
sporting venues. It becomes America's choice. If chosen by the IOC, the 
city does not host the Games on its own behalf, but for our whole 
country.
  When a U.S. athlete mounts the podium in Salt Lake City two years 
from now, the music you hear will not be ``Come, Come Ye Saints.'' No, 
it will be ``The Star-Spangled Banner,'' our country's national anthem.
  I agree with the GAO and with Senator McCain on one thing. I agree 
that we ought to give some consideration to how, if the United States 
ever hosts another Olympic Games, we should support the host city. 
There is much to commend a better process for such support.
  I would be very happy to join Senator McCain in such a mission. But, 
I wish that, in the meantime, he would join us in support of America's 
host city for the XIX Winter Olympiad.

                          ____________________