Olympic Games: Federal Government Provides Significant Funding and
Support (Chapter Report, 09/08/2000, GAO/GGD-00-183).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on
government funding and support for the Olympic Games, focusing on: (1)
the amount of federal funding and support provided to the 1984 and 1996
Summer Olympic Games, and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, and
the types of projects and activities that were funded and supported; (2)
the federal policies, legislative authorizations, and agency controls in
place for providing the federal funds and support to the Olympic Games;
and (3) whether federal funding for certain Olympic-related projects was
provided in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

GAO noted that: (1) the federal government provides significant funding
and support for the Olympic Games when they are held in the United
States; (2) at least 24 federal agencies reported providing or planning
to provide a combined total of almost $2 billion, in 1999 dollars, for
Olympic-related projects and activities for the 1984 and 1996 Summer
Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games; (3) of the almost $2
billion of funding and support from the federal government, about $513
million was provided or planned to be provided for projects or
activities related to planning and staging the Olympic Games; (4) the
remaining $1.4 billion has been provided or planned to be provided for
infrastructure projects, such as highway, transit, and capital
improvements, that are related to preparing the cities of Atlanta and
Salt Lake City to host the Olympic Games; (5) these projects will also
benefit the host city and state after the Games are held; (6) according
to federal officials, most of these funds would have been awarded to
these cities or states even if they had not hosted the Olympic Games,
although the funds could have been provided later if the Games were not
held; (7) however, no governmentwide law or policy exists that defines
the federal government's overall role in funding and supporting the
Olympic Games when hosted in the United States, nor is there a single
federal agency that has the responsibility to oversee and monitor the
federal funding and support provided for the Olympic Games; (8) federal
agencies have helped and continue to help fund and support various
aspects of the Olympic Games, in response to requests for federal
assistance from state and local governments and Olympic organizing
committees; (9) Olympic-related expenditures by federal agencies were
made using Congressionally designated funds or by using the agencies'
normal funding procedures; (10) in some cases it was difficult to
determine the amount of federal funding and support because federal
agencies generally did not track or report their funding and support for
the Olympic Games, except when they were specifically requested to do so
by the Office of Management and Budget; and (11) federal funding and
support were used in accordance with statutory authority and applicable
requirements for three of the five 1996 Summer Olympic Games projects
that GAO reviewed.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-00-183
     TITLE:  Olympic Games: Federal Government Provides Significant
	     Funding and Support
      DATE:  09/08/2000
   SUBJECT:  Sports
	     Federal funds
	     Intergovernmental fiscal relations
	     Reporting requirements
	     Recreation area security
	     Budget outlays
IDENTIFIER:  2002 Winter Olympic Games
	     1984 Summer Olympic Games
	     1996 Summer Olympic Games

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO/GGD-00-183

OLYMPIC GAMES Federal Government Provides Significant Funding and Support

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2000 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division
Washington, D. C. 20548

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

B- 282746 September 8, 2000 The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking Minority
Member, Committee on

Commerce House of Representatives

The Honorable John McCain Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

Science and Transportation United States Senate

In response to your requests, this report provides information on (1) the
amount of federal funding and support provided to the 1984 and 1996 Summer
Olympic Games, and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, and the types
of projects and activities that were funded and supported and (2) the
federal policies, legislative authorizations, and agency controls in place
for providing the federal funds and support to the Olympic Games. In
addition, as you requested, this report provides the results of our
evaluation of the following five projects: (1) development of the Ocoee
Whitewater Rapids Slalom venue for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, (2) use of
federal employees to provide security during the 1996 Games, (3) payment of
Atlanta Paralympic Organizing Committee staff salaries, (4) payment of
Paralympic Games' opening ceremony entertainers costs, and (5) veterans
assistance during the Paralympic Games.

This report contains matters for congressional consideration and
recommendations to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), the Administrator of the General Services Administration, and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

As agreed, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no
further distribution of this report until 15 days after its issue date. At
that time, we will send copies of this report to Senator Ernest Hollings,
Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation; and Representative Tom Bliley, Chairman of the House
Committee on Commerce. We are also sending copies of this report to Senators
Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett and Representatives James Hansen, Merrill
Cook, and Chris Cannon of Utah. Copies of this report will also be made
available to the Director of OMB; the Secretaries of the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human
Services, the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, State,
Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; and the U. S. Attorney
General. We are

B- 282746

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

also sending copies to the Directors of the Corporation for National and
Community Services, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications
Commission, Federal Emergency Management Administration, General Services
Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Social
Security Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, and U. S. Information
Agency and the U. S. Postmaster General. We will make copies available to
others upon request.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-
8387 or ungarb. ggd@ gao. gov. Key contributors to this assignment were
Tammy R. Conquest, Michael Rives, John Parulis, David Bennett, Alan Belkin,
Jessica Botsford, and Syrene Mitchell.

Bernard L. Ungar Director, Government Business

Operations Issues

Page 3 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Executive Summary

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

The federal government has provided increasingly significant funding and
support for the Olympic Games when held in the United States. Concerned
about this rising cost and the appropriateness of the federal funding and
support for certain Olympic- related projects and activities, you requested
that GAO review federal funding and support for the 1984 Summer Olympic
Games held in Los Angeles, CA; the 1996 Summer Olympic Games held in
Atlanta, GA; and the planned 2002 Winter Olympic Games held in Salt Lake
City, UT. In response, this report answers the following questions:

ï¿½ What were the amounts of federal funding and support provided to the 1984
and 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games, 1 and the types of projects and activities that were funded and
supported?

ï¿½ What are the federal policies, legislative authorizations, and agency
controls in place for providing federal funds and support for the Olympic
Games?

In addition, you asked GAO to use its professional judgment to select and
review some of the Olympic- related projects and activities to determine if
federal funding and support were provided in accordance with the underlying
laws and applicable requirements. Accordingly, GAO selected and evaluated
the following five projects: (1) development of the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom
venue for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, (2) use of federal employees to
provide security during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, (3) payment of
Atlanta Paralympic Organizing Committee (APOC) staff salaries, (4) payment
of Paralympic Games' opening ceremony entertainer costs, and (5) veterans
assistance during the Paralympic Games. GAO's specific reasons for selecting
these projects are discussed in the objectives, scope, and methodology
section of chapter 1.

The Olympic Games take place every 4 years, with the Summer Games and Winter
Games alternating on a 2- year cycle. Each of these Games is awarded by the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) 2 to a host city, not to its country.
Since 1904, cities in the United States have been selected to host the
Olympic Games eight times- more than those of any other country. In the
United States, unlike in other countries, the host city, not

1 The 1996 Olympic Games and the planned 2002 Winter Olympic Games also
include the Paralympic Games. The Paralympic Games were not a part of the
1984 Olympic Games. 2 The IOC is an international, nongovernmental,
nonprofit organization that is primarily responsible for supervising the
organization of the Olympic Games. Purpose

Background

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

the federal government, is generally responsible for hosting the Olympic
Games.

The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (Amateur Sports Act), 36 U.
S. C. 220501 et. seq., which was originally enacted in 1978 as the Amateur
Sports Act, gives the U. S. Olympic Committee (USOC), 3 among other things,
exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the participation of
the United States in the Olympic Games, including the representation of the
United States in such Games and the organization of the Games when held in
the United States.

The Amateur Sports Act was amended in 1998 to incorporate the Paralympic
Games under the umbrella of USOC. The Paralympic Games are for disabled
athletes and are held immediately following the Olympic Games. Although
organized separately, the 1996 Summer Olympic Games marked the first time
that the Paralympic Games were held in conjunction with Olympic Games in the
United States.

The federal government provides significant funding and support for the
Olympic Games when they are held in the United States. At least 24 federal
agencies reported providing or planning to provide a combined total of
almost $2 billion, in 1999 dollars, 4 for Olympic- related projects and
activities for the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games. Specifically, the federal government provided about $75
million in funding and support for the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los
Angeles and about $609 million for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta,
and has provided or plans to provide about $1. 3 billion for the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. 5 This is in addition to the Olympic
organizing committee's costs to host the Games. According to data obtained
from Olympic organizing committee officials, it cost or is expected to cost
the organizers about $602 million to stage the 1984 Summer Olympic Games; $2
billion for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games; and an estimated $1.4 billion for
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

Of the almost $2 billion of funding and support from the federal government,
about $513 million was provided or planned to be provided for projects or
activities related to planning and staging the Olympic

3 USOC is a federally chartered private organization that is primarily
responsible for coordinating and developing amateur athletic activities in
the United States. 4 All financial information presented in this report is
in constant 1999 dollars, except where noted.

5 Each Olympic Game varied widely in terms of size, scope, and location,
thus making it difficult to make comparisons. Results in Brief

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

Games, such as providing security or transporting spectators; these funds
would not have been provided if the Games were not held in the United
States. The remaining $1.4 billion has been provided or planned to be
provided for infrastructure projects, such as highway, transit, and capital
improvements, that are related to preparing the cities of Atlanta and Salt
Lake City to host the Olympic Games, as shown in figure 1. These projects
will also benefit the host city and state after the Games are held.
According to federal officials, most of these funds would have been awarded
to these cities or states even if they had not hosted the Olympic Games,
although the funds could have been provided later if the Games were not
held.

Source: OMB and various other federal agencies.

However, no governmentwide law or policy exists that defines the federal
government's overall role in funding and supporting the Olympic Games when
hosted in the United States. Nor is there a single federal agency that has
the responsibility to oversee and monitor the federal funding and support
provided for the Olympic Games. Nonetheless, federal agencies have helped
and continue to help fund and support various aspects of the Olympic Games,
in response to requests for federal assistance from state and local
governments and Olympic organizing committees. Federal

Figure 1: Proportion of Federal Funding and Support Provided to Prepare Host
Cities for Olympic Games

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

assistance has been requested because these entities have not had enough
resources to provide for the infrastructure improvements necessary to
prepare the host city or to plan and stage all aspects of the Olympic Games
when hosted in the United States.

In some cases, Olympic- related expenditures by federal agencies were made
using funds specifically designated by Congress in agencies' authorizing
and/ or appropriations legislation. In other cases, Olympicrelated
expenditures were not specifically designated by Congress but were approved
by the agencies, generally, in accordance with their normal funding
procedures. However, in some cases it was difficult to determine the amount
of federal funding and support because federal agencies generally did not
track or report their funding and support for the Olympic Games, except when
they were specifically requested to do so by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). OMB began requesting federal agencies to report to it
regarding how much federal funding and support they had provided after the
1984 Summer Olympic Games. Although GAO found this reported information to
be helpful, in some cases the information that the agencies provided to OMB
for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games was not always complete or reported in a
consistent manner.

Federal funding and support were used in accordance with statutory authority
and applicable requirements for three of the five 1996 Summer Olympic Games
projects that GAO specifically reviewed for this purpose. Of the remaining
two projects reviewed, the expenditures for one were not in accordance with
the underlying statutory authority and expenditures for the other did not
comply with all applicable administratively imposed requirements.

This report contains matters for congressional consideration and
recommendations to the Director of OMB, the Administrator of the General
Services Administration (GSA), and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to
address these issues. Most of the agencies that provided comments on a draft
of this report provided technical changes that we incorporated where
appropriate. However, GSA, VA, and the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc.,
disagreed with our conclusion that GSA's and VA's use of federal funds for
Paralympic- related activities was not in accordance with statutory or
administratively imposed requirements. GSA also disagreed with our
recommendation that it take action to ensure the appropriate use of federal
funds for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

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

The federal government provided about $75 million in funding and support for
the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles; the majority of this funding
was used to help provide safety- and security- related services during the
Games. The $75 million in federal funding and support would not have been
provided if the 1984 Summer Olympic Games had not been held in the United
States.

In contrast, the majority of the federal funding and support that were
provided for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, which were held in Atlanta, and
planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, is reported to
be for infrastructure projects in preparing the host cities for the Olympic
Games-- projects that did or will benefit the host cities and their states
after the Games. For example, the federal government provided about $609
million for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, of which about $424
million was spent for highway, transit, public housing, and other capital
improvements. Similarly, the federal government has provided or plans to
provide about $1.3 billion for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake
City, of which about $1 billion has been provided or is planned for highway
and transit projects that Utah and Salt Lake City officials wanted to have
completed in time for the Games. According to federal officials, the
majority of the funds would have been provided to the host cities and states
for infrastructure projects, such as highways and transit systems,
regardless of the Olympic Games because many of the projects had been
planned long before the cities were selected to host the Games. However,
some federal officials were not always able to document which of the
specific infrastructure projects would or would not have been funded if the
Olympic Games were not held.

No governmentwide law or policy exists that defines the federal government's
overall role in funding and supporting the Olympic Games when hosted in the
United States. Nonetheless, many federal agencies have been involved in
helping to fund and support various aspects of the Olympic Games when hosted
in the United States. Historically, the state and local governments and
Olympic organizing committees have not had enough resources to provide the
infrastructure improvements necessary to prepare the host city or to plan
and stage all aspects of the Olympic Games; thus, requests for federal
assistance have been made. Principal Findings

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for Los
Angeles, Atlanta, and Salt Lake City Olympic Games

No Governmentwide Law or Policy on Federal Funding and Support for the
Olympic Games

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

In some cases, Congress has specifically designated funds for the Olympic
Games. For example, Congress specifically designated about $690 million of
the almost $2 billion in federal funding and support provided for the 1984
and 1996 Summer Olympic Games and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
The remaining $1.3 billion was approved by federal agencies, generally in
accordance with their normal funding procedures.

Although decisions regarding federal funding and support have generally been
made by Congress or federal agencies on a project- by- project basis, for
the 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic
Games, the President established a White House task force chaired by the
Vice President and co- chaired by the Assistant to the President and Cabinet
Secretary and the Assistant to the President and Director of
Intergovernmental Affairs to coordinate federal involvement in the Olympic
Games. The Task Force comprises representatives from OMB and various other
federal agencies. There is no statutory requirement for a single federal
agency to oversee and monitor the appropriateness of federal funding and
support for the Olympic Games. In addition, GAO found that federal agencies
generally did not track or report their funding and support for the Olympic
Games, except when they were specifically requested to do so by OMB. After
the 1984 Summer Olympic Games, OMB began requesting federal agencies to
report to it regarding how much federal funding and support they provided
for the Olympic Games when hosted in the United States.

Although this reported information was helpful, in some cases, the
information that the agencies provided to OMB for the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games was not complete or provided in a consistent manner. For example, OMB
reported federal expenditures of about $329 million for the 1996 Summer
Olympic Games. However, information GAO collected from the agencies after
these Olympic Games showed that the federal government spent about $609
million, which is a difference of $280 million. One reason for the
difference is that OMB's request for data was made before the 1996 Summer
Olympic Games, and OMB did not collect additional information after the
Games.

As agreed with its requesters, GAO evaluated five projects that were part of
the 1996 Summer Olympic Games and determined that three of the five projects
were carried out in accordance with the underlying statutory authority and
were consistent with applicable requirements. These three projects were the
development of the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue, use of federal employees
to provide security, and payment of Paralympic Games' opening ceremony
entertainer costs. Although GAO determined Federal Agencies Did Not

Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five OlympicRelated Projects GAO Reviewed

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

that the Ocoee project was funded in accordance with the law, there are no
studies or evaluations showing that the expenditures to build the Ocoee
Whitewater Slalom venue would have benefited or did benefit public use after
the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.

For the remaining two projects, GAO determined that one did not comply with
the applicable administratively imposed requirements, and that the other was
not in accordance with the underlying statutory authority. Specifically, GAO
determined that GSA's use of about $2 million to pay the salaries of APOC
staff was not consistent with the express language of the Memorandum of
Agreement that stated GSA would not pay the salaries of APOC employees. In
the case of the other project, GAO determined that VA's use of a $2 million
special purpose grant for veterans that was used to largely assist
nonveterans during the 1996 Paralympic Games was not consistent with a
provision in the conference report that was incorporated into the
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995. This provision stated that the $2
million was “for the assistance of veterans who are participating in
the 1996 Paralympic Games.”

Despite the lack of a specifically authorized governmentwide role in the
Olympic Games, the federal government has, in effect, become a significant
supporter of the Games when hosted in the United States. Accordingly,
Congress may want to consider enacting legislation to establish a formal
role for the federal government and a governmentwide policy regarding
federal funding and support for Olympic Games when hosted in the United
States.

GAO recommends that OMB (1) track and periodically report to Congress
federal agencies' planned and actual funding and support for the Olympic
Games hosted in the United States, beginning when a U. S. city is awarded
the right to host the Games through the completion of the Games and (2)
provide guidance to agencies on what data should be compiled to ensure
consistency and completeness, and request all federal agencies to provide
information, including those that do not normally report to OMB. GAO also
recommends that GSA and VA implement policies and controls to ensure the
appropriate use of federal funds for the Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted
in the United States.

GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to the heads of the federal
agencies that provided federal funding and support for the Olympic Games;
OMB; the White House Task Force on the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic
Games; the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee; the Los Angeles
Olympic Organizing Committee; the U. S. Olympic Matters for

Congressional Consideration

Recommendations Agency Comments

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

Committee; and the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., for comment. GAO's
summary of the comments it received and its evaluation of these comments are
included at the end of chapter 5.

Most of the agencies and organizations with comments provided technical
changes regarding the amount of federal funding and support provided to the
Olympic Games, which GAO made where appropriate. OMB concurred with GAO's
recommendations to it. However, GSA disagreed with GAO's conclusion that its
use of federal funds to pay the salaries of APOC staff was not consistent
with the express language of the Memorandum of Agreement, which stated that
GSA would not pay the salaries of APOC staff. GSA did not provide any
additional information or explanation that would cause GAO to change its
conclusion.

VA agreed with GAO's recommendation but believed that its use of federal
funds designated for veterans, which were used to assist nonveterans during
the 1996 Paralympic Games, was consistent with congressional intent. GAO
believes that there is no legal basis for changing its conclusion that VA's
use of these funds was inconsistent with the applicable statutory provision.

The U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., also expressed concern regarding how
GAO addressed several issues associated with the Paralympic Games. However,
it did not provide a basis for changing any of GAO's conclusions.

Page 12 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Contents 4 Executive Summary 16 Background 17 Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology 20 Chapter 1

Introduction 24 About $75 Million in Federal Funding and Support Used

to Help Plan and Stage the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles

25 About $609 Million in Federal Funding and Support

Provided for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta

28 Almost $1.3 Billion of Federal Funding and Support

Planned or Provided for the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City

36 Chapter 2

Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for
1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

43 Federal Government Encourages Support of Olympic

Games, but No Governmentwide Policy Exists 44

Congress Designated Some Federal Funding and Support for Olympic- Related
Projects and Activities

46 Agency Officials Made Decisions to Fund and Support

Most Olympic- Related Projects and Activities 49

Federal Funding and Support Generally Provided Through Agencies' Normal
Funding Procedures

55 Chapter 3

No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the Olympic Games
When They Are Hosted in the United States

61 Ocoee Whitewater Slalom Venue Funding Was

Authorized, but Report of Benefits Appears to Have Been Incomplete

61 Use of Federal Employees to Provide Security During the

1996 Summer Olympic Games Was Within the Scope of Authority

63 Use of Federal Funds for Entertainers at the Paralympic

Games' Opening Ceremony Was Authorized 63

GSA Inappropriately Used Funds for APOC Employee Salaries

64 Chapter 4

Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five
OlympicJustice's Related Projects

VA's Use of Funding Designated for Veterans Was Not Consistent With
Provision in the Appropriations Act

65

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

68 Matters for Congressional Consideration 70 Recommendations 70 Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation 71 Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

Appendix I: Federal Funding and Support Provided to the 1984 Summer Olympic
Games in Los Angeles

76 Appendix II: Federal Funding and Support Provided to

the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta 77

Appendix III: Federal Funding and Support Planned and Provided to the 2002
Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City

81 Appendix IV: Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget 85

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

87 Appendix VI: Comments From the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs 89

Appendix VII: Comments From the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc.

91 Appendix VIII: Comments From the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration 95

Appendix IX: Comments From the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee

97 Appendixes

Figure 1: Proportion of Federal Funding and Support Provided to Prepare Host
Cities for Olympic Games

6 Figure 2. 1: Projects Related to Preparing Host Cities for

Olympic Games Accounted for Most of the $2 Billion in Federal Funding and
Support

25 Figure 2. 2: Safety- and Security- Related Services

Accounted for the Majority of the Federal Funding and Support That Were
Provided During the 1984 Summer Olympic Games

26 Figure 2. 3: Projects Related to Preparing Atlanta to Host

the 1996 Summer Olympic Games Accounted for the Majority of the Federal
Funding and Support

29 Figures

Figure 2. 4: As of April 2000, Projects Related to Preparing Salt Lake City
to Host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games Accounted for the Majority of the
Federal Funding and Support

36

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

Figure 2. 5: Locations of Federally Funded Roads, Highway, and Transit
Projects for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City

41

Abbreviations

ACOG Atlanta Committee for Olympic Games APOC Atlanta Paralympic Organizing
Committee CNCS Corporation for National and Community Services CRS
Congressional Research Service DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of
Energy DOT Department of Transportation EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FCC Federal Communications Commission
FEB Federal Executive Board FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GSA
General Services Administration HHS Department of Health and Human Services
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development IOC International Olympic
Committee ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LAOC Los Angeles Olympic
Organizing Committee MARTA Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority MOA
Memorandum of Agreement OIG Office of Inspector General OLC Office of Legal
Counsel OMB Office of Management and Budget OSTS Olympic Spectator Transit
System OTS Olympic Transportation System PDD 62 Presidential Decision
Directive 62 SLOC Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee SSA Social
Security Administration TEA- 21 Transportation Equity Act of the 21 Century
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USIA U. S. Information Agency USOC U. S. Olympic Committee VA Department of
Veterans Affairs

Page 15 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Chapter 1 Introduction

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

Concerned about the rising costs of federal funding and support for the
Olympic Games over the years and the appropriateness of funding for certain
projects, you requested that we review federal funding and support for the
1984 Summer Olympic Games held in Los Angeles, CA; the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games held in Atlanta, GA; and the planned 2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt
Lake City, UT. In response, this report answers the following questions:

ï¿½ What were the amounts of federal funding and support provided to the 1984
and 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games, 1 and the types of projects and activities that were funded and
supported?

ï¿½ What are the federal policies, legislative authorizations, and agency
controls in place for providing the federal funds and support to the Olympic
Games?

In addition, you requested that we use our professional judgment to select
and review some of the Olympic- related projects and activities to determine
if federal funding and support were provided in accordance with the
underlying laws and applicable requirements. Accordingly, we selected and
evaluated the following five projects: (1) development of the Ocoee
Whitewater Slalom venue for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, (2) use of
federal employees to provide security during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games,
(3) payment of Atlanta Paralympic Organizing Committee (APOC) staff
salaries, (4) payment of Paralympic Games' opening ceremony entertainer
costs, and (5) veterans assistance during the Paralympic Games.

When reviewing the data in this report, several points need to be
considered. First, it was not possible to precisely calculate the total
amount of federal funding and support for the Games because there is no
requirement nor was there any federal agency that determined or accounted
for this information in a systematic manner. 2 Consequently, some costs,
such as personnel costs, were included by some agencies, but not included by
other agencies in their information. Second, we were dependent upon the
federal agencies to identify and determine how much

1 The 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the planned 2002 Winter Olympic Games
also include the Paralympic Games. The Paralympic Games were not a part of
the 1984 Olympic Games. 2 Although it is beyond the scope of this report,
some of the federal spending is likely to be offset by increased revenue
resulting from the Olympic Games being held in the United States. For
example, foreign tourists who otherwise would not have visited the United
States could generate additional revenue for the federal government.

Chapter 1 Introduction

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

of the federal funding and support was provided or planned for the Olympic
Games and how much federal funding and support would have been provided to
the host cities regardless of the Games.

Third, each of the Olympic Games varied widely in terms of size, scope, and
location; thus, comparisons among the events would be difficult. Fourth,
much of the federal funding and support reported for the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games is planned and may change between when we collected our data and 2002.
This accounts for some of the changes in planned, expended, and
congressionally designated amounts identified in this report as compared
with the preliminary information in our December 1999 report on federal
funding and support provided for the Olympic Games. 3 Fifth, all financial
information presented in this report is reported in constant 1999 dollars,
except where noted. 4

The Olympic Games take place every 4 years with the Summer Olympic Games and
the Winter Olympic Games being held on an alternating 2- year cycle. These
Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events, not
between countries and are the exclusive property of the International
Olympic Committee (IOC). The IOC owns all rights, including the
organization, broadcasting, recording, representation, and reproduction of
the Olympic Games. The rights to host the Olympic Games are awarded by the
IOC to a host city, not to its country. For example, Salt Lake City will
host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, not the U. S. government.

In the United States, the Amateur Sports Act gives the U. S. Olympic
Committee (USOC), among other things, exclusive jurisdiction over all
matters pertaining to the participation of the United States in the Olympic
Games, including the representation of the United States in such Games and
the organization of the Olympic Games when they are held in the United
States. The purpose of the Amateur Sports Act was to address amateur
athletic activity in the United States. It was not intended to address or
define the appropriate role of the federal government in supporting and
funding the Olympic Games. Nor is there any other governmentwide legislation
or policy that addresses this issue.

3 Olympic Games: Preliminary Information on Federal Funding and Support
(GAO/ GGD- 00- 44, Dec. 21, 1999). 4 Our conversion to 1999 dollars is less
than precise in some cases because the yearly data were not always available
for each of the Olympic Games. Also, in some cases, the numbers may not
total because of rounding. Background

Chapter 1 Introduction

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

The federal government has no formal role in the selection of the U. S. city
that is chosen to submit a bid to the IOC to host the Olympic Games.
According to IOC's charter, only a city that is approved by the National
Olympic Committee 5 can apply to host the Olympic Games. The IOC's charter
further states that in the event that there are several candidates in one
country that are bidding on the same Olympic Games, the National Olympic
Committee is responsible for determining which city may submit a bid to host
Olympic Games. In the United States, once USOC selects the city that may
submit a bid to the IOC to host the Games, according to USOC officials, the
President of the United States, as a matter of formality, concurs with that
decision and submits a letter to the IOC recommending that the U. S. city be
selected.

Although governments in other nations generally play a major role in
organizing and financing the cost of hosting the Olympic Games when one of
their cities is selected, in the United States, it is generally the
responsibility of the host city, not the federal government. For example,
the New South Wales 6 government is the underwriter for hosting the 2000
Summer Olympic Games in Sydney. As such, the New South Wales government is
to finance the cost of providing venues; facilities; infrastructures; and
government services, such as transportation, security, and health. According
to data obtained from the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee
(SLOC), 7 the New South Wales government plans to contribute about 57
percent of the $5.18 billion that is needed to host the 2000 Games in
Sydney, and the Japanese government contributed about 58 percent of the
estimated $2.84 billion to host the 1998 Winter Olympic Games in Nagano,
Japan. According to SLOC's data, these cost estimates do not include the
governments' costs for national security and transportation.

According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, 8 significant U.
S. federal funding and support for security- related services and other
projects and activities related to hosting the Olympic Games essentially
began with the 1960 Winter Olympic Games. Before that time, state, local,
and private sources provided all of the financing of the Games, dating back

5 In the United States, USOC is the National Olympic Committee. 6 New South
Wales is one of Australia's eight states and territories and is home to
Sydney, which is the host city for the 2000 Summer Olympic Games. 7 SLOC is
the private organization established by Salt Lake City and USOC to plan and
stage the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. 8 The Financing of Olympic Games Held
in the United States, 1904- 1960: A Brief Overview, Congressional Research
Service, Feb. 3, 1997.

Chapter 1 Introduction

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

to when the Olympic Games were first held in the United States in St. Louis,
MO, in 1904. 9 According to the CRS report, two fiscal developments occurred
at the time of the 1960 Winter Olympic Games in Squaw Valley, CA, that
profoundly affected the cost and financing of hosting the Olympic Games.
These developments were the inauguration of the sale of television broadcast
rights in the Olympic Games and the introduction of federal financing and
military assistance for the Games.

The resulting televised, worldwide spotlight and access to federal
assistance encouraged the Squaw Valley Olympic organizers and subsequent
host city organizers to produce bigger, more spectacular, and more costly
Olympic Games than the one before, according to CRS reports. As a
consequence, Olympic- and host city- related planning, construction, and
security costs soon outpaced state, local, and private resources. To cover
the difference, state, local, and private entities relied increasingly on
the federal government for assistance. For example, according to CRS data,
the federal government provided about $20 million, or about 25 percent, of
the approximately $80 million spent to host the 1960 Winter Olympic Games in
Squaw Valley. About $16 million in federal funds was used to construct the
Olympic Sports Arena, and almost $4 million was used for armed forces
equipment and personnel. Such federal assistance has continued to this day,
as discussed in chapter 2.

The Paralympic Games are held immediately after the Olympic Games and are
for disabled athletes. Although organized separately, the 1996 Summer
Olympic Games marked the first time that the Paralympic Games were held in
conjunction with the Olympic Games in the United States. On October 21,
1998, the Amateur Sports Act was amended to incorporate the Paralympic
movement under the umbrella of USOC. 10 On May 27, 1997, SLOC was awarded
the rights to host the Paralympic Games.

9 Since 1904, a U. S. city has been selected to host the Olympic Games eight
times- more than any other country. In 1904, St. Louis, MO, hosted the first
Olympic Games held in the United States, followed by Lake Placid, NY, which
held the Winter Olympic Games in 1932. Los Angeles, CA, held the Summer
Olympic Games in 1932; Squaw Valley, CA, held the Winter Olympic Games in
1960; Lake Placid, NY, held the Winter Olympic Games in 1980; Los Angeles,
CA, held the Summer Olympic Games in 1984; Atlanta, GA, held the Summer
Olympic Games in 1996; and Salt Lake City, UT, plans to hold the Winter
Olympic Games in 2002.

10 P. L. 105- 277.

Chapter 1 Introduction

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

As you requested, this report discusses the following objectives:

ï¿½ To determine the amounts of federal funding and support provided to the
1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games; and the types of projects and activities that were funded and
supported.

ï¿½ To determine the federal policies, legislative authorizations, and agency
controls in place for providing the federal funds and support to the Olympic
Games.

In addition, you requested that we use our professional judgment to select
and review some of the Olympic- related projects and activities to determine
if federal funding and support were provided in accordance with the
underlying laws and applicable requirements. Accordingly, we selected and
evaluated the following five projects: (1) development of the Ocoee
Whitewater Slalom venue for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, (2) use of
federal employees to provide security during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games,
(3) GSA's payment of APOC staff salaries, (4) the Department of Education's
payment of Paralympic Games' opening ceremony entertainer costs, and (5) the
Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) assistance of nonveterans during the
Paralympic Games.

To address the first 2 objectives, we made a governmentwide inquiry by
contacting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 24 other federal
agencies regarding their federal funding and support for the Olympic Games.
Additionally, we researched legislative databases dating back to 1979;
reviewed numerous reports; and interviewed the appropriate federal, state,
and local government officials and representatives of several private
organizations to identify, document, and discuss the federal government's
involvement with the Olympic Games held in Los Angeles in 1984 and Atlanta
in 1996, and planned for Salt Lake City in 2002.

The following federal agencies reported some federal funding and support for
the Olympic Games:

ï¿½ Corporation for National and Community Services (CNCS)

ï¿½ Department of Agriculture (USDA)

ï¿½ Department of Commerce (Commerce)

ï¿½ Department of Defense (DOD)

ï¿½ Department of Education (Education)

ï¿½ Department of Energy (DOE)

ï¿½ Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Chapter 1 Introduction

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

ï¿½ Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

ï¿½ Department of the Interior (Interior)

ï¿½ Department of Justice (Justice)

ï¿½ Department of Labor (DOL)

ï¿½ Department of State (State)

ï¿½ Department of Transportation (DOT)

ï¿½ Department of the Treasury (Treasury)

ï¿½ Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

ï¿½ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ï¿½ Federal Communications Commission( FCC)

ï¿½ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

ï¿½ Federal Executive Board (FEB)

ï¿½ General Services Administration (GSA)

ï¿½ Social Security Administration (SSA)

ï¿½ Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

ï¿½ U. S. Information Agency (USIA) 11

ï¿½ U. S. Postal Service (Postal Service) At each of these agencies, we
obtained, to the extent possible, supporting information for the agencies'
planned; approved; and actual funding and expenditures for the Olympic Games
as shown in agency records, such as budget allocations, grant applications
and awards, contracts, and corresponding expenditure reports. We used this
information to document and describe federally funded or supported Olympic-
related projects or activities. Because of the large number of federal
agencies and projects and activities related to the Olympic Games, our
verification of the information provided by the agencies generally consisted
of collecting and reviewing available supporting documentation to determine
whether agency policies and procedures for authorizing, distributing, and
accounting for federal funding and support for Olympic- related projects and
activities were in place. In some cases, such documentation was not always
available. For example, in the case of the 1984 Olympic Games, OMB data were
generally the only information available at the time of our review. Although
information was generally available for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games and
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, some of the information on federal funding
and support for the 2002 Games is preliminary and, therefore, are, subject
to change.

We also interviewed officials from the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los
Angeles, 12 the Atlanta Committee for Olympic Games (ACOG), SLOC,

11 The U. S. Information Agency was dissolved, and its activities were
incorporated into the Department of State in October 1999.

Chapter 1 Introduction

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

USOC, and the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., regarding any information
that they maintained on federal funding and support for the Los Angeles,
Atlanta, and Salt Lake City Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games. Further,
we interviewed members of the White House Task Force on the 2002 Winter
Olympic and Paralympic Games regarding the task force's role in approving
and monitoring the use of federal funds provided to the Olympic Games.
Finally, we contacted CRS staff who had previously issued several reports 13
on federal funding and support for the Olympic Games. We expanded upon the
information that CRS reported by obtaining additional details and updating
the information.

Our third objective was to determine whether the federal funds and support
provided for five Olympic- related projects and activities that were part of
the 1996 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games were actually used in
accordance with the underlying laws and administrative requirements. Our
evaluation included only the five projects discussed below; we did not
evaluate the other Olympic- related projects and activities discussed in
this report. Specifically, we selected the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue
because the U. S. Forest Service (Forest Service) paid for the majority of
the venue's construction cost, which is ordinarily the responsibility of the
Olympic organizing committee. We also selected the use of (1) federal
employees to provide security during the Olympic Games while remaining on
their respective agencies payroll and (2) federal funds by VA to assist
nonveterans during the Paralympic Games because the authority for agencies
to use federal resources for these purposes was unclear and appeared to be
somewhat unusual relative to the missions of the agencies involved. Finally,
we selected the payment of Paralympic Games' opening ceremony entertainer
cost because the use of federal funds to pay for entertainment can be
inconsistent with certain appropriations law principles. We subsequently
reviewed appropriations statutes; enabling legislation; agency policies,
procedures, and regulations; and the cognizant agency's financial records
and correspondence files to determine whether the funding and support
provided was in accordance with the underlying laws and applicable
requirements.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the heads of the 24
federal agencies previously listed, 14 OMB, the White House Task Force on

12 The Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles is the successor to the
1984 Los Angeles Olympic organizing committee. 13 For example, CRS Report
for Congress: Federal Financing of the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympic Games,
CRS, Sept. 22, 1998. 14 Excluding the U. S. Information Agency, which is now
incorporated into the Department of State.

Chapter 1 Introduction

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

2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, SLOC, the Amateur Athletic
Foundation of Los Angeles, USOC, and the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc.
We received written comments on the substance of the draft from OMB, VA,
GSA, the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., SLOC, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Their comments are discussed in
chapter 5 and reprinted in appendixes IV through IX.

We also received written or oral comments of a technical nature from USDA,
DOD, DOE, HHS, the Interior, Justice, DOL, DOT, the Treasury, EPA, FEMA,
TVA, the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles, and the White House
Task Force on the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. We incorporated
these comments in this report as appropriate. In addition, in August 2000,
we were informed orally or in writing that CNCS, Education, HUD, the State
Department, FCC, the Postal Service, SSA, and USOC had no comments on the
report. Regarding Commerce, the GAO Liaison said, on August 25, 2000, that,
with the exception of the National Weather Service, none of Commerce's
components had comments on the report. According to this official, the
National Weather Service had not indicated whether or not it had comments.

We conducted our review in Atlanta, GA; Denver, CO; Los Angeles, CA; Salt
Lake City, UT; and Washington, D. C., from April 1999 through August 2000 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

Overall, the federal government provided or plans to provide almost $2
billion in federal funding and support, as measured in 1999 constant
dollars, for Olympic- related projects or activities for the 1984 Summer
Olympic Games in Los Angeles, 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, and the
planned 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. Of the almost $2
billion, about $75 million was provided for the 1984 Summer Olympic Games,
about $609 million was provided for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and about
$1.3 billion has been provided or planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
In addition, according to data obtained from Olympic organizing committee
officials, it cost the organizers another $602 million to stage the 1984
Summer Olympic Games; $2 billion for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games; and the
2002 Winter Olympic Games are expected to cost an estimated additional $1.4
billion.

As shown in figure 2.1, approximately $513 million of the $2 billion in
federal funding and support is planned or was used for projects or
activities related to planning and staging the Olympic Games. These funds
generally would not have been provided if the Games were not hosted in the
United States. Of the $513 million, about $325 million was provided or is
planned for safety- and security- related services during the Olympic Games;
about $93 million has been provided or is planned to help provide spectator
transportation systems during the Games; about $69 million has been provided
or is planned to help build, enhance, or operate various sporting venues for
the Games; and about $26 million has been provided or is planned for the
increase in federal agency services during the Games. The remaining $1.4
billion of the almost $2 billion in federal funding and support has been
provided or is planned for projects related to preparing the cities of
Atlanta and Salt Lake City to host the Olympic Games, as is also shown in
figure 2.1. Most of the $1.4 billion, about $901 million, has been provided
or is planned for the construction of various highway projects in Atlanta
and Salt Lake City. In addition, about $466 million, of the $1.4 billion,
has been provided or is planned for mass transit projects, and about $68
million was provided or is planned for other Olympic- related infrastructure
or capital improvement projects that state and local government officials
wanted to have completed in time for the Games. According to federal
officials, the majority of the funds would have been provided to the host
cities and states for infrastructure projects, such as highways and transit
systems, regardless of the Olympic Games because many of the projects had
been planned long before the cities were selected to host the Games.
However, some federal officials were not always able to document which of
the specific infrastructure projects would or would not have been funded if
the Olympic Games were not held.

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: OMB and various other
federal agencies.

Eleven federal agencies reported to OMB that they provided about $75 million
in federal funding and support (in 1999 dollars) to help plan and stage the
1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles. Generally, these funds would not
have been provided if Los Angeles had not hosted the Games. Most of this
funding and support, or about $68 million, was used to help provide safety-
and security- related services during the planning and staging of the Games,
and the remaining $7 million was for non- securityrelated services, as shown
in figure 2. 2.

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

About $75 Million in Federal Funding and Support Used to Help Plan and Stage
the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

Source: OMB and various other federal agencies.

According to a DOD official, since the terrorist attack during the 1972
Summer Olympic Games in Munich, providing adequate safety and security
during the Olympic Games has become of paramount importance during the
staging of the Games. It has also become a major logistical and financial
undertaking for the Olympic organizing committees as well as state and local
law enforcement agencies. For the 1984 Summer Olympic Games, Los Angeles
Olympic organizing committee (LAOC) and state and local law enforcement
officials requested assistance from the federal government, in particular
DOD. According to LAOC officials, requests for federal assistance were made
because they did not have the resources to provide the personnel, expertise,
equipment, and supplies to protect the hundreds of athletes and foreign
dignitaries as well as to secure the 3 Olympic villages and 23 venues that
were spread over a 500- square- mile area.

Figure 2.2: Safety- and Security- Related Services Accounted for the
Majority of the Federal Funding and Support That Were Provided During the
1984 Summer Olympic Games

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

In response to LAOC and state and local officials' requests, DOD provided
about $47 million of the $68 million in federal funds that were used for
safety- and security- related services. Some of the types of support
provided by DOD included communications equipment; Olympic village
intrusion- detection devices; bomb- detection and disposal services; and
aviation support and equipment, such as helicopters, lights, and flight
gear, that the local law enforcement agencies said they could not provide.
Other federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), U. S. Customs Service, and U. S. Secret Service also
provided safety- and security- related services for the 1984 Summer Olympic
Games.

The remaining $7 million were provided for non- security- related services
of which about $1 million was used to help enhance or operate selected
Olympic sporting events, and about $6 million was used to cover the
increases in agencies' workloads caused by the increase in the number of
visitors to Los Angeles during the Games. For example, USDA's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service provided inspection and quarantine services
for the horses participating in the Olympic equestrian events. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided special weather forecasting
services for all of the events. Other federal agencies, such as USIA,
increased their normal agency services to promote international
understanding and relations among the spectators by increasing the number,
frequency, and distribution of public information programs during the
Olympic Games.

Unlike the Olympic Games in Atlanta and Salt Lake City, federal agencies did
not report any federal funding or support for highway, mass transit, or
other capital improvement projects in Los Angeles as being Olympicrelated.
According to former LAOC officials, Los Angeles city officials did not
develop, modify, or accelerate the city's planned highway, transit, or other
capital improvement projects to prepare the city to host the Games.

According to LAOC officials, Los Angeles city officials believed that host
cities for Olympic Games held before 1984 often overextended themselves by
trying to complete state- of- the- art Olympic venues and related capital
improvement projects. Such action pushed those host cities into debt that
remained long after the Olympic Games were over. As a result, Los Angeles
city officials decided that they (1) would not undertake any new
construction or capital improvements specifically for the Olympic Games and
(2) would encourage spectators to use the transit or bus systems in place at
the time or simply drive their cars to the Olympic events. To further
support their decision, city officials included a clause in their host

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

city contract with the IOC, stating that the city would not permit any
Olympic- related capital improvement projects, unless each project was fully
and privately funded in advance of its construction.

In addition to the $75 million in federal funding and support, LAOC also
received about $53 million of the $107 million from the sale of Olympic
commemorative coins by the U. S. Mint. 1 In oral comments on a draft of this
report, on August 28, 2000, the President of the Amateur Athletic Foundation
of Los Angeles said that USOC received the remaining $54 million. The Mint
earned a profit of $15 million from the Commemorative Coin Program. Congress
authorizes a Commemorative Coin Program primarily as a means of honoring
certain events and individuals and raising funds for the coins' sponsors.
Under the Commemorative Coin Program in effect at the time that the Los
Angeles Olympic coin was produced, income from surcharges, which were
included in the coin's price, was paid to sponsoring agencies, such as the
Olympic organizing committees. According to a Mint official, the $107
million is considered non- taxpayer funds because the Commemorative Coin
Program receives no appropriated funds. Therefore, we have not included
these funds as part of the $75 million in federal funding and support
provided to the 1984 Summer Olympic Games.

Appendix I provides detailed information on the amounts and types of federal
funding and support that the 11 federal agencies provided to the 1984 Summer
Olympic Games.

Twenty- four federal agencies reported providing about $609 million in
federal funding and support (in 1999 dollars) for the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games in Atlanta. About $185 million of these funds was for projects and
activities related to planning and staging the Games. The remaining $424
million was provided for projects, such as highways, transit systems, and
other capital improvements, that were related to preparing the host city for
the Games and that state and local government officials wanted to have
completed in time for the Olympics Games (see fig. 2.3).

1 U. S. Mint: Commemorative Coins Could Be More Profitable (GAO/ GGD- 96-
113, Aug. 7, 1996). About $609 Million in

Federal Funding and Support Provided for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in
Atlanta

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: OMB and various other
federal agencies.

According to DOT and other agency officials, most of the $424 million
provided for highway, transit, and other capital improvement projects would
eventually have been provided, regardless of whether Atlanta was selected as
the host city for the 1996 Olympic Games. However, these officials
identified these specific projects as Olympic- related because their
completion generally had to be accelerated for Atlanta to successfully host
the Games. However, DOT officials stated that the $17 million spent on the
Olympic Transportation System would not have been provided if the Olympic
Games had not been held in the United States. In addition, $22 million
provided for the construction of the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom

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

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

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

Appendix II provides detailed information on the amounts and types of
federal funding and support that 24 federal agencies provided to the 1996
Summer Olympic Games.

The federal government was involved in virtually all aspects of planning and
staging the 1996 Olympics Games in Atlanta. As shown in figure 2. 3, about
$185 million of the $609 million in federal funding and support was used to
help (1) provide safety- and security- related services during the Games;
(2) build, enhance, and operate venues for the Games; (3) transport
spectators to and from the sporting venues; and (4) meet the increase in
agencies' workloads caused by an increase in the number of visitors to
Atlanta during the Olympics.

The federal government spent about $96 million to help provide safety- and
security- related services during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. As with the
Games in Los Angeles, safety and security issues related to the Olympic
Games in Atlanta were of significant concern to the federal government,
particularly because of the size, scope, and magnitude of the event. The
1996 Summer Olympic Games were the largest Olympic event at that time, with
(1) 31 venues located in 8 cities from Miami, FL, to Washington D. C.; (2)
more than 10,700 athletes from 197 countries; and (3) daily visitors to the
Games reaching a high of more than 750, 000 people. Consequently, according
to federal law enforcement officials, federal funding and support were
needed because ACOG and the state and local jurisdictions did not have the
resources or expertise to adequately plan and implement the necessary
security requirements.

Among the federal agency officials, DOD officials reported providing the
largest amount of funds and support-$ 36 million- for safety- and security-
related services for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. Included in the $36
million were the incremental costs associated with providing about 15,000
military personnel from 45 states and territories. Incremental costs were
those incurred above the usual personnel salary, benefits, and related
expenses and included costs such as extra travel, per diem, supplies, and
equipment to support the Games. At the peak of the Olympic Games, about
6,500 troops were involved with providing security at the venues. According
to a DOD report, 2 this was the first time that DOD had provided

2 FORSCOM and the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, DOD, May 1999. About $185
Million in

Federal Funding and Support Provided for Projects and Activities Related to
Planning and Staging the Games

Federal Agencies Provided About $96 Million for Safety- and Security-
Related Services During the Games

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

military forces to supplement the local security forces supporting the
Olympic Games.

Another 1,000 troops were also used as bus drivers to transport athletes,
coaches, officials, and military and law enforcement personnel to various
Olympic venues. According to DOD officials, military personnel were used as
bus drivers because ACOG and local law enforcement agencies could not
provide them. The estimated cost to provide the military bus and van drivers
was $978,450, including $105,800 for commercial drivers' licenses and
$300,000 for training.

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

ï¿½ aviation,

ï¿½ communications,

ï¿½ explosive ordnance,

ï¿½ emergency response,

ï¿½ facilities,

ï¿½ physical security, and

ï¿½ training. Because local sources were not adequate, several federal law
enforcement agencies were also requested to provide personnel to help
perform safetyand security- related services that normally would have been
done by local law enforcement agencies. For example,

ï¿½ Customs Service officers were used to patrol the Atlanta rapid transit
system,

ï¿½ Deputy U. S. Marshals provided security on selected buses carrying
athletes from selected countries or teams considered more at risk, and

ï¿½ Drug Enforcement Administration officers were used to perform security
functions at sporting venues.

Federal law enforcement agencies also increased their staffing levels in
carrying out their mission- related responsibilities, such as preventing
terrorism and drug interdiction.

Other federal civilian agencies were also called upon to provide safety- and
security- related services for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games at a cost of
almost $1.8 million. For example, ACOG requested federal assistance to meet
a shortage in security personnel that was identified about 2 months before
the Olympic Games were scheduled to start. In response to ACOG's request,
the U. S. Attorney General on May 17, 1996, exercised her authority

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

under 18 U. S. C. sections 112, 1116, and 1201 to request that up to 1,000
federal civilian agency employees in Atlanta help ACOG provide security at
the Games. These volunteers were to monitor and operate magnetometers (metal
detectors) and assist with the movement of athletes and spectators while
they continued to receive their federal salaries.

In addition to providing security personnel, federal funds were also used to
support other local law enforcement responsibilities. For example, two
grants totaling about $5.6 million from Justice's Office of Justice Programs
were awarded to the Georgia Criminal Justice Coordinating Counsel for
Olympic- related activities. One grant for $1. 4 million was for security
planning, and the other grant for $4.2 million was used to pay the overtime
costs of the Atlanta Police Department.

The federal government provided about $56 million to help build, enhance,
and operate several Olympic venues. Most notably, the Forest Service and TVA
provided about $22 million of the approximately $33 million needed to help
build and operate the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue, which was located in
the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee. The remaining $11 million
included about $4 million from the Tennessee Ocoee Development Agency for
planning and construction of the venue, about $2 million from ACOG for
television broadcast, and almost $5 million from Tennessee for venue
operations.

According to Forest Service officials, the whitewater rafting event was not
on the original list of Olympic sporting events. However, after Tennessee
state and local officials approached ACOG and asked that it be included,
ACOG agreed to do so, provided it did not have to finance the development
and operation of the venue. The state and local officials subsequently
approached the Forest Service, TVA, and others to obtain the requisite
funding and approvals.

Forest Service officials chose a section of the Ocoee River that was
normally not used for whitewater rafting because TVA diverted the water to a
power- generating station. The Forest Service then provided about $17
million to reengineer the riverbed to meet Olympic Games requirements.
Specifically, the Forest Service awarded construction contracts to make
irreversible changes to the riverbed to (1) reduce the river's width by
about one- half, (2) modify the water flow, and (3) make the river
“cableready” by implanting cables and connections for the
media's use during the Games. TVA provided about $3 million to build the
scale model that was used for the venue's overall development and to upgrade
facilities at the venue site. TVA then released the required amount of water
during the About $56 Million in Federal

Funding and Support Provided to Help Build, Enhance, and Operate Olympic
Venues

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

time of Olympic trials and the Games. To release the water during the 1996
Summer Olympic Games cost TVA an additional approximately $2 million in lost
power- generation revenue.

In addition to the Forest Service and TVA, other federal agencies provided
funding and support to help complete, enhance, or operate other venues
during the Olympic Games in Atlanta. For example,

ï¿½ The Natural Resources Conservation Service provided about $331,000 to
purchase flowers, shrubs, and grass for Olympic venues and city parks.

ï¿½ DOE provided about $3.5 million for projects associated with energy
efficiency and renewable energy. Some of those projects included the
installation of solar electrical systems at the Olympic swimming venue and
geothermal heat pumps at two Georgia Institute of Technology dormitories in
the Olympic village.

ï¿½ EPA provided about $313,000 to build a bike path to access the Olympic
Centennial Park area and about $7 million for sewer system construction
related to the Olympic stadium.

ï¿½ The Economic Development Administration provided grants totaling about
$1.2 million for the city to develop sewer and related infrastructure
improvements for the area around the Olympic Stadium and grants totaling
about $1. 3 million for economic studies and business promotions related to
the Olympic Games.

ï¿½ DOT prepared and posted highway, bridge, and related signs directing
traffic to Olympic venues and other Olympic- related locations at a cost of
about $1.6 million.

ï¿½ The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided weather
forecasting services for all of the events during the staging of the Games
at a cost of about $1.1 million.

Finally, 10 federal agencies provided about $23 million, or about onefourth,
of the $84 million required to plan and stage the Paralympic Games, which
immediately followed the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. About $17 million of the
approximately $23 million in funding and support was used to help pay for
organizing committee administration costs; opening, closing, and award
ceremonies; and other related costs associated with staging the Paralympic
Games.

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

According to DOT officials, during the 1996 Summer Olympic and Paralympic
Games in Atlanta, an estimated 11 million spectators made an estimated 25
million transit trips on a transportation system that was principally funded
and supported by the federal government. Specifically, DOT provided
approximately $17 million to state and local transit and transit planning
agencies to pay for the delivery, operation, and return of the 1,500 buses,
which were borrowed from communities throughout the United States. These
buses were used as the principal transportation system for Olympic
spectators and Paralympic athletes. The local transit agencies allocated and
used about $11 million for the regular Olympic Games and about $6 million
for the Paralympics Games.

Seven federal agencies provided about $16 million for increased services
during the Olympic Games. Most notable, USIA reported spending almost $8
million to provide information about the Games. In addition, the Postal
Service provided about $4 million to increase the number of (1) clerks
available at post offices close to the venues and (2) deliveries to the
Olympic village during the Games. Other agencies, such as the National Park
Service, State Department, Federal Aviation Administration, EPA, and
Justice, also reported providing a combined total of about $4 million to
increase their normal agency services (see app. II).

With the worldwide focus on Atlanta, federal, state, and local government
officials sought to ensure that highways, transit systems, and other capital
improvement projects- especially those critical to supporting the Olympics-
were completed before the Games began. Highway, transit, and capital
improvement projects, which cost the federal government about $424 million,
accounted for most of the federal funding provided to the 1996 Summer
Olympic Games. Federal, state, and local officials told us that these
projects were planned to be built regardless of the Olympic Games, but the
projects were identified as Olympic- related because they generally received
priority funding considerations or accelerated completion schedules.

Specifically, the federal government provided about $256 million to Georgia
to build and repair highways, bridges, and roads and make infrastructure
improvements in and around Atlanta in anticipation of the Olympic Games.
According to Georgia transportation officials, as soon as Atlanta was
selected as the host city for the 1996 Olympic Games, the officials
immediately reviewed highway- related projects in the state's 20year
transportation improvement program and identified those projects that would
impact on the city's capability to host the Games. They said they made the
Olympic- related projects a priority and accelerated their About $17 Million
in Federal

Funds Used to Help Provide the Spectator Transportation System During the
Games

About $16 Million Provided to Increase Agency Services During the Games

About $424 Million in Federal Funding and Support Used for Projects Related
to Preparing Atlanta for the Games

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

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

In addition, the federal government provided about $114 million so that
three transit projects in Atlanta would be completed in time for the 1996
Olympics Games. The three transit projects were the North Line Rail
Extension, the Atlanta University Center Pedestrian Walkway, and the
Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority Intelligent Transportation
System. The North Line Rail Extension assisted in bringing spectators from
areas north of Atlanta to the Olympic Circle in downtown Atlanta; the
Atlanta University Center Pedestrian Walkway enabled athletes and spectators
to more easily reach the Olympic village, venues, and rapid transit system
from downtown; and the Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority
Intelligent Transportation System allowed the administrators to track the
use of transit buses during the Olympic Games and provided automated transit
information to visitors during and after the Games.

The federal government also provided $55 million to revitalize, rejuvenate,
and restore commercial, residential, and historical areas of Atlanta in time
for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. These projects included revitalizing the
portion of the business district leading to the Olympic Centennial Park
area; rejuvenating an area containing a dilapidated low- income housing
project; and restoring Martin Luther King's residence, including completing
the development of a park in his honor. Additionally, during an 18- month
period before the Olympic Games, the Postal Service made major renovations
to 39 postal facilities at a cost of over $16 million.

In addition to the $609 million in federal funding and support, the Mint
also provided about $27 million from the sale of Olympic commemorative coins
to ACOG. Unlike the Commemorative Coin Program for the 1984 Summer Olympics,
the Mint did not earn a profit from the sale of Olympic commemorative coins
to support the 1996 Summer Olympic Games but reported a loss of $3 million.
In 1996, Congress enacted legislation stating that the Mint must first
recover all of its costs before any income surcharge can be provided to the
designated sponsoring agency. 3

3 P. L. 104- 208.

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

As of April 2000, federal funding and support provided or planned for the
2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City is estimated to be almost $1.3
billion (in 1999 dollars). Of this amount, about $254 million has been
planned or provided for activities related to planning and staging the
Games. The remaining $1 billion is planned or has been used mostly for
highway and transit projects that Utah and Salt Lake City officials wanted
to have completed in time for the Olympic Games (see fig. 2.4).

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: OMB and various other
federal agencies.

Almost $1.3 Billion of Federal Funding and Support Planned or Provided for
the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City

Figure 2.4: As of April 2000, Projects Related to Preparing Salt Lake City
to Host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games Accounted for the Majority of the
Federal Funding and Support

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

As was the case for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, the federal government
continues to be involved in the planning and staging for the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. Federal agencies have spent or plan to
spend about $254 million in federal funding and support to help (1) provide
safety- and security- related services during the Games, (2) transport
spectators to the sporting venues, and (3) meet the increased demand for
routine federal agency services.

As with previous Olympic Games held in the United States, ensuring adequate
safety and security continues to be of primary importance to federal, state,
and local officials. About 15 federal agencies have spent or plan to spend
about $161 million to ensure the safety and security of the Olympic
spectators, officials, and athletes during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
However, this figure may change because, as of April 2000, final security
planning for the Games had not been completed.

The federal government's ability to provide safety- and security- related
services to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games will also be affected by Public
Law 104- 201 and Presidential Decision Directive 62 (PDD 62), which became
effective after the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. In past Olympics, DOD was
able to provide both security and logistical services as long as these
services were within DOD guidelines. However, on September 23, 1996, shortly
after the close of the 1996 Summer Olympics, Public Law 104201 was enacted.
The public law included a provision that changed the way in which DOD could
provide support for sporting events. Specifically, that provision, found at
10 U. S. C. section 2554, states that

“at the request of a federal, state, or local government agency
responsible for providing law enforcement services, security services, or
safety services, the Secretary of Defense may authorize the commander of a
military installation to provide assistance for the Olympics, and any other
civilian sporting event in support of essential security and safety at such
event, but only if the Attorney General certifies that such assistance is
necessary to meet essential security and safety needs.”

Section 2554 further provides that the Secretary of Defense may authorize a
commander to provide other assistance for a sporting event, provided that

ï¿½ the needs cannot be reasonably met by a source other than DOD,

ï¿½ providing such services does not adversely affect the military
preparedness of the armed forces, and

ï¿½ the agency requesting such services agrees to reimburse DOD for providing
the assistance. About $254 Million in

Federal Funding and Support Is for Projects and Activities Related to
Planning and Staging the 2002 Winter Olympic Games About $161 Million in
Federal Funding and Support Provided or Planned for Safety- and Security-
Related Services

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

During our review, the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command 4 had submitted
its initial request for DOD support in nine categories. On July 8, 1999, the
Attorney General certified five of the nine categories of support requested.
The five certified categories, which were subsequently approved by the
Secretary of the Army on August 20, 1999, included

ï¿½ aviation for deployment of emergency tactical teams,

ï¿½ communications for law enforcement and public safety,

ï¿½ explosive ordnance disposal,

ï¿½ physical security equipment, and

ï¿½ temporary facilities. The Attorney General did not certify the request for

ï¿½ technical experts and training;

ï¿½ personnel;

ï¿½ transportation; and

ï¿½ fire services, emergency medical services, and public works. These four
categories were rejected for various reasons. For example, according to DOD
and Justice officials, the transportation category was rejected, in part,
because vehicles were available from sources other than DOD. After review by
the Attorney General, a letter was sent from Justice to DOD stating which
categories were certified and which were not. According to a Justice
official, not certifying a category does not mean that no support will be
provided. The official stated that an individual request for a specific item
or service could still be authorized if it meets the criteria stated in
section 2554. As of February 2000, DOD had not received any request for
services from any of the certified categories.

The second change affecting the manner in which some federal law enforcement
agencies could provide security support was the issuance of PDD- 62 on May
22, 1998. PDD- 62, a classified document, reaffirms the United States'
counter- terrorism policy. According to an unclassified summary of PDD- 62,
the President directed an integrated approach among federal law enforcement
agencies to effectively manage terroristic threats and the consequence of
such attacks against U. S. citizens or infrastructure. In addition,
regarding security for special events, such as the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games, PDD- 62 states that the Secret Service has lead agency

4 The Utah Olympic Public Safety Command was established in 1998 by Utah
state law and has primary and overall responsibility for public safety
planning and operations for the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

responsibility for security planning for some events; the FBI has lead
agency responsibility for counter- terrorism; and FEMA has lead agency
responsibility for consequence management of terrorist incidents.

As of April 2000, the federal government planned to provide about $77
million to assist with providing spectator transportation to the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games and to help enhance the access or use of venues for the Games.
Specifically, federal transit officials plan to request $47 million in
federal funding and support from Congress for a spectator transportation
system, park and ride lots, and other infrastructure improvements associated
with the 2002 Winter Olympics. As of April 2000, DOT had provided about $3
million for the spectator transportation system. Although the planned
Olympic transportation system is to principally consist of borrowed transit
buses, which was the case for the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, the Salt
Lake City system is estimated to cost 5 times as much. In total, SLOC plans
to request about $91 million from the federal government for the spectator
transportation system to be used during the Games. This funding would be
used to pay for transporting the borrowed buses to and from Salt Lake City,
additional bus drivers, bus maintenance, construction and operation of park
and ride lots, and loading and unloading facilities that are planned to
service four of the Olympic venues located in rural, difficult- to- reach
areas.

In addition to supporting the spectator transportation system, DOT also
plans to provide almost $20 million to build two access roads to Olympic
venues. Specifically, the federal government plans to provide about $15
million to build the Snowbasin/ Trappers Loop Road to provide access to the
Alpine and Biathlon Arenas, and about $5 million for the Winter Sports Park
roads, which are to provide access to the bobsled, luge, and ski jump
events. Utah transportation officials said that these roads were not on
Utah's long- range transportation improvement plan before Salt Lake City was
chosen as the host city. DOT also planned to provide about $10 million to
develop an overall Olympic transportation plan.

As of April 2000, nine federal agencies expected to increase their services
or provide enhancements to Olympic venues in support of the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games at an expected cost of almost $16 million. For example,

ï¿½ The Forest Service plans to spend over $7 million for Olympic- related
planning to address environmental issues concerning national forest land
that is adjacent to many of the 2002 Olympic venues, as well as to deal with
the expected increase in visitors due to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
About $77 Million in Federal

Funding and Support Provided or Planned for Spectator Transportation to the
Games and to Enhance Access to Olympic Venues

Several Agencies Plan to Provide Almost $16 Million to Enhance Venues and
Increase Services to Support 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

ï¿½ The Postal Service plans to spend about $2 million during the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games to cover personnel costs, including overtime resulting from
the increase in services during the Games.

ï¿½ HUD plans to provide about $2 million, which SLOC plans to use to help
finance the construction of a mixed- income housing project, to house the
media during the Games. According to a Salt Lake City housing official, any
money SLOC receives from rental fees would be used by the city to subsidize
the subsequent purchase of these housing units by low- income families.

ï¿½ EPA expects to provide over $2 million to fund sewer construction for
several Olympic venues in and outside of Salt Lake City. According to EPA
officials, this construction would not have been necessary if the Games had
not been planned.

ï¿½ USDA, Justice, the State Department, Interior, EPA, FCC, and the National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration also reported additional costs due to the
2002 Winter Olympic Games that totaled about $2 million.

As of April 2000, the federal government planned to provide about $1 billion
in federal funding and support to prepare Salt Lake City for the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games. Most of the $1 billion in federal funding and support was
provided primarily to develop, build, and complete major highway and transit
improvement projects- especially those projects whose completions were
considered critical to the success of the Olympic Games. State and local
officials identified these projects as “Olympicrelated” because
they either received priority consideration or were put on an accelerated
completion schedule.

DOT planned to provide over $645 million to Utah's Department of
Transportation for highway, road, and bridge transportation infrastructure
projects related to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Figure 2.5 shows the
locations of the some of the highways, roads, and interchanges, along with
the amounts of federal funds that have been provided or have been planned to
be provided to Utah and Salt Lake City for them. About $1 Billion in Federal

Funding and Support Planned or Provided for Projects and Activities Related
to Preparing Salt Lake City for the Games

DOT Planned to Provide Almost $1 Billion to Help Build Highways, Bridges,
Interchanges, and Transit Systems in Time for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

Great Salt Lake

15 15 15

80 80

80 80 215

2 6

7 10

8 9

189 40

40 89

189 248

Provo Salt Lake

City Salt Lake City

International Airport

Light rail Ogden

Park City 1

3 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 Legend Road and highway projects

Utah Lake

Olympic venues Major interstate highways

Light rail Denotes a project to help plan or stage the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games. Not a part of the 20- year plan.

Snow Basin: Access road $14.96 M

US 89 and I- 84: Interchange $12.40 M

Winter Sports Park:

Access road $4.11 M

Soldier Hollow:

Access road $11.17 M

SR 248:

Reconstruction $11.84 M

Silver Creek and Kimball Junction:

Interchanges $42.42 M

* *

* * *

Kimball Juct. Silver Creek

West Valley I- 215 and 3500 South Ramp: $1.66 M

I- 15: Reconstruction $426.14 M

Olympic ITS: Expansion $27.96 M

University of Utah: Pedestrian land bridge $3.79 M

5 4

Source: DOT officials.

Figure 2.5: Locations of Federally Funded Roads, Highway, and Transit
Projects for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City

Chapter 2 Almost $2 Billion in Federal Funding and Support Provided or
Planned for 1984 and 1996 Summer and 2002 Winter Olympic Games

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

According to state officials, these road and highway projects were part of
Utah's long- range transportation improvement plan, but the projects
received priority consideration to ensure that they were completed before
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. As shown in figure 2.5, the largest and most
costly of the projects is the reconstruction of a 15- mile stretch of U. S.
Interstate I- 15 that runs through Salt Lake City. The total cost to rebuild
I15 is estimated at $1.4 billion, with the estimated federal share totaling
about $426 million. The other projects include widening of roads that lead
to Olympic venues, the reconstruction of bridges to enhance venue access and
safety, and the installation of an automated traffic management system.

In addition, DOT officials also reported about $353 million in federal
funding and support for Salt Lake City's surface and air
transportationrelated systems as being Olympic- related. Specifically,
approximately $229 million of federal funding was used for the development
and construction of Salt Lake City's North- South light- rail transit
system, which, according to Utah officials, forms the backbone of the
planned, downtown- portion of the Olympic spectator transportation system,
(see fig. 2.5). This system was recently completed, and the Utah Transit
Authority recently obtained approval for an additional $91 million in
federal funding to extend this system to the University of Utah, which will
house the Olympic athletes. Additionally, local transit agencies are
planning to use about $9 million in federal funding to construct intermodal
centers, about $4 million in federal funding to improve commuter rail
service, and about $4 million for an Intelligent Transportation System
upgrade. These local transit agencies have already spent over $5 million on
transit studies. Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration plans to
spend about $16 million to purchase and upgrade facilities at the airport in
preparation for the Games.

As of April 2000, two other federal agencies, the Forest Service and the
Postal Service, planned major capital improvements to be completed in time
for the 2002 Winter Olympics Games. Specifically, the Forest Service plans
to spend about $8. 9 million for capital improvements in campgrounds and
trails in the national forest recreational areas to better serve the
expected increase in the number of visitors to the Utah national forests
during and following the Games. The Postal Service also plans to spend about
$4.7 million to improve its postal facilities to better serve the public
during the Games.

Similar to when the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games were held in the
United States, legislation has been introduced authorizing a Commemorative
Coin Program for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. About $14 Million Planned

for Other Capital Improvement Projects

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

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

No governmentwide law or policy exists that defines the federal government's
overall role in funding or supporting the Olympic Games when they are hosted
in the United States. Nor is there a requirement for a single agency to
oversee and monitor the appropriateness of federal funding and support
provided to the Olympic Games. However, in reality, many federal agencies
have been involved in helping to fund and support various aspects of
planning and staging the Olympic Games and in helping to prepare the
selected city when the Games are hosted in the United States.

In some cases, Congress has specifically designated funds for projects or
activities related to the Olympic Games in agencies' authorizing and/ or
appropriations legislation or in committee reports accompanying legislation.
In other cases, federal agencies have assisted Olympic organizing committee,
state, and local officials by providing funding and support for projects and
activities, such as security, that are part of their normal missions. State
and local governments and Olympic organizing committees often request
assistance from the federal government because they do not have enough
resources to provide the infrastructure improvements necessary to prepare
the host city or to plan and stage all aspects of the Olympic Games.

Congress and federal agencies have made funding and support decisions for
the Games on a project- by- project basis, and agencies generally have used
their normal processes and procedures for approving and monitoring funding
and support for the Olympic Games. However, for the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the President established a White
House task force to coordinate federal involvement in the Games. The task
force is chaired by the Vice- President and co- chaired by the Assistant to
the President and Cabinet Secretary and the Assistant to the President and
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and includes representatives from OMB
and other federal agencies. In addition, starting with the1984 Summer
Olympic Games, OMB began requesting federal agencies to report to it
regarding how much funding and support they provided for the Olympic Games
when they are hosted in the United States. Although this reported
information was helpful, the information that the agencies provided to OMB
for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games was not always complete or provided in a
consistent manner.

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 44 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Although the federal government has historically supported the hosting of
Olympic Games by a U. S. city, a governmentwide policy on the role of the
federal government in terms of funding and supporting the Games does not
exist. The Amateur Sports Act, the only governmentwide legislation that
addresses the Olympic Games, was not enacted for this purpose. The Amateur
Sports Act gives USOC, among other things, exclusive jurisdiction over all
matters pertaining to the participation of the United States in the Olympic
Games, including the representation of the United States in such Games and
the organization of the Olympic Games when they are held in the United
States.

In addition, USOC, not the federal government, selects the U. S. city that
may present a bid to host the Olympic Games. Once USOC selects the U. S.
city, as a matter of formality, the President of the United States submits a
letter to the IOC encouraging the selection of the U. S. city to host the
Games. Although the federal government is not formally involved in the
selection process, if the U. S. city is awarded the right to host the Games,
it is likely that requests from state and local governments and Olympic
organizing committees for federal assistance will be forthcoming. Such
federal assistance has been needed because the costs associated with
planning and staging the Olympic Games have far exceeded the financial
resources of these entities.

Under the IOC host city contract for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, Salt
Lake City and USOC, not the federal government, are responsible for
organizing the Games. The contract states, in part, that Salt Lake City,
SLOC, and USOC shall be jointly responsible for all commitments concerning
the organization and staging of the Games, with the exception of financing
the Games. Financing the Games is the responsibility of both Salt Lake City
and SLOC. In addition, organizers of both the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic
Games stated that they were dedicated to hosting the Games with revenue from
private sources. Specifically, in the case of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games
in Atlanta, ACOG officials said that taxpayers would not be asked to pay for
the Olympic Games. The organizers for the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los
Angeles have also made similar statements.

The majority of the revenue to organize and finance the Olympic Games is
generated from television broadcast rights, corporate sponsorships, ticket
sales, and proceeds from the sale of Olympic merchandise. Although these
combined sources have produced significant revenue for the Games, it
generally was less than the amount required to host the Games, in part,
because the revenues were to be divided among the Olympic organizing Federal
Government

Encourages Support of Olympic Games, but No Governmentwide Policy Exists

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 45 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

committee, USOC, and the IOC. For example, for the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games, revenue from the sale of television broadcast rights is to be divided
between SLOC and the IOC. SLOC is scheduled to receive 60 percent of the
television broadcast revenue, and the IOC is to receive 40 percent.

To supplement the revenue received from television broadcast rights,
corporate sponsorships, and other sources, the Olympic organizing committee
has historically made requests to the federal government for assistance. For
example, included on SLOC's staff is a Vice- President of Federal Government
relations who is responsible for contacting officials at the White House,
federal departments and agencies, as well as Members of Congress, to obtain
federal assistance as needed for the Olympic Games. ACOG also had a similar
position on its staff for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.

As discussed in chapter 2, the federal government has provided or plans to
provide a combined total of about $2 billion (in 1999 dollars) for the 1984
and 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. However,
this funding and support has been provided in an ad hoc manner by as many as
24 different federal agencies for projects and activities ranging from
safety and security activities to venue construction because no
governmentwide policy exists that specifically governs the overall role and
responsibilities of the federal government with respect to funding and
supporting the Games. Moreover, there is no requirement for any federal
agency to oversee and monitor the appropriateness of the federal funding and
support of the Olympic Games.

In fact, we found that only a few efforts have been made to coordinate the
federal government's overall involvement with projects and activities
related to hosting the Olympic Games in the United States. One effort
included the establishment of the White House Task Force on the 2002 Winter
Olympic and Paralympic Games, which was created by the President on
September 25, 1998. This interagency task force includes representatives
from about 27 federal agencies, is chaired by the Vice President, and was
established to essentially coordinate federal activities involved in helping
to prepare Salt Lake City to stage the Games. The Assistant to the President
and Cabinet Secretary and the Assistant to the President and Director of
Intergovernmental Affairs serve as vice chairs. The task force met four
times between its inception and June 2000. At these meetings,
representatives from the federal agencies, SLOC, and state and local
officials provided updates on their support of the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games. According to the vice- chairs of the 2002 Winter Olympics Task Force,
although the task force does not have oversight responsibility

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 46 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

for ensuring the appropriateness of federal funding and support for the
Olympic Games, the task force does review all or most of the major requests
for federal funding and support, particularly transportation requests. A
similar task force was established for the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta.

Another effort included the issuance of PDD- 62. As discussed in chapter 2,
PDD- 62 is a classified document that directs an integrated approach among
federal law enforcement agencies to effectively manage terrorist threats and
the consequences of such attacks against U. S. citizens or infrastructure.
For national special security events, such as the 2002 Winter Olympic Games,
PDD- 62 provides the Secret Service with lead agency responsibility for
security planning; the FBI with lead agency responsibility for counter-
terrorism; and FEMA with lead agency responsibility for consequence
management following terrorist incidents. Finally, as discussed later in
this chapter, OMB has taken the initiative to collect information from all
of the agencies providing some funding and support for the Olympic Games.

The authority to provide about $690 million of the combined total of about
$2 billion in federal funding and support provided for the 1984 and 1996
Summer Olympic Games and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games was
designated for the Olympic Games by Congress. 1 Of the approximately $690
million, Congress designated about $194 million to help plan and stage the
Olympic Games in Los Angeles in 1984, Atlanta in 1996, and Salt Lake City in
2002. To help prepare the host cities of Atlanta and Salt Lake City,
Congress designated about $496 million to fund and support highway, transit,
and capital improvement projects, as of April 2000.

In addition, with the passage of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21
Century (TEA- 21), 2 Congress enhanced Utah's consideration for
discretionary funding by granting the Secretary of Transportation the
authority to give priority consideration to Olympic host cities.
Specifically, section 1223 of TEA- 21 states that the Secretary may give
priority consideration for funding transportation projects relating to an
Olympic or Paralympic event if the project meets the extraordinary needs
associated with such an event and meets the criteria for interstate or
bridge

1 Generally, Congress decided whether to fund a particular Olympic- related
project or activity on a case- by- case basis. The decision is usually made
as part of the authorization and appropriation process. In the committee
report or the applicable appropriation bill, Congress specified the project
or activity to be funded and the amount of the funding.

2 TEA- 21 was enacted as Public Law 105- 178 on June 9, 1998, and
reauthorizes the federal surface transportation programs through fiscal year
2003. Congress Designated

Some Federal Funding and Support for Olympic- Related Projects and
Activities

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 47 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

discretionary funding. 3 Since 1998, Utah has received about $97 million of
the approximate $350 million made available in the Federal Highway
Administration bridge and interstate maintenance discretionary funds.
According to LAOC officials, Los Angeles did not receive any federal funds
for highway, transit, or capital improvement projects for the 1984 Summer
Olympic Games.

For the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles, Congress specifically
designated about $47 million of the approximately $75 million provided by
the federal government to DOD to provide safety- and security- related
services. In addition, to help plan and stage the 1996 Summer Olympic Games
in Atlanta Congress designated about $90 million of the approximate $185
million in federal funding and support. For example, the funding was used to
support the following projects or activities:

ï¿½ $46 million to DOD, Justice, and Treasury for safety- and security-
related services;

ï¿½ $6 million to the Forest Service to build the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom
venue;

ï¿½ $7 million to EPA to complete the Olympic stadium- related sewer system;
and

ï¿½ $17 million to DOT to fund the spectator transportation system used during
the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.

Congress authorized and appropriated about $14 million to seven federal
agencies for the Paralympic Games. These funds were used for office
equipment and supplies; training and support for volunteers; food, lodging,
and receptions for athletes and visiting dignitaries; lodging and airfare to
the United States for the International Paralympic Committee members; and
opening, closing, and award ceremonies' costs. These costs also included the
$2 million that GSA spent to help cover a part of APOC administrative staff
payroll costs for planning and staging the Paralympic Games, which is
discussed in greater detail in chapter 4.

As of April 2000, Congress had designated about $57 million of the
approximately $254 million that the federal government has provided or has
planned to provide to help plan and stage the 2002 Winter Olympic

3 Selection criteria for the discretionary bridge funds include sufficiency
rating, average daily traffic, and the total cost of the project. To be
eligible for interstate maintenance discretionary funding, projects must be
on a high- volume route in an urban area or a high- truck- volume route in a
rural area. Congress Designated About

$194 Million for Planning and Staging the Olympic Games

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 48 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Games. For example, the funding was appropriated to five federal agencies to
support the following projects or activities:

ï¿½ $37 million to DOT to build access roads to venues and a temporary system
to transport spectators to and from Olympic venues,

ï¿½ $17 million to Justice for safety- and security- related services during
the Olympic Games,

ï¿½ $2.1 million to EPA for sewer construction,

ï¿½ $92,000 to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide
forecasting services during the Games, and

ï¿½ $876,000 to DOE to help support the Paralympics. Without congressional
support, some of the projects and activities related to planning and staging
the 1996 Summer Olympics Games may not have been completed in time for the
Games. For example, if Congress had not authorized and appropriated the
approximately $6 million to the Forest Service for the development and
construction of the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue, the event may not have
been a part of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. According to Forest Service
officials, ACOG agreed to include the sport as an Olympic event provided it
did not have to fund the development of the Whitewater Slalom venue. In
total, the approximately $22 million in federal funding accounted for the
majority of the estimated $33 million spent to build the venue and
contributed significantly to the venue's being developed and completed in
time for the 1996 Games.

To help prepare the host city of Atlanta for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games,
Congress specifically designated over $172 million to complete two
transportation and two capital improvement projects in time for the Games.
These funds included about $96 million to DOT for Atlanta's downtown rapid
transit system, $61 million for an automated highway information system, $13
million to renovate the Martin Luther King historical site, and $2 million
to reconstruct the Savannah River Walk.

Additionally, DOT officials told us that some federal restrictions were
waived temporarily so that the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
(MARTA) could obtain the necessary federal assistance designated by Congress
to build its rapid transit system. For example, Georgia's Department of
Transportation officials told us that Atlanta's North Line Extension had
been planned for a long period of time, but they had not been able to use
the federal funding approved for the project because they were not able to
meet the federal requirement of providing a 20- percent local match to
federal funds provided for the project. However, after Atlanta had been
selected to host the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, Congress Designated About

$496 Million to Help Prepare Atlanta and Salt Lake City for the Olympic
Games

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 49 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

DOT allowed MARTA to defer the local match requirement and begin receiving
the entire available federal share before spending any local funds.

To help prepare the host city of Salt Lake City for the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games, Congress has designated over $323 million of the approximately $1
billion to complete transit, highway, and capital improvement projects.
These projects include an estimated $300 million for Salt Lake City's major
light- rail system and supporting projects, $19 million for accelerated road
and bridge projects, and $4. 5 million for national forest improvements (see
app. III). Similar to the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, according to DOT
officials, the construction of the Snowbasin and Winter Sports Park access
roads, which are to provide access to the downhill skiing, ski jump,
bobsled, and luge venues for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, would not have
been possible, nor would they have been built, without the approximately $15
million specifically designated by Congress. Officials in both Georgia and
Utah told us that their rail projects had been planned long before they were
selected as an Olympic host city. However, they did acknowledge that the
approval, funding, and completion of the transit rail projects were critical
to their successfully hosting the Olympic Games in Atlanta and Salt Lake
City.

Federal agency officials approved the use of about $1.3 billion for projects
and activities related to planning and staging and preparing the host cities
for the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympics
Games. Of the approximately $1.3 billion, about $320 million was for
planning and staging the Olympic Games and about $1 billion was provided to
help prepare Atlanta and Salt Lake City to host the Games. Specifically, to
help prepare the host cities, federal agencies approved about $251 million
for Atlanta and plan to approve about $689 million for Salt Lake City so
that highway, transit, and capital improvement projects could be completed
in time for the Olympic Games.

Federal officials said that they generally relied on their existing policies
and procedures to help them make decisions about providing federal funds and
support for the Olympic Games. Agency officials also said that they
generally approved requests for federal funding and support that are
consistent with their mission- related responsibilities, such as providing
safety- and security- related services. With a few exceptions, most federal
agencies do not have specific guidelines on providing federal funding and
support for the Olympic Games. DOD is one of the few agencies that has
specific guidance on supporting the Olympic Games. DOD developed its own
guidelines regarding providing support to special events such as the Agency
Officials Made

Decisions to Fund and Support Most OlympicRelated Projects and Activities

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 50 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Olympic Games. Specifically, DOD's guidelines for national special events
state that

ï¿½ the primary defense mission could not be adversely affected by supporting
the Olympic Games;

ï¿½ DOD is the supplier of “last resort,” that is, it provides
resources when all alternative public and private means have been exhausted;

ï¿½ the use of appropriated funds was limited to security- related and
logistical functions that could not otherwise be accomplished by the public
authorities;

ï¿½ private organizing committees shall reimburse DOD in advance, for approved
support, with the exception of the Paralympics; and

ï¿½ support to other federal agencies is to be provided on a reimbursable
basis, under the terms of the Economy Act. 4

These guidelines were in effect during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. In
addition, as discussed in chapter 2, DOD now has specific statutory
authority to provide assistance to federal, state, and local governments in
connection with the Olympic Games and other sporting events.

As of April 2000, federal agencies provided or planned to provide about $320
million to help plan and stage the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games and
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. The funding and support that were provided
generally came from the agencies' regular operating budgets, or by
reprogramming funds or shifting resources from an existing program to meet
the needs of the Olympic Games. Agencies' officials stated that if the Games
were not held in the United States, the funds would have been used to
support other mission- related projects. Specifically, federal agencies
provided about $28 million for the 1984 Summer Olympics, provided about $95
million for the 1996 Summer Olympics, and planned to provide about $197
million for the 2002 Winter Olympics because agency officials believed that
the projects and activities were consistent with their missions. For
example, in the area of safety and security for the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games, the Drug Enforcement Administration reassigned 300 additional agents;
the FBI reassigned 1,200 additional staff; the Immigration and
Naturalization Services reassigned 130 additional agents; and the U. S.
Marshals Service reassigned 150 additional marshals to the Atlanta area
during the Games to help provide safety- and security- related services.

4 The Economy Act, 31 U. S. C. Sections 1535 and 1536, authorizes the inter-
and intra- departmental furnishings of materials or performance of work or
services on a reimbursable basis. Agencies Provided About

$320 Million to Help Plan and Stage the Olympic Games

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 51 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Similarly, several other federal agencies provided funding and support to
help plan and stage the 1996 Games in Atlanta. For example,

ï¿½ The Natural Resources Conservation Service provided about $331,000 to its
regional office responsible for the Atlanta area, for the cost of flowers,
shrubs, and grasses for 3 Olympic venues, 16 city parks, and 14 other city
locations. According to Natural Resources Conservation Service officials,
the purpose of providing this assistance was to test the vitality of native
plants in an urban setting.

ï¿½ DOE provided about $3.5 million for Olympic- related projects associated
with energy efficiency and renewable energy. Some of those projects included
the installation of solar electrical systems at the Olympic swimming venue
and geothermal heat pumps at two Georgia Institute of Technology dormitories
in the Olympic Village.

ï¿½ EPA used about $313,000 of its regional discretionary funds to build a
bike path to improve access to various 1996 Olympic events in downtown
Atlanta. EPA justified the support by stating that the bike path was part of
a demonstration project to publicize and promote clean- air transportation
modes. EPA also provided a full- time employee to work for ACOG over a 2-
year period to assist in addressing environmental concerns.

ï¿½ The Economic Development Administration awarded about $3.1 million in
grants for public works projects for the Olympic stadium and other venue
sites as well as funded Olympic- related economic studies to carry out the
Economic Development Administration's mandate to foster and provide
employment opportunities.

For Salt Lake City, federal officials planned to spend about $197 million of
their regular agency funding for activities related to planning and staging
the games. This funding includes the following:

ï¿½ $21 million in additional security costs to bring in FBI agents and
special response teams as well as to construct a command post that is to be
used to coordinate federal, state, and local responses to any security
threat.

ï¿½ $3.1 million in HUD funding for housing projects to be used during the
games to house media and federal security personnel. After the Olympics,
this housing is to become subsidized housing for low- income residents.

ï¿½ $2 million in increased postal services, including bringing in equipment
and postal inspectors to ensure the safety of mail going to the Olympic
Village.

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 52 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

To help prepare Atlanta and Salt Lake City to host their respective Olympic
Games, federal agencies provided or plan to provide about $1 billion because
they believed most of the projects and activities were missionrelated. Of
the approximately $1 billion, about $251 million was provided to Atlanta and
about $689 million was provided or planned to be provided to Salt Lake City
for highway, transit, and capital improvement projects. According to federal
and state transportation officials, these projects principally involved
highway and transit projects that Georgia and Utah planned on building
regardless of the Olympic Games. However, according to federal and state
transportation officials, hosting the Olympic Games influenced to some
extent the decisions as to which projects to initiate, complete, and fund
with their formula- driven federal funds 5 and may have influenced DOT's
decisions to approve certain highway discretionary funds for Olympic-
related projects.

For example, Georgia's State Department of Transportation used about $195
million of its federal highway formula funds- funds the State would have
received regardless of the Olympic Games- on infrastructure improvements to
highways in and around Atlanta in anticipation of the Olympic Games.
According to state transportation officials, as soon as Atlanta was selected
as the host city for the 1996 Olympic Games, they immediately reviewed
highway- related projects in the state's 20- year transportation improvement
program and identified those projects that would affect the city's ability
to host the Games. These officials said they then made those projects a
priority and accelerated their construction schedules to ensure that they
were completed in time for the Games.

Georgia also received about $17 million from DOT discretionary funding,
which was in addition to both the state formula and the discretionary
funding specifically designated by Congress. These projects included the
MARTA Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and the University Pedestrian
Walkway projects, which were specifically approved by the Secretary of DOT.
For the discretionary funding, federal and state officials told us that they
believed the State may have received some priority approval considerations
for these projects, but it did not necessarily receive the funding solely
because of the Olympic Games. The remaining $39 million was spent on capital
improvements, such as the $3 million spent by the Economic Development
Administration to revitalize Atlanta's business district.

5 The term “formula- driven federal funds” refers to a statutory
distribution of funds providing certain funding levels to the states on the
basis of formulas prescribed by law. Agencies Provided or Plan

to Provide About $1 Billion to Help Prepare Host Cities for the Olympic
Games

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 53 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Similarly, the majority of funds that federal agencies plan to provide to
Salt Lake City are for transportation infrastructure. Once Salt Lake City
was selected to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, Utah transportation
officials (1) surveyed their highway and infrastructure- related needs in
anticipation of the Games and (2) identified projects that were to receive
priority from their annual federal highway formula funds and any
discretionary funding they could receive from the Secretary of DOT. From
this survey, they found that an extensive amount of work needed to be
completed in the Salt Lake City area, especially the reconstruction of a
15mile stretch of Interstate 15 (I- 15) in time for the Winter Olympic
Games. Although planned before Salt Lake City was selected to host the
Winter Olympic Games, the reconstruction of I- 15, at an estimated total
cost of about $1.4 billion, had to be accelerated. Of the $1.4 billion, $426
million, or 30 percent, is to be funded by the federal government and the
remaining $974 million, or 70 percent, is to be funded by state and local
resources.

To finance the I- 15 project and 43 other highway projects, the Utah State
legislature established a special fund, called the Centennial Highway Fund
(Centennial Fund). The Centennial Fund receives money through the state's
allocations of federal funds and various other sources of revenue, including
a state fuel tax, state bonds, and state general funds. The Centennial Fund
projects, including I- 15, are in addition to Utah's regular highway
program, which also uses federal funds to pay for projects. According to
Utah Transportation officials, under the Centennial Fund, locations outside
of Salt Lake City would be assured that their needs would eventually be met,
while at the same time, projects critical to successfully hosting the
Olympic Games would be funded and completed in time for the Games.

Since the passage of TEA- 21, the 1998 federal highway bill, Utah has used
about $96 million of the state's approximate $576 million highway formula
funds for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 on the specific projects that it
wanted completed in time for the Olympic Games. In addition, section 1223 of
TEA- 21 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to give priority to
projects relating to the Olympic or Paralympic Games, provided the projects
meet the criteria for interstate or bridge discretionary funding. As shown
in table 3.1, the Secretary of Transportation awarded Utah almost $88
million in discretionary funds for the various projects Utah wanted to have
completed in time for the Olympic Games. This was the first time Utah had
received any of the discretionary funding available from DOT's Interstate
Highway Maintenance and Bridge Improvement discretionary

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 54 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

funds. 6 Moreover, since 1998, Utah has received about $97 million- of the
approximately $350 million of DOT's Interstate Highway Maintenance and
Bridge Improvement discretionary funds available.

As of May 2000, only about $224 million of the planned $675 million in
federal funding for transportation projects has been approved. According to
a federal highway official, to obtain the remaining $451 million in federal
assistance needed to complete the projects on time, Utah will have to use
most of its annual formula funds- about $200 million each year- plus obtain
another $100 million in federal discretionary funds from the Secretary of
Transportation. Otherwise, according to a federal highway official, Utah may
have to withdraw additional funds from the Centennial Fund, thus delaying
the other Centennial Fund projects, to meet its goals to have the Olympic-
related projects completed before the Games in 2002.

6 DOT's Interstate Highway Maintenance and Bridge Improvement discretionary
funds include discretionary funds set- aside for use by the Secretary of
Transportation to replace or rehabilitate deficient, high- cost highway
bridges and to resurface, restore, or reconstruct interstate system routes.

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 55 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Dollars in thousands

Source of federal highway funding Discretionary funds

Projects and activities for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Estimated total project

cost Estimated

total federal share Formula

funds Designated

by Congress Approved by the

Secretary of Transportation

Total federal funds approved Planning and staging

Snowbasin/ Trappers Loop Road $15,530 $14,962 $0 $14,962 $0 $14,962 Winter
Sports Park Access Road 5,208 4,106 3,162 0 0 3,162 Olympic Transportation
Planning 10,227 10,227 88 5,682 15 5,785

Subtotal $30,965 $29,295 $3,250 $20,644 $15 $23,909 Preparing host city
(Salt Lake City)

Soldier Hollow Road $11,174 $11,174 $376 $0 $7,528 $7,904 SR248
Reconstruction 12,027 11,837 1,458 1,799 5,682 8,939 Silver Creek Junction
25,568 20,445 4,735 0 9,470 14,205 Kimball Junction 27,462 21,970 8,220 0
5,682 13,902 I- 215/ 3500 South 1,894 1,657 142 0 1,515 1,657 SR173 Bridge
4,545 0 0 0 0 0 I- 84/ US89 Interchange 18,939 12,399 10,505 0 1,894 12,399
ITS Olympic Expansion 34,943 27,955 0 0 0 0 I- 15 ITS & ATMS 75,758 60,606
9,934 14,678 0 24,612 University Pedestrian Bridge 4,735 3,788 76 0 0 76 I-
15 Reconstruction 1,429,924 426,136 56,837 2,064 57,083 115,985 Regional
Mobility Improvements 59,186 47,348 0 0 0 0

Subtotal $1,706,155 $645,315 $92,283 $18,541 $88,854 $199,678 Total
$1,737,120 $674,610 $95,533 $39,185 $88,869 $223,587

Source: DOT officials and GAO analysis.

We found that, in general, once the federal funding and support were
specifically designated by Congress or approved by agencies officials for
the particular Olympic- related project or activity, the funds or support
were provided through the agencies' normal appropriation or budgeting
process and distributed to the recipients through the agencies' normal
funding procedures. Federal agencies generally did not track or report their
expenditures on the Olympic Games, except when they were specifically
requested to do so by OMB. According to agencies officials, they generally
did not set up special monitoring or auditing programs specifically for
Olympic- related funding and support, although some exceptions to this did
occur.

The agencies' normal funding procedures that we generally found in place for
providing the federal funds for the Olympic- related projects included, in
part, the use of Memorandums of Agreement (MOA); grant awards;

Table 3.1: Federal Highway Projects and Activities Designated by Congress or
Funded by Federal Agencies for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games

Federal Funding and Support Generally Provided Through Agencies' Normal
Funding Procedures

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 56 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

contract awards; or apportionments, which are a statutory distribution of
funds at certain funding levels to states on the basis of formulas
prescribed in law. For example, most of the transportation funding discussed
in chapter 2, consisted of various types of mass transit grant awards or
federal apportionments for highway- related projects. Other examples include
the Department of Education, as discussed in chapter 4, which used a MOA to
transfer to USIA about $7.3 million specifically designated by Congress for
the Paralympic Games. USIA then provided the funds to APOC through the use
of a federal grant award. DOL also followed the same procedures, using a MOA
to transfer about $2.6 million to USIA that were also specifically
designated by Congress for the Paralympic Games. USIA then added this amount
to the grant it had awarded to APOC. In another example, GSA, as discussed
in chapter 4, awarded a contract that eventually amounted to about $2
million to assist APOC for the Paralympic Games. Additionally, the Forest
Service awarded contracts to various organizations to construct the Ocoee
Whitewater Slalom venue.

Federal agencies also supported the Olympic Games by providing the services
of a number of their employees to carry out Olympic- related tasks or by
providing or loaning agency equipment and supplies. For example, DOD and the
other law enforcement agencies used their own personnel directly to provide
safety- and security- related services for the Olympic Games and accounted
for this activity as part of their normal personnel costs. In addition to
personnel services, DOD also provided or loaned equipment, such as aircraft
and other surveillance equipment, to provide security- related services. In
another example, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, as discussed in
chapter 2, used about $331,000 that was approved by agency officials to
purchase native plants and then gave the plants to a nonprofit organization
to plant at Olympic venues and city parks.

Federal grant and contract awards to governmental and nonprofit
organizations for Olympic- related projects and activities were subject to
typical audit procedures that generally govern such awards. For example, OMB
Circular A- 133 sets forth (1) standards for obtaining consistency and
uniformity among federal agencies for the audit of states, local
governments, and nonprofit organizations expending federal awards and (2)
audit requirements for the expenditure of federal funds. In addition,
according to agencies officials, federal funding and support provided for
Olympic- related projects and activities are subject to typical agency
monitoring and audit procedures, including the audits performed by the
Offices of Inspectors General (OIG). We have also reviewed certain Olympic-
related projects in the past. In some instances, agencies or their

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 57 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

OIGs have specifically assessed and reported on Olympic- related projects or
activities.

We requested copies from each of the agencies covered by our review of all
available audits of Olympic- related projects or activities that were
prepared by OIGs or other third- party entities. In general, we found that
these audits or evaluations focused on whether the funds or support were
spent or used according to the particular MOA, grant agreement, contract
award, or other requirement; but did not evaluate the appropriateness of the
use of the funds or support for the Olympic Games. For example,

ï¿½ DOL awarded a federal grant in the amount of $835,000 to the Georgia State
Department of Technical Adult Education Program to use for Olympic- related
job training and employment opportunities for those qualifying individuals
in the neighborhoods close to Olympic venues or facilities. The grant funds
were passed on to ACOG, which implemented the grant requirements, accounted
for the expenditures, and reported the financial and program results to the
State Department, which then reported the results to DOL. In this case,
DOL's OIG reviewed the reported results and evaluated the use of the grant
funds. The OIG concluded that the grant objectives were not achieved and
recommended that all federal funds spent, or about $427,000 of the $835,000
awarded, should be returned to DOL. As of April 2000, DOL disagreed with the
OIG and allowed the entire amount questioned. The OIG continues to believe
the questioned costs were spent inappropriately.

ï¿½ The Postal Service in Atlanta reported that it had spent an estimated
$16.4 million through various construction contracts to improve its postal
facilities in time for the Olympic Games. In March 1999, the Postal
Service's OIG reviewed the Postal Service's management and financial
controls, federal contracting procedures, and accounting records for these
contracts. In this instance, the OIG concluded that the expedited
construction time employed by the Postal Service to complete the facilities
in time for the Olympic Games, caused the Service to incur an estimated $2.5
million in excess costs. Although the Postal Service disagreed with many of
the OIG findings, Postal officials did concede that completing the projects
in time for the Olympic Games may have increased the cost to the government
because of the tight labor environment that existed before the Games.

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 58 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

ï¿½ Similarly, DOT's OIG reviewed the I- 15 Reconstruction Project in Salt
Lake City where the design- build contracting method 7 was being used.
According to the OIG, Utah was using this method to complete the I- 15
project in time for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. In its November 1998
report, the OIG found that the (1) estimated cost of $1.6 billion was
reasonable; (2) project was on schedule; and (3) federal government was
planning to provide about $281 million, or about 17 percent, and state and
local sources were responsible for providing the remaining approximate $1.3
billion, or about 83 percent, of the total cost of the project. The OIG
recommended that if the requested funds were not received as planned, the
Utah Department of Transportation should report to DOT how it plans to make
up the shortfalls in funding.

ï¿½ Applicable OIG offices for each of the federal agencies listed in appendix
I reported to OMB that they audited their respective agencies' financial
contributions to the 1984 Summer Olympic Games. However, from the few OIG
reports still available, it appeared that these financial audits verified
only the reported figures.

We have also done some other work related to federal funding and support for
the Olympic Games. For example, in June 1996, we reported on the
participation of U. S. soldiers in (1) assisting with security, (2)
spectator transportation system, and (3) Olympic field hockey venue
preparation during the 1996 Olympic Games. 8 This report described DOD's
participation but did not evaluate the appropriateness of the activities. In
August 1996, we issued a report on the Commemorative Coin Program 9 and
reported that regarding the Olympic Commemorative Coin Program for the 1996
Summer Olympic Games, the Mint reported a loss of over $3 million, while
ACOG received about $27 million, as discussed in chapter 2 of this report.

7 The “design- build” contracting method allows for both design
and construction of a project using a singe contract. Under this method, the
design and construction phases are combined and are the responsibilities of
the prime contractor.

8 DOD Olympic Support (GAO/ NSIAD- 96- 189R, June 14, 1996). 9 GAO/ GGD- 96-
113.

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 59 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Federal agencies generally did not report their Olympic- related activities
to Congress. However, OMB initiated attempts to collect Olympic- related
information from all federal agencies in June 1985 after the 1984 Summer
Olympic Games, in May 1996 before the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and in
December1999 and February 2000 for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. OMB
requested the federal agencies to provide (1) information on the levels of
federal funding, (2) a brief narrative explanation of the purpose of the
funds, and (3) information on whether the funds were for projects and
activities that were solely in support of the Games or related to the Games,
but that would have been done even if the Games were not held. According to
OMB officials, they often do such special reports when there is or they
believe will be a topic of interest to the President, Congress, or the
general public. OMB officials said that unlike the 1984 and 1996 Summer
Olympic Games, they plan to collect information on both funding and support
planned before the 2002 Winter Olympic Games and actual funding and support
provided after the Games. According to these officials, the information on
the 1996 Summer Olympic Games was used to develop responses to congressional
inquiries and in press releases issued by the Office of the Vice President.
OMB officials also stated that as part of their budget responsibilities they
review agency program funding requests before they are submitted to
Congress; however, they do not review congressional earmarks of approved
funds for specific projects.

Although we found the information OMB had collected to be very helpful in
our review, we noted that the information on the 1996 Summer Olympic Games
was not complete, and that agencies had not always reported information to
OMB in a consistent manner. For example, on the basis of information
collected in response to its May 1996 request, OMB reported total federal
expenditures of about $329 million for Atlanta Olympicrelated projects and
activities. Information we collected from the agencies after the Atlanta
Olympic Games showed that the agencies spent about $608 million, which is a
difference of about $279 million.

Several factors contributed to this difference. First, OMB's request for
data was made before the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, and OMB did not collect
additional information after the Games. As a case in point, none of the
agencies reported the use of their employees as security guards during the
1996 Olympic Games, which cost about $1.8 million.

Second, OMB's figures included only about $8 million of the approximately
$17 million that the Forest Service used for the Whitewater Slalom venue; it
did not include any of the funds specifically designated by Congress for the
Ocoee project. According to Forest Service officials, no after- action or
Incomplete and

Inconsistent Reporting of Olympic- Related Federal Funding and Support

Chapter 3 No Governmentwide Policy on Federal Funding and Support of the
Olympic Games When They Are Hosted in the United States

Page 60 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

other financial summary report was prepared to show the Forest Service's
total cost of the venue development. Finally, since the Postal Service does
not normally report to OMB, its funding and support of about $20 million for
Olympic- related projects and activities were also excluded from OMB's data.

Additionally, some agencies reported some costs inconsistently. For example,
some agencies included personnel salaries and benefits as part of their
Olympic- related involvement, while other agencies, such as DOD, included
only incremental costs- those that would not otherwise have incurred- as
being Olympic- related. For example, according to DOD officials, their
reported Olympic- related costs for security- related services only included
the incremental costs associated with providing the service during the
Games. However, the Forest Service reported salary costs for its personnel
who participated in developing the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue and in
planning for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.

Chapter 4 Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five
OlympicRelated Projects

Page 61 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

As agreed with you, we evaluated five Olympic- related projects that were
part of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games for which the authority was somewhat
unclear to determine whether they were funded and supported in accordance
with the underlying statutory authority and applicable requirements. We
determined that three of these projects were carried out in accordance with
the underlying statutory authority and were consistent with applicable
requirements. These three projects were the funding of the Ocoee Whitewater
Slalom venue, use of federal employees to provide security, and payment of
Paralympic Games' opening ceremony entertainer costs. Of the remaining two
projects, we determined that the use of a special purpose grant for veterans
to largely assist nonveterans during the Paralympic Games was not in
accordance with the underlying statute and that the payment of the salaries
of APOC staff did not comply with all applicable administratively imposed
requirements.

Generally, the Olympic organizing committee, not the federal government, was
responsible for developing and constructing the Olympic venues. However, we
found that the federal government provided about $22 million of the
approximately $33 million needed to build the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue
for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. Of the $22 million, the Forest Service
provided about $17 million and TVA provided $5 million. As discussed in
chapter 2, the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue, which is located in the
Cherokee National Park in Tennessee, was not on the original list of Olympic
sporting events.

We found that the $17 million provided by the Forest Service that was used
to plan, develop, and build the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue was within the
scope of Congress' authorization and the Forest Service program authority.
For the project, Congress specifically designated about $1 million of fiscal
year 1993 appropriations for the Forest Service and $5 million of fiscal
year 1994 Forest Service appropriations for recreational developments
associated with the 1996 Summer Olympic Games Whitewater Rafting events. As
stated in the Senate Appropriations Committee Report for fiscal year 1993,
funds provided to the Forest Service in fiscal year 1993 for this purpose
were to be used only for improvements in the Olympic venue site area that
would benefit the public use of the Ocoee River area in the post- Olympic
years. 1 Funding for the Olympic- specific requirements were to be provided
by the Olympic organizing committee or Tennessee. Accordingly these funds,
as well as the remaining approximately $11 million of additional funds
approved by the Forest Service for the project, all came from the Forest
Service's

1 S. Rep. No. 102- 345. Ocoee Whitewater

Slalom Venue Funding Was Authorized, but Report of Benefits Appears to Have
Been Incomplete

Chapter 4 Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five
Olympic- Related Projects

Page 62 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

construction program funds meant for projects designed to improve the
recreational uses of national forests by the public.

Although, as previously stated, there is no basis for us to question the
legal authority of the Forest Service to spend the $17 million involved
here, we believe that the Forest Service could have done a better job in
documenting how these expenditures would enhance the public's postOlympic
use of the venue. For example, none of the available economic analyses
regarding the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue- which supported its
development- looked beyond the Olympic Games to subsequent potential use and
no follow- up analysis of this use has been performed. According to the
Forest Service's Project Director for the Ocoee development project, no
reports of benefits associated with the postOlympic period were prepared
because (1) the project team was disbanded 3 days after the Olympic
competitions in 1996 and (2) the longterm impact of the Whitewater River
venue had to be assessed with other biophysical impacts of the other uses in
the area, which were not going to be evaluated until after the Olympic
Games. Thus, Forest Service officials provided no documentation showing
whether the expenditures to improve the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue
benefited public use of the site in the post- Olympic period.

The Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue receives limited use now that the Olympic
Games are over. According to a TVA official, TVA continued its pre- venue
development practice of diverting the water in this section of the river to
the power- generating facility to meet the electrical needs of the area.
However, TVA does release the water from time- to- time for pleasure and
competitive canoeing, kayaking, and rafting use. However, the scheduled use
of the Olympic venue section of the river is far below that of previously
existing canoeing, kayaking, and rafting sections of the river.
Specifically, recreational use of the Olympic venue section of the river was
scheduled for 13 days in 1997, 14 days in 1998, and 20 days in 1999, which
can be compared with 113 days in 1997, 112 days in 1998, and 112 days in
1999, for the other sections of the river. Moreover, the Olympic venue
section of the river that was reengineered for the Olympic Games
competitions, has hosted eight 2- to 3- day competitive events since the
1996 Games. On the other hand, according to Forest Service officials,
hundreds of people have used the visitor's center facility, which was built
as part of the venue.

Chapter 4 Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five
Olympic- Related Projects

Page 63 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

About 2 months before the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, the U. S.
Attorney General made the decision, in a response to a request from ACOG, to
request federal employees to provide security during the Games.
Specifically, Justice asked for about 1,000 federal employee volunteers from
federal agencies, such as GSA, DOL, HUD, and SSA, to provide security
service during the Olympic period of July 1 through August 4, 1996. The cost
of providing the security services totaled about $1.8 million. Although the
federal employees remained on their respective agency's payroll, they wore
ACOG uniforms and worked directly for ACOG for up to a 2- week period. Their
duties included operating screening devices and directing tourist traffic
outside Olympic sites and game venues.

In a Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum dated May 17, 1996,
OLC determined that the U. S. Attorney General had the authority to ask
federal agencies to have their employees assist in security operations at
the Atlanta Olympics. OLC determined that the Attorney General had such
authority pursuant to Title 18 of USC, sections 112, 1116, and 1201, which
state that the Attorney General can call upon federal agencies to enforce
the provisions of these statutes, which are designed to protect foreign
officials and official guests of the United States from murder, kidnapping,
and assault. In light of the OLC memorandum and its underlying analysis, and
since the State Department designated the visiting Olympic delegations as
official guests of the United States, we have no basis to question the
authority of federal agencies, upon request of the Attorney General, to have
their employees assist in providing security at the Olympic Games.

We have long held that federal funds generally cannot be used for
entertainment expense, unless authorized by statute. 2 We determined that
the $480,000 APOC spent for the Paralympic Games' opening ceremony
performances was authorized under the terms of the interagency agreement
between the Department of Education and USIA for the transfer of funds to
USIA, the grant agreement between the USIA and APOC, and the underlying
appropriation of $7. 3 million to the Department of Education.

In 1996, APOC contracted with several entertainers to perform or appear at
the opening ceremony for the Paralympic Games. The individual contracts
ranged in price from about $104,000 to $157,000 each. The funds used to pay
these entertainers came from the $7.3 million appropriation to the
Department of Education that Congress specifically designated for the

2 26 Comp. Gen. 281. Use of Federal

Employees to Provide Security During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games Was
Within the Scope of Justice's Authority

Use of Federal Funds for Entertainers at the Paralympic Games' Opening
Ceremony Was Authorized

Chapter 4 Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five
Olympic- Related Projects

Page 64 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Paralympic Games. These funds were transferred to USIA and used to fund an
USIA grant to APOC. In the MOA that the Department of Education used to
transfer the funds to USIA, the “opening ceremonies” were listed
as one of the purposes for which the Department's funds were to be used.
Furthermore, USIA's grant to APOC specifically identified $1.3 million of
grant funds to pay the cost of the opening ceremonies. Thus, since the
opening ceremonies are a recognized component of the Olympic and Paralympic
Games and entertainment is an integral part of the opening ceremonies, we
have concluded that the expenditures for the opening ceremonies were
authorized by the underlying Department of Education appropriation.

We believe that GSA spent about $2 million in fiscal years 1995 and 1996
funds, that were specifically designated by Congress for logistical support
and personnel services for the 1996 Paralympic Games, in a manner that was
not consistent with the express terms of the MOA under which these
expenditures were made. The conference committee's report on GSA's
appropriation for fiscal year 1995 stated that of the amounts appropriated
to GSA, up to $1 million, shall be used for logistical and personnel support
for the Xth Paralympiad on disability. Further, the conferees recommended
GSA's participation in preparation of public facilities for use by an
unprecedented population of people with disabilities during the 1986
Paralympiad. 3 In fiscal year 1996, GSA's appropriation earmarked an
additional amount that was not to exceed $1 million “for logistical
support and personnel services... for building operations” for the
Paralympic Games. 4

According to information that GSA provided to us, APOC did not need
assistance in the areas of construction and operation of facilities.
Instead, APOC requested that GSA provide the funds to pay the salaries of
the employees already working for APOC. Specifically, APOC officials asked
GSA to place certain APOC employees on the GSA payroll and pay them biweekly
as GSA employees. However, GSA told us that it determined that it had no
authority to convert APOC employees to GSA employees. GSA said this would
violate federal statutes and Office of Personnel Management regulations
concerning the hiring of federal employees. The MOA GSA entered into with
APOC specifically stated that “GSA cannot hire employees to work
directly for APOC nor can GSA pay for the salaries of APOC employees.”

3 H. R. Rep. No. 103- 741. 4 P. L. 104- 52. GSA Inappropriately

Used Funds for APOC Employee Salaries

Chapter 4 Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five
Olympic- Related Projects

Page 65 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Nevertheless, GSA subsequently entered into a contract with Randstad, Inc.,
which was a temporary employment agency, to provide personnel services to
APOC. GSA's justification for negotiating noncompetitively for this
procurement of temporary staffing services and personnel support for APOC s
included the fact that Randstad expressed a willingness to waive its normal
contracting fee and to “hire” the current APOC employees- from
the President on down to lower level staff- who were already on APOC's
payroll. Randstad further agreed to use the funds received from GSA for this
contract to pay the APOC salaries. Thus, according to GSA, Randstad could
freely hire the existing APOC employees and “simply assign them back
to APOC in whatever capacity APOC requested.” GSA determined that this
practice would not violate federal statutes or Office of Personnel
Management regulations governing the hiring of federal employees and was
consistent with the language in the agreement that was designed to prohibit
any direct transfer of funds to APOC employees.

In our opinion, use of these funds in this manner is not consistent with the
express language of the MOA, which provided that GSA would not pay the
salaries of APOC employees. In reality, the employees in question remained
as APOC employees and the payment of their salaries by Ranstad with funds
received from GSA was a circumvention of the language in the MOA.

In 1994, Congress directed HUD in Public Law 103- 327 to provide VA with a
special purpose grant in the amount of $2 million for assistance to veterans
who were participating in the 1996 Paralympic games. 5 However, the
Secretary of VA endorsed the use of the special purpose grant to provide
services for nonveterans as well as veterans. In a letter dated May 22,
1995, the Secretary wrote to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations, that

“ [w] ith the funds provided by the grant, we plan to supply
disability sports equipment, specialized medical and nursing staff, training
of rehabilitation professionals, and administrative operational support for
the Paralympic Games. During the Paralympic Games, the equipment and
services would be available to all Game participants. The Under Secretary
for Health determined that furnishing assistance to all participants, both
veteran and nonveteran, provided veterans with an equal opportunity to
compete.”

5 The Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriations Act providing funds for the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
Public Law 103- 327, provides appropriations to HUD for special purpose
grants in accordance with the terms and conditions specified for such grants
in the conference report (H. R. Rep. No. 103- 715) accompanying the
Appropriations Act. The conference report provided for a special purpose
grant for VA of $2 million “for the assistance of veterans who are
participating in the 1996 Paralympic Games.” VA's Use of Funding

Designated for Veterans Was Not Consistent With Provision in the
Appropriations Act

Chapter 4 Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five
Olympic- Related Projects

Page 66 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Although we do not have specific information regarding the actual
beneficiaries of the grant expenditures, we obtained a copy of a VA report
dated March 1, 1996, which contains an outline of the spending plan for the
$2 million special purpose grant as follows:

ï¿½ medical staffing - $551,832;

ï¿½ sports competition staffing - $730,840;

ï¿½ medical equipment and supplies - $250,000;

ï¿½ sports competition equipment - $404,960;

ï¿½ research and educational activities - $42,368; and

ï¿½ travel - $20,000. According to an APOC report, 3,310 athletes participated
in the Paralympic Games. According to a VA official, of those athletes, only
about 15, or less than 1 percent, were U. S. veterans. It appears, on the
basis of the letter from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the
explanation contained in the spending plan about some of the proposed
expenditures, that the Department intended to use the grant funds to furnish
assistance to nonveterans as well as veterans. Thus, it is reasonable to
assume that large portions of the funds were spent on nonveterans. Since in
this case the appropriations provision incorporated the language in the
conference report that the grant funds were to be used to assist veterans
participating in the games, the use of these grant funds for the benefit of
nonveterans would not be consistent with the appropriations language.

When an expenditure not specifically authorized by an appropriation is at
issue, the standard for measuring its propriety is the necessary expense
rule. Under this rule, an expenditure is permissible if it is reasonably
necessary for the execution of the objective, purpose, or program for which
the appropriation was made and is not otherwise prohibited by law. As
previously noted, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs said that furnishing
assistance to all participants would give veterans an equal opportunity to
compete. In our opinion, this statement does not adequately explain the
necessity of making equipment and services available to nonveterans in order
to assist veterans. We see no basis for assuming that Congress' specific
direction to assist veterans meant that it wanted to assist nonveterans as
well to create a “level playing field.” Using these funds to
assist nonveterans was inconsistent with the express language of the
provision in question.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the President of the U. S. Disabled
Athletes Fund, Inc., said that the veterans participating in the Paralympic
Games were direct beneficiaries of not only the $2 million VA grant but

Chapter 4 Federal Agencies Did Not Use Funds Appropriately for Two of Five
Olympic- Related Projects

Page 67 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

also of several million dollars of other private and public sector funding
acquired by APOC. In addition, the official said that after the Paralympic
Games, APOC provided the majority of the disability sports equipment
procured for the Games to veterans' hospitals and recreation programs.
According to the President, the equipment is still in use today in VA
hospitals and in the annual National Veterans Wheelchair Games.

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 68 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

The federal government has been and continues to be a significant supporter
of Olympic Games held in the United States. Although a U. S. city does not
host the Olympic Games on a periodic cycle, the Games have been held in the
United States eight times since 1904- more than any other country. However,
despite the steady increase in federal funds and support, no law or
governmentwide policy exists that defines the government's overall role in
funding and supporting the Olympic Games when they are hosted in the United
States, and no single federal agency has statutory responsibility for
overseeing and monitoring federal funding and support of the Olympic Games
when held in the United States.

In some cases, Congress designated funds for the Olympic Games in the
agencies' authorization and/ or appropriation legislation. However, the
majority of the federal funding and support was provided in an ad hoc manner
by as many as 24 federal organizations using their regular funding
procedures. Several federal agencies provided funding and support in areas
that are generally the responsibility of the state and local governments or
the Olympic organizing committees. For example, the federal government
provided $22 million of the $33 million needed to build the Ocoee Whitewater
Slalom venue. According to the IOC host city contract, venue development is
the responsibility of the Olympic organizing committee. In addition, we also
found that VA's and GSA's justifications for providing federal funds for two
Olympic- related activities were not in accordance with the underlying
statute or did not comply with applicable administratively imposed
requirements.

During our review, we did not find any fundamental problem with the premise
behind the federal government's assistance to the Olympic Games when they
are hosted in the United States. However, there are two areas in which
Congress may want to consider establishing a governmentwide policy on the
federal government's involvement in the Olympic Games when they are hosted
in the United States. One area is the process for selecting a U. S. city to
bid on hosting the Games. The other area is the federal government's role in
helping to plan and stage the Olympic Games and prepare the host cities for
the Games.

Consideration of enacting legislation or establishing a governmentwide
policy on the federal government's involvement in the Olympic Games when
they are hosted in the United States is warranted for several reasons.
First, although the federal government has no formal role in the selection
of the U. S. city that can submit a bid to host the Olympic Games, if that
U. S. city is awarded the Games it is likely that requests for significant
federal assistance will result. Second, regardless of the lack of an overall

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 69 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

federal policy on the government's role in Olympic Games when they are
hosted in the United States, the federal government is going to be involved
in several ways. This is because the Olympic Games are a significant
national and international event that require some services, such as
security, that are legitimate functions of the federal government. For
example, some federal agencies have basic statutory missions, such as
ensuring public safety and protecting visiting foreign dignitaries, that
necessitate their participation. Also, given the size and magnitude of the
Olympic Games, it seems unlikely that a U. S. city selected to host the
Games would have enough resources to meet all of the needs associated with
hosting the Games, without the help of the federal government. Foreign
national governments, such as Australia and Japan, have recognized this
situation and appear to play more formal, visible roles in planning and
financing the games when hosted in their countries. Although the U. S.
government may not want to play as active a role as these governments, it
may want to, at a minimum, formally recognize the expanding role of the
federal government in funding and supporting the Olympic Games.

Third, federal funding and support for the Olympic Games that are hosted in
the United States have been provided in an ad hoc manner, agency- byagency,
project- by- project, without the benefit of an overall federal policy and,
until recently, without any systematic means for Congress to get an overall
picture of the amounts and types of federal support being planned or
provided for the Olympics Games that are hosted in the United States. In
addition, OMB did not begin to track and report federal agency support for
the Olympic Games significantly in advance of the Games until the 2002
Winter Olympic Games. Moreover, the data on the games that OMB has collected
from the agencies have not been complete or always consistently prepared by
the agencies.

Finally, it is not always clear how much information Congress has on the
intended use of federal funds for the Olympic Games before they are
appropriated. For example, although Congress expected the funds it
designated for the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue to benefit public use of
the Ocoee River after the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, Forest Service
officials did not provide economic analyses showing what the expected public
benefits would be. Thus, before Congress appropriated these funds it had
limited information about the intended public benefit from the project after
the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 70 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Congress may want to consider whether a governmentwide policy on the overall
role of the federal government with respect to funding and supporting U. S.-
hosted Olympic Games is warranted. If Congress decides that a governmentwide
policy is warranted, it may want to enact legislation that sets forth the
appropriate role of the federal government in terms of funding and
supporting the Olympic Games when held in the United States. Possible areas
that Congress may want to consider for specifying a federal role or policy
include

ï¿½ selection of a bid city;

ï¿½ the amount and type of federal funding and support to be provided;

ï¿½ information desired before and after funding and support are approved; and

ï¿½ the federal government oversight to be exercised and by whom. To enable
Congress, the executive branch, and other interested parties to identify and
monitor the total amount and type of federal funding and support planned for
and provided to the Olympic Games when they are held in the United States,
we recommend that the Director of OMB:

ï¿½ Track and periodically report to Congress each federal agencies' planned
and actual funding and support of the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic
Games and any future Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted in the United
States, beginning when a U. S. city is awarded the right to host the Games
through the completion of the Games.

ï¿½ Provide guidance to agencies identifying how data on funding and support
of Olympic Games should be compiled to ensure consistent and complete
reporting and request all federal entities to provide information, including
those that do not normally report data to OMB.

In addition, we recommend that the Administrator of GSA and the Secretary of
VA direct the appropriate officials at their respective agencies to
effectively implement policies and controls to ensure that federal funds for
the Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted in the United States are used for
the appropriate purposes in accordance with the underlying appropriations
and other statutes and all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and
agreements. In commenting on a draft of this report, the White House Task
Force on the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games suggested that GSA and
VA consult with OMB on Olympic- related funding issues. Matters for

Congressional Consideration

Recommendations

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 71 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Most of the agencies and organizations that provided comments provided
technical changes regarding the amount of federal funding and support
provided to the Olympic Games, which we made where appropriate. However,
GSA, VA, and the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., disagreed that the GSA
and VA Olympic- related projects were not done in accordance with the
statutory or administrative requirements or congressional intent.

OMB's Deputy Director concurred with our recommendation that it periodically
track and report federal Olympic- related funding and said that OMB plans to
report to Congress on federal support for the upcoming 2002 Winter Olympic
and Paralympic Games as part of its preparation for the fiscal year 2002
President's budget. OMB also concurred with our recommendation aimed at
ensuring that it collects complete and consistent data from agencies and
believes that it was already carrying out that recommendation.

Further, OMB noted it generally collects data from agencies' central
budgeting offices, which it believes are the best source for Olympic-
related funding information. It believes that we often collected our data
from agency regional or noncentral budget offices. In this regard, we
collected data on planned and actual Olympic- related funding and support
from a variety of sources within federal agencies, including central and
component agency budget offices and headquarters and regional program
offices. Because of the inconsistencies we found from all of these sources,
as OMB proceeds to collect Olympic- related funding and support data from
agencies, we continue to believe that it is important for OMB to ensure that
it is receiving complete and consistent information.

GSA's Administrator said that GSA appreciates the time and effort that we
expended in developing this most worthwhile report. However, the
Administrator said that GSA takes strong exception with our interpretation
of the MOA language and the services provided by Randstad. According to the
Administrator, the express purpose of the Randstad contract was to provide
the logistical and support services intended by Congress and promised to
APOC by the MOA, while, at the same time, permitting GSA's compliance with
the MOA. He noted that the MOA provision and the Randstad contract both
operated exactly as intended and did not circumvent the express language of
the MOA.

We continue to believe that this arrangement was an attempt by GSA to
circumvent the language in the MOA and that these expenditures were not
consistent with the MOA. As we point out in this report, the MOA provides
Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 72 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

that GSA would not pay the salaries of APOC employees. GSA acknowledges that
the employees involved continued to be “APOC employees” even
though their salaries were paid by Randstad, using the funds Randstad
received from GSA. GSA has not provided us with any information to indicate
that it contracted with Randstad for any specific services that APOC was not
performing. Rather, it appears that the only reason GSA entered into this
agreement with Randstad was to avoid violating the prohibition in the MOA.

The Acting Secretary of Veteran Affairs concurred with our recommendation
that VA effectively implement policies and controls to ensure that federal
funds for the Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted in the United States are
used for the appropriate purposes in accordance with the underlying
appropriations and other statutes and all applicable laws, regulations,
policies, and agreements. However, the Acting Secretary said that VA's
expenditure of these funds was “in accordance with congressional
intent.” He said that VA had determined that assisting all
participants in the Paralympics, both veterans and nonveterans, was
necessary to provide veterans with an equal opportunity to compete and,
therefore, was consistent with the appropriations language. We considered
and rejected this argument in reaching our conclusion. The Acting Secretary
also contends, as we recognize in this report, that VA had informed the
House Subcommittee on Appropriations of its intended use of these funds to
assist nonveterans and that the Subcommittee did not object. There is no
legal basis for concluding that the statutory limitation in effect was
nullified because the Subcommittee did not respond, either positively or
negatively, to the letter informing it of VA's proposed use of these funds.

In addition, the Acting Secretary believes that certain language contained
in the House Report accompanying VA's fiscal year 2000 appropriation act,
which urges VA to use general administration funds to help with preparations
for the 2002 Paralympics and does not limit such assistance to veterans,
supports VA's position regarding the funding for the 1996 Paralympics. Such
post- enactment legislative history has no legal significance regarding the
proper interpretation of appropriation provisions enacted in 1994. Thus, we
continue to believe that VA's use of these funds to assist nonveterans was
inconsistent with the appropriations language.

The President of the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc., expressed concern
that the draft report did not adequately address the profound impact of the
1996 Paralympic Games and the larger social context in which the Games

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 73 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

were organized. Although evaluating the specific impacts of the 1996
Paralympics on society was not one of our objectives, we agree in principle
that the Paralympics provides an opportunity to view the potential
performance and aspirations of people with disabilities in a new light.

In addition, the President of the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, expressed
concern about three issues in our draft report. First, he said the report
cited the use of federal funds for entertainers at the Paralympic Games'
opening ceremony as questionable. However, we did not question the use of
federal funds for this purpose. On the contrary, we concluded that the
expenditures for the opening ceremonies were authorized by the Department of
Education's appropriation.

Second, the President of the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund disagreed with our
finding that GSA inappropriately used funds for APOC employee salaries. He
explained that GSA and APOC determined that contracting with a temporary
service met the requirements of the MOA and were in accordance with both the
letter and the spirit of congressional direction. We recognize in the report
that the contract in question was not inconsistent with the underlying
appropriation. Nonetheless, other than expressing his confidence in GSA, the
president did not provide us with any basis to change our conclusion that
the expenditures were not consistent with the express language of the MOA,
which states that the funds would not be used to pay the salaries of APOC
employees.

Third, regarding VA's use of funding designated for veterans to assist
nonveterans, the President of the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund said that
while it is true that nonveteran athletes benefited from the infrastructure
enhancements afforded by the VA funding, the acquisition of specialized
equipment, creation of operational infrastructure, and provision of
appropriately trained personnel for this complex, world- class sport event
far exceeded the $2 million special purpose grant provided through VA.
Therefore, veterans participating in the Paralympic Games were beneficiaries
of not only the $2 million grant but also several million dollars of other
private and public sector funding acquired by APOC. He also said, and we
have noted in chapter 4, that APOC provided the majority of the disability
sports equipment to veteran hospitals and recreation programs. However,
while we believe it was entirely appropriate for APOC to donate the
equipment as it did, from a legal perspective, we do not believe that such
action or the benefits that veterans received from private funds justifies
VA's decision to use funds expressly appropriated to assist veterans
participating in the Paralympics to assist nonveterans.

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 74 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Associate Deputy
Administrator said that the agency (1) did not provide funding and support
for the Olympic Games held in Los Angeles, CA, and Atlanta, GA, and (2) does
not plan to participate in the Games in Salt Lake City, UT. We made this
correction in this report.

The President and CEO of SLOC said that SLOC believes that the issues raised
in the draft report are entirely appropriate for public debate. However, he
believes that the emphasis should be placed on Olympicrequired activities,
not on spending that would have otherwise occurred. He explained that to
form the foundation of an effective public debate, the participants should
understand which spending is actually Olympicrequired and Olympic- related.
He further said that combining Olympic funding with funding for projects
that otherwise would have been completed for non- Olympic purposes may tend
to hide the very significant spending that is associated with the Olympic
Games.

We agree with SLOC that it is important to distinguish between the types of
federal funding and support that are provided to the Olympic Games and
believe that our report makes this distinction. Our report discusses federal
funding and support provided in terms of two categories (i. e., federal
funding and support provided for planning and staging the Olympic Games
versus preparing the host city for the Games). While we agree with SLOC's
view that the amount of federal funding and support required to plan and
stage the games is significant, we also believe that the amount of federal
funding for preparing the host city is significant and should be reported
and available for review and discussion as well.

The Department of Health and Human Services suggested that we adjust funding
data for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 for inflation in a different manner.
However, to maintain consistency among agencies, we adjusted all agencies'
data in a similar manner.

The Chairman of the Board of Directors of TVA said that TVA agrees in
principle with those aspects of the report involving TVA. TVA also believes
that the $5 million investment in the Ocoee Whitewater Slalom venue proved
to be a good business investment for Polk County, TN.

The Department of Agriculture's Chief Financial Officer said that the Forest
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service; the Deputy Under-
Secretary of Defense Program Integration; and the Department of the
Interior's Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife,

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 75 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

and Parks said that they generally concurred with the information in our
draft report.

In August 2000, the Department of Transportation's audit liaison; the
vicechairs of the White House Task Force on the 2002 Winter Olympic and
Paralympic Games; the Environmental Protection Agency's GAO Liaison; a
Department of Energy Defense Program Analyst; an official from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's Office of Financial Management; an official
from the Department of the Treasury's Office of Enforcement; and the
President of the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles provided us with
oral technical comments, which were incorporated where appropriate.

Appendix I Federal Funding and Support Provided to the 1984 Summer Olympic
Games in Los Angeles

Page 76 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousands a

Planning and staging the 1984 Summer Games Federal organization Project or
activity Expenditure Designated

by Congress Department of Agriculture $234 $0

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Equestrian event: quarantine
horses and increased agency services

234 0

Department of Commerce 382 0

Economic Development Administration Increased agency services 146 0 National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Weather forecasting services for Olympic events 236 0

Department of Defense c Safety and security personnel, equipment, and
services 46,703 72,971 Department of Health and Human Services Safety- and
security- related services 309 0 Department of Justice Increased agency
services 9,904 0

Drug Enforcement Administration Safety- and security- related services 414 0
Federal Bureau of Investigation Safety- and security- related services 7,536
0 Immigration and Naturalization Service Safety- and security- related
services and

increased agency services 1,947 0

U. S. Marshals Service d Safety- and security- related services 0 0 Interpol
Safety- and security- related services 7 0

Department of State Increased agency services 2,865 0 Department of
Transportation 3,953 0

U. S. Coast Guard Safety- and security- related services 2,701 0 Federal
Aviation Administration Safety- and security- related services and

increased agency services 1,252

Department of the Treasury 7,282 0

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Safety- and security- related
services 2,744 0 U. S. Secret Service Safety- and security- related services
2,366 0 U. S. Customs Service Safety- and security- related services 2,172 0

Department of Veterans Affairs Not available 572 0 Federal Communications
Commission Communications systems improvements 264 0 U. S. Information
Agency Increased agency services 2,186 0

Total e, f $74,654 $72,971

a 1984 dollars were converted to 1999 dollars by dividing 1984 dollars by
0.6852, a conversion factor derived from chain- type price indexes for gross
domestic product. b "Designated by Congress" refers to funds that were
specifically designated for an Olympic- related

purpose in appropriations acts or committee reports accompanying those acts.
c Congress appropriated $72,971,000 and DOD spent $46, 703,000. The unused
funding authority was

returned to the U. S. Treasury. d The U. S. Marshals Service reported that
it provided $300, 642; however, the Department of State

reimbursed it. As such, we have included this amount in the Department's
figures. e Personnel costs are generally not included in these amounts, with
the exception of the Department of

Justice figures. f Totals do not include about $53 million received by the
Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee

from the U. S. Mint as a result of the sale of Olympic Commemorative Coins.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by officials from OMB and the listed
federal organizations.

Appendix II Federal Funding and Support Provided to the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games in Atlanta

Page 77 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousands a

Planning and staging the 1996 Summer Games Preparing the

host city of Atlanta Federal organization Project or activity Expenditure

Designated by Congress b Expenditure

Designated by Congress Department of Agriculture $19,530 $6,252 $2,059 $522

Animal, Plant, Health, and Inspection Service Equestrian event: quarantine
horses and

increased agency services 509 0 0 0 Natural Resources Conservation Service

Planted flowers and grasses at Olympic venues and city parks

331 0 0 0 U. S. Forest Service Whitewater Olympic venue construction 17,252
6,252 0 0

Planted trees throughout the city 0 0 2,059 522 Safety- and security-
related services 1,438 0 0 0

Department of Commerce 4,337 0 4,966 0

Economic Development Administration

Olympic stadium sewer construction 1,248 0 0 0 Ocoee, Tennessee, sewer
construction 0 0 793 0 Funded foreign visitors' trip to the United States
for Paralympic events 104 0 0 0 Business district revitalization 0 0 3,130 0
Retrofit gym for Paralympic events 492 0 0 0 RDA street development 0 0
1,043 0 Economic studies, business promotions for Olympic games

1,396 0 0 0 National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration Weather forecasting services for Olympic

events 1,097 0 0 0

Department of Defense c 36,339 36,310 2,434 2,173

Office of Special Events Safety- and security- related services 19,407
19,407 0 0 U. S. Army Forces Command Safety- and security- related services
16,903 16,903 0 0 Corps of Engineers Savannah River Walk construction for

Olympic yachting event 0 0 2,173 2,173

Campground improvements 0 0 261 0 Temporary rangers 29 0 0 0

Department of Education Paralympic Organizing Committee: 7,419 7,304 0 0

Administration and staffing costs 6,115 0 0 0 Opening and closing ceremonies
1,252 0 0 0 Related conference costs 52 0 0 0

Department of Energy 4,686 0 0 0

Swimming pool heating and solar panel installation for Olympic swimming
events

3,495 0 0 0 Safety- and security- related services 1,191 0 0 0

Department of Health and Human Services 5,110 0 0 0

Food and Drug Administration Public health safety- and security- related
services 257 0 0 0 Centers for Disease Control Public health safety- and
security- related

services 193 0 0 0

Environmental Health Public health safety- and security- related services

764 0 0 0

Appendix II Federal Funding and Support Provided to the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games in Atlanta

Page 78 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousands a

Planning and staging the 1996 Summer Games Preparing the

host city of Atlanta Federal organization Project or activity Expenditure

Designated by Congress b Expenditure

Designated by Congress

Office of Emergency Preparedness

Public health safety- and security- related services

3,896 0 0 0

Social Security Administration

Paralympic ceremonies and events video taping 1,565 1,565 0 0 Department of
Housing and Urban Development

2,087 0 15,643 0

Pass- through grant for Department of Veterans Affairs for Paralympic events
2,087 0 0 0 Public housing renovation 0 0 9,965 0 Community planning and
development 0 0 5,634 0 Funds for planting trees 0 0 44 0

Department of the Interior 1,562 0 13,019 13,043

National Park Service Safety- and security- related services 689 0 0 0
Martin Luther King historical site development

0 0 13,019 13,043 Increased park services 873 0 0 0

Department of Justice 22,449 4,174 0 0

Community Relations Service Mitigation of racial conflicts 30 0 0 0 Drug
Enforcement Administration 300 agents for safety- and security- related

services 2,699 0 0 0 Federal Bureau of Investigation

1,200 staff for safety- and security- related services

11,527 0 0 0 Immigration and Naturalization

Service 130 additional staff to assist with processing

international passengers 1,535 0 0 0

Civil Rights Division Americans With Disabilities Act 153 0 0 0 Office of
Justice Programs Overtime costs for Atlanta police 4,174 4,174 0 0

Safety and security study 1,356 0 Executive Office,

U. S. Attorneys Added equipment and four attorneys 600 0 0 0

U. S. Marshals Service 150 Marshals for safety- and security- related
services

375 0 0 0

Department of Labor 3,036 2,609 0 0

Training and employment grants for Olympic venue construction

427 0 0 0 Training for volunteers at Paralympic events 2,609 2,609 0 0

Department of State Increased agency services 1,044 0 0 0 Department of
Transportation 22,781 16,694 369,370 157,137

Federal Highway Administration

Road signs to Olympic venues 1,624 0 0 0 Accelerated road and bridge
projects 0 0 215,028 0 Intelligent transportation system 0 0 40,819 60,622
Federal Transit Administration Accelerated mass transit projects 0 0 113,523
96,515

Olympic Transportation System 16,694 16,694 0 0

Appendix II Federal Funding and Support Provided to the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games in Atlanta

Page 79 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousands a

Planning and staging the 1996 Summer Games Preparing the

host city of Atlanta Federal organization Project or activity Expenditure

Designated by Congress b Expenditure

Designated by Congress

Federal Aviation Administration

Temporary facilities and increased services 1,617 0 0 0 Federal Railroad
Administration

Safety- and security- related services 39 0 0 0 U. S. Coast Guard Safety-
and security- related services 2,807 0 0 0

Department of the Treasury 7,082 5,715 0 0

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Safety- and security- related services 2,477 2,295 0 0 Internal Revenue
Service 100 agents for safety and security related

services 232 0 0 0 U. S. Secret Service Safety- and security- related
services 3,548 3,420 0 0 U. S. Customs Service 150 inspectors for increased
services 825 0 0 0

Department of Veterans Affairs 1,716 0 0 0

Safety- and security- related services 1,617 0 0 0 Donated excess supplies
for Paralympics 99 0 0 0

Corporation for National and Community Services

Safety- and security- related services for Paralympic events 3,130 0 0 0
Environmental Protection Agency

8,210 7,304 0 0

Olympic stadium- related sewer construction 6,780 7,304 0 0 Olympic venue
bike path construction 313 0 0 0 Paralympics: loan of EPA employee 161 0 0 0
Safety- and security- related services 719 0 0 0 Increased agency services
237 0 0 0

Federal Communications Commission

Communications systems improvement 39 0 0 0 Federal Emergency Management
Agency

Safety- and security- related services 11,602 0 0 0 Federal Executive Board
Federal employee volunteered salary for

safety- and security- related services 1,821 0 0 0 General Services
Administration

Paralympic Organizing Committee administrative and staffing costs 2,086
2,087 0 0 Tennessee Valley Authority Whitewater rapids event venue
construction

and water releases 5,118 0 0 0 U. S. Information Agency Olympic information
programs 7,551 0 0 0 U. S. Postal Service 4,293 0 16,428 0

Increased postal services 4,293 0 0 0 Building renovations 0 0 16,428 0

Total d, e 184,593 $90,014 $423,919 $172,875

a 1999 dollars were calculated by dividing 1996 dollars by 0.9584, a
conversion factor derived from chain- type price indexes for gross domestic
product. b "Designated by Congress" refers to funds that were specifically
designated for an Olympic- related

purpose in appropriations acts or committee reports accompanying those acts.

Appendix II Federal Funding and Support Provided to the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games in Atlanta

Page 80 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

c According to Department of Defense officials, the Department spent about
$36 million of the $52 million designated by Congress for the 1996 Olympic
Games. The remaining $16 million were maintained by the Department for
future athletic events. d Personnel costs are generally not included in
these amounts, with the exception of the U. S. Forest

Service figure. e Totals do not include about $27. 3 million received by
ACOG from the U. S. Mint as a result of the sale

of Olympic Commemorative Coins. Source: GAO analysis of data provided by
officials from OMB and the listed federal organizations.

Appendix III Federal Funding and Support Planned and Provided to the 2002
Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City

Page 81 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousands a

Planning and staging the 2002 Winter Games Preparing the host city of

Salt Lake City Federal organization Project or activity Planned b
Expenditure

Designated by Congress c Planned b Expenditure

Designated by Congress c Department of

Agriculture $7,242 $2,901 $0 $8,887 $5,473 $4,546

U. S. Forest Service Olympic planning and increased services 7,242 2,901 0 0
0 0 Forest improvements 0 0 0 8,887 5,473 4,546

Department of Commerce 205 0 92 0 0 0

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Increased weather forecasting services for Olympic events

205 0 92 0 0 0

Department of Defense

Safety- and security related services 24,691 45 45 0 0 0 Department of
Education

Paralympics 876 44 876 0 0 0 Department of Energy

Safety- and security related services 1,586 194 0 0 0 0 Department of Health
and Human Services 9,494 0 0 0 0 0

Food and Drug Administration

Public health safety- and security- related services

598 0 0 0 0 0 Centers for Disease

Control Safety- and security

related services 1,923 0 0 0 0 0

Office of Emergency Preparedness Public health safety- and

security- related services 6,973 0 0 0 0 0

Department of Housing and Urban Development

3,172 0 0 0 0 0

Housing for media 1,894 0 0 0 0 0 Housing for security personnel

1,278 0 0 0 0 0

Department of the Interior

1,270 153 0 0 0 0

National Park Service Increased park services 1,252 153 0 0 0 0 Bureau of
Land Management Increased Bureau services 5 0 0 0 0 0

Safety- and security related services

13 0 0 0 0 0

Department of Justice 47,060 14,960 16,950 0 0 0

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Safety- and security related services

21,486 767 0 0 0 0 Immigration and

Naturalization Service Safety- and security

related services 2,431 3 0 0 0 0

Office of Community Oriented Policing Grants for safety- and

security- related services 10,417 10,417 10,417 0 0 0

Appendix III Federal Funding and Support Planned and Provided to the 2002
Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City

Page 82 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousands a

Planning and staging the 2002 Winter Games Preparing the host city of

Salt Lake City Federal organization Project or activity Planned b
Expenditure

Designated by Congress c Planned b Expenditure

Designated by Congress c

Office of Justice Programs

Grants to local law enforcement

8,806 3,692 3,692 0 0 0 Executive Office of U. S.

Attorneys Safety- and security related services 1,027 81 0 0 0 0 Community
Relations Service

Assess racial tensions 52 0 0 0 0 0 Counter terrorism fund Safety- and
security related services

2,841 0 2,841 0 0 0

Department of State Increased agency services 663 3 0 0 0 0 Department of
Transportation 83,854 26,838 36,896 998,275 257,318 318,783

Federal Highway Administration

Olympic transportation planning

10,227 5,785 5,682 0 0 0 Accelerated road and bridge projects 0 0 0 645,315
199,678 18,541 Olympic event access road: Snow Basin

14,962 14,962 14,962 0 0 0 Olympic event access road: Winter Sports Park

4,106 3,162 0 0 0 0 Federal Transit

Administration Olympic Transportation System (OTS) d 47,348 1,402 2,788 0 0
0 Olympic infrastructure Improvements

Included in above for

OTS 465 9,291 0 0 0

Olympic park and ride lots Included in

above for OTS

1,024 4,173 0 0 0 Light rail : Downtown to University of Utah line

0 0 0 91,369 5,019 91,369 Light Rail: North/ South line 0 0 0 228,598 48,850
202,919 Olympic intelligent transportation system deployment

0 0 0 3,788 0 0 Commuter rail 0 0 0 3,788 1,849 3,776 Intermodal centers 0 0
0 9,470 0 2,178 Federal Aviation Administration Safety- and security related
services 6,098 0 0 0 0 0

Facility improvements 0 0 0 15,947 1,922 0 Federal Railroad Administration

Safety- and security related services

388 0 0 0 0 0 U. S. Coast Guard Safety- and security related services

407 0 0 0 0 0 Office of Secretary of

Transportation Safety- and security related services 318 38 0 0 0 0

Appendix III Federal Funding and Support Planned and Provided to the 2002
Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City

Page 83 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

1999 dollars in thousands a

Planning and staging the 2002 Winter Games Preparing the host city of

Salt Lake City Federal organization Project or activity Planned b
Expenditure

Designated by Congress c Planned b Expenditure

Designated by Congress c Department of the

Treasury 58,693 71 0 0 0 0

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Safety- and security related services

8,811 0 0 0 0 0 Internal Revenue Service Safety- and security related
services 1,520 0 0 0 0 0 U. S. Secret Service Safety- and security related
services

13,704 46 0 0 0 0 U. S. Customs Service Safety- and security related
services

19,320 21 0 0 0 0 Wireless Program Safety- and security related services

15,285 0 0 0 0 0 Office of Enforcement Safety- and security related services

53 4 0 0 0 0

Department of Veterans Affairs

Safety- and security related services 2,746 1 0 0 0 0 Environmental
Protection Agency 2,961 0 2,083 0 0 0

Olympic venue- related sewer construction

2,083 0 2,083 0 0 0 Planning and increased services

473 0 0 0 0 0 Safety- and security related services 405 0 0 0 0 0

Federal Communications Commission

Communication systems improvements 137 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Emergency
Management Agency

Safety- and security related services 6,107 0 0 0 0 0 General Services
Administration

Safety- and security related services 1,472 0 0 0 0 0 U. S. Information
Agency Education, cultural affairs 80 0 0 0 0 0 U. S. Postal Service
Increased postal services 1,894 0 0 4,673 0 0

Facilities improvements 0 0 0 4,673 0 0 Increased postal services 1,894 0 0
0 0 0

Total e $254,203 $ 45,210 $56,942 $1,011,835 $262,791 $323,329

a 1999 dollars were calculated by dividing 2002 dollars by 1.056, a
conversion factor derived from chain- type price indexes for gross domestic
product. b Planned includes funds already expended.

c "Designated by Congress" refers to funds that were specifically designated
for an Olympic- related purpose in appropriations acts or committee reports
accompanying those acts. d In July 1998 the SLOC requested $137 million in
FTA funds for the Olympic Spectator Transit

System (OSTS). In February 2000, the SLOC revised this request to $91
million. On March 3, 2000, FTA proposed a maximum contribution of $47.3
million for the 2002 Olympics and Paralympics. However, a current bill in
the House of Representatives, H. R. 4475, provides $56.8 million for Olympic
buses and facilities and $9. 5 million for the Olympic Infrastructure
Investment.

Appendix III Federal Funding and Support Planned and Provided to the 2002
Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City

Page 84 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

e Personnel costs are generally not included in these amounts, with the
exception of the U. S. Forest Service. Source: GAO analysis of data provided
by officials from OMB and the listed federal organizations.

Appendix IV Comments From the Office of Management and Budget

Page 85 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Appendix IV Comments From the Office of Management and Budget

Page 86 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

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

Page 87 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

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

Page 88 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Appendix VI Comments From the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Page 89 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Appendix VI Comments From the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Page 90 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Appendix VII Comments From the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc.

Page 91 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Appendix VII Comments From the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc.

Page 92 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Appendix VII Comments From the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc.

Page 93 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Appendix VII Comments From the U. S. Disabled Athletes Fund, Inc.

Page 94 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Appendix VIII Comments From the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration

Page 95 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Appendix VIII Comments From the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration

Page 96 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Appendix IX Comments From the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee

Page 97 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Appendix IX Comments From the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee

Page 98 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Page 99 GAO/ GGD- 00- 183 Federal Funding and Support of Olympic Games

Ordering Copies of GAO Reports The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to
the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the
Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit
cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent.

Order by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013

or visit: Room 1100 700 4 th St. NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) U. S.
General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using fax number
(202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet For information on how to access GAO
reports on the INTERNET, send e- mail message with “info” in the
body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http:// www.
gao. gov Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs To contact
GAO FraudNET use: Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- Mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Telephone: 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated
answering system)

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100

(240348)
*** End of document. ***