"I’m running against somebody who has great passion and wants to be a watchdog, but is that what you need?"
-- Norm Coleman, 2002
“Had we done reconstruction better, we wouldn’t have paid the price that we paid.”
-- Norm Coleman, 2008

Norm Coleman
A Lapdog, Not A Watchdog

The American-led, taxpayer funded reconstruction of Iraq was sabotaged by billions of dollars’ worth of waste, fraud, and abuse. And, as chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Norm Coleman had more power than anyone in the United States to root out and prevent that corruption. Yet, he held no hearings in his capacity as the Senate’s oversight czar, denied requests to investigate abuses, and repeatedly voted against efforts to increase the Senate’s oversight powers.

Had Norm Coleman used this position to be a watchdog, billions of dollars could have been saved – not to mention the lives of troops and the chance to win the peace in Iraq. Instead, he served as a lapdog for the Bush administration and the contractors who committed these improprieties – and funded his campaigns.

Faced with his failure to do this important job, Coleman and his campaign have offered multiple conflicting explanations and excuses for the lack of hearings on reconstruction. This memo explores why those excuses don’t pass muster – and what Coleman’s failure has meant for our troops, our taxpayers, and our efforts to win the peace in Iraq.

WHY PSI MATTERS

The Chairman of Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has more power to perform oversight than any other person in America. That Chairman even has more power than the chair of PSI’s parent committee.

PSI Chairman Has “The Strongest Subpoena Power In The Entire Senate.” In January 2003, Senator Susan Collins, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, announced Coleman would take over as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation. According to the Pioneer Press, “Among other things, the post gives Coleman ‘the strongest subpoena power in the entire Senate,’ Collins told reporters. ‘It’s stronger than mine at the full committee level.’” [Pioneer Press, 1/18/03]

Star Tribune: As Chairman, “Coleman Acts From A Position Of Near Total Personal Discretion.” In December 2004, the Star Tribune reported, “Coleman's platform as chairman of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is a storied one in the annals of Congress: It is the same panel that brought Robert F. Kennedy and Joseph McCarthy to national prominence.’ The report added, “When it comes to chairing the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Coleman acts from a position of near total personal discretion.” [Star Tribune, 12/13/04]

Senate Historian: “Chairmen Of That Committee Have A License To Investigate Almost Anything That Comes To Mind.” According to U.S. Senate Historical Office Associate Historian Donald Ritchie, “Chairmen of that committee have a license to investigate almost anything that comes to mind … It really has a very wide mandate.” [Star Tribune, 12/13/04]

NORM COLEMAN WAS ANYTHING BUT A PROSECUTOR
WHEN IT CAME TO CONTRACT ABUSE

Overseeing war spending and investigating war profiteering was clearly within the mandate of PSI.

The committee was first led by then-Senator Harry Truman. In his biography of Truman, David McCullough spends thirty-plus pages on the Truman Committee. Truman began his investigations in January of 1941 (nearly a year before we entered the war), inspecting war camps in the United States by driving his Dodge around the country. There he found cost-plus contracts that he put an end to.

Truman’s Senate committee officially began its work in March of 1941. McCullough writes that Truman “had little use for investigations after-the-fact.” Truman said at the time: “The thing to do is to dig this stuff up now and correct it.” The Truman Committee did over 400 hearings on war contracting, saving untold billions of dollars and American lives.

And in 2005, the Star Tribune even urged Coleman to begin taking action on this issue.

Star Tribune (December 2005): “Coleman Has The Perfect Perch To Represent The Public Interest, And A Good Start Would Be Looking Into No-Bid Contracts In Iraq.” In a December 2005 editorial, the Star Tribune wrote, “Principled, independent thinking has been a hallmark of Minnesota lawmakers from Hubert Humphrey down through Bill Frenzel to Paul Wellstone, and Washington needs it now. As chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Coleman has the perfect perch to represent the public interest, and a good start would be looking into no-bid contracts in Iraq and chronic disarray at the Department of Homeland Security.” [Star Tribune, Editorial, 12/31/05]

But Coleman, as he has admitted, held no hearings. He made it very clear that, in fact, he had no intention of looking into claims of abusive contracting practices.

Coleman Had No Intention Of Investigating Halliburton: “Halliburton Became A Political Code Word ... Rather Than A Legitimate Look At Someone Doing Something Wrong.” In December 2004, the Star Tribune reported, “Coleman said he has no intention of investigating Halliburton. ‘Halliburton became a political code word ... rather than a legitimate look at someone doing something wrong,’ he said.” [Star Tribune, 12/13/04]

And, as we have pointed out, he has taken money from the very entities he should have been investigating.

Coleman Has Taken More Than $100,000 From The Defense Industry, More Than Any Senator Or Senate Candidate In Minnesota; Took $4,000 From Halliburton’s PAC. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Coleman’s campaigns have taken $103,782 in contributions from the defense industry, more than any US Senator or US Senate candidate in Minnesota. In 2001 and 2002, Coleman’s US Senate campaign accepted 4 $1,000 contributions from Halliburton’s political action committee. [Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 9/20/08; Center for Responsive Politics, Coleman Halliburton PAC Contributions]

A SHORT LIST OF ENTITIES TO WHOM COLEMAN HAS ATTEMPTED TO PASS THE BUCK – AND WHY HIS EXCUSES DON’T PASS MUSTER

In 2006, Coleman wrote an op-ed in the St. Paul Pioneer-Press claiming that he had been an effective watchdog on the issue of contract abuse.

Coleman Op/Ed: “The Buck Has, Indeed, Stopped With Me.” In a November 2006 column defending his tenure as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Coleman wrote, “Lately, some critics — including some who would like my job — have questioned my oversight of the Defense Department and military contractors during my tenure as Chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI). They submit that PSI should have focused more on potential waste and fraud tied to the U.S. reconstruction effort in Iraq. These critics hearken back to the hard work of a former PSI chairman, Harry Truman, who led investigations into malfeasance in defense contracts in the 1940s. Frankly, I believe Harry Truman would be proud that under my leadership, PSI has exposed $12 billion and counting in waste, fraud and abuse. The buck has, indeed, stopped with me.” [Pioneer Press, 11/16/06]

Since then, however, Coleman has attempted to pass that buck to other entities he claims were more responsible for doing this important job:

1. The Democratic Minority

Coleman: “If The Democrats Ever Wanted To Do Any Investigation Of Anything When I’m Chair, They Could’ve Done It.” In a February 2008 interview with Minnesota Law and Politics, Coleman Said, “Franken has attacked the permanent subcommittee in the piece that Law and Politics did. ‘Oh, Coleman abrogated his responsibilities.’ I mean, he’s attacking Carl Levin! I don’t think he can conceptually understand that there are still areas in Congress where people can work in a bipartisan way. So if the Democrats ever wanted to do any investigation of anything when I’m chair, they could’ve done it, just as I do what I want to do now as a ranking member, not as the chairman.” [Minnesota Law and Politics, Coleman Interview, 2/1/08]

But it is simply untrue that the PSI Chairman and ranking member have the same powers.

PSI Chairman’s Powers Far Outweigh Those Of The Ranking Minority Member. In June 2001, the Washington Post reported on Michigan Senator Carl Levin’s new role as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation after Democrats took control of the Senate. According to the Post, “As the new chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations, Levin enjoys powers he never had as the ranking minority member on the panel, including the right to unilaterally call hearings, subpoena documents and compel testimony by reluctant witnesses.” [Washington Post, 6/12/01]

And in 2003, Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton specifically asked Coleman to investigate allegations of price-gouging by Halliburton, a request Coleman denied.

December 2003: Dayton Called On Coleman To Investigate Halliburton Price-Gouging In Iraq; Coleman Refused. In December 2003, the Associated Press reported, “U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton called on Sen. Norm Coleman Wednesday to investigate high gasoline prices the United States is paying to the Halliburton Corp. in Iraq. Dayton, D-Minn., was responding to a New York Times story reporting that Halliburton was getting double the going rate to import fuel from Kuwait. Dayton accused Halliburton of ‘price gouging,’ and said Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who chairs the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, should investigate.” The report later noted, “Coleman said the Times story ‘raises some very serious and legitimate questions about how fuel is supplied in Iraq. I don’t think one single news account is evidence enough to warrant a full investigation, but I do plan on looking into this, as every good legislator should.’ He noted that his subcommittee has looked into travel expense abuse at the Pentagon. ‘So I have no qualms about investigating the Department of Defense, but I think it’s premature to call for a hearing right now,’ Coleman said.” [Associated Press, 12/11/03]

Coleman On Dayton’s Call: “As This Point, I’m Not Taking His Request Very Serious.” In December 2003, the Star Tribune reported that in responding to Senator Dayton’s call for Coleman to investigate possible price-gouging by Halliburton in Iraq, “Coleman said Dayton had not called or written to request any action: ‘So at this point, I’m not taking his request very serious. If he really wants to pursue this, we should have a conversation about it.’” [Star Tribune, 12/11/03]

Dayton Reiterated His Request In A Letter To Coleman; Specifically Asked For Hearings. On December 17, 2003, six days after Coleman said he wasn’t “taking his request very serious,” Senator Dayton sent a letter to Coleman asking him to “investigate the reportedly excessive prices being charged by a Halliburton subsidiary to transport gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq.” Dayton cited a report by Defense Department auditors showing the government had been billed more than a dollar per gallon more than other gasoline importers were paying and asked Coleman to hold hearings on the matter. [Dayton Letter to Coleman, 12/17/03]

2. SIGIR

Coleman Spokesman: PSI Hearings “Would Have Been Doubling Up On The Work Of The Special Inspector General.” In July 2007, Coleman spokesman Luke Freidrich responded to criticism from DFL candidate Al Franken of Coleman’s failure to conduct oversight hearings of contracting abuses in Iraq. According to the Star Tribune, Freidrich “said that had the committee held such hearings, ‘we would have been doubling up on the work of the office of the Special Inspector General (for Iraq Reconstruction) that is solely charged with overseeing reconstruction work.’” [Star Tribune, 7/11/07]

Coleman Said He Didn’t Have To Investigate Because It Was The Job Of The Special Inspector General. During an April 2008 interview on Minnesota Public Radio, Coleman said, "Al Franken one of the raison d’êtres of his campaign is Norm Coleman didn’t- his job was to investigate Iraq, he didn’t do it. Not true. We created in Congress a special investigator for Iraqi reconstruction. We gave them $30 million, a staff in Baghdad – at times 60 staff, 70 staff – to investigate Iraq reconstruct- 208 reports 150 audits. There’s a defense contracting audits, they have a job, responsibility investigating Iraq.” [Minnesota Public Radio, Coleman Interview, 4/18/08 (emphasis added)]

But SIGIR, which audits projects and has a narrowly defined role, was created in the autumn of 2004, and did not become operational until early 2005. (Recall that Truman began his work before the war even started.) Even if Coleman was concerned about “doubling up” on SIGIR’s work, why didn’t he hold hearings before the autumn of 2004?

SIGIR is also now under investigation by the FBI, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the Presidential Council on Integrity and Efficiency, and the Army's Equal Employment Opportunity Office on charges ranging from intimidating whistle-blowers to reading its employees emails to outright corruption.

Further, SIGIR claimed in an October 2006 report that its "financial impact" -- the cost savings resulting from its work, the funds it recovered and other benefits -- was as much as $1.87 billion. Yet, when they were required to revise the number, it came to less than $100 million. Coleman seems to suggest constantly that since Congress created SIGIR that the PSI cannot do oversight of it. But every inspector general is created by Congress and is subject to review and oversight by Congress.

In fact, the full Homeland Security Committee did hold a single hearing in 2006 to review SIGIR’s work. If Coleman doesn’t know this, perhaps that’s because he chose not to attend the hearing.

Coleman Did Not Attend Homeland Security Hearing On Iraq Reconstruction Efforts With SIGIR Stuart Bowen. On August 2, 2006, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held its first and only hearing on contracting in the Iraq reconstruction efforts under a Republican Chairman. The hearing featured testimony by Stuart Bowen, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. According to the hearing transcript provided by the Government Printing Office, Coleman was not among the Senators in attendance at the hearing. [Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing: “Iraq Reconstruction: Lessons Learned in Contracting,” 8/2/06; Government Printing Office, Transcript]

3. “Other committees”

Coleman Said Others Were Better Equipped To Investigate The Reconstruction Then He. In August 2008, MinnPost’s Eric Black reported, that in the face of criticism of his refusal to hold oversight hearings on Iraq, Coleman acknowledges that he didn’t schedule any hearings on those topics during his tenure as chairman. He says that other committees had staff on the ground in Iraq and were better positioned to oversee the reconstruction.” [MinnPost, 8/7/08]

But, again, only the PSI Chairman has sole subpoena power, making his committee the best-equipped to perform investigations.

And this is a silly argument for another reason. According to Coleman, under his leadership, the PSI investigated such issues as the oil-for-food scandal, off-shore tax havens, and Medicare fraud. Did the PSI have “staff on the ground” that made it “better positioned” to tackle these issues than, say, the Foreign Relations Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, respectively?

COLEMAN HAS BEEN A RELIABLE VOTE AGAINST OVERSIGHT

Meanwhile, Coleman has consistently voted against creating a committee that would specifically handle this issue.

September 2005: Coleman Voted Against A Committee To Investigate Military Contracting In Iraq And Afghanistan. In September 2005, Coleman voted to kill an amendment “that would establish a new Senate committee to investigate contracts issued for military operations and reconstruction,” according to Congressional Quarterly [Vote 228, 9/14/05; Congressional Quarterly, 9/14/05]

October 2005: Coleman Voted Against A Special Task Force To Investigate Waste And Fraud In Iraq, Post-Katrina Contracts. In October 2005, Coleman voted to kill an amendment that “would have established a task force, modeled on the ‘Truman Committee’ during World War II, to probe contracting abuses stemming from the war in Iraq and the Gulf Coast reconstruction,” according to Congressional Quarterly. [Vote 259, 10/19/05; Congressional Quarterly, 10/19/05]

November 2005: Coleman Voted Against A Committee To Investigate Waste And Fraud In Iraq And Afghanistan Contracts. In November 2005, Coleman voted to kill an amendment “that would have created a special Senate committee to investigate waste, fraud and abuse in defense contracting, principally in Iraq and Afghanistan,” according to Congressional Quarterly. [Vote 316, 11/10/05; Congressional Quarterly, 11/10/05]

June 2006: Coleman Voted Against A Committee To Investigate Waste And Fraud In Military Contracts. In June 2006, Coleman voted to kill an amendment “calling for an investigation into waste and fraud in military contracts,” according to the International Herald Tribune. The amendment called “for a panel like one headed by Harry Truman, then a senator, that uncovered many abuses in military spending during World War II.” [Vote 176, 6/20/06; International Herald Tribune, 6/20/06]

And he has voted against other measures to strengthen oversight and crack down on contract abuse.

Coleman Voted Twice Against Harsh Penalties for War Profiteering. In June 2006, Coleman voted to kill a proposal to crack down on war profiteers by imposing harsh new penalties of up to 20 years in prison and at least $1 million in fines for such abuses. Coleman voted against a similar proposal in 2004. [Vote 169, 6/14/06; Vote 120, 6/16/04]

Coleman Voted Twice Against Giving Congress More Oversight Over Iraq Reconstruction Spending. In October 2003, Coleman voted to kill a proposal that would have allowed President Bush to quickly spend the first half of the $20.3 billion for reconstruction in the FY04 emergency spending bill, while requiring him to get Congressional approval before spending the rest in 2004. The next day, Coleman voted to kill a proposal that would have given Congress more control over Iraq spending by eliminating the flexibility given to President Bush to reallocate all of the $20.3 billion Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds without congressional approval. [Vote 385, 10/16/03; Associated Press, 10/16/03; Vote 398, 10/17/03]

Coleman Voted to Allow Iraq Contractors, Including Halliburton, To Continue Paying Top Bush Administration Officials. In October 2003, Coleman voted to kill an amendment that would cut off Iraq reconstruction contracts for any company that has financial ties to the president, vice president or any Cabinet member. Specifically, the amendment was targeted at Halliburton, which had already received $1.4 billion to restore Iraq’s oil industry while continuing to make severance payments to Vice President Cheney. [Vote 386, 10/16/03; Associated Press, 10/16/03; NPR, “Morning Edition,” 10/17/03]

ADDENDUM:
WHAT COLEMAN COULD HAVE INVESTIGATED

While Coleman was not holding hearings on reconstruction, a frustrated Sen. Byron Dorgan held his own hearings through the Democratic Policy Committee (DPC). They uncovered dozens of outrages through 2006. Here are the top twenty:

  1. Halliburton billed taxpayers $1.4 billion in questionable and undocumented charges under its contract to supply troops in Iraq, as documented by the Pentagon’s own auditors.
  2. Parsons billed taxpayers over $200 million under a contract to build 142 health clinics, yet completed fewer than 20. According to Iraqi officials, the rest were “imaginary clinics.”
  3. Custer Battles stole forklifts from Iraq’s national airline, repainted them, then leased the forklifts back to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) through a Cayman Islands shell company — charging an extra fee along the way.
  4. Halliburton allowed our troops in Iraq to shower, bathe, and sometimes brush their teeth with water that tested positive for e. coli and coliform bacteria. One expert has said that the troops would have been better off using the highly polluted Euphrates River. Halliburton has admitted that it lacked “an organizational structure to ensure that water was being treated in accordance with Army standards and its contractual requirements.”
  5. Halliburton served the troops food that had spoiled or passed its expiration date. Halliburton managers ordered employees to remove bullets from food in trucks that had come under attack, then saved the bullets as souvenirs while giving the food to unwitting soldiers and Marines.
  6. Halliburton charged taxpayers for services that it never provided and tens of thousands of meals that it never served.
  7. Halliburton double-charged taxpayers for $617,000 worth of soda.
  8. Halliburton tripled the cost of hand towels, at taxpayer expense, by insisting on having its own embroidered logo on each towel.
  9. Halliburton employees burned new trucks on the side of the road because they didn’t have the right wrench to change a tire — and knew that the trucks could be replaced on a profitable “cost-plus” basis, at taxpayer expense.
  10. Halliburton employees dumped 50,000 pounds of nails in the desert because they ordered the wrong size, all at taxpayer expense.
  11. Halliburton employees threw themselves a lavish Super Bowl Party, but passed the cost on to taxpayers by claiming they had purchased supplies for the troops.
  12. Halliburton chose a subcontractor to build an ice factory in the desert even though its bid was 800 percent higher than an equally qualified bidder.
  13. Halliburton actively discouraged cooperation with U.S. government auditors, sent one whistleblower into a combat zone to keep him away from auditors, and put another whistleblower under armed guard before kicking her out of the country.
  14. Halliburton sent unarmed truck drivers into a known combat zone without warning them of the danger, resulting in the deaths of six truck drivers and two soldiers. Halliburton then offered to nominate the surviving truck drivers for a Defense Department medal — provided they sign a medical records release that doubled as a waiver of any right to seek legal recourse against the company.
  15. Halliburton’s no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure was the worst case of contract abuse that the top civilian at the Army Corps of Engineers had ever seen. She was demoted after speaking out.
  16. Under its no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure contract, Halliburton overcharged by over 600 percent for the delivery of fuel from Kuwait.
  17. Halliburton failed to complete required work under its oil infrastructure work, leaving distribution points unusable.
  18. Iraq under the CPA was like the “Wild West,” with few limits and controls over how inexperienced officials spent — and wasted — millions of taxpayer dollars.
  19. Cronies at the CPA’s health office lacked experience, ignored the advice of international health professionals, failed to restore Iraq’s health systems, and wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. The political appointee who ran the office had never worked overseas and had no international public health experience.
  20. Administration officials promoted construction of a “boondoggle” children’s hospital in Basra, which ended up more than a year behind schedule and at least 100 percent over budget. [Democratic Policy Committee Report, 10/27/06]