'Subpoenafest': Democratic Tigers and Republican Guerrillas

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, April 26, 2007

The animal spirits were stirring on Capitol Hill yesterday.

"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) announced at a hearing of the House oversight committee.

"I feel like we're straining out gnats and swallowing camels," Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) preached.

Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) told Republicans that they were trying to "beat a dead horse."

Davis informed the chairman that he was "like a highbred horse without a bridle."

Whoa.

The inspiration for these bestial bromides: the legislative subpoena, which after years of captivity under a Republican Congress is again roaming free under Democrats. The House oversight committee authorized subpoenas yesterday for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and for the Republican National Committee and its chairman, Mike Duncan. In the hearing room next door in the Rayburn building, the House Judiciary Committee approved one for former Justice Department official Monica Goodling.

Across the Capitol, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted for one for Sara Taylor, a deputy to Karl Rove in the White House. And that was restrained: The oversight committee shelved plans to authorize subpoenas for former White House chief of staff Andy Card and for White House contracting documents.

Republicans dubbed it "Subpoenafest," but it was nothing compared with the raise-the-roof subpoena bashes the Republicans threw during the Clinton administration. Waxman pointed out that the oversight committee issued 1,052 subpoenas to Democratic targets between 1997 and 2002, all without a debate or vote. During a 100-day period in 1997, Waxman said, then-Chairman Dan Burton (R-Ind.) issued subpoenas at the clip of two per day.

Still, the multiple-subpoena moment gave both parties a chance to reverse the roles they played in the '90s. While Democrats spoke piously about the need for the facts, Republicans shouted "fishing expedition" -- eight times in two hours in the oversight committee. It was much the same next door at the Judiciary Committee. "If we are to continue this investigation," argued Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), "it cannot be an endless piscatorial expedition."

This sent Chris Cannon (R-Utah) to the dictionary. "Piscatorial means fishing," he reported to the committee.

That may have been the most educational moment of a debate that can be summarized as follows:

Republican: You're partisan!

Democrat: You started it!

Republican: Did not!

Democrat: Did too!

Yesterday's oversight hearing began in a suitably festive atmosphere. Six women dressed themselves in pink police uniforms and sat in the crowd with phony subpoenas stuffed in their pockets. Shays arrived eating a chocolate-frosted doughnut. Waxman, evidently expecting a long session, brought newspapers.

After the traditional exchange of pleasantries ("I have great respect for you," Davis said, while Waxman said: "He knows the admiration I have for him"), the skirmishing began.

Seconds into Waxman's statement on the first subpoena, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) interrupted with a "parliamentary objection."

Waxman resolved that dispute, only to be interrupted by Davis. "We have not seen a copy of the subpoena," he said with a smile.

"Parliamentary inquiry," shouted Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.).

"Parliamentary inquiry," cried John Mica (R-Fla).

"Parliamentary inquiry," McHenry heckled.

"One minute," Waxman finally said. "The chairman is speaking in answer to the previous parliamentary inquiry."

The Republicans' guerrilla war was just beginning. They introduced an amendment calling for the committee to subpoena Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser -- to Bill Clinton.

Waxman ruled the amendment out of order, causing the young and restless McHenry to explode. "Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Point of order! Point of order!"

The Republicans continued to hurl procedural objections. "I appeal the ruling of the chair!" "I have a unanimous consent request!" "Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman."

Democrats grew frustrated. "This meeting was supposed to be over at 12 noon, and we have other obligations," Diane Watson (Calif.) complained. "I call for the vote."

Even the moderate and mild Shays joined in the abuse of the chairman. "While Rome burns, we're eating grapes," he protested, later adding: "I begin to feel like I'm in Russia right now, where one party that now has this opportunity is going to go after the other party using the government."

"You think you're living in a Stalinist country when a couple of subpoenas are being requested," Waxman retorted. "But you did allow the chairman of your own party to issue over 1,000 subpoenas."

Burton, the man who issued all those subpoenas, felt compelled to defend himself. He explained how he avoided just such a public fracas -- by approving subpoenas in private. "The only reason I issued those subpoenas without consulting with the minority," he said, "was because every time we tried to issue subpoenas on this issue, this is the kind of thing we went into."

Memo to Waxman: Next time you throw a Subpoenafest, limit the guest list.