732 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



The amendments were crushed hy a vote of 22 to 3 The author of the 

 amendments realized that it was impossible to form a coalition with 

 the Republicans to help them with minority staff, which he had long 

 advocated, if they would help on this issue. But the issue did not die, 

 and although it took a long and at times bitter struggle the committee 

 finally swung around and accepted the idea as though it had been right 

 from the start. 



Fulton received his reward for supporting his chairman in the 

 uneven light to defeat the Hcchler amendments. A revealing aftermath 

 was that the events of February 23 contributed to the establishment 

 of a Subcommittee on International Cooperation in Science and Space, 

 for which Fulton had been agitating unsuccessfully for years. On 

 February 24, 1971, Executive Director Ducander wrote a persuasive 

 DOte to Chairman Miller, urging him to comply with Fulton's repeated 

 requests. One of Ducander's arguments was: "Fulton was strong 

 behind you in the organizational meeting yesterday, let's don't 

 forget that." 



With remarkable speed, Chairman Miller on the same day dis- 

 patched a memorandum to all committee members, announcing the 

 formation of the new international subcommittee. Fulton had effec- 

 tively scored his brownie points (see also chapter X on the establish- 

 ment of the new subcommittee and its operation.) 



SWIGERT AND SUBCOMMITTEE STAFFING 



The Bolling-Hansen reforms which took effect in 1975 resulted in 

 the inclusion in the House rules of the principle that subcommittee 

 chairmen could designate one of their own staff members. This prin- 

 ciple was totally unacceptable to Swigert, who argued that it would 

 undermine efficient coordination of the staff and the power of the 

 chairman. Several subcommittee chairmen attempted to make staff 

 recommendations, and the word was circulated that those recommended 

 lacked qualifications for the job. "We don't want political hacks in- 

 vading our highly competent staff," was the warcry. As the minority 

 staff started to grow, some members ruefully observed that the rules 

 were helping give the minority their staff while handcuffing some of 

 the subcommittee chairmen. 



These were not easy issues to resolve. But the trend was clear. 

 The breadth and depth of the subject matter, the wide-ranging nature 

 of the oversight required, and the sheer complexity of the substantive 

 matters being handled all added up to a need for two staff qualities 

 which were very much in demand — high competence and mutual under- 

 standing. The subcommittee chairman who hired an incompetent was 



