\ NEW NAM1 AND EXPANDED AUTHORITY FOR THL COMMITTEE 599 



chairman, did not put up a fight against making the committee "non- 

 major." This one of the reasons that Karth gave for leaving the com- 

 mittee to join the Ways and Means Committee in October 1971. 

 Karth reflected: 



I don'c think that a chairman accepts those things without first going back to 

 his committee and saying: "This is what the leadership is talking about, and I want 

 to discuss it with you because you're affected as much as I am and probably more." 

 But he didn't do that. * * * I didn't think that the Chairman should just accept it 

 without saying anything. 



BOLLING COMMITTEE HEARINGS 



On May 2, 1973, the House Select Committee on Committees, 

 popularly known as the Boiling committee, started its six weeks of 

 public hearings prior to recommending major jurisdictional and other 

 reforms in the House. Even before the hearings started, Teague and 

 his staff director, Jack Swigert, had huddled on the strategy to use in 

 preparing for a major presentation to the Boiling committee. Swigert 

 introduced the subject at several of his weekly staff meetings, stressing 

 that he wanted ideas, suggestions and input for several different 

 approaches, ranging from a single appearance by Teague to separate 

 presentations by the subcommittee chairmen. Dr. Holmfeld was as- 

 signed to monitor the hearings, and he made periodic reports on the 

 nature of the presentations, the types of questions being raised by the 

 committee as witnesses appeared, and the particularly effective tech- 

 niques being used by witnesses. For example, Dr. Holmfeld reported 

 that the testimony of Representative Albert H. Quie (Republican of 

 Minnesota) had been well received. Swigert forthwith forwarded 

 copies of Quie's statement to all his task team leaders with this note: 



A good example in the use of appendices for historical information and material 

 for the record. We are going to need devices like this, or other innovations, to cover 

 the spectrum of the committee's areas of interest with the depth needed. 



Initially, it was planned to divide up the 60 minutes of testimony 

 time allocated to the committee with several minutes for each subcom- 

 mittee. In a memorandum to the staff, Swigert indicated: 



The objective of the staff will be to prepare this testimony so that it is the most 

 concise, factual and with the most depth of any testimony presented yet to the 

 committee. 



In this fashion, a whole sheaf of valuable material was assembled, 

 specifying the work and future capabilities of the committee. Jack 

 Kratchman, detailed to the committee from the National Science 

 Foundation, prepared a voluminous report analyzing current and pos- 

 sible future energy jurisdiction options for the Congress. All of this 



