724 HISTORY OF THl COMMITTEE ON SCIENCI AND TECHNOLOGY 



We believe it essential, in order co maintain the minority staff identity, that the 

 three minority staffers t ontinuc to have office spac e w hi< h allows them to be grouped 

 together, working closely together .is a team, a^ they now are; but we recognize, of 

 course, that it may be i to shift them to a different location. 



SWIGERT AND MINORITY STAFF 



On the way over to the Capitol on the House subway late that 

 same day, Mosher and Teague talked about the problem. Mosher could 

 get no immediate resolution of the issue, hence the memo, which sug- 

 gested that Teague and Swigert meet with the minority members "for 

 whatever further discussion may be necessary to arrive at a complete 

 understanding." Swigert penned on the memo when he gave it to 

 Teague: "Can't Mr. Mosher decide for minority?" The upshot was a 

 lengthy meeting between Mosher and Swigert, at which Swigert out- 

 lined "areas of agreement" and "areas of disagreement." One central 

 bone of contention was whether the minority staff could or should be 

 moved around by Swigert to even out the workload, and whether or 

 not the minority staff should, for command purposes, report directly 

 to Swigert rather than to the minority members led by Mosher. Teague 

 made clear his personal feelings, reiterating that although Swigert 

 had told him he was a Republican when he had been hired, Teague 

 warned him he would be fired if he ever mentioned again he was a 

 Republican on a staff which Teague insisted must be nonpartisan. 



The issue of relationships remained basically in disagreement. 

 Mosher's attitude was best expressed in the final paragraph of his cheer- 

 fully worded covering letter to Teague: 



1 hope that both you and Jack will recognize that the positions we have asserted 

 in our memo represent a completely friendly and genuine desire on our part to co- 

 ordinate and cooperate with you in establishing a very effective, efficient staff opera- 

 tion for the committee, even though we are very firm in our conviction that the iden- 

 tity of the minority staff and its prime responsibility to the minority members must 

 always be recognized and very real. 



In point of time, these negotiations were proceeding while the 

 Boiling committee was holding hearings on congressional reform dur- 

 ing the summer of 1974. The major effort of the committee was pointed 

 toward putting its energy foot forward and bidding for expanded juris- 

 diction on that attractive base. When Teague and McCormack testified 

 before the Boiling committee in June, their far-ranging arguments 

 effectively demonstrated the value of centralizing expanded energy 

 jurisdiction in the Science Committee, they did not stoop to arguing 

 against minority staffing, nor did they even mention it. For his part, 

 Mosher brought up the issue in his May 11 testimony: 



