CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS UNDER CLERK'S JURISDICTION

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, if you would.

Mr. FAZIO. Yes.

Mr. LEWIS. In my earlier remarks, I suggested that the committee should take a careful look at closer oversight of some of the requests that come to us from the House Administration Committee. I have noted with great interest the Clerk's efficiency and the bipartisan way in which you handle your responsibilities and I am wondering if you would consider for us the ramifications of having the House Information Systems, HIS, placed under your jurisdiction?

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. I appreciate the compliment.

Actually, the Clerk stands ready, if the Committee on House Administration were to choose to place the House Information Systems under the Clerk, to manage that operation as well as possible. The Clerk does have several offices, as you know, and I think historically we have shown throughout the years that we have been able to manage them and direct their functions very well.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, a number of serious questions in the past have been raised regarding HIS and its ability to respond in a timely fashion with Members' needs. I wonder if staff or others could inform me, and the committee, for the record have we ever considered in detail that prospect of having HIS brought under the jurisdiction of the Clerk?

Mr. FAZIO. We did make reference to that at the hearings on the 1985 bill.

Mr. LOMBARD. It has been discussed informally from time to time, but basically HIS is an arm of the Committee on House Administration. They are not only the authorizing committee, but HIS is actually is an administrative arm of the Committee on House Administration. Therefore, their budget is normally included in the budgets, the funding resolutions, brought to the House annually by the Administration Committee. So we fund HIS like we fund all committees, as Mr. Fazio referred to earlier, in the appropriations account called Standing Committees, Special and Select."

Mr. FAZIO. I think it is a matter of jurisdictional dispute to the extent that if we decide to appropriate funds earmarked to HIS, I am sure it would, to some degree, raise a flag with the House Administration Committee. I think, however, there is some logic to our position. This is no different than our reviewing appropriation requests from any agency within the legislation branch, even though there may be an authorizing committee which oversees their substantive operation.

Mr. LEWIS. The House has authorizing committees which are the policy committees. In turn, those authorizations come to appropriations. As we measure the total pie dollars available, we distribute those dollars through subcommittee process. In the case of HIS, a very big hunk of legislative responsibility never goes through that formal appropriations process and I must say that at least this Member thinks that it would be healthy if we raised seriously some

of those questions that might be jurisdictional in nature to some people, but only following the pattern of tradition in the view of others.

Mr. FAZIO.

We can discuss this further, perhaps after consulting with the House Administration leadership.

HIS TESTIMONY

Mr. LEWIS. One further question to follow up on the expression of interest. Can anyone tell me if House Administration or if HIS has ever testified before this committee?

Mr. FAZIO. I don't I recall HIS testifying. I do believe we have discussed matters that relate to them with people who have worked with them, but not directly with the House Administration Committee. Is that a fair statement?

Ed is telling me that a few years ago when the Legislative Counsel was requesting funds for a computer that HIS came before us to help justify the request that Mr. Hussey was making. But, never to justify their own total budget or their operations. Only when it has applied to an agency that we fund through our bill has HIS testified before the Committee.

Mr. LEWIS. I guess my concern centers around the reality that you and I both have experienced serving on House Administration. The standing committees come in to House Administration to justify their budget. However, beforehand, the Chairman and the Ranking Member have gotten together and decided what they can agree on so Republican and Democrat alike have committed themselves before the Standing Committee they get testifies.

In the case of House Administration looking at HIS, or their own budget, there isn't a secondary review. It seems to me that it is time we ask these questions. If the Chairman and I together could discuss it with the new Chairman of the committee, I think it might be helpful.

Mr. FAZIO. I think you point out an important fact. That Committee has a new Chairman and it is an issue that I don't believe has been brought to his attention and perhaps it is best for us to do it informally. The prior Chairman was not opposed to it, but simply wasn't there long enough after we had discussed the matter with him for us to see whether anything could be implemented.

SIMILAR PROBLEMS

I might point out that we have similar problems in accountability in a number of other areas, one of which relates to postage. The Franking Commission and the Committee on House Administration make the basic regulations and we simply pay the bills. Of course, the point of attack is always at this committee and are we never in a position to respond with any kind of policy changes to address some of the concerns that we get expressed on the Floor when we take up the Legislative Appropriation bill. I think we will hear more of these concerns this year.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.