the years, but we know typically you are only going to expend $340,000 of that. We are going to estimate in our budget, with cost of living increases in there, an amount of $340,000 based upon your expenditure level. The difference between that and what you could have expended is unfunded liability that did incur to us. If you increased your expenditure level and we did not have appropriations, we would seek this Subcommittee's authorization to make a transfer.

Mr. FAZIO. We are dealing with averages here. How many Members turn back? How many spend up to their authorized limit? For example, there is a Mr. Natcher who spends a small percentage. There is an effort to gain an average expenditure from Members based on their histories.

UTILIZATION RATE AVERAGES NINETY-SIX PERCENT

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue this a bit. I suspect I was not unique in being criticized for turning money back to the so-called Speaker's "slush fund". I could never figure out what my opponent was talking about. I think this is what he was talking about.

If there was a requirement legislatively that for money that was unspent from each office account, did not go back but rather had to be spent, whether it was used to offset the Federal deficit or went for scholarship funds or whatever, if that total amount was required or at least at the Member's option could be used for those purposes, what we are really talking about then is an increased appropriation because I gather this works much like a personnel ac

count.

You have a total personnel expenditure authorization but then you reduce it for attrition because you know that you never-some people are going to leave and some people are going to be hired at lower salary levels through the course of the year. So you generally spend about 96 percent of a normal-you appropriate about 96 percent of a normal administrative account. I gather this is an analogous situation.

If there was an option to use that money, we are really talking about additional funds that are currently not appropriated.

Mr. FAZIO. That is right.

Mr. MORAN. It would be a new appropriation.

Mr. FAZIO. We try to estimate as accurately as possible leaving as little slack as possible. If for some reason there is a major increase in expenditures by Members across the board and we miss our estimate, then we are required to reprogram the funds to make up for that.

Ron?

DISCUSSION ON MEMBER INCENTIVES TO SAVE MONEY

Mr. PACKARD. There is another side of the coin we have not discussed. Maybe at another time you will have more time. It appears to me there are no mechanisms in place that would encourage or give incentives for Members to not spend, say, $30,000 if it is not necessary. I am not suggesting we ought to standardize every

office, one with another. I think that would be very difficult and probably impractical.

But I do think we ought to look at incentives for individual Members to be efficient and conservative. Encourage Members not draw down on their account any more than is necessary; and I think at this time there are not those incentives and thus Members are not as frugal as they could be with their official expense because they don't see unspent funds going back to the Treasury to benefit the people.

Mr. FAZIO. Well, I think it is important that Members know that because of the frugality of some we were able to reduce the total amount in 1992 by something like $80 million. I would think in most cases Members have spent less than they were authorized. We would have needed to appropriate another $80 million to get to the number that was theoretically available to each Member. So that is a sizable savings.

Mr. PACKARD. A lot of Members don't know that.

Mr. FAZIO. Yes. We have tried to explain it, but it hasn't always gotten through.

Mr. Taylor?

ARCHITECT'S DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT

Mr. TAYLOR. While we are in this area then, the $20,000 that was spent for marble elevator floors that was publicized during the Christmas break, 1991 to 1992, where did that come from?

Mr. FAZIO. It is my understanding that the funds came from an account that is in the Architect's domain. I think there is a $125,000 discretionary account, operated by people who are responsible for the Capitol building. If I am correct any repairs or improvements needed up to $125,000-they have that discretion. And that is where those marble elevator floors came from. That is the Architect of the Capitol's budget.

But that appropriation money is spent for repairs and alterations in the Capitol itself. Significant alterations in the buildings surrounding the Capitol are decided by a House office building commission or the Senate Rules Committee. In the case of the Capitol building itself, the Speaker makes these decisions for the House side-if they are of significant proportions. In the case of the west front work-the additional square footage constructed for the courtyard infill, another Commission, headed by the Vice President, also approved that work. So we will get to that when the Architect comes up.

INTRODUCTION OF CHAIRMAN ROSE

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1994 budget has been developed in the same format as last year. You will recall that we initiated a separate budget listing for House Information Systems. That was different from previous years. Testimony will be presented again this year on the HIS budget by both its Director and the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Chairman, since Chairman Rose is here and waiting patiently on this particular matter, if it pleases you, could we defer to Chairman Rose at this time to discuss this?

Mr. FAZIO. Yes, I think that would be appropriate.
Mr. ANDERSON. This is on page 17 of your print.

Mr. ROSE. Thank you.

You talked about going ahead with the HIS portion?
Mr. FAZIO. Let's do that.

HIS APPROPRIATION REQUEST

Mr. ROSE. I am very happy to have with me today, Bob Shea, the Staff Director of the House Administration Committee; and Hamish Murray, the Director of the House Information Systems.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for allowing us to make this presentation. Anticipating that funds may be scarcer than ever in the fiscal year 1994 budget, I asked HIS to prepare an operating budget not to exceed 3 percent of current year 1993 obligations. The directive has been met; when the $22.9 million proposed operating level is compared to current fiscal year 1993 funds, the increase is 2.9 percent.

In the perspective of the ceiling authorized for fiscal year 1993 at $22.8 million, and the fiscal year 1994 request of $22.9 million, this is one-tenth of 1 percent, or only $21,000 above.

With revenues forecast, quite optimistically, at $13.3 million, the remaining 42 percent now requested in this appropriation amounts to $9.6 million, an increase of $1.5 million over fiscal year 1993. The increase in the 1994 appropriation needs to be viewed in the perspective of the $2 million reduction below HIS's fiscal year 1993 budget, a cut that was adjusted by a $1.4 million carryover from 1992. The charts on pages 6 and 7 in the budget document offer some clarification.

Members should be aware that part of the funding of HIS comes from appropriated funds and part comes from reimbursements. Those reimbursements are what HIS does for various organizations such as the Clerk, the General Accounting Office and others.

During fiscal year 1994, HIS will continue its transformation from a traditional mainframe organization to a systems integrator, using the latest PC and LAN technology, driven by customer demand for distributed services.

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL HIS STAFF

The more House offices take advantage of productivity gains by using computer technology, the more they need and rely on HIS support, the more is expected of, or rather demanded of, HIS. Despite the best efforts by HIS to restructure resources, five staff positions are requested to supplement support areas described below:

One position would be added to Integrated Systems and Information Services for applications, communications, and Unix system administration. Another is for Data Communications to help with the growth in the House Internet connections. Demand for connectivity will increase significantly because Correspondent Management System vendors are promoting Ethernet connections for their clients. We should bear in mind that the release of ISIS and the House Electronic Mail is imminent, and CAPNET will soon be in place.

By fiscal year 1994, at least 19 of the 22 standing committees will have PC local area networks. The third position is intended for Committee and Support Offices to maintain their complex integrated systems. The remaining two new positions are to support Member Offices and to accommodate continued growth of local area networks and Electronic Mail, and for the provision of LANS linked to the Wide Area Network for district communications. The number of MicroMIN ISIS users in district offices will increase, a prospect that will compound demand on HIS's district assistance, which includes software installation, training, and trouble shooting.

COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

Funding of "infrastructure" in data communications, which began in 1991, is budgeted to continue in 1994. Investments that will benefit Members include the House Ethernet and wiring plants, the House Wide Area Data Communications Network to districts, distributed processing to enable office systems to share the power of large central systems, and House-wide Electronic Mail.

In the area of communications, HIS will continue to upgrade the House fiber-optic network from Ethernet to Fiber Distributed Data Interface to increase network capacity, and to convert the Wide Area Network from analog to digital for more reliable communications with district offices. The installation of communication hubs will continue as part of the rewiring of all Member offices, reducing overall service costs by obviating expensive recabling when Members relocate.

Mainframe computer investment will include the buy-out of some disk storage that has satisfied its lease-to-purchase contract, and procurement of a new Text Information Management System for ISIS and other text-oriented retrieval systems.

OFFICE AUTOMATION

Office automation will involve purchase of software to support House systems and completion of ISIS development, as well as inhouse upgrades to stay current with Member office systems. CDROM mastering facilities and a centralized CD-Network will provide House Local Area Network access to CD-ROMs, such as the CD version of the U.S. Code, which is now available from the Government Printing Office.

SUMMARY

Implementation of these initiatives, continuation of baseline. services, and the accommodation of expected workload growth comprise the 1994 request. Only two object classes in 1994, namely Salaries and Rental and Maintenance, show increases above the 1993 revised ledger.

I urge you to fund the HIS request. I must emphasize that the forecast of reimbursements is quite optimistic, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. The forecast contains an estimate that the General Accounting Office will act to seek savings by expanding the use of HIS's data processing services in the amount of $1 million, an increase of 25 percent over 1993. Should this esti

mate prove false, we face a reordering of priorities. When we consider the variety and level of HIS support in the House, it would be difficult for any of us to continue operating our offices as efficiently if HIS services were curtailed. We need the information databases, news wire services, training, hotline, consultations, software and configuration systems, PC/LAN support, and district communications that serve to automate the functions and the tasks of our staff.

HIS initiatives, such as the NCOA, the National Change of Address database purification, will enhance the efficiency of district mailings; Electronic Mail access to the Senate and Executive Agencies will facilitate communications and oversight. Integration of information databases and text manipulation will prove invaluable to draft legislation and respond to constituents; improved and more reliable district communications can offload casework and other correspondence from the Washington offices.

Thank you very much. I will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. FAZIO. Thank you, Charlie.

[The information follows:]

HOUSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS-APPROPRIATIONS, ACTUAL EXPENDITURES, UNEXPENDED

Mr. FAZIO. I would like to welcome Jim Chapman, one of our new Members, who has been able to join us this morning.

Hamish, do you have a statement you want to make at this point to supplement the Chairman's?

Mr. MURRAY. No, just to support the need to give us as much of the funding as you can, because we are about to release, as Chairman Rose says, two very helpful Member office productivity tools. ISIS is one; I believe you are a test site yourself. And when we release them, this will take more support, more demands on our re

sources.

So in order to keep us on track and on target, we urge you to accept this budget.

Mr. FAZIO. I just wanted to say that I sat briefly on the Committee on House Administration when I first came here, and these two gentlemen have been working on bringing the House up to standard on all of the new technologies for many, many years. Mr. Rose chaired a task force before the committee even existed, and productivity growth has been, I think, the major outgrowth of the investments we have made in HIS over the years.

While it is difficult to look at any increase in any area of funding, we know when we put money in HIS, we are aiding the entire institution and probably in a position to save money in other places if we can find it.