Senator BENNETT. I remember when we discussed this with you in previous hearings. You were talking about new equipment that would come in and that would be the solution in many parts. You would not try to remediate your present equipment, you would simply replace it with new equipment.

Mr. DIMARIO. That is true in certain instances. The mainframe is an example. We have acquired a new mainframe. It is being installed and operational, that mainframe system.

Senator BENNETT. You say it is being installed and operational? It is one or the other.

Mr. MANSKER. It has been installed.

Senator BENNETT. It has been installed and it is operational now?

Mr. MANSKER. They are now completing the loading of all the information. It should be within a month, I think, before it is fully operational.

Senator BENNETT. What kind of software is on it? Is the software subject to a Y2K problem? Is it new software, written just for it? Mr. MANSKER. It will be fully Y2K compliant.

Senator BENNETT. Do you have contingency plans in case it is not?

Mr. DIMARIO. Most of the operating software is proprietary for which we have the developer's Y2K certification. Part of the contingency is the continuation of the current network operating system which is run on "Banyon Vines" software, and there is a provision to make that "Banyon Vines" software Y2K compliant for the shortterm as a backup. But it is not something that we can rely on in the long run.

We have included that, in fact, as part of our request for monies for Y2K compliance a small amount of money for that "Banyon Vines" provision.

Y2K COMPLIANCE COSTS

Senator BENNETT. You have $8.1 million in here for Y2K costs. Mr. DIMARIO. Yes, sir.

Senator BENNETT. Compared to what? How much have you spent up until now on this? What percentage of your Y2K budget to get this thing fixed does $8 million represent?

Mr. DIMARIO. We project approximately $25.6 million to be spent on Y2K.

Senator BENNETT. So the $8 million would take you to $33 million?

Mr. DIMARIO. No, sir. We are asking for $8.1 million to allow us to reimburse part of the $25.6 million for Y2K expenditures that we're making, because we are pulling the money out of the Revolving Fund now.

It is the same issue as the elevators, which we have not renovated, and the air conditioning. That money is in a temporary fund. The Revolving Fund is intended to be a temporary funding mechanism created by law, 44 U.S.C. 309. That provision has certain specific language. So money is obtained through charges, charges against the benefiting appropriations, and then it is placed in the Revolving Fund.

Certain monies have been expended for Y2K that are out of pocket. They are not sunk costs, like labor costs for GPO's own employ

ees.

When I say $25.6 million, I am including all of our costs.

Senator BENNETT. What I am trying to get at is this. Let's say your Y2K total bill is $25 million.

Mr. DIMARIO. $25.6 million. That's what we project to invest in it.

Senator BENNETT. What portion of that $25 million have you already spent and what portion remains unspent?

Mr. DIMARIO. We have spent $19.1 million up through fiscal year 1998. That is my understanding.

Senator BENNETT. How about fiscal year 1999? This is an appropriation for fiscal year 2000, of course.

Mr. DIMARIO. Right. We are including $8.1 million for 2000. In fiscal year 1999, I don't know the specific amount that we have. Bill Guy might have that.

Mr. GUY. It's about $6 million this year.

Senator BENNETT. OK. Let me understand these numbers.

You spent $19.9-let's round it up to $20 million-through fiscal year 1998.

Mr. DIMARIO. That's right.

Senator BENNETT. You're going to spend another $6 million in fiscal year 1999.

Mr. DIMARIO. Right.

Senator BENNETT. And you did not budget for any in fiscal year 2000?

Mr. DIMARIO. For fiscal year 2000, we are asking for $8.1 million.

Senator BENNETT. Yes, I understand that. My question is this: is that reimbursing some of this $26 million?

Mr. DIMARIO. Yes, it is. It is reimbursing money that was spent. Senator BENNETT. How much of it is reimbursing and how much of it is additional spending?

Mr. DIMARIO. I believe it is all reimbursement.

Mr. GUY. It is almost all reimbursement.

Mr. MANSKER. I think it is only about $400,000 for fiscal year 2000.

Mr. DIMARIO. And it is not reimbursement for our labor, and other sunk costs. Our labor costs and all other sunk costs we are taking out of the Revolving Fund. These are employees who were on hand. That represents most of the total cost, leaving $8.1 million in out of pocket cost for which we are asking reimbursement. That is for the hardware and software that we have had to purchase specifically

Senator BENNETT. Wait. Let me understand those numbers.
You tell me it's $19 million in labor?

Mr. DIMARIO. Principally labor costs and other sunk costs, about $17.5 million.

Senator BENNETT. And we have $26 million that we have identified here. Is that $26 million all for hardware, so that your total costs for Y2K would be adding the labor to the hardware?

Mr. DIMARIO. No, sir.

Senator BENNETT. Or is there some mixing here?

Mr. DIMARIO. I think we are asking for the difference between $17.5 million in sunk costs and the $25.6 million that we have in our Y2K program. That is our total Y2K effort.

The $19.6 million is money we have expended through fiscal year 1998.

Mr. MANSKER. Senator, approximately $25.6 million is the totality of our cost for Y2K. We estimate that about $6 million of that is in-house labor costs; $19 million of it would be the rest of it. Mr. DIMARIO. That's correct. I am misstating it.

Mr. MANSKER. Now, about $8 million of what we are asking for comes from that $19 million, for expenses that we would not otherwise have expended had it not been for the Y2K problem.

We would not have had to change a lot of the computers and were not planning to do all of that without the Y2K problem coming along.

So what we are asking for in this budget, in the appropriations process, the $8 million, is not only reimbursement for what we have spent in that regard that we would not be planning to spend without Y2K coming along, but also for what we have to do in that regard this year as well as completing the thing.

So $8 million is what of the $25 million total-is what we would not be planning to spend had Y2K not come along. Senator BENNETT. OK. I understand that.

I won't beat this horse any further.

Mr. DIMARIO. I apologize. I was misreading my note with respect to the amount for sunk labor costs.

Senator BENNETT. That is no problem.

I would have a much higher comfort level if GAO's assessment of where you are and your assessment of where you are were closer. So can I ask you to sit down with GAO and show them the documentation?

Mr. MANSKER. Senator, we have been doing that on a regular basis. I, as Deputy Director of the Agency, have sat in on these meetings.

I have come away very comfortable with what our conversations with GAO have been. These figures represent what I have gotten from those meetings.

Now I would love to have GAO here, right now.

Senator BENNETT. We will contact GAŌ and see if we can't bring these things together.

I will leave you with one last comment. I do urge you to lay out some contingency plans.

Mr. MANSKER. We have those, sir.

Senator BENNETT. OK. Lay out some contingency plans so you know what to do in case the remediation that you are expecting in fact turns out to have some problems and difficulties.

Mr. MANSKER. Last year, sir, you were very concerned and I am sure you still are about the Congress getting its products.

Senator BENNETT. That's right.

Mr. MANSKER. We have tested from both ends, from the Senate over to GPO, and it works. We know it works. It is tested.

Mr. DIMARIO. The Senate contractor from the Sergeant at Arms Office, Mitreteck, came over to GPO. They validated. We have

transmitted back and forth. I believe that information was conveyed to staff.

Senator BENNETT. That is reassuring. Let's make sure.

Mr. DIMARIO. We are doing the same thing with the Federal Register.

Mr. MANSKER. Yes.

Mr. DIMARIO. We are completely compliant with the Federal Register and with the Executive Branch. We are attempting right now to do the same thing with the House. On the House side, I believe because of the GÃO briefings on the House side, again, I think a briefing at which your staff may have been in attendance, hearing what we were doing with the Senate, the House was asked by Appropriations staff to get together with GPO and to validate the interchange between the two of us.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

Senator Feinstein.

EMPLOYMENT LEVELS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to ask you about the increase in your Full Time Equivalents, which run from about 3,383 to 3,550. Where are these FTEs going to be utilized?

Mr. DIMARIO. Throughout GPO we are in the same situation that GAO explained and the Library of Congress explained. Our employment base has gotten older and older. We have been on a hiring freeze for 10 years.

When I came to GPO in 1971, we had 8,500 employees. We currently have 3,383. That is the current ceiling.

We have gotten down to where in every area of GPO-every area-we are losing skill and talent. We have approximately a third or greater of our employees in our Production Department, in the main areas, eligible for retirement. We have not brought new blood in anywhere in the agency to speak of. We have a limited program of hiring distinguished college graduates, if we can get them, out in the marketplace.

We are hurting in the computer field, the I-T area. It is just very difficult to get these professionals.

We are hurting in every single area in the office. So to delineate where they are would mean to name each of these groups.

But we need people and we need to bring them in and train them in systems. We, this year, because of the Starr report and issues facing the Congress, faced some monumental delivery issues. We performed, we thought, extremely well in the circumstances.

We delivered to the Congress, both the House and the Senate, products that they needed to carry on their work in the impeachment process, in the important activities that were going on, and that workforce has been challenged. It has been overloaded.

I just cannot tell you-I have the highest respect for my people. You cannot find people who are more dedicated, more professional, more willing to do the work. And what we have done over and over and over is just to cut the activity and not replace people. I am telling you that, in my professional judgment, we have gone too far. We need to do something and put a brake on it.

All I am asking is to put us back to the level that we were at a year ago.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So these 100-plus people go where?

Mr. DIMARIO. Some will go into the Production Department. Some will go in our Data Systems area. Some will go in our Documents area. They will go in various places throughout the organization.

It is not 100 going to one area.

Mr. MANSKER. Senator Feinstein, we could begin with a list of where certain numbers would go from time to time. But right off the top of my head I can tell you that there are 3 needed in personnel. If you want me to outline some further, I could.

We have a backlog of job descriptions that, because of vacancies not filled, are really getting to be of concern.

In our Bindery, we have positions that need to be filled because we are not being able to get certain products out in a very timely manner. We could go on like that.

Production has asked for 10 people just recently.

Mr. DIMARIO. We have already contracted out about 75 percent to 80 percent of the work under a policy initiative. The policy initiative is to contract out as much as possible. We are doing that and we continue to look at that effort.

But there are some functions that we necessarily have to be prepared to do internally with direct hires.

We have contracted out parts of the police organization. We have contracted out portions of industrial cleaning functions. We are doing those kinds of things to cut the numbers and to try to keep just the professional staff that we need to run the place.

But it is very, very difficult. After 35-plus years of service, I will tell you that it is the most difficult time to manage when you are facing manpower shortages over and over again.

In my 6-plus years in this job, I have attempted to do everything that the Congress has asked us to do and to do it in a timely fashion. But it reaches a point when you really have to say that there is just a point where we need to have some brake on it. At least allow us to regroup.

We have been examined over and over. I cannot tell you how many GAO and other audit functions have happened, how many times people are sent into the office, over and over and over again. That consumes manpower.

We have people who are just dedicated to doing nothing but answering questions.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I gather there is a small conflict. Let's just see if we can clear it up.

What is your current on-board level?

Mr. DIMARIO. My understanding of the current on-board is, I believe, 3,316. For on-board I would have to ask my personnel director. We have people leave every day. We have people who come on board every day.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think it would be useful if we got that straightened out because I am told it is 100 less than your FTE ceiling.