clusively. S. 2071 would have the additional effect of providing employees a judicial remedy.

Section 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 633a). Employees in the Senate Restaurants and employees of the Architect to the Superintendent of the Senate Office Buildings are covered by this legislation pursuant to the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991; however, the remedies and procedures are available through the office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, which requires exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to judicial review. S. 2071 would apply the legislation to all employees of the Office and would provide them the right to file a civil action after the mediation stage.

Sections 102 through 104 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112-12114). Employees of the Office are covered by the rights and protections of this legislation, and the Office provides remedies and procedures that apply exclusively. S. 2071 would apply the legislation to all employees of the Office and would provide them the right to file a civil action after the mediation stage.

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791). Employees of the Office are covered by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 under our Equal Employment Opportunities Manual, and employees assigned to the Senate Restaurants and the Superintendent of the Senate Office Buildings are specifically covered by Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act pursuant to the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991. Enactment of S. 2071 would require development of an affirmative action plan for the hiring, placement, and advancement of individuals with disabilities on an agency wide basis. The Office is currently in the process of developing such a plan as part of our commitment to affirmative employment, thus S. 2071 would have little additional impact.

Sections 101 through 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). Employees of the Office are currently covered by this legislation. It's inclusion in S. 2701 should not have any additional impact.

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). The Office does not use or threaten to use polygraphs on employees. Accordingly, its inclusion in S. 2701 should not have any impact.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.). The concept of "plant closing" would not seem to apply to the Office, and "mass layoffs" would most likely be the result of direction by the Congress. Assuming that the Office had sufficient notification of such a direction, inclusion of this requirement in S. 2071 should have little or no impact.

Section 552 of Title 5 (Freedom of Information Act). Inclusion of this legislation in S. 2071 could have a significant impact on the staffing levels of the agency. The experience of executive branch agencies indicates that additional staff, including attorneys, might need to be added to process requests for information, and to determine whether such information is releasable under the Freedom of Information Act. The wide range of activities under the jurisdiction of the Office would provide a virtually inexhaustible source for inquiries under FOIA. Also, since a considerable amount of the correspondence of the Office involves the offices exempted in Section 13 of S. 2071, there will be significant questions as to whether such correspondence is properly releasable.

Section 552a of Title 5 (Privacy Act). The considerations applicable to the Freedom of Information Act are generally applicable to the Privacy Act.

Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.Č. 793) applicable to contract employees. All construction contracts issued by the Office already require that contractor employees be subject to the provisions of Section 503. Accordingly, its inclusion should have no impact.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my brief testimony, and I shall be pleased to respond to questions you and the Committee may have.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN J. KOMINSKI

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen, On behalf of the Librarian of Congress, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on those bills, specifically S. 2071, S.29, S. 576, and S.103 which make applicable to the Congress and the legislative branch certain laws relating to the terms and conditions of employment, the health and safety of employees, the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, and open access to public information.

It is my purpose today to address certain provisions in these bills that deal with the Library as an "instrumentality" of the Congress, and apply to the Library those statutes specifically identified in the bills. I will also comment on other statutes whose application is proposed.

In the bills, there are specific Acts of Congress which are made applicable to the instrumentalities as congressional employers. Many of these Acts already apply to the Library of Congress. Specifically

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

• Chapter 71 of title 5, USC

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

• Sections 102 through 104 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

• Section 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993

Following the enactment of these statutes, the Library has either promulgated regulations pursuant to authority given to it therein or adhered to regulations promulgated by other agencies. Because the effect of these statutes directly impacted on its staff, the Library, before promulgating its own regulations, negotiated those procedural applications with its unions. The resulting collective bargaining agreements and Library regulations currently apply the rights and responsibilities set out

in these Acts.

Listed as well is the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which makes it the responsibility of the head of each federal agency to establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health program which is consistent with the national standards promulgated by the Secretary of Labor. An Executive Order directs the Secretary to consult with the heads of all agencies in the legislative and judicial branches to help them develop safety and health programs. The Library, on its own initiative, pursued the purport of that directive by consulting with Department of Labor personnel. In addition, the Library, through negotiations with its unions on health and safety matters, has established a cooperative team effort which includes the provision of work site inspections and the enforcement of corrective measures when the same are found to be necessary. Five other statutes identified in the bill do not now apply:

• The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. Under this legislation, employers are prohibited from utilizing lie detectors except as expressly permitted by the Act. Since the Act has had no application to the United States as an employer, the Library has had no experience with it.

• The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Also known as the "Plant Closing Act," this legislation is silent on its federal application, although Department of Labor regulations have been interpreted to exclude federal employees. We recognize that those who support including this Act in these bills are concerned about protecting employees when there are significant lay-offs. The Library's only experience with such matters has occurred where we have had significant reorganizations and reductions in force due to reduced funding. In such instances, Library employee rights are protected by the Library's reduction in force regulations and by bargaining agreements which require impact negotiations in the event a unit is to be abolished.

• The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Act requires agencies to establish affirmative action plans for hiring, placement and advancement of individuals with disabilities. It also requires the same of private companies contracting with the government. By definition, the Library is not included in this legislation, but we believe that much of its purport and substance has been subsumed in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. That Act is applicable to the Library, and the Library has undertaken specific programs and drafted regulations which we are now negotiating with our unions. In addition, the Library has long ago adopted the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for its procurement purposes. The FAR prescribes policy and procedures for implementing Sec. 503 of the Rehabilitation Act.

• The Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. Although the definition of "agency" in both Acts excludes the Library, a legislative agency, the Library has taken its own initiative in both instances. Shortly after FOIA was enacted the Library issued its own regulations providing for the availability of records (see 36 CFR 703). Our regulations closely parallel those of the General Accounting Office. The Library has had more than 25 years of experience making its records available under this regulation, and during that time has responded to hundreds of requests while dealing with only a very small number of complaints. The Privacy Act recognizes an individual's right to informational privacy and prohibits the disclosure of any personnel record except with the consent of the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure is permitted under specified exceptions. The Act also permits individuals to gain access to agency records pertaining to them and to request amendment of such records if they are not accurate, complete, relevant, or timely. At present, the Library has drafted but not yet promulgated regulations simi

lar to those required by the Privacy Act. There are provisions in the Library's FOIA regulations, however, which protect its staff from unauthorized access to information in Library personnel records.

We note that S. 579 also applies to Congressional employees the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. If it is intended to substitute this statute for Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, there are a few significant differences that would then be given to legislative branch employees, such as the right to strike and the right to bargain over pay. We do not believe that application of this Act to the Library is necessary or desirable.

One final part of S. 2071 needs comment. Sec. 4(b)(1) requires the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to study provisions of Federal law relating to employment, personnel actions. that do not apply to some or all congressional employees, employing offices or the legislative branch . . ." and recommend whether the same should apply. This part of the bill causes us concern because of its vagueness. Because it is unclear, we are unable to comment fully on all ramifications the application of such laws might have for the Library. Our concern is real, however, and it has its basis in the differences that exist in our employment practices from those of executive agencies. Consider, for example

• Veterans' Preference. If applied to the Library it would require us to change our current selection and retention system in its entirety. Further, the effect of such a preference on our major occupation, librarianship, might well work to the disadvantage of a large number of women.

• Schedule C (political appointment) Authority. Such authority is incongruous with not only our newly-developed validated selection system, but with an outstanding U.S. District Court order as well. That order requires the Library to fill jobs competitively.

• Allowing Library employees access to the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel, are both actions which would have far-reaching effects on the collective bargaining agreements currently in place with our three labor organizations.

At the heart of our concern is the effort we have put into restructuring our hiring and promotion procedures. To assure that those procedures are fair and job-related, the Library has recently redesigned its personnel selection system. These procedures have been professionally validated. It has been a long and expensive process, but one which has put us in the federal forefront. We doubt that other agencies have developed such a comprehensive system for virtually all jobs. Some of the personnel laws currently on the books which are applicable to executive agencies do not mesh with our system and could upset current efforts to meet our equal employment opportunity and affirmative action objectives. What does not mesh are non-merit principles existing in those inconsistent statutes. If they serve as a basis of consideration for hiring or promotion, they are incongruous with our validated system.

Because the Library has invested so much in its new system, we feel very strong about being a major part of any study which may be conducted regarding the application of any such laws generally referenced as relating to "terms and conditions of employment." We believe the Library has considerable experience in these areas, and we welcome the opportunity to share our knowledge and expertise in assistance to the Congress.

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to comment on the proposed bills. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or members of the Committee may have, or to refer the same to my colleagues, Associate Librarian for Human Resources, Lloyd A. Pauls, and Associate General Counsel, Lana Kay Jones.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. ZAGAMI

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, on behalf of Public Printer Michael F. DiMario, I am pleased to be here today to present the views of the Government Printing Office (GPO) on legislation that would require Congressional compliance with Federal laws.

Congressional compliance with Federal laws was addressed in reports of the Senate and House of Representatives Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Legislation has been introduced to achieve this purpose, including S. 2071, the Congressional Accountability Act, introduced by Senator Lieberman; S. 29, the Omnibus Congressional Compliance Act of 1993, introduced by Senator McCain; S. 103, the Congressional and Presidential Accountability Act, introduced by Senator Nickles; and S. 579, the Equity for Congress Act, introduced by Senator Smith.

As an agency of the legislative branch, GPO would be subjected by this legislation to several laws regarding employment, information, and accommodations. Some of these laws already apply specifically to GPO. Others do not apply to GPO specifically. If they did, some would impose additional administrative burdens and costs because GPO does not have the organizational mechanisms in place to carry out these responsibilities. Others would have little if any financial or administrative impact.

To assist the Committee in its consideration of this legislation, the following is a brief review of the current applicability and impact on GPO of the various laws that would be made to apply to the legislative branch:

(1) Laws that currently apply to GPO:

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA): This law applies to "any unit of the legislative branch of the Government which has positions in the competitive service." Historically, GPO, the Office of Personnel Management, and its predecessor agency, the U.S. Civil Service Commission, have treated positions within GPO as positions within the competitive service. Therefore, the FSLA applies to GPO.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Because this Act is part of the FLSA, it is applicable to GPO to the same extent as the FLSA.

Chapter 71 of Title 5, U.S.C.: Under section 7103(a)(3), GPO is specifically included within the definition of agency, and so this law currently applies to GPO Under the compliance procedures in S. 2071, however, the procedures for the consideration of labor-management complaints would be different from those established by chapter 71.

Section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Like the FLSA, the provisions of this Act apply to any unit in the legislative branch having positions in the competitive service. By judicial decision, the coverage of section 717 has been extended only to those employees in competitive service positions.

Sections 102 through 104 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): GPO is covered by the employment provisions of the ADA and has established administrative procedures for processing complaints under the Act.

Sections 201 through 203 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): GPO is covered by the provisions of the ADA mandating the removal of architectural, communication, and transportation barriers in order to make the receipt of services and participation in programs and activities readily available and accessible to disabled individuals.

Sections 101 through 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA): GPO is covered by the FMLA. A GPO internal directive issued in August 1993 states GPO's policy of ensuring compliance and provides instructions for processing FMLA requests.

Section 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA): This law also applies to GPO. We process age discrimination complaints and have had cases proceed into the Federal court system for final determination.

Sections 1977 and 1977A of the Revised Statutes: Section 1977A applies to GPO. (2) Laws that do not apply which would not impose additional burdens on GPO:

Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Although this Act does not apply GPO, GPO operates as if it were subject to this provision, which requires contractors to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified handicapped individuals. We include in GPO Contract Terms the requirements of section 503 for each contract we issue to private sector printing contractors and subcontractors.

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988: GPO is exempt from the provisions of this Act. GPO does not subject its employees to polygraph tests. If this Act is made applicable to GPO, a minor administrative burden would be incurred in the development and issuance of implementing regulations.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN): GPO is not covered by the provisions of this Act. However, the FSLA already requires negotiations with bargaining unit employees regarding a plant closing. Therefore, administrative burdens associated with bringing GPO into compliance with the WARN Act would most likely be minimal.

(3) Laws that do not apply which would impose additional administrative burdens on GPO:

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act of 1974: GPO, as a part of the legislative branch of Government, has consistently taken the position that the provisions of these Acts do not apply. Nevertheless, GPO makes every effort to respond favorably to requests for information of a general nature much as it would if covered by the FOIA. GPO also exercises great caution in the maintenance

and release of sensitive or personal information in a manner similar to that exercised by other Federal agencies subject to the Privacy Act. However, bringing GPO under the coverage of these acts would likely result in a significant administrative burden that is not currently borne by GPO due to specific procedural, reporting, and other responsibilities that are required by the FOIA and Privacy statutes.

Section 5 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA): GPO is covered by that portion of the Act requiring agency heads to "establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive [safety and health] program" consistent with OSHA standards and, in fact, has a well-established safety and health program which is administered by GPO's Occupational Health and Environmental Services and the Safety Branch. However, other provisions of the Act, such as those mandating regular OSHA inspections and timely corrective measures for cited violations, do not apply. If these provisions are made applicable to GPO, additional administrative measures would need to be taken to ensure compliance.

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1988: Several recent decisions (administrative and judicial) have made it clear that this Act does not apply to GPO. However, as a matter of policy, GPO does not discriminate against the handicapped in its hiring and promotion practices, and we make every effort to provide reasonable accommodations to handicapped employees as required by the ADA. Additional administrative measures would be required to ensure full compliance if this Act is made applicable to GPO, and we would have to reconcile any differences in rights that might accrue under the ADA vis a vis the Rehabilitation Act.

Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978: This provision has to do with the appointment of a special prosecutor. We do not see the applicability to GPO.

GPO is prepared to fully cooperate with and assist this Committee and Congress in any manner deemed necessary to the consideration of legislation that would require Congressional compliance with Federal laws. This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF H. BERRIEN ZETTLER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am H. Berrien Zettler, Deputy Director of Compliance Programs for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the occupational safety and health requirements that would apply to the Legislative branch if it were covered by OSHA.

I will begin by describing OSHA's overall responsibility for workplace safety and health. OSHA was established pursuant to the OSH Act of 1970. This statute grants the Agency broad authority to promote the safety and health of employees on the job. The OSH Act authorizes OSHA to promulgate occupational safety and health standards and to conduct inspections to enforce those standards-by issuing citations, proposing monetary penalties, and requiring employers to abate hazards. In addition to the requirement for complying with standards, employers must comply with section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, which requires that all employers provide a workplace free from recognized hazards.

The Act also gives OSHA the authority to work with employers and employees in reducing workplace dangers. The agency provides a variety of consultative, educational and voluntary programs designed to assist employers and employees in recognizing and abating hazards.

The ŎSH Act encourages the States to conduct their own federally-approved job safety and health programs. Twenty-five states or jurisdictions currently operate OSHA programs which are monitored by OSHA to ensure that they are at least as effective as the federal program.

Employees of the Executive branch of the Government are protected by section 19 of the OSH Act and Executive Order 12196 which, among other requirements, mandates that all Federal agencies operate a safety and health program and comply with all OSHA standards.

As you are aware, the Legislative branch is excluded from coverage under the OSH Act. But we have indications that there are workplace hazards in Congressional offices and other workplaces of the Legislative branch. In October 1992 the General Accounting Office issued a report entitled, "Uneven Protections Provided to Congressional Employees." GAO's safety and health consultant found serious hazards in virtually all the Congressional offices which were visited, as well as at the Government Printing Office (GPO). Examples of these hazards include improper placement of automatic sprinklers, lack of protection from excessive noise, exposed blades on power saws and machines, poor ventilation, and improper labels on chemi