Can you estimate the additional costs of compliance? That is a very difficult question. I would say that probably if we were put under the so-called OSHA Act, it would cause some additional administrative expenses. There would certainly be more paperwork, exchange of information. Probably a couple hundred thousand dollars a year might cover such a thing. Other than that, I do not see any major expense just by putting us under the so-called OSHA regulations. The real problem is the one that everyone mentions, and that is the oversight. Where does the oversight come from? Does it come from OSHA itself, or does it come from some other body? Of course, that is what you are addressing here today. Chairman GLENN. Well, I was not suggesting that we turn over the authority to OSHA. I was thinking that, since what we are dealing with is the general view all across the country that we exempt ourselves from the same things that businesses and organizations have to go through out across the country, that I would not think it would hurt anything to ask them to do a guest inspection of this the way they would do anyplace else and point out, if it was a private agency or private business, where they would be issuing a citation. It just seemed to me that that would go a long ways toward satisfying any fears that we were short-cutting, or that the wiring is bad, or there is still asbestos here and there or whatever, that we are forcing people to address in private industry. So that was the reason for these concerns. We are going to have to move along because time is- Mr. CARROLL. As you perhaps know, Senator Ford and the Rules Committee has directed the Architect of the Capitol to develop a safety and health plan for Senate employees. Now, this fundamentally applies to office occupancies, which, again, OSHA in itself does not address. We are in the process of doing that. I have been in contact with John Plummer, who is here today, by the way, in the audience behind me, who is the head of the Federal programs for OSHA, and he is cooperating with me and my office in developing this safety and health plan for office occupancies in the Senate. Chairman GLENN. Good. Thank you. Next, Mr. John Kominski, general counsel, Library of Congress. TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. KOMINSKI,1 GENERAL COUNSEL, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Mr. KOMINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Librarian of Congress, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the proposed legislation that would require congressional compliance with Federal laws relating to the terms and conditions of employment, health and safety of employees, rights and responsibilities of employers and employees in the legislative branch, and open access to information. For the sake of time, I am going to limit my remarks here, Mr. Chairman, to just three points. The first is to comment on the statutes themselves that are referenced in the proposed legislation. The Library is an instrumentality of the Congress as identified in these bills. It is, however, an instrumentality to which many of these statutes already apply: the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Labor Relations provisions, title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Americans With Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment and Family and Medical Leave Acts. Those all apply to the Library of Congress. The Library of Congress has, since enactment, undertaken to promulgate its own regulations or to begin drafting and negotiating with our labor unions the impact of those regulations on the Library. These regulations work for us so far. Listed as well among those statutes is the one that has been getting an awful lot of attention this morning, and that is the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Under that act, the head of each Federal agency does have the responsibility to establish and maintain an effective, comprehensive occupational safety and health program. Now, an Executive order does direct the Secretary of Labor to consult with heads of agencies in the legislative branch. On its own initiative, years ago the Library of Congress 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. This is being done under the Librarian's authority to make rules and regulations for the governing of the Library of Congress. There are five other statutes that are identified therein which do not apply to the Library of Congress. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, and that is because the government is exempted, the Library has had no experience with it. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act-also known as the "Plant Closing Act"-does not apply to Federal employees, but we recognize that those who support including this act in the bills are concerned with protecting employees when there are significant layoffs. The Library's own experience with such matters has occurred where we have had significant reorganizations and reductions in force due to reduced funding. However, in such instances, the Library employees have rights that are protected by 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. This act, to a great extent, although it does not apply to the Library, much of it has been subsumed into the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. That act is applicable to the Library of Congress, and the Library has undertaken specific programs, drafted regulations which we are now negotiating with our unions. An additional consideration of that Rehabilitation Act occurs under procurement and contracting. Long ago, the Library adopted the Federal Acquisition Regulation for procurement purposes. The FAR prescribes policies and procedures for implementing section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, so the Library does comply in that sense. Finally, the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. Although the definition of "agency" in both these acts excluded the Library as 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. 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. Much of that is already in our own regulation on availability of records. Those provisions in our FOIA regulations, for example, protect our staff from unauthorized access to information in Library personnel records. The Library has drafted regulations along the Privacy Act line. We are negotiating those with our unions. Now, second, with respect to the proposed Office of Compliance in the bill, the Library is in favor of this proposal because it believes that this will be a uniform application of regulations. We think that that is a very good thing far the legislative branch. We know that there is a concern-and Senator Stevens has certainly expressed it-with respect to the cost. But we believe that that cost might be minimized if this legislation seeks to utilize the resources already available to it. This is the point that was made by Mr. Murphy with respect to the situations, the procedures that are already existing in the legislative agencies for handling of complaints and grievances. These are systems that are in place and fairly effective. If the Office of Compliance were to use those existing resources under its umbrella of authority, we believe that might be a very effective system. Third, we do have a concern. In the legislation, section 4(b)(1) requires the proposed 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. Now, that would be for further application. Because that is vague, this presents us with some concern. It is unclear, and we are unable to fully comment on its ramifications, but, our concern is real because it has a basis in the differences that exist in our employment practices from those of executive agencies. Consider, for example: Veterans' preference. If that were to be applied to the Library, it would require us to change our current selection and retention system in its entirety. Schedule C (political appointment) authority. Such authority is incongruous not only with our newly developed validated selection system, but with an outstanding U.S. district court order on the Library of Congress as well. That order requires the Library to fill jobs competitively. Third, allowing Library employees access to the Merit Systems which would have far-reaching effects on the collective bargaining agreements we currently have in place with our three unions. Now, we know that those are not specific statutes mentioned in this proposed bill, but they are things that are for possible consideration. At the heart of our concern is the effort we have put into restructuring our hiring and promotion procedures. To assure that these 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. 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 nonmerit principles existing in those inconsistent statutes. If they serve as a basis for consideration for hiring or promotion, then they are incongruous with our validated system. Because the Library has invested so much in its new system, we feel very strongly about being a major part of any study which may be conducted regarding the application of any such new 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 our expertise in assistance to the Congress. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to comment on these bills. I would be pleased to respond to any questions. I have with me my associate general counsel who will assist in any responses. Chairman GLENN. Thank you very much. Next will be Mr. Anthony J. Zagami, general counsel, Government Printing Office. TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY J. ZAGAMI,1 GENERAL COUNSEL, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANCIS W. BIDEN, DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL, LEGISLATIVE, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS Mr. ZAGAMI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I should probably limit my remarks to "ditto" because much of what my colleagues have said here today would apply as well to GPO. However, that would not be fair to myself and many others who spent so much time preparing for the hearings so I will make just a very brief statement, and I appreciate the Chairman including the full text of our remarks in the record. Incidentally, if you have not recognized the individual to my right, it is not Joe Biden; it is Frank Biden, the Congressional, Legislative, and Public Affairs Director of GPO. He has accompanied me for today's hearing. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Public Printer, Mike DiMario, I am pleased to be here today to present the views of the Government Printing Office on legislation that would require congressional compliance with various Federal employment laws. As an 1 The prepared statement of Mr. Zagami appears on page 315. agency of the legislative branch, GPO would be subjected by the legislation that we have discussed today to a series of laws regarding employment information and accommodation. Some of these laws already apply specifically to GPO; others do not apply to GPO specifically, and if they did, there would be additional administrative burden and costs applicable to the agency. Others that we have discussed today, while they do not apply, as a matter of policy, GPO has embraced the provisions of the law, and our inclusion here in legislation such as S. 2071 would not likely cause additional administrative or financial impact on the agency. To assist the Committee in its legislation or consideration of this legislation, I would like to present a brief review of the current applicability and impact on GPO of the various laws that we are talking about today. The first law that currently applies to GPO by statute would be the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This law, as Mr. Kominski stated, applies to any unit of the legislative branch of government which has positions in the competitive service. Historically GPO, as well as the Office of Personnel Management and its predecessor agency, the U.S. Civil Service Commission, have treated positions within GPO as being within the competitive service. Therefore, the provisions of the FLSA have applied. The Equal Pay Act of 1963, being a part of the FLSA, would also apply to GPO. The Federal labor-management relations statutes of 1978, chapter 71 of title 5, specifically include GPO within the definition of "agency," so the law does apply to GPO. I would say that under the compliance procedures of S. 2071, there are some differences in the way that these matters would be dealt with in terms of the panel that would hear complaints filed pursuant to that act. So there would have to be a discussion or some form of a reconciliation on those matters if we were to be included in S. 2071. Turning to section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Again, like the FSLA, the provisions apply to any unit in the legislative branch having positions in the competitive service. There was a recent judicial decision which indicated that the provisions of that act apply only to employees within the competitive service, so that the positions at GPO that are not included in the competitive service would likely be excluded from provisions of that act. Sections 102 and 104 of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 cover GPO with both the employment provisions as well as the accommodation provisions of the ADA. So, the agency is already under that act. We have already undertaken action to remove architectural, communication, and transportation barriers, and we continue to do so. Looking now at sections 101 through 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. GPO is covered by that particular statute. We have issued an internal directive which ensures compliance, in addition to providing instructions for FMLA requests. And finally, we turn to section 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. This law applies to GPO. We routinely process age discrimination complaints, we have had cases proceed |