[Senate Hearing 110-944]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-944
DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES: FAIR POLICY AND GOOD
BUSINESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-581 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Lawrence B. Novey, Senior Council
Kenya N. Wiley, Counsel
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Amanda Wood, Minority Director for Governmental
Lisa M. Nieman, Minority Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lieberman............................................ 1
Senator Collins.............................................. 3
Senator Akaka................................................ 21
WITNESSES
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Hon. Howard C. Weizmann, Deputy Director, U.S. Office of
Personnel Management........................................... 4
Yvette C. Burton, Ph.D., Global Business Development Executive
for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) and Human
Capital Market Segments, IBM Corporation....................... 6
Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union................................................ 8
Sherri Bracey, Program Manager, Women's and Fair Practices
Departments, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
CIO............................................................ 10
Frank A. Hartigan, Deputy Regional Director, San Francisco
Office, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.................. 13
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Bracey, Sherri:
Testimony.................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Burton, Yvette C., Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Hartigan, Frank A.:
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Kelley, Colleen M.:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Weizmann, Hon. Howard C.:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 31
APPENDIX
Copy of S. 2521.................................................. 66
Prepared statements, letters, and documents submitted for the
Record from:
American Postal Workers Union (APWU), AFL-CIO, letter dated
September 17, 2008......................................... 75
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), letter dated September 19, 2008.................. 77
Joe Solmonese, President, Human Rights Campaign, prepared
statement with attachments................................. 79
Federal GLOBE: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Employees
of the Federal Government, prepared statement.............. 92
Coalition of 15 organizations in support of the Domestic
Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, S. 2521, letter dated
September 23, 2008......................................... 95
Human Rights Campaign, letter dated October 10, 2008, with
attachments................................................ 97
College and University Professional Association for Human
Resources (CUPA-HR), letter dated September 24, 2008....... 136
American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) and Gays and
Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), prepared
statement.................................................. 138
Gregory J. Junemann, President, International Federation of
Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), AFL-CIO,
prepared statement......................................... 143
General Electric Company (GE), letter dated September 17,
2008....................................................... 147
Kathleen Marvel, Senior Vice President and Chief Diversity
Officer, The Chubb Corporation, prepared statement......... 149
TIAA-CREF, prepared statement................................ 153
Orson Porter, Nike Government Affairs-Nike, Inc., prepared
statement.................................................. 155
Helga Ying, Director, Worldwide Government Affairs and Public
Policy, Levi Strauss & Co., prepared statement............. 156
``The Fiscal Impact of Extending Federal Benefits to Same-Sex
Domestic Partners,'' September 2008, report submitted by
the Williams Institute..................................... 157
``One Simple Step for Equality,'' September 2008, report
submitted by the Center for American Progress.............. 173
Questions and responses for the Record from:.....................
Mr. Weizmann, with an attachment............................. 189
Ms. Burton, with attachments................................. 197
DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS
FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES:
FAIR POLICY AND GOOD BUSINESS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, and Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. Good morning and thank you all for
being here. This morning, our Committee will consider S. 2521,
the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, which
Senator Smith and I and more than 20 other Senators introduced
last December.
Obviously, we are toward the end of this session of
Congress so that it is too late for this measure to be adopted
this year, but all of us who sponsored it consider it to be an
important and serious proposal on which we need to begin the
discussion. And I am looking forward to action on it,
hopefully, in the next session of Congress. And that is what we
hope to do this morning. We thank the witnesses that we have
before us who will help us in that discussion.
Senator Smith and I, and the other cosponsors, introduced
this bill because we believe it makes sense for the Federal
Government as an employer and, of course, because we believe it
is the fair and right thing to do. We are confident that it
will help the Federal Government attract and retain the high-
quality employees we need to carry out our responsibilities to
the American people in the years ahead, particularly at a time
when all the experts tell us there will be a generational
change that will bring a very large percentage of Federal
employees to retirement.
This legislation would provide employee benefit programs to
the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. They would
be eligible to participate in health benefits, long-term care,
family and medical leave, Federal retirement benefits, and all
other benefits for which married employees and their spouses
are eligible. Federal employees and their domestic partners
would also be subject to the same responsibilities that apply
to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism
rules and financial disclosure requirements.
According to UCLA's Williams Institute, over 30,000 Federal
workers live in committed relationships with same-sex partners
who are not Federal employees. That these Federal workers
receive fewer protections for their families than those who are
married jeopardizes their continued ability to work for the
Federal Government.
We often hear--and some of us have often said--that the
government should be run more like a business. While the
purposes of government and business are different, I believe
that government does have a lot to learn from private sector
business models, including in the matter before us. The fact is
that a majority of the largest U.S. corporations--including
more than half of all Fortune 500 companies--already offer
benefits to domestic partners. Why? I presume, in part, because
it is the fair thing to do, but also clearly because these
businesses have decided that it helps their businesses succeed.
General Electric, IBM, Eastman Kodak, Dow Chemical, the
Chubb Corporation, Lockheed Martin, and Duke Energy are among
the major employers that have recognized the economic benefit
of providing benefits for domestic partners. Overall, almost
10,000 private sector companies of all sizes provide benefits
to domestic partners. The governments of 13 States, including
my home State of Connecticut, about 145 local jurisdictions
across our country, and some 300 colleges and universities also
provide such benefits. They are not doing this just because it
is the right thing to do, though I think it is. They are doing
it because it is good employee-management policy.
Non-Federal employers have told analysts that they extend
benefits to domestic partners to boost recruitment and retain
quality employees--as well as to be fair. If we want the
Federal Government to be able to compete for the best and the
brightest, we are going to have to provide some of the same
benefits job seekers can find elsewhere.
The experts tell us that 19 percent of an employee's
compensation comes in the form of benefits, including benefits
for family members. Employees who do not get benefits for their
families are, therefore, not being paid equally. Now, of
course, I and all of us understand that covering domestic
partners will add to the total cost of providing Federal
employee benefits. And, of course, we understand that
particularly now is a time when we have to be careful about
government spending and do rigorous cost-benefit analyses of
all, not just new, but of all Federal expenditures. I have
talked about what I believe are the benefits of this
legislation. I would add that based on the experience of
private companies and State and local governments, the
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that extending
benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees
would increase the cost of these programs by less than one-half
of 1 percent. The Office of Personnel Management says that the
cost of health benefits for domestic partners over 10 years
would be $670 million. And remember that our Federal budget
now--now, not 10 years from now--is at $3 trillion, and, I
would say this week, rising every day.
We will hear from our witnesses this morning about the
impact that the lack of domestic partner benefits has on
people. But I would like to take the liberty of quoting from,
unfortunately, the resignation speech of Michael Guest, who was
Ambassador to Romania and also Dean of the Foreign Service
Institute. I think it makes a very moving and eloquent case for
extending benefits to same-sex partners.
I believe Ambassador Guest was the first publicly gay man
to be confirmed for an ambassadorship from the United States.
When he resigned the Foreign Service in 2007, he said, and I
quote from his farewell address to his colleagues, ``I have
felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner--who
is my family--and service to my country. That anyone should
have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary's
leadership and a shame for this institution and our country.''
Those are very moving and, I would say, compelling words
from a talented and loyal public servant--who once described
the Foreign Service as the career he was ``born for . . . what
I was always meant to do.'' And, of course, it is a great loss
that he felt compelled to leave the Foreign Service--
particularly now at a time when our Nation so desperately needs
talented diplomats to help meet the challenges we face--in
large part because his Federal employee benefits would not
enable him to adequately care for the needs of his family.
The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act makes
good economic sense. It is sound policy, and I believe it is
the right thing to do. So I look forward to this morning's
discussion of this proposal.
Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was a very
moving statement indeed.
Today the Committee considers legislation that would extend
Federal employee benefits to same-sex domestic partners. The
Federal Government needs to have good benefits that help
attract the most qualified and capable employees, and this
legislation would help to advance that goal. I am, therefore,
pleased to commend the Chairman for taking the lead on a
national issue of fairness, equality, tolerance, and equal
treatment.
As the Chairman has explained, the Domestic Partnership
Benefits and Obligations Act provides that a Federal employee
and his or her domestic partner would have the same benefits
that apply to a married Federal employee and his or her spouse.
There are many practical reasons for doing this. The Federal
Government faces a huge challenge in attracting and retaining
talented and dedicated employees, both because of competition
from private employers and because of the wave of potential
retirements in the years ahead. Adapting Federal benefits
policy to reflect the common practice among Fortune 500
companies will help us meet these challenges.
Equally important, the principles supporting this change
are a matter of simple fairness. As long as the partners in the
household have established a personal relationship based on an
affirmed commitment, I see no public purpose to be served by
denying their eligibility for Federal benefits.
There is, however, one issue that the Committee may wish to
consider. My colleagues should look at how my home State of
Maine has addressed this issue. It addresses the issue more
broadly than this bill. Since 2004, Maine has operated a
domestic partner registry that allows Maine-domiciled,
committed adults to register for legal recognition as domestic
partners to secure rights such as next-of-kin status and
medical decision-making power. This registry does not, however,
restrict these benefits to same-sex partners. Partners in
committed relationships of different genders can also register.
Similarly, Maine health insurance law requires that any insurer
offering health insurance or contracts subject to State
regulation offer the same coverages and rates for registered
domestic partners that it offers to the spouses of insured
individuals. And, again, the law does not distinguish between
same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. So I want to hear our
witnesses discuss that issue this morning.
Again, let me emphasize that, regardless of that broader
issue--and there are legitimate issues for expanding this
definition and for not doing so--many experts predict that the
Federal Government is about to experience a huge retirement
wave. Indeed, some estimate that approximately 60 percent of
the Federal workforce will be eligible for retirement over the
next decade. According to the Human Rights Campaign, 56 percent
of the Fortune 500 companies, including some of our top Federal
contractors, extend spousal benefits to domestic partners. It
seems to me that if the Federal Government is going to compete
with the private sector for some of the most talented
workforce, we need to use some of the same incentives to
attract and, as the Chairman's statement indicated, to keep
qualified individuals in the public sector.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing
today. It is an important issue in terms of our ability to
ensure that the Federal Government has the best qualified
workforce possible.
Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins, for that very
thoughtful statement. Again, I thank the witnesses. We have got
a very good panel before us to discuss the issue, and we will
begin with the Hon. Howard Weizmann, who is the Deputy Director
of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Thanks for being
here.
TESTIMONY OF HON. HOWARD C. WEIZMANN,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Weizmann. Thank you, Chairman Lieberman and Ranking
Member Collins. I want to thank all the Members of the
Committee for discussing this important issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Weizmann appears in the Appendix
on page 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the opportunity to come today before you to
provide technical comments on S. 2521 which, if enacted, would
provide Federal benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of
Federal employees.
The Federal Government offers a competitive and
comprehensive package of employer-sponsored benefits for
Federal employees and their families. Federal employees may
elect insurance coverage under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program (FEHB), the Federal Employees Dental and
Vision Insurance Program, the Federal Employees' Group Life
Insurance Program, and the Federal Long Term Care Insurance
Program, including benefits for family members. In addition,
Federal employees are eligible for employer-sponsored
retirement and leave benefits. In pursuit of our mission to
ensure the Federal Government has an adequate and effective
civilian workforce, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
has primary responsibility with respect to the administration
of these benefits, as incorporated in Title 5 of the United
States Code.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, your bill, S. 2521, would
provide benefits for the same-sex domestic partners of
employees like the benefits currently available to married
employees. The bill defines domestic partner as ``an adult
unmarried person living with another adult unmarried person of
the same sex in a committed, intimate relationship.'' The bill
includes coverage under Title 5 insurance benefit programs,
retirement and disability benefits, the Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA), and the Federal Worker's Compensation Act,
among others.
As background, domestic partners of Federal employees are
not included as eligible family members under Title 5 for any
of these Federal programs. Therefore, the same-sex domestic
partners are not entitled to benefits. Opposite-sex domestic
partners are similarly not entitled to these benefits. Same-sex
marriages are not recognized for benefit entitlement purposes
under any of the Federal benefit programs. Public Law 104-199,
the Defense of Marriage Act, signed on September 21, 1996,
created a new Section 7 to Title 1 of the United States Code,
providing that in the interpretation of any law enacted by the
Congress, ``the word `marriage' means only a legal union
between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
`spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a
husband or a wife.'' This definition applies in ``any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States.''
As for technical comments, the bill itself provides that,
first, benefits programs described in Title 5 refer to coverage
for both Federal employees and Federal annuitants. However, a
strict interpretation of the bill, as currently drafted, raises
questions as to whether benefits would be available to same-sex
domestic partners once an employee retires.
Second, the bill provides that affidavits pertaining to the
eligibility of domestic partners for Federal benefits be filed
with OPM. Human resource functions are conducted at each of the
Federal agencies, including benefits enrollment and payroll
deductions, on behalf of agency employees. OPM does not serve
as a central clearinghouse for all Federal employees and,
therefore, would not have the records nor resources to collect
and maintain such affidavits.
Third, OPM has concerns with the administration of benefits
for a domestic partnership. Currently, spousal benefits are
based on the documentation of a State-sanctioned marriage. The
bill under consideration would provide benefits to those in
domestic partnerships or relationships which are certified by
affidavit. OPM believes this process could lead to fraud and
abuse in the programs we administer. Spousal equity benefit
determinations frequently rely on State court orders awarding
annuity and insurance benefits coverage. There is no analogous
provision in the proposed legislation. For example, the bill
specifically provides that in the event ``a domestic
partnership dissolves by method other than death of the
employee or domestic partner of the employee, the former
domestic partner shall be entitled to benefits available to,
and shall be subject to obligations imposed upon, a former
spouse.'' The provision lacks the specificity needed to
determine eligibility and amount of benefits for a separated
domestic partner.
OPM also notes that the estimated cost of these additional
beneficiaries to the current system of active and retired
Federal employees would increase outlays. As the Chairman
noted, we estimate the FEHB Program government costs would be
$41 million for 2010 and approximately $670 million for the
period of 2010 through 2019. We estimate the cost of the
legislation for survivor benefits would increase the total
present value of benefits by about $50 million--$37 million for
non-Postal and $13 million for Postal workers. Retirement costs
for this group would initially decrease because their retiree
annuities would be reduced to provide for the survivor annuity,
while few survivor benefits would be paid to domestic partners
initially.
This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer
questions as the hearing proceeds.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Weizmann. Interesting
questions, which we will get back to during the later part of
the hearing.
Our next witness is Dr. Yvette Burton, who is a Business
Development Executive with IBM. It is a pleasure to have you
here, and thanks for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF YVETTE C. BURTON, PH.D.,\1\ GLOBAL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE FOR GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER
(GLBT) AND HUMAN CAPITAL MARKET SEGMENTS, IBM CORPORATION
Ms. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Senator
Lieberman, Senator Collins, and Members of the Committee for
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, my name is Yvette
Burton, and I am the Global Business Development Executive for
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT), and Human Capital
Market Segments at IBM, and in that role I have responsibility
for providing strategic advisement and consultation to our
customers in that space as they embark on organizational
transformation around the world. I have submitted my testimony
for the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Burton appears in the Appendix on
page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my testimony, I will share IBM's point of view as one of
the growing number of Fortune 500 companies implementing
domestic partner benefits. In addition, I will address IBM's
job market perspective on the utilization of domestic partner
benefits as a strategy for competitive talent management.
Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and other Committee
Members, IBM has over 356,000 employees in 74 countries. IBM
unites different cultures, languages, professions, and
perspectives in one globally integrated enterprise. This unique
combination of viewpoints fuels IBM technologies, products,
services, and our commitment to our clients' success.
As a leader on GLBT issues, IBM can be proud of the
progress it has made in empowering GLBT employees around the
world and in the IBM workplace.
For example, IBM maintains a 100-percent ranking on the
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Corporate Equality Index for the
United States. In 1999, IBM was named one of the best companies
to work for, for gays and lesbians by HRC.
In 2002, IBM became the first ``Gold Corporate Sponsor'' of
the Atlanta Executive Network (AEN), the largest GLBT
professional networking organization in the United States.
Advocate magazine names IBM one of the ``Top Companies to
Work for Today.''
As a business-to-business company, corporations and
institutions come to IBM for leadership and as a model on how
to build and leverage a diverse workforce and how to drive that
towards our clients' success. In essence, we provide the answer
to the question ``Why Does IBM Work?'' Undoubtedly, programs
like domestic partnership benefits are a critical component to
our success.
So let's examine how domestic partner benefits actually
benefit business. IBM has become a globally integrated
enterprise. As our economy becomes more globally integrated and
competition for skilled employees becomes even more intense,
the ability to attract, retain, and develop world-class talent
is crucial.
For over a decade, IBM has used domestic partnership
benefits as a differentiating and competitive method to attract
employees. Increased loyalty to the company and our history of
non-discriminatory practices are some of the immediate
advantages of implementing programs like this. But domestic
partner benefits do not only attract GLBT employees. Like IBM,
many companies report that the implementation of domestic
partner benefits helped to attract and retain crucial talent
segments of non-GLBT employees. These particular candidates
have reported that the existence of domestic partnership
benefit policies like that at IBM demonstrate that the company
truly values and respects all employees, that they protect all
employees. It also shows IBM's commitment to including diverse
perspectives. This trend is especially prevalent among younger
candidates of the workforce--a segment crucial to the future
demographics of any sector.
Domestic partnership benefits serve as a vital talent
development opportunity at the leadership level. As
organizations effectively integrate domestic partnership
benefits into practice, it provides a valuable framework for
leaders to clarify the organization's commitment to eliminating
those attitudes and behaviors that negatively impact on
business results. In a nutshell, it can improve low
productivity and morale caused by inequitable workplace
practices, thereby creating a positive work environment.
Unfortunately, many GLBT employees spend a good deal of
their workdays concealing their orientation from co-workers for
fear of backlash and adverse impact to career advancement. The
absence of domestic partnership benefits contributes to this
problem by signaling to all employees that GLBT employees are
not equally valued in the workplace. This disconnect in the
commitment to equitable treatment of the workforce can become a
breeding ground for inconsistent employment and human resource
conditions for GLBT employees in general.
Providing domestic partnership benefits can help an
organization develop a stronger and industrious workforce. How?
Strong development opportunities have been evident in the
results of GLBT employees who take great personal risks in
discussing their families with their managers. In these
examples, we see key business skills--skills like strategic
risk taking, decision-making, and the demonstration of trust
and responsibility in all relationships. These leadership
skills are key to advancing a company's business objectives. In
the end, manager-employee conversations prove to be an
invaluable growth opportunity for both the employees and the
organization.
Last, domestic partnership benefits create a sense of
loyalty to the company, a bond between the employee and the
organization, as well as a balance of work and home. In a
competitive market and difficult and uncertain times, the
commitment by our employees has proved enduring.
A related issue I would also like to address is IBM's
support for the Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan
Beneficiaries Act, S. 1556. As many of you know, gay and
lesbian employees who receive domestic partnership benefits
have to pay taxes on their employers' contribution for health
insurance benefits and employers must pay payroll taxes on
their employees' taxable income. This legislation would
eliminate these taxes and allow those who cannot afford the
extra taxes to offer health care coverage for their loved ones.
In conclusion, IBM, much like the Federal Government, has a
long history of establishing equilibrium in the workplace. And
IBM, much like the Federal Government, has worked to eliminate
the gap between the promise and the practice of workplace
equality. These actions have proven to be very successful for
IBM on many levels. Specifically, IBM's triumph in creating an
open and welcoming environment--regardless of sexual
orientation, gender identity, and gender expression--has truly
allowed us to attract and retain talent to advance our
business.
Senator Lieberman, thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Dr. Burton. That was
very interesting, very helpful.
Next we have Colleen Kelley, National President of the
National Treasury Employees Union. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY,\1\ NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Ms. Kelley. Thank you very much, Chairman Lieberman and
Ranking Member Collins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley appears in the Appendix on
page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For over 70 years, the National Treasury Employees Union
(NTEU) has been in the forefront of defending and advancing
better pay, benefits, and working conditions for Federal
employees. I have had the honor of testifying before this
Committee many times in the past, and I thank you for this
invitation today.
Under the legislation that you have introduced, Mr.
Chairman, Federal workers with domestic partners would be able
to participate in employee benefit programs similar to the
options allowed for married couples. The legislation would also
require Federal employees and their domestic partners to be
subject to the same duties, obligations, and ethics
requirements that married employees are mandated to follow. And
as you noted, and I would emphasize, this bill proposes both
benefits and obligations.
There is a very sound principle embraced on a bipartisan
basis that fair and comprehensive employee benefits in our
society are best promoted by the Federal Government operating
as a model employer. Then the private sector is encouraged but
not mandated to adopt these benefits by the good example and
the resulting market forces of the Nation's largest employer--
the Federal Government. In this situation, however, we are
seeing the reverse. The Federal Government is no longer in the
forefront but is behind. With over 53 percent of Fortune 500
companies offering domestic partner benefits and many public
employers, including the State of Connecticut, as you noted,
Mr. Chairman, this sets up a situation where the very entities
that we, in the Federal Government, are competing with for the
recruitment of the best and brightest workers, they are
offering domestic partner benefits. Market forces and the good
example of the private sector now put this issue before the
Federal sector.
As the exclusive bargaining representative for over 150,000
Federal employees, NTEU is the first to hear from those we
represent about pay, benefits, and working conditions. Domestic
partner benefits are a concern that our members raise
frequently. We have discussed and debated the issue at our
National Conventions and passed resolutions in support at every
NTEU National Convention going back more than a decade.
Just recently, I heard from a worker at the IRS Service
Center in Ogden, Utah, a Customs and Border Protection officer
serving on the Canadian border in Maine, and a Social Security
Administration employee in Cleveland, Ohio, all of whom have
asked the union to work on having domestic partner benefits
extended to the Federal sector.
There is another reason why Congress should move favorably
on this legislation. This Committee has been very attentive to
the coming human capital crisis in the Federal sector. I have
testified and we all know that more than half of the Federal
Government's employees will become eligible for retirement in
the next 10 years, and approximately 40 percent of the Federal
workforce is expected to retire in that period. In the next 5
years alone, it could be 30 percent of the workforce, over
600,000 individuals.
I have testified that OPM needs to step up its marketing
and its outreach. I have also testified that the looming crisis
is not just a matter where the response can be moving those
next in line up the food chain and stepping up entry-level
hires. The Federal Government did very little hiring in the
1990s, while at the same time, the Federal workforce was
reduced by about 400,000 workers. We are not only losing the
senior layer of the workforce in the next 10 years, there is
also no one behind them to do the jobs. Mid-career and mid-
level candidates need to be attracted to Federal service,
including those who are part of a domestic partner couple.
Given this reality, it is simply unacceptable that the
Federal Government does not offer benefits equal to or better
than the private firms the government is competing with for
talent. Most obviously, it is a desirable recruitment tool for
an employee with a partner not in the labor force or in a job
that does not offer health insurance. When asking applicants to
relocate, it is a tough sell for a married couple, but at least
the agency can offer relocation and related expenses and at
least the non-Federal spouse can participate in the health
insurance plan while searching for a new job in the new
location. To ask a highly qualified candidate to relocate, and
to expect the candidate's domestic partner to leave his or her
employment and employer-sponsored health insurance to move to a
new city, could cause the Federal Government to miss out on
some of the best and the most able candidates.
And to your question, Senator Collins, NTEU would not
object to expansion of the legislation to include domestic
partner coverage as you described in Maine.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to
testify in support of this legislation, and I would be happy to
answer any questions that you have.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Ms. Kelley. I
appreciate the testimony, and I have some questions for you
afterward.
Next we have Sherri Bracey, Program Manager for Women's and
Fair Practices Department of the American Federation of
Government Employees. So we have the two employee groups
represented here who represent the largest numbers of our
Federal workforce.
Thank you for being here.
TESTIMONY OF SHERRI BRACEY,\1\ PROGRAM MANAGER, WOMEN'S AND
FAIR PRACTICES DEPARTMENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Ms. Bracey. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, my name is Sherri Bracey, and I am the Program
Manager of the Women's and Fair Practices Department of the
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). Our union
represents more than 600,000 Federal and District of Columbia
workers, and today I testify on their behalf in support of S.
2521, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of
2008, a bill which would provide the same-gender domestic
partners of Federal employees the same benefits available to
spouses of married Federal employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Bracey appears in the Appendix on
page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This legislation is about equity--the type of equity that
assures that Federal agencies are capable of recruiting and
retaining the brightest and the best workers, and the type of
equity that personifies civil service protections. S. 2521
would result in the equalization of benefits such as health
insurance, retirement benefits, Family and Medical Leave Act
benefits, life insurance, workers' compensation, death and
disability benefits, and even reimbursement benefits for
relocation, travel, and related expenses.
Under S. 2521, biological and adopted children of domestic
partners will be treated the same as step-children of married
Federal workers. Same-gender domestic partners would be subject
to the same anti-nepotism and financial rules and obligations
as married Federal workers. These benefits and obligations are
the norm for what workers, especially those in the Federal
workplace, reasonably expect to receive from employers.
To become eligible for equitable treatment, Federal
employees in same-sex domestic partnerships would be required
to file legal affidavits of eligibility with the Office of
Personnel Management to certify that they share a home and
financial responsibilities, affirm that they have the intention
to remain in the domestic partnership indefinitely, and notify
OPM within 30 days if the partnership is dissolved.
It is important to note that OPM readily accepts affidavits
in support of FMLA benefits for all Federal workers and that
the agency has not expressed undue concern with fraud in the
administration of that program.
The practice of treating married employees and those in
committed same-sex partnerships equitably with regard to health
insurance and retirement benefits is now well established in
the private sector, and in many State and local governments.
Clearly, these private and public employers offer such benefits
not only because it is fair and appropriate, but also because
the labor market has made such policies an imperative in the
competition to attract and retain excellent employees.
Fortune 500 firms, the best comparison for the Federal
Government as the Nation's largest employer, extend equal
benefits to spouses and same-sex domestic partnerships. The
Federal Government should do no less. The Federal Government
should be a model employer that strives to attain the highest
level of fairness for its employees with additional duty to all
taxpayers to adopt employment policies that facilitate the
hiring and retention of a workforce of the highest quality.
Top wages, top benefits, and top work environments attract
the top talent. The economic value of family coverage for
health insurance, survivor benefits for retirement, disability,
workers' compensation, life insurance, and full family coverage
of relocation costs are substantial to workers and have
extremely modest costs for the government. Non-cash Federal
benefits make up almost a third of a typical Federal worker's
compensation and become even more important to workers because
the salary gap between Federal and non-Federal jobs has
actually grown in recent years so that it now stands at 22.97
percent, on average, nationwide.
To add to the challenge, continuing to discriminate against
workers in same-gender domestic partnerships is as irrational
as it is unfair. Imagine the perspective of a high-performing
Federal employee who happens to have a domestic partner and two
kids and who works in a job that the Federal Government admits
it has trouble recruiting for, such as a certified registered
nurse anesthetist in the Veterans Administration, or a Defense
Department information technology specialist with a high
security classification. If that Federal worker has a coworker
with identical job responsibilities and performance who happens
to be married with two kids, the worker with the domestic
partner and kids would only be eligible for single coverage
from FEHBP while married workers would enjoy subsidized family
coverage from FEHBP, worth approximately $8,561.80 per year,
and that subsidy is not taxed.
If a married Federal employee with two kids dies early, his
or her survivors will receive benefits ranging from $12,432 to
$38,628 per year depending on his or her salary. In identical
circumstances, a surviving domestic partner and children of
that Federal worker are left with nothing.
The single largest component of compensation after salary
and their own annuity for the vast majority of Federal
employees who earn a full retirement annuity after a career on
Federal service is the financial value of survivor benefits.
This inequity in the treatment of a Federal employee's survivor
is the most severe and the most indefensible. It is impossible
to square these facts with the merit system principle of equal
pay for substantially equal work.
The injury to Federal workers in domestic partnerships and
their families is real and severe. Federal GLOBE, an advocacy
group of Federal workers whose purpose is to eliminate
prejudice and discrimination in the Federal Government based on
sexual orientation, provided this telling narrative from a
member discussing the impact of second-class benefits for
first-class work on their family:
``My partner and I had to incur the significant expense of
individual health insurance for her because she was not
eligible to receive coverage through my employment. During this
time, she was working as an independent consultant. My married
colleagues were able to provide their partners with health
benefits which were more extensive than my partner's individual
insurance and partially subsidized by the government. I did not
see my relationship with my partner as any less legitimate or
permanent than my colleagues' marriages. We are in a long-term
relationship, 14 years, which is no more or less permanent than
a legal marriage. We completely share our finances, so denial
of health insurance for her is a denial of benefits to me. I
really see the inequities in health insurance benefits coverage
as discrimination based on both material status and sexual
orientation.''
The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that
enactment of S. 2521 would add less than one-half of 1 percent
to the existing costs of this program. Therefore, cost cannot
serve as a valid rationale for failure to pass this legislation
and is far outweighed by the cost of turnover, retirement, and
training when experienced Federal workers leave Federal service
because of inequities in benefits suffered by workers in
domestic partnerships. The format of a family, all families, is
a happy occasion and should be supported by the U.S.
Government.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions Members of the Committee may have.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much for your testimony,
Ms. Bracey.
And, finally, we have Frank Hartigan, who is Deputy
Regional Director of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Thanks for being here.
Maybe we should ask you first, how is the FDIC doing this
week? [Laughter.]
Mr. Hartigan. All right.
Chairman Lieberman. You are all right. And we are OK,
right?
Mr. Hartigan. We are OK.
TESTIMONY OF FRANK A. HARTIGAN,\1\ DEPUTY REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Mr. Hartigan. Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins,
and Members of the Committee, I am happy to be here today to
testify on behalf of domestic partner benefits for Federal
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hartigan appears in the Appendix
on page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Frank Hartigan, and I am an executive manager at
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. I have worked for
the FDIC for 24 years and am currently a Deputy Regional
Director in the Division of Supervision and Consumer
Protection.
I am here to tell you about my experience and unique
perspective as a gay executive in the Federal Government. I am
testifying on my own behalf, and I am not speaking for the
FDIC.
The lack of domestic partner benefits is a fairness issue
that negatively impacts employees during their entire career
and into retirement. The lack of domestic partner benefits is
in direct contradiction to the best practices of workplace
fairness.
Gay and lesbian employees have to deal with inequities in
the workplace every day when it comes to benefits. They face
financial and emotional hardships when their partner does not
have adequate health, dental, and vision insurance. They often
feel at a disadvantage when applying for other Federal jobs or
advancement opportunities that involve relocation, as
relocation benefits are not the same for domestic partnerships
as they are for heterosexual married employees. And gay and
lesbian employees are at a disadvantage when they compare their
retirement benefits to their coworkers.
Some Federal agencies, like the Federal banking regulators,
have recognized these inequities and have implemented limited
forms of domestic partner benefits. I am proud to say that the
FDIC, under the leadership of Chairman Bair, is also beginning
to do the same. While this is a step in the right direction,
these attempts to equalize benefits fall short of achieving
actual equality. In plain words, the total compensation package
for gay and lesbian Federal employees is not equal to their
coworkers in the same job.
As a result, the lack of domestic partner benefits puts the
government at a disadvantage when trying to attract and retain
a qualified workforce. More than half of the Fortune 500
companies and almost 10,000 other employers provide domestic
partner benefits. Also, many State and local governments plus
colleges and universities provide domestic partner benefits to
their employees.
Young gay and lesbian employees certainly consider domestic
partner benefits when deciding between potential jobs and
employers. They are much more enlightened to the issue of
domestic partner benefits than I was when I entered the Federal
workforce. In retrospect, I have asked myself, ``If I were
starting out in today's job market, would I take a job with the
Federal Government knowing what I know about domestic partner
benefits?'' I believe I would look elsewhere.
Being competitive in attracting new talent is especially
important when you look at the number of people eligible to
retire in the coming years. As has already been testified, the
numbers are significant. Given the large loss of talent, the
Federal Government will need to ensure that it is viewed as an
employer of choice by prospective employees.
Potential new employees consider domestic partner benefits
not only as part of a total compensation package, but they also
look at them as an indication of a fair and respectful
workplace.
Perhaps the most obvious and ongoing disparity in employee
benefits is in the insurance coverage offered to family members
of Federal employees. Domestic partners of gay and lesbian
employees cannot be covered by the Federal health insurance
programs. This is also true for vision, dental, and life
insurance coverage. The lack of insurance can cost a family a
great deal of money.
One of my colleagues has worked for the Federal Government
for 28 years and is in a long-term relationship. He and his
partner are raising three adopted children. Since the employee
cannot provide health insurance to his partner under the family
plan, they pay roughly $9,000 a year for a separate policy. The
quality of the insurance coverage does not compare to that
offered by the Federal Employees Health Benefit program. It
carries high deductibles and premiums that are an additional
burden to the family's budget.
His partner needed two surgeries that required significant
out-of-pocket expense. They are now postponing further needed
surgery simply because they cannot afford it. All this comes at
a time when they are preparing to send two children off to
college.
Another colleague left the government for private sector
employment specifically because of the lack of domestic partner
benefits. She took with her training and expertise that was
paid for by the agency to the private sector that offers
domestic partner benefits. We lost a very smart, valuable, and
talented employee.
A close friend and colleague who has been with her partner
for over 18 years and with the government for 25 years recently
paid more than $10,000 for dental work for her partner. Under
our family dental insurance program, she would have received
about 60 or 70 percent of those expenses in reimbursement.
Gay and lesbian employees in domestic partnerships are also
treated substantially different than married couples when it
comes to relocation benefits. When an employee makes a
geographic move for the benefit of the organization, agencies
reimburse them for certain allowable expenses. If an employee
is married, the relocation benefits extend to the spouse.
However, if a gay or lesbian employee owns a home with a
domestic partner, only the employee's portion of the residence,
household goods, and vehicles are covered. Relocation benefits
are essentially cut in half.
Gay and lesbian employees are also disadvantaged with
retirement benefits. Retirement benefits for Federal employees
with domestic partners are not equal to those provided to
married employees. A married employee with a spouse can choose
to provide a survivor annuity. This same option is not
available to domestic partners.
And of course, the inequities in health insurance benefits
extend into retirement. Health insurance for domestic partners
cannot be provided in retirement, but an opposite-sex spouse
has the right to health insurance coverage.
I recently attended a 3-day seminar on retirement benefits
sponsored by my agency. Throughout the 3 days, there was
extensive talk about benefits available to the spouses of
heterosexual employees and the need to ``protect your spouse''
in the event of the employee's death. There was absolutely no
discussion of similar benefits for my partner because they do
not exist.
Last, I would like to address the issue of
``presenteeism.'' This is where an employee shows up for work
but because of distractions their mind is elsewhere. Family
problems can certainly impact any employee. However, due to the
lack of domestic partner benefits, gay and lesbian employees
have added stress and burden. For instance, in all of the
examples I have talked about today, the gay or lesbian employee
was under additional stress, had more distractions, and was not
able to focus 100 percent on their job. Whether the employee
was worrying about the health or well-being of an uninsured
partner, trying to figure out how to cover the additional
expense of higher insurance costs and medical expenses, feeling
as if they are limited in opportunities for career advancement
because of inequities in relocation benefits, or being anxious
about providing for their family in retirement, all of this
significantly affects an employee's level of presenteeism.
In closing, I would like to say that today's hearing
regarding the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act
gives many great hope that the U.S. Government recognizes and
is willing to correct the grave inequities that exist by
requiring departments and agencies to offer a full complement
of domestic partner benefits, including health, dental, vision,
and life insurance, as well as relocation and retirement
benefits. The Federal Government strongly espouses the
principle, both for itself and private employers, of equal pay
for equal work. Yet it knowingly has tolerated a system in
which gay and lesbian employees have less total compensation
than non-gay coworkers doing exactly the same job.
Domestic partner benefits are necessary for the Federal
Government to compete for the most qualified employees and to
ensure that all of its public servants receive fair and
equitable treatment. It makes good economic and policy sense,
and it is the right thing to do.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be
happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Mr. Hartigan. Thanks
for your testimony. The real life stories you tell, I think,
present some of the strongest evidence for the benefits that we
are attempting under this legislation to provide. And I thank
you for teaching us a new word: ``presenteeism.'' I will
immediately notify William Safire that you have done that.
Let's start with 7-minute rounds of questions.
Let me start, Dr. Burton, with you just by way of a summary
question. It is implicit in everything you said, but, as I
indicated in my opening statement, these are benefits that we
would like to provide--if I speak for myself and the other
sponsors. But we understand that we have to subject these,
notwithstanding our belief that they are fair and right, to a
cost-benefit analysis.
I assume that IBM has concluded that the benefits of
providing the range of domestic partner benefits that we have
talked about significantly outweighs the cost. Is that correct?
Ms. Burton. Yes, Senator Lieberman, that is correct.
Conversely, when we considered those variables that were
mentioned by the last witness--those distractions that detract
from performance and delivery of business results, we see that
easily those types of attitudes and behaviors in areas like
that can take away up to 20 percent of our ability to deliver
the bottom-line results for the company.
So we take quite seriously being able to not only implement
programs like domestic partner benefits, but then to support it
with the infrastructure to deliver, monitor, and ensure that we
have the processes to make them effective.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks.
Mr. Weizmann, let me ask a few points of you. I must say
that Senator Collins and I talked about this. We note, as we
listen to your testimony on behalf of OPM, that you neither
endorse nor oppose the legislation. You describe the legal
context. You raise some questions, which are appropriate
questions, about its implementation. And you reported on some
of the estimates of cost. So I suppose I take that as an
encouraging sign. Am I reading you correctly on behalf of OPM?
Mr. Weizmann. We have taken no position on this bill.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes. Well, I appreciate that at this
point in the discussion. Let me ask you this question based on
what you know, and, again, I am not asking you to take a
position on the legislation because you are not authorized to
do that. But do you think, from the arguments that we have
heard today, that it would help the Federal Government in its
competition for top talent to offer domestic partner benefits?
Mr. Weizmann. Well, it is an interesting benefit, and I
guess what I would think is that when I look at the take-up
rates of these benefits where they are offered, they are
generally around one percent for all employees who take those
benefits.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes.
Mr. Weizmann. And it seems to me when you talk about
solving the retirement wave crisis, we proceed from a very
small specific to a very large general using this benefit.
Chairman Lieberman. So you would say it would help, if I
hear you, but it is not going to solve our human capital
management.
Mr. Weizmann. I am not in a position to say whether it
would help or not. There is really nothing other than anecdotal
evidence as to whether this is useful in an attraction and
retention mode. At least we could not find any surveys that
really indicated that these benefits either attracted people or
retained people.
Now, clearly there are anecdotal situations that people can
cite, but there are also the same kinds of anecdotal situations
for married employees within the Federal Government.
Chairman Lieberman. I suppose from my point of view, the
provision of benefits for same-sex partners would naturally be
an inducement for some people to come to work for the Federal
Government as opposed to private employers who offered such
benefits. I wonder if any of the other witnesses want to
comment on that other than anecdotally. I do not know whether
there have been any studies done on that. Again, it would seem
to be common sense that this would be an effective inducement
to employment. Anybody else want to join in that? Ms. Kelley.
Ms. Kelley. I am not aware of any studies either, Chairman
Lieberman, but what I do believe is that as a model employer,
there is a wide range of things that the Federal Government
needs to look at and be implementing in order to increase the
chances of recruiting and retaining top talent, both today and
into the future. And I do not see this legislation as any
suggestion that it is the one thing that would fix the
recruiting and retention problems. It is one of many things.
And if this is the way we need to go about them, one at a time,
then on its merits and the fact that it is fair, appropriate,
and affordable, it sends a message not only to those who might
elect to take the coverage, but to the kind of workforce that
the Federal Government wants to have, and how they value and
respect the total Federal workforce then, it is certainly worth
doing.
Chairman Lieberman. I was interested in Dr. Burton's
comments about the feeling that IBM has that the provision of
same-sex partner benefits is an inducement to people who are
not in same-sex relationships because of what it says about the
work climate overall.
Look, I suppose without a specific study--one market-based
indicator here is that more than half of the Fortune 500
companies offer these benefits, presumably not just because
they have decided they are right, because after all, these are
businesses, and not because they have been compelled by law in
most cases to do it, but because they think it is good for
business. So that leads me to think it would be good for the
Federal Government, certainly in terms of attracting and
retaining.
Mr. Weizmann, let me ask you one more question in the time
I have on this round. I want to ask you to elaborate a bit on
the practical question you raised, the concern about the
potential for fraud. You expressed concern that the reliance on
affidavits lacks the specificity needed to determine
eligibility and benefits for a separated domestic partner. And
I want to ask whether, generally, do you believe that the
provisions in our legislation involving affidavits should be
tightened up? Or do you believe that any reliance on affidavits
to determine eligibility will bring problems that will be
difficult to fix?
Mr. Weizmann. I think there are two points regarding the
tracking. The first is when an employee signs up for domestic
partner benefits under this legislation. Simply providing a
self-verification of an existing relationship itself is pretty
thin in terms of an evidentiary matter. There are places that
require, quite frankly, more in terms of joint financial
investments and those kinds of things. So, I think that is part
of the problem.
The other problem, which is perhaps more significant, is
what we do on the dissolution of that relationship. I know in
the private sector, for example, long-term disability is a huge
issue for most employers who, in fact, have trouble tracking
down people who are still and remain eligible for long-term
disability. When you come to the Federal Government, we have
some 4 million active employees and retirees covered under
FEHB, and 8 million in total in terms of beneficiaries. The
size of our system and also our fiduciary responsibility to
ensure that people who are receiving benefits are, in fact,
eligible for benefits makes this a huge administrative burden
for us. And, quite frankly, to rely on an affidavit that is
filed once at one point in life and then some requirement even
to report when the relationship dissolves, when you consider
the self-interest that would be involved in people who would
like to continue those benefits, it is a pretty weak thread to
build a fabric of legislation here.
Chairman Lieberman. I am going to ask Senator Collins'
indulgence just to ask one follow-up question of Dr. Burton,
since you represent a large employer who has offered these
benefits to their employees. Just take a moment to describe
both the eligibility procedure at IBM and also the extent to
which you have either confronted or worry about fraud.
Ms. Burton. Thank you, Senator. As the government goes
through and tries to solidify the appropriate process that
would serve as strategic control points, we would be happy to
share best practices. And, again, I am speaking as a
consultant, not as a benefits administrator, so bear with the
level of detail.
The affidavits serve the same purpose, or a remedy for the
lack of legal certificates, that a marriage certificate would
provide. But most corporations do not rely on the affidavit to
serve as the panacea for the absence of processes. What they do
is make that affidavit analogous to the purpose that a marriage
certificate would serve. So at IBM, what that looks like is
just as my married colleagues would be advised to have their
marriage certificates at the ready should a benefits
administrator need to draw on that license, in the event of my
death for my partner to receive benefits or should I retire,
there is a document that certifies the date and nature of our
relationship that is referenceable and is at the ready. And,
likewise, the corporation advises that if I live in a State,
let's say, like California, where marriage is an option, so not
only just the affidavit but in the description of what the
domestic partnership is. There are avenues if the option to
marry becomes available. It also talks about not only the
affidavit, but a legal certified document, a marriage license,
that is now available for same-gender couples.
So, again, it is being genuine to the purpose of that
affidavit and how it serves to move the processing of benefits.
And with regard to termination of benefits, there is also
language in our domestic partnership guide that states an
employee has to notify our employment center about the change
in his or her relationship within 30 days, much like if the
employee was married and divorced there would be an obligation
to notify the corporation of a change in status. But as I have
offered, if helpful to the Committee, I would be delighted to
provide more detailed information on our processes.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. That was helpful.
Mr. Weizmann. Senator Lieberman, may I correct something
that I said before?
Chairman Lieberman. Yes.
Mr. Weizmann. Because I was misinformed. We do oppose this
bill and I am regretful.
Chairman Lieberman. Oh, I am sorry to hear that. Probably I
asked one too many questions.
Mr. Weizmann. Probably did. Maybe it changed during the
course of this hearing. I am not sure.
Chairman Lieberman. OK. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Mr. Weizmann, in view of what you said, I
want to ask you some further questions. You had extensive
experience in the private sector prior to coming to OPM. Did
any of the companies for which you worked extend domestic
partnership benefits?
Mr. Weizmann. Yes, we did.
Senator Collins. Were there any problems with those
programs?
Mr. Weizmann. As I indicated, statistically we did not have
very many people electing those benefits. At the same time, the
program still was too new. We are not talking about a period of
10 or 15 years. We are talking about a period of months,
really, when we adopted them from the time I was there.
Senator Collins. Well, in looking at the firms at which you
worked, Aetna, for example, has domestic partnership benefits,
and they have retained those benefits for a number of years. In
the case of Aetna, it goes back a decade. If, in fact, these
were not advantageous benefits for the private sector companies
to have, don't you think they would have done away with those
benefits?
Mr. Weizmann. Senator Collins, with all due respect, having
worked in companies all my life and only having recently come
to the Federal Government, companies adopt benefits for a whole
bunch of reasons, and while we talk about the attraction and
retention issue, in many instances for employers they look at
this as a matter of either fairness or the kind of equity
issues that have been discussed here. The fact that they retain
those benefits and is at least as likely because they do not
cost much and they have not proven administratively burdensome
because they have relatively few people electing those benefits
and is really not indicative of whether that benefit has been
reviewed and whether they want to keep it or they do not keep
it.
Senator Collins. Well, I think you just made the case for
the benefit on another ground, which is fairness. Either these
companies are viewing it as the right thing to do as a matter
of fairness, or they are finding that it is advantageous to
them in terms of attracting and retaining a high-quality
workforce. Either way they have reached a decision to extend
this benefit that to me is a compelling decision for the
Federal Government to follow either as a matter of fairness or
as a matter of retention and attraction.
Mr. Weizmann. Senator, corporate decision-making, as we
know, as we have recently found out, is often imperfect. Having
said that, when you look at the overall statistics of those
employers that have elected same-sex domestic partner benefits,
for all employers in total, it is 11 percent. It is not an
overwhelming number. When you get to larger employers, yes,
indeed, the statistics that Senator Lieberman quoted are
accurate.
So, whether it is an equity issue or what those
determinations are made, those are really specific to what the
company's policies are. It is not something for me to discuss.
Senator Collins. Well, it seems to me that the parallel for
the Federal Government is, in fact, large employers. That is
what the Federal Government is, and that is what most of the
firms who provide these benefits are, in the larger-firm
category.
Let me go on to Dr. Burton because I am going to have to
leave right after I conclude these questions. Dr. Burton, some
have argued that the reason we should extend these benefits to
same-sex partners but not unmarried heterosexual partners in a
committed relationship is that same-sex partners in most parts
of the country are unable to legalize their relationship
through marriage. Yet we do not want to provide a disincentive
to marriage for heterosexual partners.
On the other hand, if our goal is to increase the
recruitment and retention of qualified employees, should there
be a distinction between committed partnerships of different-
sex partners versus committed partnerships of same-sex couples?
Ms. Burton. Thank you, Senator Collins. I have served IBM
and watched other institutions along their remarkable journies
and the laser sharpness in the intent of this policy decision.
There are some companies that have expanded domestic partner
benefits to opposite-sex partners, but most to same-sex
partners because of the spirit of their intent is to create
equilibrium. Many domestic partnership guides have verbiage
like, if your partner was opposite sex, you would marry. Or,
you would not be committed to more than one individual. The
intent of the policy is clear in focus and what it is trying to
exact.
And IBM has been phenomenal in participating in forums to
discuss laws against gender or orientation, where we face
execution, where we have customers and a commitment to serving
through excellence in business, where we are mindful partners
in advancing the conversation but do not break local laws.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Weizmann, in your statement you outline some technical
issues that I think are legitimate aside from the broader
issue. But I would suggest that the answers to those technical
concerns about affidavits, about the dissolving of a
relationship, are found by looking at IBM's policies, by
looking at the State of Maine's policies. There are answers to
that. When we have 56 percent of the Fortune 500 companies
having these policies, they have clearly worked through those
kinds of technical issues.
So I, for one, am very willing to work with you to improve
the language of the Chairman's bill to guard against fraud, to
make sure that we address the procedural issues. But those are
not difficult challenges because many of these businesses have
already worked through them. The State of Maine has already
worked through them and has a lot of safeguards built into
State laws.
So I do not think that those legitimate concerns that you
have raised about the specific drafting of the Chairman's bill
should serve as a reason not to move forward with the
legislation.
Mr. Weizmann. Senator, there are two things. In the first
instance, I do not know and I am not sure that anyone in this
room necessarily knows the degree to which companies actually
monitor relationships that go forward.
I do know that, as you cited before, in my own private
experience, when benefits do not cost very much and they are
not utilized very much, they do not get a lot of attention.
There are other benefits that do. If I looked at the evidence
of what private sector companies do in terms of whether they
have had it long term or short term, I do not know whether that
is dispositive or whether these issues have been resolved or
are being addressed.
The second thing that I would like to say is the Federal
Government, in terms of its provision of benefits, is much
larger and also has a much stronger fiduciary obligation to the
taxpayer in terms of ensuring that those benefits are delivered
and delivered accurately. So I think that those are two
distinguishing features. As I said in the first instance, I am
not sure that there is evidence in the fact that the private
sector has these benefits. And, two, I think that the Federal
Government is different than private sector employers simply
because it is so very large and it has such a strong fiduciary
relationship with the taxpayers.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Senator Collins, thank you, and I know
you have had other demands on your time on matters that are
very important this morning, so I appreciate the time you spent
here and the questions you asked.
Senator Akaka, good morning and welcome. Thank you for
being here.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, I am
happy to be here. I want to thank Senator Collins for her views
and the statements she just made in really looking at the
future. We need to do that. And I want to say that I am so glad
to be a cosponsor of the Chairman's bill. There is no question
that if we need to work on it to make it better, we need to do
that. That is the reason why we have these hearings, to hear
from you, with the hope that we will have some advice that can
improve our bills. And so, this is where we are.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my full statement be placed
in the record.
Chairman Lieberman. Without objection. Thanks, Senator
Akaka. Thanks for your cosponsorship, too.
[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this important
hearing on domestic partnership benefits for Federal employees and let
you know how proud I am to be a cosponsor of your bill, S. 2521, the
Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act.
I firmly believe that the Federal Government's most important asset
is its employees. Yet, the Federal Government is not keeping pace with
the changing demands of the modern workforce. Over the course of the
past five years, I have worked with my colleagues to provide Federal
agencies with the tools and resources to compete for talent and retain
the highly skilled workforce. We have extended to Federal employees
dental and vision care options, greater flexibility with the Thrift
Savings Plan, and new compensatory time and leave provisions. However,
more needs to be done.
Competition for talented employees in the global marketplace is
fierce. Beginning in the early 1990s, large private employers like the
Walt Disney Company began to recognize the need to offer competitive
benefits packages that include domestic partners. Other large private
and public employers soon followed suit. To date, eight of the Fortune
10 companies, over fifty percent of the Fortune 500 companies, hundreds
of small businesses and non-profit organizations, and more than 200
State and local governments, including the State of Hawaii and City of
Honolulu, provide domestic partnership benefits. This appears to be
standard industry practice.
As the largest employer in the United States, the Federal
Government should be the leader in providing benefits and options for
its workforce. Other employers look to the Federal Government as the
standard bearer for personnel policies. Unfortunately when it comes to
domestic partnership benefits, the Federal Government needs to update
its employment policies to catch up to the rest of the country.
The next generation of Federal employees wants to work for an
employer that offers domestic partnership benefits. They value an
employer who treats all employees equally whether they will use the
benefits or not. This is a concept that we can support.
The Federal Government already must follow the merit system
principles to create a work environment free from discrimination and
cronyism. These principles require agencies to treat all employees
equally and require that personnel decisions be made without
discriminating based on age, sex, race, religion, ability, off-duty
conduct, or marital status.
However, on the issue of sexual orientation, the Federal Government
fails. Despite the fact that Office of Personnel Management believes
that sexual orientation is protected from discrimination under current
law, Special Counsel Scott Bloch, the individual responsible for
enforcing the merit system principles, has an alternative
interpretation that denies employees the protection from discrimination
for sexual orientation. Extending domestic partnership benefits and
clarifying that all Federal employees are protected from discrimination
because of their sexual orientation would ensure that the Federal
Government is complying with the principles of equality and non-
discrimination.
As a matter of implementation of domestic partnership benefits, I
understand that OPM is concerned about the potential cost of
administering such benefits. I would ask OPM the question: what is the
cost to the Federal Government on lost talent?
Through training, student loan repayment programs, relocation
benefits, and professional development, Federal agencies invest in a
lot of time and resources the in the current workforce. In turn, the
dedicated men and women of the Federal workforce keep America running.
If we do not continue to provide competitive benefits packages that
reflect the needs of Federal employees and their families, we will lose
out on our investment. Domestic partnership benefits would help to
ensure that the Federal Government is an employer of choice and help
recruit and retain current and future Federal employees.
The dedicated men and women of the Federal workforce in domestic
partnerships should no longer be asked to compromise their families for
their service. As an employer, we should hold ourselves to a high
standard of equality. Extending domestic partnership benefits to
Federal employees brings us closer to that goal. I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. I want to thank you for holding this very
important hearing on domestic partnership benefits for Federal
employees. This is a continuing process. The U.S. Government is
the largest employer in America, and the Federal Government
should be the leader, therefore, in providing benefits to its
workforce.
To date, eight of the Fortune 10 companies, over 50 percent
of the Fortune 500 companies, hundreds of small businesses and
nonprofit organizations, and more than 200 State and local
governments, including the State of Hawaii and the city and
county of Honolulu, provide domestic partnership benefits. This
appears to be standard industry practice. Domestic partnership
benefits would help to ensure that the Federal Government is an
employer of choice and would help to recruit and retain current
and future Federal employees.
Moreover, as an employer, we should hold ourselves to a
higher standard of equality. The dedicated men and women of the
Federal workforce in domestic partnerships should not have to
compromise their families for their service. Extending domestic
partnership benefits to Federal employees brings us closer to
that goal.
If I can, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed to my questions.
Chairman Lieberman. Please.
Senator Akaka. In your testimony, Mr. Weizmann, you claim
that the Federal Government offers a competitive benefits
package. However, in December of last year, former Ambassador
Michael Guest retired from a distinguished career of Federal
service largely because of the lack of domestic partnership
benefits. Here is a direct case of a talented employee retiring
because the Federal Government does not offer domestic
partnership benefits.
In representing the agency responsible for addressing this
personnel issue, do you want to comment on this?
Mr. Weizmann. I think, quite frankly, it speaks for itself.
It is an issue where someone has left Federal employment for
what they perceived to be a personal situation. We do have
married spouses that we deal with all the time, people who are
Federal employees, who leave Federal employment for similar
reasons, be they in a domestic relationship or just simply
married.
So it is very difficult to generalize from a specific case,
even one where obviously this individual is very talented and
we regret that person left, to say that, in fact, this is a
very large retention issue. As I said, when we look at the
take-up rates when the benefit is offered, it is very small. It
is around one percent for those employers who do have it. So I
am not sure how large a problem it is, and obviously that is a
story that is regretful. But I am not sure it proves the more
general conclusion.
Senator Akaka. OPM interprets current law to protect a
Federal employee from discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. However, Special Counsel Scott Bloch has an
alternative interpretation of current law and denies employees
such protections. Should this bill be enacted, do you believe
that additional protections are needed to ensure employees are
free to apply for domestic partnership benefits? Ms. Kelley.
Ms. Kelley. I believe if you have followed the actions of
Scott Bloch over at the Office of Special Counsel, you will see
the record is very clear that NTEU opposes his actions, the way
he interprets things, the actions he has taken against
employees who work there--or who previously worked there, since
they no longer work there. And I think that the time is long
overdue for it to be made clear to him what the laws are, and
what the rules are, and what the obligation of the Federal
Government is.
I would hate to think that legislation has to be passed or
a new law written to enforce what is already in place and what,
for whatever reason, he is not being held accountable for.
Senator Akaka. I think you recall that I introduced a bill,
S. 1345, which would clarify that Federal employees are
protected from discrimination.
Ms. Kelley. And, Senator Akaka, of course, you know that
NTEU supports that legislation. I just do find it very
frustrating that we need to keep passing laws to enforce laws
that are already on the books that those appointed to these
kinds of positions fail to follow.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Bracey.
Ms. Bracey. Thank you. I would echo what Ms. Kelley stated,
that AFGE believes that Scott Bloch's interpretation is wrong,
and we do oppose what he has stated, and again echo that this
bill is very important to make sure that we secure rights for
all Federal employees and that everyone is treated equally and
fairly.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Hartigan, good to have you before the
Committee. You mentioned a number of anecdotes that highlight
lower morale for employees because domestic partnership
benefits are not offered to cover their families. As a senior
manager, how do you deal with these morale issues without the
authority to offer such benefits to those employees?
Mr. Hartigan. Senator, it becomes very difficult because
you have people who come to the workplace that are not treated
equally. And throughout my testimony, I talk of examples where
people have actually had to pay substantial costs to close the
gap when benefits are not provided. And it does not only impact
the employee. It impacts the whole working group because when
you have a disengaged employee, not only is he or she
distracted, but they are not contributing to the group overall.
So the impact is much greater than just one individual. It
really impacts the working group in total. It is very hard to
deal with that.
Senator Akaka. Let me ask Dr. Burton, what were IBM's
biggest concerns with implementing domestic partnership
benefits? And how did you address them?
Ms. Burton. Thank you, Senator. I was not around and part
of the internal team that actually implemented the first
programs over 12 years ago, but I know that the concerns were
not too dissimilar from any new institution that is embarking
on the journey to make the programs relevant, to understand the
implications of cost, to get information out to the employees
in a timely and responsible way, to keep their employees safe
and be entrusted with confidential information. So the
questions that are being raised today are not new. This is why
the ability to leverage those best practices are so important.
And I extend the offer to share that information with you from
both the private and public sectors' path in that space. Thank
you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Will there be a second round, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Lieberman. Probably not, so go right ahead,
Senator Akaka. I have just a few more questions, but please go
ahead.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weizmann, as a matter of recruitment, I have heard that
college students at career fairs often raise the question of
whether an employer offers domestic partnership benefits. It is
not just gay and lesbian students raising this question, but
students who value equality in the workplace.
Have you conducted any surveys to assess how important
equality in benefits coverage is to recruits?
Mr. Weizmann. Excuse me, Senator. When you say equality in
benefit coverage, are you referring specifically to same-sex
domestic partner relationships or are you talking about
equality in benefits across the board for anybody coming to the
Federal Government?
Senator Akaka. Well, let us say across the board.
Mr. Weizmann. OK. No. We do have surveys that we do
continuously with regard to employee surveys that show that the
Federal benefits compare quite favorably to the private sector.
So there seems to be a general satisfaction among Federal
employees with the level of benefits. But it does not deal
directly with the notion that you are suggesting in terms of
whether equity was an issue at the point of hiring.
Senator Akaka. Now, what about in the cases of gay and
lesbian recruits?
Mr. Weizmann. I am unaware of any surveys that we have
done.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Burton, have you been able to measure
the impact of adding such benefits? And if so, what have been
your findings?
Ms. Burton. Yes, thank you. As you can imagine, IBM has an
affinity for data, and so whether it be in our recruitment
efforts where we are interviewing potential candidates,
supporting our clients in their HR strategies and turning that
anecdotal data into qualitative insights, or whether it be our
exit interviews or the assessment of our leaders in really
getting a hand on what to support in the climate that we are
trying to create, what are those specific attitudes and
behaviors that drive teaming behaviors? Again and again, it
comes down to not only understanding how the GLBT employee
experiences the workplace, but in a field like technology,
where innovation, creativity, openness, and the ability to
integrate diverse perspectives is at a premium, we must focus
on understanding the relationship between domestic partnership
benefits, having a culture where offering--and, again, it is
not the monetary cost of how many folks sign up. And I think
there is a risk in looking at how many folks sign up because
there are other variables like the heavy tax burden that
exists, so it may be cheaper for my partner to be covered on
her own, or the social cost of me coming out to sign up and
what it will mean in my colleagues' eyes to know, or the lack
of infrastructure for my company to communicate the existence
of benefits.
So you cannot really just look in isolation at a statistics
of how many folks sign up. There are other variables that
provide a great deal of insight into how these all work
together. But at the end of the day, when you look at the large
studies that look at risk since 1982 that span private and
public sectors, the benefits severely outweigh the costs. And
we would be happy to share that with you, if helpful.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, I have just two questions.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, go right ahead.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Kelley and Ms. Bracey, Mr. Weizmann
mentioned OPM's concerns about how filing an affidavit to
verify the status of the domestic partnership could lead to
fraud because, to some degree, spousal benefits are based on
State-sanctioned marriage. Have you had a chance to review this
issue? And if so, what are your thoughts about that?
Ms. Kelley. Well, NTEU has some concerns about the whole
affidavit process. I realize there needs to be something in
place, but as far as I know, married employees are not required
to submit a marriage certificate. It is requested or needs to
be made available as Ms. Burton described when benefits are
being claimed, perhaps. So, we are more than willing to work
with the Committee and with OPM on what would be appropriate
affidavit procedures.
And I think it is really unfair of OPM to suggest that
there is some kind of an increased fraud risk element by adding
this benefit. I do not see how there would be any more of a
chance of fraud in this benefit than there is in the FEHB
program that exists today for married couples and married
couples with children. I am totally missing why that even would
be thought of, much less stated as a risk.
Now, if there is a real risk, of course, every one of us
here would be willing to work to ensure that the risk is
eliminated in the current population of those benefiting or
covered under Federal benefits, as well as any new populations.
But I see nothing that would increase the risk and think that
it is pretty unfair to even imply that.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Ms. Bracey.
Ms. Bracey. Thank you. I believe affidavits have to be
filed for FMLA, and I am not sure if OPM has expressed an issue
with those being filed. And, again, we are not asking people to
give up a marriage license and things like that in the same
situation.
I do think it is unfair--I know that regulations have to be
set, but I think that it is unfair to put that on the backs of
Federal workers. This is a bill that is necessary. It is
necessary for them, for people who do the same amount of work
to receive the same benefits and equal pay and benefits. And I
think that the burden of regulations should not be on the backs
of Federal Government workers. I believe that we can work
together and come up with regulations that are fair and
beneficial for everyone.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Weizmann.
Mr. Weizmann. May I add to that? First of all, to suggest
that we are being farfetched in the sense that these benefits
are open to fraud and abuse, I would just simply--it is not an
unrealistic concern. I would suggest even Hollywood has
discussed this in a movie with Adam Sandler, which I think is
``I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry,'' which the subject of
the movie, quite frankly, was insurance fraud along the lines
of what we are discussing. This is not farfetched and it is not
disingenuous to suggest such.
The second thing is, again, it comes back to the issue not
only of granting those benefits, but also what happens after
those benefits are granted and the dissolution of those
benefits and how is that monitored. And for us, that is a very
difficult problem. It is one thing to talk about the problem
you are trying to address, but it is another thing to confuse
that with the solution. And I think in this instance, we may be
doing that.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Finally, Dr. Burton, how has IBM dealt with the issue of
preventing fraud and abuse in implementing domestic partnership
benefits?
Ms. Burton. Thank you, Senator. As I shared in my opening
comments, out of about 365,000 employees and in the 74
countries in which we are supporting domestic partnership
benefits, we do not have a high incidence of fraud. And in the
experience of supporting our clients who are also implementing
domestic partner benefits, there is a similar level of not
experiencing fraud. And so the risk studies since 1982 suggest
that there is not fraud. There is greater fraud in marriage
licenses being produced that are not valid than there are in
affidavits.
So, again, internally--and it has been validated as recent
as yesterday--that is not an issue for us, and we would be very
happy to help facilitate any information that supports your
decision-making.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, and I thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Akaka, for that
excellent line of questions. I have two brief questions for Ms.
Bracey and Mr. Hartigan, which get to this same point, which is
the impact of the absence of same-sex benefits for Federal
employees in a competitive environment.
I was interested, Ms. Bracey, that you made the point that
private contractors who are competing for work now done by
Federal employees, particularly as we think forward with the
large number of retirements we expect, have an advantage here,
because I gather from what you have said that many of the
private contractors competing for this work do offer same-sex
partnership benefits. Why don't you talk about that a little
bit more?
Ms. Bracey. Thank you. Yes, there is definitely fierce
competition out there, and the Federal Government wants to
attract the brightest and best employees that the United States
has to offer. We want to be just as competitive as everyone
else is, and because of the lack of domestic partnership
benefits, we are not attracting everyone that would be
interested in working for the Federal Government, especially in
instances where we are trying to attract for specific positions
where there are not as many people to fill those positions. We
need to make sure that we are offering the best packages, the
best benefits, to make sure that we are recruiting those
employees.
We are going to have a huge retirement bloc that is going
to be retiring in the near future, and we need to make sure
that we are filling those positions with the most highly
qualified people and that we are not losing them to Fortune 500
companies. The Federal Government is a model employer, and we
should act as so. We should make sure that we are leading in
offering the benefits, not lagging behind, basically.
Chairman Lieberman. Right. Thanks.
Mr. Hartigan, similarly you testified that the FDIC is
considering offering some form of domestic partner benefit but
that, in fact, Federal Reserve banks and the Department of
Treasury's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have
already implemented limited forms of domestic partner benefits.
And I think you referenced--but I want to ask you to speak to
this--whether part of what is going on in that interesting
movement within the overall Federal Government human capital
management system is that those Federal financial regulators
are essentially competing for some of the same people with the
private financial services sector, which to a great degree does
already offer same-sex partnership benefits.
Mr. Hartigan. Yes, that is correct, Senator. Our people are
highly trained, and typically for a bank examiner, it takes
sometimes up to 3 years to get them fully up to speed. Once
they have the expertise, they are highly sought after by the
commercial banks that we regulate. So we are competing directly
against them. We are not only seeing the top organizations
offer domestic partner benefits, we are seeing community banks
offer domestic partner benefits. So it is definitely an issue.
When you want to be recognized as an employer of choice or
a great place to work, fairness is an issue. And it is
important to attract the best people being recognized as the
best employer. It definitely impacts our mission.
One other thing I was just going to say is on the
relocation issue it is a major issue if we cannot get people to
move around the country where we need them. It is a
disincentive to them. It also can affect the mission of the
agency.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, that was very interesting to me
because I think it is a benefit that would not first come to
the mind of most people thinking about this issue. We think
naturally about health benefits or retirement benefits. But I
can certainly see from both the point of view of the employee,
but then longer term the point of view of the Federal
Government as the employer, that you could either lose some
employees or find them resistant to being moved to where you
would like to move them because of the absence of full
relocation benefits. I thought that was an excellent point.
Let me ask, without objection, that several documents be
included in the record of the hearing, which I think are quite
impressive. First, there are five statements and letters in
support of this legislation from groups that are not testifying
directly before us: The American Postal Workers Union, the
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,
the Human Rights Campaign, Federal GLOBE, and a coalition of 15
organizations that support S. 2521, including a couple that are
before us this morning.
Also, we have four letters and statements at some length
from companies describing their favorable experience with
programs to provide domestic partnership benefits to their
employees, and that is from General Electric (I say as a matter
of record, headquartered in Fairfield, Connecticut), the Chubb
Corporation, TIAA-CREF, and Nike, Inc. Those are quite
substantial corporations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letters and prepared statements appear in the Appendix on
pages 75-156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, finally, we are grateful to have received two reports
just released yesterday, I hope and believe coincident with
this hearing. One is a very thoughtful and thorough assessment
of the fiscal impact of S. 2521 prepared by the Williams
Institute, a research institute at the University of
California, Los Angeles, School of Law, which I really would
recommend to both those who support and those who oppose the
legislation as it is now, or even those who seem to be neutral,
at least in testimony, because it is a good piece of work that
I think advances the discussion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The report from the Williams Institute appears in the Appendix
on page 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, finally, a report summarizing the experience of States
that provide benefits to their employees' same-sex domestic
partners prepared by the Center for American Progress.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report from the Center for American Progress appears in the
Appendix on page 173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thank the witnesses. I thank my colleagues who have been
here. I think this has been a very thoughtful discussion of
what I take--and I know Senator Akaka, as a cosponsor, does--to
be an important proposal, both in terms of equity, but in terms
also of the capacity of the Federal Government to attract the
best employees and retain them to carry out the important
missions that we have.
I can tell you that Senator Smith and I, and I am sure
Senator Akaka and others who have cosponsored this legislation,
intend to introduce it again in the next session of Congress
and hope to advance both the discussion and hopefully the
passage of this legislation.
I will say for the record that the record will remain open
for 15 days should any of the witnesses want to supplement
their testimony, or some members of the Committee who could not
be here today may submit questions for the record for you,
which we ask you to answer in a timely fashion.
With that, I thank everyone who was here and officially
declare the hearing to be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45581.202