    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      H.R. 2517, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT OF 2009

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
                        POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT
                                  OF COLUMBIA

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 2517

     TO PROVIDE CERTAIN BENEFITS TO DOMESTIC PARTNERS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

                                   __________

                                  JULY 8, 2009

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-15

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html
                         http://www.oversight.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    52-628                    WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                       EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
    PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania      DARRELL E. ISSA, California
    CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         DAN BURTON, Indiana
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
    DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio             JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts       MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
    WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri              JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois               JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                   JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
        Columbia                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
    PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois             ------ ------
    CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
    PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    JACKIE SPEIER, California
    STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
    ------ ------

                          Ron Stroman, Staff Director
                    Michael McCarthy, Deputy Staff Director
                          Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
                      Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director

    Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of
                                    Columbia

                   STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Chairman
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
        Columbia                         JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois             MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
                         William Miles, Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on July 8, 2009.....................................     1
    Text of H.R. 2517................................................    35
    Statement of:
        Badgett, M.V. Lee, research director, Williams Institute on
          Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, UCLA School of
          Law; Gregory A. Franklin, assistant executive officer,
          Health Benefit Services, California Public Employees'
          Retirement System; and Carolyn E. Wright, vice president,
          Corporate Human Resources, American Airlines...............    74
            Badgett, M.V. Lee........................................    74
            Franklin, Gregory A......................................    81
            Wright, Carolyn E........................................    88
        Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Wisconsin.........................................    45
        Berry, John, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management...    51
        Guest, Ambassador (ret.) Michael, former career Foreign
          Service Officer; Lorilyn Holmes, current Federal employee,
          reverend, Metropolitan Community Churches; and Frank Page,
          pastor, First Baptist Church of Taylor, SC, president,
          Southern Baptist Convention 2006...........................   105
            Guest, Ambassador (ret.) Michael.........................   105
            Holmes, Lorilyn..........................................   112
            Page, Frank..............................................   121
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Badgett, M.V. Lee, research director, Williams Institute on
          Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, UCLA School of
          Law, prepared statement of.................................    76
        Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Wisconsin, prepared statement of..................    48
        Berry, John, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
          prepared statement of......................................    53
        Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Virginia, prepared statement of...............    63
        Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Maryland, prepared statement of...............   127
        Franklin, Gregory A., assistant executive officer, Health
          Benefit Services, California Public Employees' Retirement
          System, prepared statement of..............................    83
        Guest, Ambassador (ret.) Michael, former career Foreign
          Service Officer, prepared statement of.....................   108
        Holmes, Lorilyn, current Federal employee, reverend,
          Metropolitan Community Churches, prepared statement of.....   114
        Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Massachusetts:
            Followup questions and responses.........................    58
            Various prepared statements..............................     4
        Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the
          District of Columbia, prepared statement of................     2
        Wright, Carolyn E., vice president, Corporate Human
          Resources, American Airlines:
            American Airlines article................................    90
            Prepared statement of....................................    95

      H.R. 2517, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT OF 2009

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2009

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service,
                          and the District of Columbia,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:45 p.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen F. Lynch
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Lynch, Norton, Cummings, Connolly,
    and Chaffetz.
        Staff present: William Miles, staff director; Aisha
    Elkheshin, clerk; Jill Crissman, professional staff member;
    Margaret McDavid and Jill Henderson, detailees; Daniel Zeidman
    and Christina Severin, interns; Dan Blankenburg, minority
    director of outreach and senior advisor; Adam Fromm, minority
    chief clerk and Member liaison; Howard Denis, minority senior
    counsel; Chapin Fay, minority counsel; and Alex Cooper,
    minority professional staff member.
        Mr. Lynch. Good afternoon. The subcommittee hearing will
    begin. I apologize to all of those in attendance. As you know,
    we've been busy on the floor, but we will get right down to
    business now.
        I want to first of all thank Ms. Norton for her attendance
    here while we were on the floor. Unfortunately, she has to now
    chair her own subcommittee chair panel, and she has asked to
    place her statement in the record, which we will do.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.001

        Mr. Lynch. The Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce,
    Postal Service, and the District of Columbia will now come to
    order.
        I welcome our ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz, and members of
    the subcommittee, the hearing witnesses, and all of those in
    attendance.
        Today's hearing will examine H.R. 2517, the Domestic
    Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009. H.R. 2517 is
    intended to ensure equal treatment to lesbian and gay Federal
    civilian employees by providing that same-sex partners be
    entitled to the same benefits as a married Federal employee and
    his or her spouse. The purpose of the hearing is to examine the
    merits of this legislation and to discuss its potential
    implementation and costs.
        The Chair, the ranking member and the subcommittee members
    will each have 5 minutes to make opening statements, and all
    Members will have 5 legislative days to submit statements for
    the record.
        At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
    the testimonies from the National Treasury Employees Union, the
    American Federation of Government Employees, the International
    Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Human
    Rights Campaign, the Alternative to Marriage Project, and the
    Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays be submitted
    for the record.
        Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.031

        Mr. Lynch. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today, the
    subcommittee convenes to discuss H.R. 2517, which is a measure
    introduced by our own colleague, Representative Tammy Baldwin
    of Wisconsin, designed to provide equal treatment to lesbian
    and gay Federal and civilian employees by providing that same-
    sex domestic partners be entitled to the same benefits
    available to a married Federal employee and his or her spouse.
        While today's proceeding has been framed as a legislative
    hearing with the purpose of discussing the merits, composition
    and impact of H.R. 2517, the real issues we are confronting
    today deal with the principles of equality, fairness, and
    inclusion in the workplace, principles that should be
    commonplace for the Federal Government as an employer both in
    theory and in fact.
        Yet today, neither exists as tens of thousands of Federal
    workers and their same-sex partners continue to be denied
    access to employee benefits such as health insurance, overtime,
    and savings, which are customarily offered to employees with
    opposite-sex spouses. In many ways, it's baffling that this
    inequality exists on the Federal level despite the significant
    expansion in the availability of employment-related benefits
    and equal treatment for domestic partners among other public
    and private sector employers.
        We know that nearly 20 States and over 250 localities
    expand benefits to domestic partners of other public employees,
    and in the private sector, we have seen that the number of
    Fortune 500 companies that extend benefits to employees with
    same-sex partners has grown from 46 companies, about 9 percent,
    in 1997 to 286 companies, 57 percent, in 2009.
        Aside from the basic concepts of fairness and
    nondiscrjmination, the need to consider providing domestic
    partners' benefits to Federal employees should also be
    evaluated in light of the potential positive impacts that such
    policies can have on the Federal Government's recruitment and
    retention capabilities, its employee productivity and morale
    and, in some cases, the bottom line, as uninsured domestic
    partners must often rely on other government-sponsored health
    care programs and plans.
        I would again like to thank the gentlelady from Wisconsin,
    Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, and the 100-plus cosponsors of
    H.R. 2517 for their work, their diligence, and their commitment
    to correcting a longstanding injustice which has resulted in
    some Federal workers not receiving equal pay for equal work.
        I would like to point out recent action taken by the Obama
    administration in providing same-sex partners of Federal
    employees with certain benefits already available to spouses of
    heterosexual employees. Although these fall short of the full
    range of benefits available to married couples, the President's
    actions are nevertheless a step in the right direction, and
    they must be complemented by congressional legislative action,
    which is what brings us to today's consideration of H.R. 2517,
    the Domestic Partnership Benefits Act of 2009.
        [The text of H.R. 2517 follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.081

        Mr. Lynch. I look forward to a healthy and robust
    discussion on all aspects of the measure before us.
        I would like to thank today's witnesses for taking the time
    to be with us today as we explore this important issue.
        I would now like to call upon our witnesses.
        It is the committee's policy that all witnesses are to be
    sworn. I'll ask you to please rise.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Lynch. The record will show that the witnesses have
    answered in the affirmative, and I will now ask our ranking
    member, Mr. Chaffetz, the gentleman from Utah, for a 5-minute
    opening statement.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate it,
    and I appreciate the work that you've put into this effort, and
    I truly do look forward to listening and learning and
    understanding your perspective.
        I hope this can also be a candid dialog about some of the
    respect and traditions of this country.
        With this, I again want to thank the chairman for holding
    this hearing today in discussing H.R. 2517, the Domestic
    Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009.
        I would also like to thank Reverend Henry Gaston, Patrick
    Walker, Donald Sadler and other members of the Ministers'
    Conference of D.C. and vicinity for their presence and their
    participation in this ongoing discussion. I look forward to
    hearing from the various witnesses that we will today.
        I, like most people in this country, am in favor of
    preserving traditional marriage. To me, marriage carries a
    direct religious significance in addition to other
    connotations. But perhaps most significant to H.R. 2517 is that
    the term ``marriage'' is also a legal matter, and a court of
    law is involved in the marriage process. What we cannot do with
    this legislation is create laws which are similar for different
    people.
        While we are told that because opposite-sex couples have
    the option to marry, they're provided with similar benefits.
    What I'm concerned about is trying to draw that distinction
    into having an unintended consequence of actually offering and
    creating a separate class or category of people that then would
    obtain or be given rights above and beyond other people who
    don't choose to participate in those lifestyle choices.
        Whether or not a heterosexual couple is dating and living
    together can meet all other standards except for the portion of
    regarding the couple of same-sex status is of concern to me. If
    they can, yet are not afforded the same rights, this bill is
    directly discriminatory against heterosexual couples, and that,
    to me, is one of the unintended consequences that I have a
    serious concern and question, and I'd appreciate if the
    witnesses would address.
        Marriage by another name is of concern to me and I think
    the majority of Americans. At the same time, I want to be
    respectful of individuals and their rights to choose. And I
    would just like to relay a very brief story that's very
    personal to me in my Great Aunt Louise. She has since passed
    away.
        She was happily married for a long time. And yet when she
    passed away, she ended up living with another women. It was not
    necessarily an intimate relationship, it was not necessarily a
    relationship that was other than based on the fact that she had
    an economic need, she had a security need, there was a
    friendship need, and yet I worry that maybe given the
    definitions of where this legislation is trying to go, that if
    she had been a Federal employee, that there would be other
    people that get benefits above and beyond where she had been.
        And I also worry that heterosexual couples who have made a
    decision not to get married would be discriminated against
    along the way.
        I also have concerns about fraud and abuse, the ability to
    enforce these types of things, the costs that will be
    associated with them. I think these are all valid points. At
    the same time, I think we can approach this with a moral
    attitude that says we want to do what's right for people and
    for individuals, but also have a respect for the traditions of
    this country that marriage, defined as a marriage between one
    man and one woman, is something that this country feels
    strongly about. And I do as well.
        So with that, I look forward to hearing, not so much
    speaking. I thank the chairman and look forward to hearing your
    testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Lynch. Now I would like to offer 5 minutes for an
    opening statement to the Honorable Tammy Baldwin, the lead
    sponsor of this measure.

     STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

        Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Ranking Member Chaffetz and members of the subcommittee for the
    opportunity to testify today at what is a very historic
    hearing.
        I also want to thank OPM Director John Berry for taking the
    time to testify in support of this legislation and wish to
    thank Ambassador Guest and all of our distinguished panelists
    today for their leadership.
        As my colleagues on this committee know, the Federal
    Government employs more than 1.8 million civilian employees,
    making it the Nation's largest employer. Historically, the
    Federal Government has been a leader in offering important
    benefits to its employees. But today, we are lagging behind,
    and this is particularly true regarding the extension of
    benefits to employees with same-sex partners.
        As it stands, some Federal employees do not receive equal
    pay and benefits for equal contributions. And the government is
    not keeping pace with leading private sector employers in
    recruiting and retaining top talent. Indeed, a large number of
    America's major corporations, as well as State and local
    governments and educational institutions, have extended
    employee benefit programs to cover their employees' domestic
    partners.
        These employers include top American corporations such as
    GE, Chevron, Boeing, Texas Instruments, Lockheed Martin, and
    American Airlines, whom you will hear from later this
    afternoon.
        Under the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act,
    a Federal employee and his or her same-sex domestic partner
    would be eligible to participate in Federal retirement
    benefits, life insurance, health benefits, Workers
    Compensation, and family and medical leave benefits to the same
    extent as married employees and their spouses.
        These employees and their domestic partners would likewise
    be subject and would assume the same obligations as applied to
    married employees and their spouses, such as antinepotism rules
    and financial disclosure requirements.
        I want to make very clear that this bill contains strong
    antifraud provisions, requiring employees to file an affidavit
    of eligibility in order to extend benefits to their domestic
    partners. And this is significant, especially considering that
    we do not require married employees to show documentary
    evidence of their marriages when claiming spousal benefits.
        The penalties for fraudulently claiming a domestic
    partnership would be the same as penalties for fraudulent claim
    of marriage. For example, intentional false statements on a
    Federal Employees Health Benefits form is punishable by a fine
    of up to $10,000 and imprisonment up to 5 years.
        Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today both as the lead
    author of this legislation, but also as a lesbian Federal
    employee who has been in a committed relationship with my
    partner, Lauren, for over 13 years. Over the years, Lauren and
    I have examined the differences between my benefits and my
    ability to provide for her compared to the benefits enjoyed by
    my straight, married colleagues in Congress.
        Some quick number crunching would demonstrate that the
    difference between my health benefits and yours just with
    regard to that benefit alone over the course of my 10 years in
    Congress is measured in five figures. This is a significant
    inequality, and heaven forbid anything would happen to me, but
    Lauren would not be eligible to receive the survivor annuity
    from my pension nor health insurance survivor benefits.
        Unlike the spouses of my colleagues, Lauren is also not
    currently subject to any of the obligations related to my
    Federal service. I find this also disturbing.
        All Members of Congress file annual financial disclosures.
    Married Members must file important information about their
    spouse's income, investments, debts, gifts received, etc.
    Surely, the public interest requires that these obligations
    also apply to partners of gay and lesbian office holders.
        Last month, as you mentioned in your opening statement, Mr.
    Chairman, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on
    Federal Benefits and Nondiscrimination which directs the Office
    of Personnel Management and the State Department to extend
    certain benefits to the same-sex partners of Federal employees
    within the confines of existing Federal law. Although the
    memorandum is an important step in providing same-sex partners
    of Federal employees with benefits already available to spouses
    of heterosexual employees, it falls short of providing the full
    range of benefits.
        President Obama recognized and acknowledged that fact when
    he signed the memorandum calling it just a start. He went on to
    say that, as Americans, we are all affected when our promises
    of equality go unfulfilled. President Obama recognized that
    full extension of benefits will require an act of Congress and
    proclaimed his strong support for the legislation that you are
    reviewing today.
        Gentlemen, thank you again for this opportunity to review
    the bill and to testify before the committee.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Tammy Baldwin follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.034

        Mr. Lynch. Next, I'd like to introduce Mr. John Berry,
    who's the Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
    which manages the Federal Government's Civil Service employees.
    Prior to Mr. Berry's appointment, he was the Director of the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Director of the
    Smithsonian Zoological Park.
        Mr. Berry, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF JOHN BERRY, DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
                               MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor to be
    back with you today. And, Congresswoman Baldwin, thank you for
    your leadership on this issue.
        It is an honor to be here to represent on behalf of the
    President and his administration our strong support for H.R.
    2517. This critical legislation will provide health, life and
    survivor benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Federal
    employees. I applaud Congresswoman Baldwin and the many
    cosponsors of H.R. 2517 for introducing this bill and you, Mr.
    Chairman, and the Members for hosting this hearing today.
        Both the White House and the Office of Personnel Management
    wholeheartedly endorse the passage of this legislation. In my
    written testimony for the record, Mr. Chairman, I've also
    mentioned some technical fixes that we're seeking, and I will
    make all of my staff available to you and the committee staff
    to work with you to provide any support that may be of
    assistance in addressing those corrections.
        At my confirmation hearing, Mr. Chairman, I said two of my
    primary goals as the Director of OPM would be, first, to make
    the Federal Government the country's model employer, and the
    second was to attract the best and the brightest Americans to
    Federal service. The passage of H.R. 2517 is essential to
    accomplishing both of these goals.
        Under current law, the Federal Government cannot offer
    basic benefits like health insurance, life insurance, dental or
    vision insurance to domestic partners of our gay and lesbian
    Federal employees. This policy undermines the Federal
    Government's ability to recruit and retain the Nation's best
    workers.
        Historically, the Federal Government has in many ways been
    a progressive employer. In this case, however, we have fallen
    behind the private sector and 19 States, including Alaska and
    Arizona. Almost 60 percent of the Fortune 500 companies and 83
    percent of the Fortune 100 companies already offer this benefit
    to their same-sex domestic partners.
        These companies include, as Congresswoman Baldwin
    mentioned, American Airlines, who is here today--and I commend
    their leadership in that regard--on the next panel, but also
    companies that you might not expect: Chevron, Food Lion, Archer
    Daniels Midland, Lockheed Martin, many, many others.
        The Federal Government simply does not effectively compete
    with these companies for every talented person; we fail to
    offer comparable job benefits to our employees. And, in fact,
    Mr. Chairman, if I could just add, many of these companies are
    in direct competition with us. We spend quite a bit of money
    doing security clearances on employees, and after they have
    that clearance, that clearance goes with the employee, not with
    the position. And so, essentially, if an employee can be
    recruited away, these are the kinds of tools where we can
    invest a lot of money, and then that employee walks out the
    door to a Lockheed Martin and others who need employees with
    security clearances. We ought not allow that uncompetitive
    edge.
        The President, as Congresswoman Baldwin has already
    mentioned, took an important first step toward addressing these
    shortfalls when he signed the memorandum last month directing
    all Federal agencies to extend benefits to same-sex domestic
    partners of Federal employees to the extent now permitted by
    law. But as the President noted when he issued this, this
    legislation is needed to offer gay and lesbian Federal workers
    true equality and benefits and ensure fairness in the
    workplace.
        I'd also note that the cost of extending these benefits to
    same-sex partners is negligible. Additional premiums for
    providing life, dental and vision insurance to same-sex
    domestic partners will be borne entirely by the gay and lesbian
    employees who enroll their partners in those benefit plans.
    Adding domestic partner health insurance and survivor benefits
    for both Federal workers and retirees would cost approximately
    $56 million in the year 2010. This marginal increase equates to
    about two-tenths of 1 percent of the entire cost to the
    government of our Federal employees health insurance program.
        Simply put, extending benefits to same-sex partners is a
    good, practical, bottom-line business decision, and it allows
    the Federal Government to retain our competitive edge in the
    21st century. This legislation is a valuable business
    opportunity for the Federal Government to enhance our
    recruitment and our retention efforts. And just as important,
    this bill shows that we recognize the value of every American
    and their families and their relationships and are committed to
    the ideal of equal treatment under the law, as our Founders
    envisioned.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity, and I look
    forward to answering any questions the committee might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.038

        Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Great to have you up here again
    before our committee. You're a frequent witness here, and again
    we appreciate you, especially under today's circumstances.
        I'm going to allow myself 5 minutes for a first round of
    questioning, and the way Congress works, as you both know very
    well, is that we usually have to be in five different places at
    the same time. So as Members come in and leave, I'll afford
    them an ample and full opportunity to ask questions at this
    hearing.
        And because we have so much going on, I'm going to give the
    other members of the panel an opportunity to submit questions
    to you both in writing, and I'll say, in 5 days we'd like to
    have the responses to those questions if they're offered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.040

        Mr. Lynch. Ms. Baldwin, currently there are three States
    that recognize same sex marriage. That's Massachusetts,
    Connecticut, and Iowa. Another three States, Vermont, Maine,
    and New Hampshire, will begin to recognize same-sex marriages
    in the next 6 months, based on legislation that has recently
    passed. And while the process in California is still somewhat
    in flux; marriages performed there between June 16, 2008, and
    November 4, 2008, are currently recognized by that State.
        There are, of course, Federal employees in each of those
    States, and some of them may have had same-sex spouses.
    However, the Federal Government cannot recognize these
    marriages because of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and
    these employees, therefore, are not eligible for the benefits
    provided to Federal employees with opposite-sex spouses.
        My question is, how are those folks going to be affected by
    your legislation? Is H.R. 2517 intended to cover those
    employees as well?
        Ms. Baldwin. The way this would work, the Federal employee
    who is in a same-sex partnership, whether they are married, in
    a marriage recognized at their State level or not, would have
    to file an affidavit of eligibility relating to their domestic
    partnership in order to receive the benefits that are being
    proposed in the bill before you. In terms of having complete
    Federal recognition of the marriages in those States, that
    would require a separate act of Congress, one that I support
    strongly, which would be repeal of title 3 of the Defense of
    Marriage Act, legislation that I expect to be offered by
    colleagues later in this session.
        But the way this legislation would work in practice
    recognizes the fact we have Federal employees around the world,
    in every State of the Union, and that the States will go at
    different paces in terms of recognizing marriages. And so it
    made much more sense to create this mechanism to provide the
    employment fringe benefits, and that's what this bill is
    limited to.
        I would note in addition to your iteration of States that
    have enacted recognition of marriage, two additional
    jurisdictions, New York State and the District of Columbia,
    have approved, either by executive order or by act of the
    Council, to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other
    jurisdictions. So they sort of add to the number of
    jurisdictions that at the State or local level will recognize
    marriage.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you. And you're right; I think the action
    here in D.C. will come before the committee in some form. I
    know that the City Council has approved that measure as well.
        Director Berry, in his June 17th memorandum, President
    Obama directed you and the Secretary of State to begin the
    process of extending some Federal benefits to qualified same-
    sex domestic partners of Federal employees. Can you give us an
    update on how that is going, even though the limited portion
    has gone forward? Do you see any problems in this? How is it
    proceeding?
        Mr. Berry. No, Mr. Chairman. I think that's going along
    well. We are well on schedule to stay within the 90 days that
    the President has established for us to issue and to come out
    with any regulations that would be required.
        We are going to be issuing guidance to the Federal agencies
    to assist them. OPM and State have done a very thorough review
    of our processes and code involved, but we did not have the
    opportunity or the time to do that.
        For example, the General Services Administration is the
    agency charged with relocation benefits, so that a Federal
    employee's move, how that is handled, is through the General
    Services Administration. So, for example, we're asking each
    agency to do a thorough review of their law, and that's what
    the President has asked. Then we'll be collecting that
    information and collating it and getting back to the President
    within 90 days.
        We just had the Chief Human Capital Officers monthly
    meeting yesterday, and that was on our agenda, and so we
    discussed that in full. Everybody is going through and going
    forward with their process. So I think we're right on schedule,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Let me followup then.
        Your testimony earlier mentioned the fact that the bill
    would exclude annuitants with same-sex partners from electing
    benefit coverage. Is OPM's position that these individuals
    should be covered by the bill or not?
        Mr. Berry. Yes, sir, that they should be, and in fact, the
    dollar estimate that I gave you actually presumes you would
    make the corrective change to include annuitants.
        Mr. Lynch. Explain that. There is a possible funding offset
    here, right?
        Mr. Berry. Well, in the short term, there is a savings to
    the government because Federal employees who are retiring or
    have recently retired would take a lower payment in exchange
    for having the survivor benefit for their annuitant, for their
    partner, domestic partner, just as it is with the spouse now.
        So, short term, there is a savings. In the long term, there
    would be a slight increase, but that is factored into the
    number that I gave you in my testimony, the $56 million.
        And if I could just check--that is correct. OK.
        Mr. Lynch. So what you're saying is that they don't have
    the option right now to reduce, to seek the lower----
        Mr. Berry. No, sir.
        Mr. Lynch. Like myself, if you want to include your spouse,
    you take a lower benefit, and right now, for gay and lesbian
    employees of the Federal Government, they're all maxing out
    right now. They're all taking the highest option because
    they're forced to do that?
        Mr. Berry. Absolutely.
        Mr. Lynch. And if they take the lower amount, then it will
    cause a savings for the government.
        In his memorandum, President Obama reaffirmed the civil
    service merit system principle that makes it unlawful to
    discriminate against Federal employees on the basis of factors
    unrelated to job performance, including sexual orientation or
    gender identity, and President Obama directed you to issue
    guidance to Federal Agencies requiring compliance with this
    principle.
        How has that proceeded?
        Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, we're again right on schedule with
    that. Our counsel's office is working on preparing that, and we
    will meet the 90-day standard that the President has
    established.
        My hope is, we actually have it done in less than 90 days,
    but we will definitely be within the 90-day period the
    President has set up.
        Mr. Lynch. Now, I do know that there was a situation over
    at the Office of Special Counsel, and I want to ask you about
    that.
        As you know, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is
    responsible for protecting Federal employees from
    discrimination based on sexual orientation and for enforcing
    the cornerstone of the merit system.
        However, the recently departed Special Counsel, who is
    still being investigated by the OPM IG, the Office of Personnel
    Management Inspector General, refused to do so because of
    personal ideological beliefs. Unfortunately, the President has
    been slow to nominate a new Special Counsel, which means
    enforcement of this right continues to be somewhat of a gray
    area, I imagine.
        You have been in touch with the acting leadership of the
    OSC, the Office of Special Counsel, about the issue, and I need
    to know where that sits right now.
        Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, I am very honored and extremely
    pleased that my General Counsel now at the Office of Personnel
    Management was a previous Special Counsel and held that
    position during the Clinton administration, and is an
    outstanding attorney and one of the brightest legal minds with
    Federal employees' and retirees' issues in this town. I know
    that she is in close contact with both the Special Counsel's
    Office and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
        They are independent agencies, sir, so OPM does not
    directly affect or control either their budget or their
    staffing, but we do closely coordinate in terms of logic,
    rationale, and actions.
        Right now, the President has made clear in that memorandum
    that it is the law of the land that any nonwork-related
    irrelevant factor is inappropriate for consideration in the
    Federal workplace, and that's going to be the responsibility
    for whoever the Special Counsel that he appoints to enforce as
    the prosecutor, and the Merit Systems Protection Board, as the
    adjudicating agency, to rule on those actions. But the
    President has made clear for all of the management of the
    Federal Government--senior executives, managers included--that
    he expects the law to be enforced.
        Mr. Lynch. Very good.
        I'm not sure if the distinguished gentleman from northern
    Virginia, Mr. Connolly, has any questions at this point. Or do
    you need a minute?
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be
    entered into the record.
        Mr. Lynch. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Gerald E. Connolly
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.041

        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, in my district, I represent
    about 56,000 Federal employees and maybe as many retirees and
    lots of Federal contractors; and most of those Federal
    contractors and most of the large employers in my district, in
    fact, already have domestic partner benefits programs because
    they understand how important it is for recruitment and
    retention.
        And I wonder--especially, Mr. Berry, but also you,
    Representative Baldwin--my comment on that whole issue of the
    challenge of recruitment and retention as we move forward,
    we've got a lot of Federal employees ready to retire in the
    baby boom generation. How are we going to replace them and
    retain those we replace them with if, in fact, we don't include
    this as part of the benefits portfolio moving forward?
        Ms. Baldwin. You raise a very, very important point about
    attracting the top talent for government service. And I don't
    have any aggregate data for you, it's hard to pin down, but I
    have some very powerful anecdotal information from my home
    State of Wisconsin, which just last week, by the way, enacted a
    domestic partnership registry and will be shortly extending
    those benefits to State employees.
        I represent a district with a world-class university, the
    University of Wisconsin-Madison, and I have received as a
    Member of Congress panicked calls from chairpersons of
    departments at the medical school saying, Is there anything you
    can do about domestic partnership; we have the chance to land
    one of the most world-respected pediatric oncologists. And
    they're saying if their domestic partner isn't recognized with
    benefits, they're going to accept an offer at another world-
    class university.
        We've had a researcher from the engineering school leave
    the State with an NSF grant that totaled more than it would
    have cost to implement the domestic partnership benefits State-
    wide in Wisconsin because of the indignity of the unequal
    treatment in employment.
        So I think there are countless anecdotal accounts of why,
    when you can't offer these benefits, you lose top talent.
        Mr. Berry. If I could, I'll just add to and concur with the
    comments of the Congresswoman.
        This is essential in maintaining our competitive edge in
    the 21st century, and the Federal Government spends between
    $3,000 and $15,000, depending upon the complexity of the
    security clearance, on our employees now. As you well pointed
    out, Federal contractors who require those clearances, who are
    desperate to get them and who have a hard time getting them, by
    providing this benefit, essentially the government incurs the
    cost of doing the evaluation on the Federal employee, does the
    initial training of that employee, and all of the expense
    associated with that, and then that employee is sucked away by
    either the Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics or whoever
    provides that benefit, if this is a concern in that case.
        I look at this as a bottom-line business judgment. This is
    about recruiting and retaining, and not only do we need to be
    effective in recruiting across the Nation, but we've got to
    retain the employees, especially those employees with security
    clearances that we're at risk of losing because of this
    uncompetitive situation.
        Mr. Connolly. OK.
        Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I completely concur, and I
    think that's the correct way to frame the issue for the Federal
    Government moving forward: How will we stay competitive in the
    employment market when we are competing with lots of large
    employers who, in fact, provide these benefits?
        So I'm going to be an enthusiastic supporter of H.R. 2517
    and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
        I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Lynch. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I started to chat
    with you on the floor about this, but as I read this bill,
    doesn't it discriminate in terms by giving same-sex couples
    greater Federal benefits than opposite-sex couples who may not
    be married?
        Ms. Baldwin. The option exists for opposite-sex couples to
    marry in every State of the Union, and so it is easily cured if
    they want to seek those benefits for them to enter the
    institution of marriage. Aside from the States that the
    chairman mentioned, that opportunity does not exist in all
    States for same-sex partners, and to the extent that it does
    exist in any States, the Defense of Marriage Act, which is
    currently embodied in Federal law, would prohibit the Federal
    Government from recognizing those marriages in those States
    that do recognize it.
        So, in other words, we have to come up with another
    mechanism in order to offer fringe employment benefits--this is
    what we're talking about in this bill--to the same-sex partners
    of Federal employees.
        Mr. Chaffetz. So a heterosexual couple is not going to get
    the same or a man or woman living together is not going to be
    able to get the same benefits as somebody who is a same-sex
    couple?
        Ms. Baldwin. Should they desire those benefits, they would
    have the option of marrying, and that is a choice open to them
    but not open to the same-sex partners of Federal employees.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Berry, did you care to comment on that?
        Mr. Berry. I would reinforce what the Congresswoman has
    said. I think it is an effective alternative there, whereas the
    same alternative does not exist for same-sex couples.
        Mr. Chaffetz. What is the determining factor? Intimate
    relationships? I mean, how are we going to define and enforce?
        Mr. Berry. Well, as required in the legislation, it is an
    affidavit, and it has substantial penalties. You know,
    currently our Inspector General at the Office of Personnel
    Management is responsible for enforcing fraud----
        Mr. Chaffetz. So would you want heterosexual couples to
    just fill out an affidavit? Why wouldn't they just do that?
        Mr. Berry. Well, under this case it is defined specifically
    in the legislation as same-sex, but it does--that affidavit
    has--is criminal perjury. It could be--it's enforceable not
    only----
        Mr. Chaffetz. But why can't you just fill out an affidavit:
    We've got a relationship, we plan to live together?
        Ms. Baldwin. As we said earlier, the option is available
    for a heterosexual couple to marry, and then these employment
    benefits would flow automatically on the basis of that marriage
    and that spousal relationship.
        Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, even those same-sex
    couples who are afforded the right to marry in certain States
    would not have those marriages recognized currently at the
    Federal level. And so this is a mechanism that allows people
    like myself who've been in a 13-plus-year relationship to be
    able to provide for my family.
        Mr. Chaffetz. What percentage of people do we think are
    going to participate? The number I've heard is like 1.5
    percent. Do we have any sort of cost estimate here?
        Ms. Baldwin. You will have a witness later who is very
    expert on this topic. Obviously, Director Berry has some data
    already. I haven't seen a percentage, but roughly 30,000
    Federal employees. Is that close to yours?
        Mr. Chaffetz. Do you have any idea what percentage?
        Mr. Berry. Now these are 2003 numbers, Congresswoman, but
    of the 1.8 million retirees, it's estimated that 29 percent,
    5,400, are expected to elect the domestic partnership survivor
    benefit. And that's the basis on which----
        Mr. Chaffetz. Sorry to cut you off. I've got, like, seconds
    to go. I appreciate that you've highlighted the statistic that
    I was after.
        And Mr. Berry, the Office of Personnel Management stated in
    the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing
    on September 24, 2008--and I recognize how new you are to this
    position, ``that they do 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.''
        Do we have any sort of assessment as to how huge the
    bureaucracy is going have to become in order to not only
    maintain but to service those, to enforce those?
        I mean, this creates a Pandora's box of problems it seems
    to me.
        Mr. Berry. No, Congressman, this is actually going to be
    fairly easy to administer. Each of the agencies would just keep
    the affidavit on file. That would be available for
    investigation against fraud by any inspector general. If fraud
    was discovered it would be referable to the U.S. attorney.
        We see no additional cost associated with this, and the
    numbers we're talking about and the experience of the State and
    the private sector in this regard show this out over the past
    10 years that there is not a huge increase, there is not a huge
    cost, there is not a huge paperwork burden. So we do not
    anticipate any of the Federal Government in this, and this
    administration is ready to implement it immediately.
        Mr. Chaffetz. In wrapping up, Mr. Chairman, I'd just
    appreciate if you'd go again to look at that September 24,
    2008, because I feel like the OPM was somehow compelled to have
    a fairly substantive approach to this in saying they are not--
    anyway, go back and look at that quote.
        I'd like to better understand why you come to this ``this
    is easy'' conclusion. In 2008, they said, ``No, this will be
    exceptionally difficult.''
        So, with that, I'll yield back the balance of my overtime.
        Mr. Lynch. OK. Let me just followup on some of what the
    ranking member was asking about.
        I have very, very good staff here and I probably know more
    about this than I ever needed to know, but they showed me some
    studies that have been done of all the companies out there in
    the United States--some are international firms--that provide
    domestic benefits, same-sex couples. And they surveyed all
    those companies, and they tried to figure out, what's the take-
    up utilization rate among those same-sex couples that could
    have, and it was very, very low.
        The ranking member was not far off; it was around 2
    percent, very small. And I wonder about that in the Federal
    employee context, where you have a situation where someone's
    going to have to file an affidavit, and as the Director
    mentioned, under the pains and penalty of perjury--some very
    serious penalties here, $250,000, 5 years in prison, fairly
    dramatic consequences for fraud.
        And also, if you put the overlay of what you had mentioned
    before about security clearances, you're going to have
    employees here who, I think, might be even more reluctant than
    in the private sector to take up these benefits. They don't
    want to file that affidavit with their employer, with their
    Department.
        Now, my understanding was that the affidavits would be
    filed with OPM. Is that correct, or is it with the individual
    Departments?
        Mr. Berry. As it is now written, I believe Congresswoman
    Baldwin has recommended it be filed with OPM.
        One of the technical amendments we were going to urge,
    because each of the agencies follow their own payroll and
    retirement paperwork, until the person's retired--once they're
    retired, that paperwork would come to us. So, for existing
    annuitants, we would cover that; but otherwise, for active
    employees, it would be with each Bureau and Department.
        That's what we would recommend as a technical amendment to
    improve the legislation.
        Mr. Lynch. OK. I don't believe that's a hostile amendment,
    is it?
        Ms. Baldwin. No, sir. That would be very welcome.
        Mr. Lynch. OK. Let me ask you something else.
        Earlier in your testimony, Director Berry, you said
    something about retirees utilizing same-sex benefits. However,
    my reading of the bill, this will just be for active employees,
    and so retirees would not be eligible. Am I misreading that?
        Ms. Baldwin. You are not misreading that, but as Director
    Berry indicated, in their review of the legislation, OPM has
    come up with a number of technical recommendations, and that
    would be one. And as you heard earlier, it has some near-term
    offsetting effects in terms of the cost of the bill. So it
    would be something that we should certainly consider.
        Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, as a technical amendment, we would
    recommend the inclusion of existing annuitants and allowing
    that program for them. And so we would be happy to work with
    your staff to achieve that.
        Mr. Lynch. That's something that's new to me right now, but
    that's why we have hearings.
        Let me just say this. I know there has been a doctrinal
    priority to try to treat active employees and retirees the
    same, and that's been something that the Federal Government has
    tried to do as an employer generally. I have to chew on that
    for a little bit and figure out what that really means. It's
    new. It's obviously just come up. But we'll try to work with
    you again.
        I'm sure I've exhausted my 5 minutes.
        Mr. Connolly, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. Well, I wanted to ask Mr. Berry, from his
    point of view, given his responsibilities, what kind of
    feedback are you getting from Federal agency heads, in terms of
    the value of this as a potential tool for recruitment and
    retention?
        Mr. Berry. There's no question, Mr. Connolly, this is a
    very valuable tool. As has been noted in the testimony, 83
    percent of the Fortune 100 companies in our country today
    provide this. Those companies are not doing this out of social
    work or charitable purposes. They are doing it because it is a
    valuable recruitment and retention tool in their personnel
    portfolio.
        So they are not motivated here on some social agenda. They
    are not restricted by some of the discussion that the Federal
    Government is encumbered by. They're making this as a bottom-
    line business assessment and judgment, and that is specifically
    the position.
        As I talk with Cabinet Secretaries, the President, and the
    White House staff, it is clear, this will be a helpful tool. It
    is not going to answer all the problems of the Federal
    Government; we have many other issues to deal with. As you
    know, hiring reform is going to be one. I was talking with
    Congressman Chaffetz about our efforts to increase our hiring
    of veterans. We have many efforts we're going to be
    undertaking.
        But this, again, is an important tool that is going to help
    us maintain our cutting edge with the private sector here in
    the 21st century.
        Mr. Connolly. And I would just observe in closing--because
    we have to vote, I know, Mr. Chairman--I find it odd that
    somebody would even suggest inferentially that this benefit
    provision, could itself constitute discrimination against folks
    in opposite-sex relationships when, of course, the screaming
    contradiction of that question is that marriage is available to
    people in that situation, and it is not in all but a handful of
    States to those in same-sex partnerships.
        And so that's why you have to, as Representative Baldwin
    indicated, look at other ways of trying to address the issue of
    fairness in the provision of benefits. And I certainly look
    forward to expanding that conversation with Mr. Chaffetz and
    his colleagues in the weeks and months coming.
        I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman.
        All right. As you know, we have votes, and I'm going to
    have to allow the witnesses to go up and vote.
        Here's what I'd like to do. We'll go and do votes. I don't
    want to dismiss this panel. When we come back, I'm going to
    maybe have a couple more questions, and then I'll give you
    each, say, 3 minutes because we have not exhausted all the
    questions that could arise on this issue; and I'll ask you to
    just try to fill in those gaps that we may have missed in our
    questioning.
        And then I'll pull the next panel, OK?
        Thank you. So we're in recess. They tell me it's just one
    vote, so we might be back in 20 minutes. OK.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Lynch. Good afternoon and welcome back. As I had said
    before the break, I did want to offer one more question.
        Just in terms of eligibility, I understand in reading the
    bill, that Ms. Baldwin has presented, it defines same-sex
    beneficiaries as being, ``unmarried,'' and of course, now with
    the situation in Massachusetts and Connecticut and a bunch of
    places where, at least according to those States and between
    some States and the District of Columbia, those folks are now
    married. So it would appear that it might be the unintended
    consequence of this legislation that same-sex couples that are
    married, now would not be helped, but would be hurt by this
    bill.
        Now, I've gone over it with our own counsel. They have
    instructed me that since the Federal Government does not at
    this point recognize marriages other than traditional
    marriages--one man, one woman--that from the Federal
    Government's standpoint everybody outside that group is
    unmarried, period.
        So it's really not a conflict is what it's saying. But to
    get it on the record, I just wanted to ask the Director and the
    lead sponsor of this bill whether it is your understanding that
    is the case as well.
        Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        It is my understanding that what you have just described is
    the situation. But to be extra sure, because obviously in light
    of this, our counsel would like to work with yours and the
    counsels from the Department of Justice to make sure that we
    resolve this issue so that we do not have any unfavorable
    treatment for either Federal employees or retirees in those
    States that do use that term as an unintended consequence.
        So we would be happy to work with the author and the
    committee to make sure that we draft this correctly to ensure
    equal treatment in those cases.
        Mr. Lynch. OK.
        Ms. Baldwin.
        Ms. Baldwin. I would associate myself with the comments of
    Director Berry with regard to this point.
        There's certainly a strong reason why that language
    originated in the bill in earlier iterations before any State
    had recognized same-sex marriages. I think your legal counsel's
    analysis is accurate, but I think additional clarity, because
    of the progress being made in a number of States, is warranted.
        Mr. Lynch. OK. That satisfies me.
        In that respect, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
    from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a growing concern about how we can possibly define
    the terms and enforce the terms that constitute who would be
    eligible and who wouldn't be eligible. I don't know how in the
    world it can be enforced. I don't have any idea or clue how it
    can possibly be defined. It certainly hasn't been defined in
    the legislation from my perspective.
        Would you care to address that.
        Ms. Baldwin. Well, I would hope that the fact that
    literally thousands of private sector corporations and State
    and local units of government have seen fit to enact domestic
    partnership registries and offer employment benefits would give
    some comfort to the gentleman in terms that it can be managed,
    and it is being managed across this country very well.
        We lag behind in the fact that the Federal Government does
    not offer these employment benefits, but I think that the
    legislation very carefully sets forth the eligibility
    requirements.
        The affidavit is an additional protection against fraud.
    No, we don't want people defrauding the Federal Government
    either to purport they're in a marriage that they're not in or
    to purport they're in a domestic partnership that they're not
    in. And so these provisions have been specifically added as
    strong fraud prevention language.
        But I would say you should take comfort in the fact that
    this is done across the country in other jurisdictions of
    government as well as the private sector, and it's working very
    well.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Berry, one of the key or prime things
    that you cite as a reason to do this is the need to attract and
    retain employees. Where in the Federal Government do we have a
    lack of applicants? Because I guarantee I can get some
    applicants to probably show up tomorrow. Where are we lacking
    in terms of being able to recruit people?
        Mr. Berry. Congressman, this is a case you would have to
    look at each specific case.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Can you name one where we don't have----
        Mr. Berry. Oh, absolutely. Right now, we give direct hiring
    authority for veterinarians, doctors, nurses, engineers. The
    list goes on and on because we cannot effectively recruit in
    those professions, and so right now we don't even require
    competition. If a Federal agency finds a nurse that walked in
    the door and proved she is qualified, they can hire her in the
    morning because we can't find them. We can't fill those jobs,
    and these positions are significant. They're one of our
    greatest challenges, and so in each of these areas we are
    attempting to go out there with sharp elbows and compete with
    private sector, university settings, State governments, and
    local governments, so that we can provide critical services.
        You know, veterinarians at the Food and Drug Administration
    right now, we do not have enough to do the food safety
    management that we need to supply for the country. These are
    tough challenges we face as the employer for the country, and
    going to allow us--I'm not saying it's going to solve that
    problem entirely, but for the same-sex partner, the person who
    has a partner who is now working for Archer Daniels Midland and
    has domestic partner benefits, and who is a veterinarian, I in
    no way am going to have that person be able to say, they're
    going to move, relocate, and lose the health insurance for
    their partner if that's their condition of Federal employment.
    This is going to allow me now to attract that person, or at
    least, be competitive.
        So I think it's going to be a very powerful tool for us.
    It's not going to solve all the problems. I'm not portraying
    this is a panacea, but it's going to be one important tool in
    the tool belt.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I guess I would be very curious to see a list
    of where you have some gaping holes. I think the American
    people--I find the overall sweeping generalization--and,
    granted, we have limited time here. To say that we have these
    big, gaping holes when our unemployment is north of 9.5
    percent, I think if we're not sharing that with the American
    people, we ought to be. I don't see it. I'd love to see that
    list.
        Mr. Chairman, as we wrap up this panel here, I know we have
    others waiting, I appreciate your passion and commitment to
    this.
        I believe that in the traditional definition of marriage,
    as between one man and one woman, there are benefits and there
    are things that we do as a people to encourage that
    relationship. And I stand proud on that, and I don't think we
    should try to create something that is under a different name.
    That's my own personal opinion. I know your opinion would
    differ, and that's what makes this body so great.
        I hope, Mr. Chairman, as this moves forward, that we have
    proper time to have this debate in greater numbers and that
    there isn't some procedural thing that would get in the way of
    us being able to vote in a broad sense as this moves forward.
        So, again, I thank you both.
        I've gone over my time, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Lynch. I welcome the gentleman's remarks. I know we
    have not, as I said before, exhausted the full range of
    questions that might be offered, and with our continual
    interruptions on the floor, it's made it even more difficult.
        What I'd like to do, though, is offer each of you 3 minutes
    if there are areas in this bill that you would like to amplify
    or issues that you feel have not been appropriately addressed,
    I give you an opportunity to do that now in closing.
        Ms. Baldwin, you're recognized for 3 minutes.
        Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very
    generous allocation of time to review this bill with the
    committee and exchange back and forth with questions. I just
    want to summarize with a couple of points.
        In many ways, I regard this as an issue of equal
    compensation both in pay and benefits, but predominantly, we're
    looking at benefits for equal work where you have gay or
    lesbian employees of the Federal Government who are in
    committed, lifelong relationships. They have families they wish
    to protect, and they are not receiving the tools to be able to
    provide those protections, be it health care, survivor benefits
    that we've talked about, family and medical leave.
        You'll hear later from Ambassador Guest about the
    employment benefits related to those we ask to serve our
    country overseas that are very important if you want to be able
    to protect your family. And so, I regard this very much as an
    issue of equal compensation for equal work where we have
    identified a glaring discrepancy based merely on sexual
    orientation.
        I want to respond briefly to the ranking member's comments
    relating to marriage versus the very limited scope of this bill
    relating to fringe benefits.
        Marriage, which we have long looked to the States to define
    and regulate, is an aggregation of literally hundreds--in many
    States, thousands--of benefits and obligations that inure to
    those who are able to enter the institution of marriage. And so
    I, in no way, view this measure, as limited as it is, as a way
    to replicate marriage by another name.
        And if you look even to the Federal level, I think it was
    in either the late 1980's or early 1990's that a request for an
    analysis of how many times the Federal code references spouse,
    husband, wife, marriage--again, thousands of references, lots
    of benefits and lots of obligations. This in no way replicates
    that.
        While I am a supporter of equal marriage rights, that is
    not what we are here today to speak with you about. This is
    much more a matter of equal pay and equal compensation and
    benefits for those who arrive at the workplace and work at
    their jobs diligently and deserve to have equal respect of
    their employers.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
        Mr. Berry for 3 minutes.
        Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the hearing
    today, for your opportunity; and Congressman Chaffetz, for your
    engagement and involvement. We appreciate your attention and
    the courtesies that you have extended throughout the day.
        I would just make a couple of quick points, just
    underscoring the President's support for fairness across the
    Federal Government for treating all employees equally. Also, as
    the Director of OPM, for supporting it as an opportunity to
    maintain our competitive edge.
        Congressman, you're right, with the economy now, for many
    Federal positions, we have an overabundance of applicants, but
    we do face shortages in some critical areas that are very
    important, and this will be one tool that will allow us to
    maintain that.
        And the economy isn't going to remain down forever, and as
    we move forward in the 21st century. We have very complicated
    jobs in the Federal Government, and they're essential to
    protect the life, health and safety of our citizens. And it is
    essential that we be able to both recruit and retain once we've
    gotten and made a substantial investment in the best and the
    brightest, and this will be one of those tools, just like the
    rest of our health benefits packages are.
        I'd also just like to mention, there is nothing in this
    legislation that requires the repeal or even the amendment of
    the Defense of Marriage Act. This is not an attempt to seek
    that. Though the President has made clear he supports the
    repeal of that legislation, it is not required for this
    legislation. And I think it's important to remember that as
    we're having this debate.
        This is a debate about health benefits, life insurance,
    vision, and dental. It's about a benefit package that we're
    just trying to provide our employees fairly across the board.
    It is not an attempt to redefine marriage. It is not an attempt
    to overwhelm the Defense of Marriage Act. That is not required.
        I would have to check this out, but one of the things in
    terms of your questioning, Mr. Chaffetz, about whether we
    extend this benefit to heterosexual couples actually might
    entangle us in DOMA, whereas this legislation does not. And so
    I think we would have to be careful of that because, as we
    define or redefine those terms in that way, it might more
    directly engage DOMA. This legislation now doesn't.
        And so I think we're best in keeping it that way and
    keeping it as a straightforward health benefit, employee
    vision, and dental, and move forward with this as a competitive
    tool for the 21st century.
        So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much and look
    forward to working with you on the many technical amendments
    we've discussed today. And thank you again for the courtesy
    today.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you both, Director Berry, Representative
    Baldwin. We appreciate your willingness to come before the
    committee and help us with our work. We bid you have a good
    day, and we want to welcome the second panel. Thank you.
        Welcome. We will continue with this hearing. It is the
    custom of this subcommittee to swear witnesses who will offer
    testimony. Could I please ask you to rise and raise your right
    hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Lynch. Let the record show that all of the witnesses
    have answered in the affirmative.
        I will offer a brief introduction of each of our witnesses.
        Ms. M.V. Lee Badgett is currently the research director of
    the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public
    Policy at UCLA. Her research focuses on family policy issues
    and on labor market discrimination based on sexual orientation,
    race and gender. Ms. Badgett is also the director of the Center
    of Public Policy and Administration at the University of
    Massachusetts-Amherst, where she also serves as a professor of
    economics.
        Mr. Greg Franklin is the current assistant executive
    officer of Health Benefit Services for the California Public
    Employees' Retirement System [CalPERS]. In this capacity, Mr.
    Franklin is responsible for purchasing health care for nearly
    1.3 million CalPERS members at an annual cost of more than $5.5
    billion.
        Mr. Franklin is also responsible for the day-to-day
    operations of the health benefits branch where he oversees such
    offices as the Office of Health Plan Administration, the Office
    of Employer and Member Health Services, the Office of Health
    Policy and Program Support and the Division of Operation and
    Infrastructure Support.
        Ms. Carolyn E. Wright has served as the vice president of
    Corporate Human Resources for American Airlines since May 2001.
    Ms. Wright's responsibilities include strategy development and
    program design in the areas of compensation, benefits,
    retirement, leadership development, Workers Comp and
    recruiting. Previously, Ms. Wright held the position of senior
    vice president of Customer Services at American Eagle Airlines.
        As the procedure within this committee, each of the
    witnesses will have 5 minutes. I didn't explain it to the last
    two witnesses because they're here so often. The box in front
    of you will show a green light during the time which you're
    invited to offer your 5 minutes of opening statement. When it
    turns yellow, you've got 1 minute to sum up, and if it turns
    red, your time for statement has expired.
        So, Ms. Badgett, I'd like to welcome you to offer your
    opening statements for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENTS OF M.V. LEE BADGETT, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, WILLIAMS
      INSTITUTE ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY, UCLA
        SCHOOL OF LAW; GREGORY A. FRANKLIN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
    OFFICER, HEALTH BENEFIT SERVICES, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
       RETIREMENT SYSTEM; AND CAROLYN E. WRIGHT, VICE PRESIDENT,
              CORPORATE HUMAN RESOURCES, AMERICAN AIRLINES

                     STATEMENT OF M.V. LEE BADGETT

        Ms. Badgett. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Lynch. As
    an economist who has studied these issues for many years, I'm
    grateful for the opportunity to speak today about H.R. 2517.
        Today, I'd like to make four points about the need for the
    bill and the budgetary implications of the bill.
        First, you've already heard from the other witnesses, and
    I'll just confirm from an economics perspective, that by
    equalizing the treatment of same-sex partners of Federal
    employees, this bill would put the Federal Government in the
    mainstream of modern compensation practices. The shift has been
    dramatic, it's been rapid and it will only continue. There will
    be more and more employers who will offer these benefits,
    putting the Federal Government farther and farther behind if
    this bill is not enacted. I've studied the experiences in many
    of these employers, and they have reported that the
    implementation of domestic partner benefits has been quite easy
    and the cost quite manageable.
        The second point that I want to make is that the employees
    who receive these benefits gain a great deal in terms of
    security. They sign up for them to protect their family's
    health and well-being. At least some of those family members
    right now are quite likely to lack health insurance. A recent
    study that I did found that 20 percent of people who are in
    same-sex couples are uninsured, a rate that is almost double
    that of married employees, and it's significantly higher than
    the average in the United States; and this greater
    vulnerability is, quite clearly, at least partly a result of
    the employer's failure to offer domestic partner benefits. So
    many Federal employees now may have family members who are not
    covered by insurance at all.
        Third, the cost of providing benefits to domestic partners
    is small and manageable. Last year, I coauthored an independent
    study that estimated the cost of extending benefits to the more
    than 34,000 same-sex partners of Federal employees. We
    identified that number from the American CommunitySurvey. We
    estimated that providing benefits for nonpostal employees would
    cost the Federal budget approximately $41 million in the first
    year and $675 million over 10 years. These are cost estimates
    that are quite similar to those of Director Berry.
        The majority of these costs are concentrated in the area of
    employee health benefits and retiree health benefits. We
    predicted enrollment in health care plans would increase, but
    by a very small percentage, approximately 0.55 percent, which
    works out to being in our estimate roughly 14,000 employees.
        As a result of this increase in enrollment, additional
    health care benefits for the same-sex partners of Federal
    employees--and here I'll just go ahead and include postal
    service employees as well--and their kids would cost about $60
    million in the first year. That's a very small percentage
    increase, about 0.4 percent increase in health care spending
    for Federal employees last year; and that increase is very much
    in line with the experience of employers in the private sector
    and the States and cities that have offered these benefits.
        As you discussed in the last panel, there's some question
    about retirees. We estimated--we assumed that Federal
    employees, as they retire in the future, would be able to cover
    their partners in the future as retirees. So we estimate that
    the cost of health care benefits for those partners could
    increase by $127 million over 10 years.
        The retirement benefits themselves would have a very small
    change in cost to the government. In fact, as was also
    mentioned in the last panel, there would be a reduction in
    annuity payments over the short term as Federal employees offer
    survivor benefits for their same-sex partners, and that would
    save approximately $108 million over 10 years. And I'll just
    note that the findings of our study are not only in line with
    the OPM figures, but also they're very similar to the
    Congressional Budget Office's 2003 analysis of a similar bill.
        The cost for all the other benefits are minimal, and
    although they're not expensive, the ability to take family
    medical leave or to enroll a partner in life insurance or long
    term care insurance or to receive death and disability benefits
    are quite important to those Federal employees who will take
    advantage of those and can make a big difference in the lives
    of their families.
        My last point is that several factors will help offset some
    of these costs, although some of them are hard to measure
    precisely. One factor that I don't think has been mentioned yet
    is that employees of same-sex partners will need to pay
    additional Federal taxes on the imputed value of the benefits
    they receive as employees if this bill were to pass. That would
    offset some of the costs of the bill. Approximately $118
    million in revenue over 10 years would be added back in.
        And then the second factor, which you've heard a little bit
    about is that the Federal Government is likely to see lower
    turnover amongst its employees since the Federal employees who
    have partners are less likely to seek employment elsewhere.
    Lower turnover means lower cost of recruiting, hiring and
    training new employees, and there are several studies that show
    that domestic partner benefits do significantly reduce the
    likelihood that employees will look for jobs in other places.
    So I think this is an effect that is very real. It's hard to
    measure; it's hard to actually calculate the cost impact, but
    it's real.
        So putting these pieces together suggests that some of
    these gains will offset the very small cost of offering equal
    benefits to same-sex partners. The experience of thousands of
    employers offering these benefits in the United States today,
    as well as existing research, support my conclusion that the
    Federal Government can adopt and implement this new policy
    easily and affordably.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Badgett follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.046

        Mr. Lynch. Mr. Franklin, you're now recognized for 5
    minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF GREGORY A. FRANKLIN

        Mr. Franklin. Good afternoon, Chairman Lynch and Ranking
    Member Chaffetz. I'm Gregory Franklin. I'm the assistant
    executive officer for the Health Benefits Services branch of
    the California Public Employees' Retirement System [CalPERS].
        CalPERS is the largest public employee pension fund in the
    United States, with assets of approximately $182 billion. We
    administer retirement and health benefits for more than 1.6
    million active and retired California public employees and
    their families on behalf of the 2,600 California public
    employers. As of June 30, 2008, we were paying more than $10
    billion annually in benefits to 476,000 retirees and
    beneficiaries.
        CalPERS also administers a health benefits program that
    covers nearly 1.3 million members, the employees and retirees
    of the State of California, contracting local public agencies,
    and special districts. We're the second largest purchaser of
    employee health benefits in the Nation after the Federal
    Government. We're the largest purchaser of employee health
    benefits in California.
        In 2000, a new State law, Assembly Bill 26, went into
    effect that established a domestic partner registry at the
    California Secretary of State Office. Under the law, partners
    of opposite sex, if one of whom was over the age of 62, and
    partners of same sex may register for domestic partnership.
    Registration as domestic partners, however, does not confer any
    rights upon the partners unless specifically provided by law.
        Assembly Bill 26 also amended California's Public Employee
    Medical and Hospital Care Act, which is administered by
    CalPERS. To allow--to allow covered employers to offer health
    benefits to domestic partners of its employees retirees as an
    option, the State of California began health benefits to
    domestic partners in January 2000. Some public agencies also
    began offering health benefits to domestic partners as well.
        In 2005, Assembly Bill 105, the California Domestic
    Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act, became law. The law,
    which was supported by the CalPERS board administration,
    confers spousal rights on domestic partners, giving them
    statutory rights to certain employee benefits, as well as
    entitlement to continued health insurance coverage after the
    death of a CalPERS member. The essence of Assembly Bill 205 put
    domestic partners on equal footing with spouses relative to
    employee benefits under California law.
        Assembly Bill 205 mandated the provision of health
    insurance coverage for domestic partners in the same manner as
    provided to spouses, removing the issue from collective
    bargaining process at the State level and eliminating local
    agency discretion.
        Of note is that the CalPERS long-term care insurance
    program was exempt from this Assembly Bill 205 because the
    program is governed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Code as a tax
    exempt governmental plan.
        And the Federal Government does not recognize domestic
    partnerships. Allowing domestic partners to enroll in the long-
    term care plan would, in effect, be enrolling persons who are
    not eligible under Federal tax law and therefore threaten the
    tax-exempt status of the plan.
        In a related issue, the premiums for eligible domestic
    partners who are enrolled in a regular CalPERS health benefits
    program must be treated as taxable income for Federal tax
    purposes--again, due to the Federal Government not recognizing
    domestic partnerships for government programs.
        Premiums of spouses are tax deductible. Under Assembly bill
    205, CalPERS treats partners just like--it treats domestic
    partners just like spouses with respect to eligibility for
    CalPERS retirement benefits.
        The most significant change relative to retirement benefits
    is that surviving registered domestic partners of deceased
    CalPERS members and retirees are now entitled to the same death
    benefit allowances that were previously only available to
    surviving spouses.
        Assembly bill 205 also gives a domestic partner an
    entitlement to community property interest of a CalPERS
    member's benefits upon dissolution of a domestic partnership.
        The most significant implementation issue related to what
    types of domestic partners are eligible for benefits under
    Assembly bill 205.
        In California, a legal domestic partnership is one that is
    formally registered in the Domestic Partner Registry
    administered by the California Secretary of State's Office. But
    the issue of domestic partnership formed outside of California
    was less clear.
        As of July 1, 2009, CalPERS covered 3,449 members who have
    3,620 domestic partners and dependents enrolled in the health
    benefits program. For 2009, the total premiums for covered
    domestic partners is estimated at $19.5 million, which
    represents 0.33 percent of our total $5.8 billion in premiums
    projected to be paid in 2009. Unfortunately, we cannot provide
    similar statistics for our retirement benefits program.
        Overall, we do not believe that providing retirement and
    health benefits to domestic partners of CalPERS members produce
    significant burdens on staff workload or administrative
    budgets. I hope this information provides you with a better
    understanding of our experience incorporating domestic
    partners' benefits into our retirement and health benefits
    program.
        I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Franklin follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.051

        Mr. Lynch. Mrs. Wright.

                     STATEMENT OF CAROLYN E. WRIGHT

        Ms. Wright. Chairman Lynch, members of the subcommittee, my
    name is Carol Wright, and I'm the vice president of Corporate
    Human Resources for American Airlines based in Fort Worth, TX.
        Speaking for the more than 80,000 employees for American
    Airlines and our partners at American Eagle, we are honored to
    be here today to address relevant issues in your consideration
    of H.R. 2517, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations
    Act of 2009.
        As you can appreciate, we are by no means experts on the
    Federal work force or the specific human resource benefit
    questions you are raising with this legislation. We have not
    had the opportunity to study it in detail. Nor do I believe we
    can competently offer recommendations on all aspects of the
    bill. Instead, you have encouraged us to share with you our
    experience as a corporate leader in the private sector and to
    share our views on best employment practices and inclusion,
    which speaks to the overall goals of this legislation.
        As you may be aware, American, American Eagle and the
    AmericanConnections airlines serve 250 cities and 40 countries
    with, on average, more than 3,400 daily flights. As a global
    airline, American recognizes the importance of the
    relationships among its customers, employees, business partners
    and suppliers and the communities that we serve.
        We must embrace the diversity that exists within each of
    our key constituencies and operate in an inclusive manner for
    all of these groups to thrive. As a company that bears the name
    ``American,'' we also know that much is expected of us and we
    hold ourselves to a high standard. We know that promoting
    diversity is a journey, and America is committed to making
    further progress as we weave it into the very fabric of our
    company.
        Beginning in 1993, we were the first major airline to
    include sexual orientation in our equal employment opportunity
    policy, and we added gender identity in 1999. In 1994, we also
    recognized our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
    employees as our first official employee resource group. Last
    month, we celebrated its 15th anniversary.
        Building on these first steps in the late 1990's, we
    decided to examine benefits parity for all of our employees,
    and to identify any gaps in our soft and hard benefits,
    including health and other insurance coverage, travel companion
    privileges, and other options that customarily were available
    to legally married heterosexual spouses.
        Philosophically, we have always tried to recognize
    employees as individuals with their own family needs, talents,
    and ambitions. All deserve equal respect and acceptance for the
    true worth and unique experiences and skills that they bring to
    their jobs.
        We determined that treating the employees in committed
    relationships with same-sex partners as a family rather than as
    single people was consistent with that philosophy. So in 2000,
    we became the first major airline to offer benefits to the
    same-sex partners of our employees, as we had long done for
    married spouses.
        I'm not able to disclose the proprietary financial details
    about the costs or fiscal implications of our policies, but I
    can readily report that the actual impact on overall human
    resource budget is proportionately modest and manageable.
        So what are the upsides? We see a stronger work force in
    every sense. We are instilling a more enduring sense of loyalty
    and commitment and helping to motivate our LGBT employees to be
    all they can be and to bring their whole identity to work. We
    never saw this as a special case or privilege, but simply doing
    the right thing in a business setting that underscores
    fairness, equity, and inclusion.
        What are the implications for the Federal Government and
    your extraordinarily diverse work force? We cannot predict with
    any certainty the future market conditions for employment and
    worker retention, but we can report that America's top
    corporations are showing the way on best practices.
        According to research from the Human Rights Campaign,
    roughly 80 percent of the Fortune 100 now offer equal same-sex
    partner benefits, and the same can be said of the 57 percent of
    the Fortune 500. Last year in a national survey commissioned by
    Out and Equal Workplace Advocates, and conducted by Harris
    Interactive with Witeck-Combs Communications, 64 percent of all
    American adults agreed that job benefits should be extended
    equally to committed same-sex partners that are available to
    legally married spouses.
        Mr. Chairman, in closing, I also have a recently updated
    document entitled, ``Diversity and Inclusion: A Way of Life at
    American Airlines'' that I would like to submit for the
    official record.
        Mr. Lynch. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.055

        Ms. Wright. Thank you for inviting American Airlines to be
    here today to report on our past decade experience on this
    topic. We continue to work hard and sustain and build our
    commitment to diversity leadership and hope our testimony
    reflects some of the lessons we have learned and are proud to
    share with you.
        Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wright follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.058

        Mr. Lynch. I'm going to yield myself 5 minutes for some
    questions.
        You are each experts in your own right, but, Ms. Badgett,
    you have the unique, I think, perspective of having conducted
    fairly extensive studies in the area of Federal employee
    employment practices and Federal benefits. And so, having had
    an opportunity to look at this from a unique angle, I think
    that could be beneficial to the committee.
        Have you thought about what the discretionary spending and
    nondiscretionary spending ramifications would be on the Federal
    Government if we were to extend these benefits? I know you are
    an economist and an accomplished one, but have you thought
    about it from that perspective and could you just offer your
    thoughts on that?
        Ms. Badgett. Do you mean distinguishing between spending in
    those different categories or taken as a whole?
        Mr. Lynch. Either way. I think that would be helpful. That
    is a tall order. I'm not so sure you've broken it down into
    that level. But that's what I'm thinking about.
        Ms. Badgett. We have broken it down to that level, and the
    direct spending, which comes largely from health benefits and
    the annuity payments, is the smaller of the two by our
    estimates.
        In a given year, it varies. It will add up over time
    because we've made the assumption, for purposes of estimation,
    that retirees of current employees would be eligible.
        So if I said that right, current employees, when they
    retire, their partners would receive these benefits. So those
    will accumulate over time in terms of the health care benefits,
    but because of the lower annuity payments, much of that will be
    offset. So that's actually a fairly small annual amount. It
    starts off being zero on Day One, but over time would rise over
    10 years to about $31 million a year.
        On the other side, in terms of discretionary spending--so
    we've taken out the Postal Service cost, we've taken out the
    tax revenue offsets. In those cases it starts out at roughly
    $52 million. This is our study--we did it last year so it's the
    last fiscal year--and would increase overtime to about $84
    million by the end of 10 years. So the total for 10 years would
    be $660-some million.
        Mr. Lynch. I tried to read through all of the information.
    You came up with an assumption, I think it was 34,000 employees
    same-sex partners within the Federal Government. How did you
    arrive at it? How did you extrapolate that number? I was just
    curious.
        Ms. Badgett. We actually measured it. Since 1990, both the
    Census and now the American Community Survey have allowed us to
    identify people who say they have same-sex unmarried partners
    in their household. We counted them up in the American
    Community Survey and found there were 34,000 same-sex couples
    in which at least one person was a Federal employee. And in
    about 4,000 of those cases, both partners were Federal
    employees.
        Mr. Lynch. That would have been my next question.
        Ms. Badgett. So that leaves about 30,000 people that we
    would be concerned about.
        Not everyone who has a domestic partner would sign that
    partner up for benefits. We know this from many other
    employees' experience. We estimated the number who would sign
    up by looking at the employment status of the partner. Many of
    those people will have employers who offer them health care
    benefits already, so they may not be interested in signing up
    for their partner's benefits in the Federal Government.
        And after we made those adjustments, looking at the figure
    in the BLS about how many employers offer health care benefits,
    we cut that number roughly in half. So that's how we ended up
    with the 14,000 figure that we use in the report.
        Mr. Lynch. OK. Thank you.
        My time has just about expired.
        I will now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you all for being here and taking the
    time and being patient with us in terms of the timing. So thank
    you.
        Let me start with you, Ms. Wright. My understanding is that
    your policy was implemented in the year 2000. Do you have any
    quantifiable data that proves or demonstrates that this policy
    retains employees? Do you have any quantifiable data to share
    with us?
        Ms. Wright. What I can say is part of a larger package of
    benefits, we know we have a very low turnover rate at our
    airline, we know through anecdotal----
        Mr. Chaffetz. You don't have anything quantifiable that
    would distinguish----
        Ms. Wright. Nothing that would attribute it to any single
    individual item like this. But we do know anecdotally that we
    have people who choose to----
        Mr. Chaffetz. I would note anecdotal information is
    important, but I would also note it's anecdotal. There's
    nothing that distinguishes, identifies, or can quantify
    something that we are trying to quantify.
        Let me followup on the chairman's question here, going back
    to Ms. Badgett here.
        In your testimony, you state that 20 percent of people in
    same-sex couples are uninsured. Have you done any research?
    Because my understanding is that opposite-sex couples that are
    engaged in relationships actually represent a much higher
    uninsurance rate than same-sex couples. Is that your
    understanding?
        Ms. Badgett. Yes, that is correct. We found that in the
    same-sex study.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Do you believe that this bill in any way
    discriminates against anybody else? I'm not trying to give you
    a trick question. But my concern is you have heterosexual
    couples who maybe aren't married--because becoming married, it
    takes a commitment, there is a lot of paperwork, there are
    legal ramifications, it's very difficult to untangle that
    relationship from a legal standpoint.
        Do you believe that this legislation--because I do--
    discriminates against heterosexual couples?
        Ms. Badgett. I wouldn't call it discrimination. As the last
    panel had a discussion about this same topic, they pointed
    out--and I think this is correct--that when you compare the
    situation of someone in a same-sex, unmarried couple, to that
    of someone in a different-sex unmarried couple, there is no
    option. There is no legal way for the same-sex couple to
    establish a legal relationship that would allow them to get
    these benefits. For different-sex couples, they do have that
    option.
        So from that perspective, no, I don't think that's
    discrimination.
        Mr. Chaffetz. We'll go ahead and disagree on that one, but
    I appreciate it.
        I would just note here the majority memorandum states that,
    ``Although costs will increase for the Federal Government under
    this bill, it will also generate an increase in income and
    payroll taxes.''
        I could see where there is taxing on benefits and the
    ramifications that this would have, not only on individuals bus
    also to the Federal Treasury, but I also find a huge, huge
    disparity between, oh, this is only going to affect 0.2-
    something percent--as I heard on the first panel--and then to
    others who want to say, oh, no, the same-sex couple population
    is like 10 percent. It's huge. It's huge.
        How do we deal with the huge disparity in those numbers,
    because they seem to be used at convenience probably on both
    sides? But I can't find anything that's quantifiable nor do I
    believe that the Census data, which is now nearly 10 years old,
    provides adequate information or background to try to assess
    the true cost of what it would cost to implement this.
        Ms. Badgett. Well, addressing that particular question
    you've raised two separate issues of measurement, and that's
    how I look at this. One has to do with how do you count the
    number of people who think of themselves as being lesbian, gay,
    or bixsexual, which I think is a very different question.
    That's where the 10 percent is often raised. And I think that
    is a completely different issue.
        In thinking about how many couples will actually sign up
    for benefits, you are looking at, first of all, a much smaller
    group. Those are people who are in relationships in which they
    live together.
        So the unmarried partners are counted in the Census and the
    American Community Survey, which is actually done every year.
    So we've used much more up-to-date figures than the Census
    figures. So that's a much smaller pool of people.
        And then in thinking further about the people who need
    those benefits because they don't have access to them either
    because they're Federal employees themselves or because they
    have an employer who offers those benefits, at that point you
    are starting to whittle away at that much larger number. And
    our goal as analysts is to get down to the point of trying to
    figure out how many people will actually want to sign up for
    those benefits.
        And that will be reflective of at least a couple of other
    things. One, that tax payment is going to be a disincentive for
    many people to sign up for them. So that will, perhaps, reduce
    some of the folks who sign up.
        And then, finally, there is perhaps some concern about
    stigma if people believe that they will be thought of as
    lesbian, gay, or bisexual, which is probably how they will be
    thought of if folks know that they are in a same-sex
    relationship. Then they may also be reluctant to sign a piece
    of paper saying that.
        That's why that's important. We haven't talked too much
    about it, but that is why I believe it's important to have both
    a very strong nondiscrimination policy alongside of a domestic
    partner benefits policy to ensure the people who sign up for
    benefits won't be hurt in some other way.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. I see I'm out of time.
        Mr. Lynch. Mr. Cummings for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cummings. I want to thank you all for your testimony.
        Ms. Wright, I find it very interesting what American
    Airlines has been able to achieve. In your testimony, you talk
    about what actually began happening back in 1993. And as I
    listened to just the last set of questions here, I'm wondering
    how did you all break through to be able to accomplish what you
    accomplished? What kind of hurdles did you overcome and how did
    you get to where you are today? It seems like you had to go
    against some pretty heavy artillery. I'm just guessing.
        Ms. Wright. I think that is a fair statement.
        As I'm sure you can well imagine, you get there through a
    conviction of knowing what you are doing is right. And at
    American, we have employees from all walks of life, all
    cultures, nations, genders, races, religions, and sexual
    orientation. And for us, the diversity is becoming woven into
    the fabric of our company, and it's about what we've come to
    create as an understanding that diversity and inclusion is not
    about all having the same background, the same beliefs, but in
    acknowledging and accepting the diversity of beliefs and
    valuing what each individual brings.
        And so it's that sort of core understanding on the part of
    our company and our employees of what diversity means, and the
    acceptance of that helps us get through when there are
    disagreements and different perspectives. It's a matter of
    bringing them all forward and letting them all be heard.
        Mr. Cummings. You talk about morale. How do you determine
    that you have stronger morale when you have these kinds of
    problems? How do you come to these kinds of conclusions?
        Ms. Wright. I think there are several things. One, we have
    a very low turnover rate. We do periodic surveys of our
    employees. We try to understand what, through those surveys,
    retains people, and when they leave, when they exit, why they
    exit, to understand where we are doing well and where we can be
    stronger. And we continue to take all of that information, plus
    the anecdotal evidence, talking to the employees and not just
    the lesbian, gay, bixsexual and transgender employees, but
    other employees who understand and value the inclusiveness and
    the respect for the individual that's demonstrated by our
    policies.
        So we look through all of that and say, are we on the right
    track? It's a journey. It's not a destination. And we continue
    to evolve in trying to be more inclusive and doing a better job
    of making it a part of our culture.
        Mr. Cummings. As you moved to bring about those types of
    policies, was there any kind of education accompanying that? In
    other words, to create the kind of sensitivity or hope to
    create the kind of sensitivity, because I think what happens so
    often is that when you come up with new policies like this,
    there are people who have some hidden, sometimes on the
    surface, sometimes in-your-face type of feelings, and those
    feelings can come out. And I think, just as Ms. Badgett said, a
    lot of times people are reluctant to talk about their personal
    lives, and to have to make a declaration perhaps opens them up
    to some suffering.
        Ms. Wright. Yes.
        Mr. Cummings. I'm just wondering, as you went through this,
    did you anticipate those kinds of problems, and, if anything,
    what did you do in anticipation?
        Ms. Wright. We did anticipate and we do learn as we go as
    well. It's a combination of the two. We do training on a broad
    basis about diversity in general. And one of the things we talk
    about is knowing who's in the room. Sometimes diversity is
    obvious, sometimes it's not obvious. So understanding that and
    providing training for all of our employees on diversity and
    inclusion.
        We also have a Diversity Advisory Council [DAC], which is
    made up of representatives from each of our resource groups
    which represent a wide range of demographic groups. Through
    that council, we get a lot of advice. We include all of the
    leaders of the different demographic groups and our different
    employee research groups to come together and help us figure
    out how we can do more to support.
        And then where we have unique situations, such as a
    transgender pilot, we will provide specific training and
    counseling to people immediately around that area or in the
    areas where problems exist. We'll go in and provide additional
    training and counseling for the employees in those areas to try
    to help them come to terms and better understand and embrace
    the inclusive approach that we are taking.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Lynch. Mr. Franklin, we've been guessing and trying to
    extrapolate through studies what the impact might be on the
    Federal budget by extending these benefits. You've had very
    real experience with CalPERS. You've had to grapple with the
    costs, you have had to grapple with administering this, just as
    we are sort of thinking about this, with the affidavits and
    verification.
        Tell us about your experience. What did it mean to the
    bottom line at CalPERS and what difficulties did you have in
    doing the whole administrative piece, getting people to come
    forward? Was it in an affidavit-type situation, registration-
    type system? How did you handle that?
        Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
        Fortunately for CalPERS, our experience was not onerous.
    The Secretary of State, after the legislation was passed, set
    up an online registration system. Additionally, made hard-copy
    registration available at various Secretary of State offices.
        In regards to cost in general, as I stated earlier, $19.5
    million was our total cost. However, we spent close to $6
    million annually for health care benefits. The total number of
    individuals or members who are enrolled in our Domestic Partner
    Health Benefits Program is less than a half a percentage point.
    So therefore, our membership in that regards was not large.
        In terms of other administrative challenges, the biggest
    administrative challenge was managing the tax implications and
    looking at how our State Controller Office would manage those
    folks who were not exempt, did not have tax exemptions. That
    was a large part of the work. However, that was done in fairly
    short order, given that there were other IT changes afoot at
    our State Controller's Office.
        But all in all, I think our approach initially was one that
    we wanted to create an environment where California recognized
    the diversity of our State. We wanted to ensure that as an
    employer, our benefits were in alignment for all of our
    employees. So the actual enactment of the legislation was not
    problematic.
        Mr. Cummings [presiding]. Let me ask you something, Ms.
    Wright. You know, a lot of times you hear people say they worry
    there might be fraudulent activities in regards to these
    things. You hear those arguments all the time. It's quite a bit
    of experience you have. It's been quite a few years now. I'm
    wondering what you've found. Have you had any kinds of
    fraudulent activities that you know of?
        Ms. Wright. No significant fraudulent activity in terms of
    the domestic partner benefits. We do go through and we did an
    audit a few years back on all of our dependents, whether they
    be spouses, dependent children of domestic partners. I suppose
    with any large corporation, we found some cases but they really
    weren't a domestic partner. They were in heterosexual couples
    and married couples or dependent children. So fraud has really
    not been, in terms of domestic partners, a big issue for us.
        And we do go through an affirmative proof of eligibility
    process at the time of enrollment to verify the people are
    indeed eligible.
        Mr. Cummings. Had you all anticipated that there might be
    problems with that?
        Ms. Wright. I don't think we anticipated the problems would
    be any greater or less with the domestic partner benefits than
    with any other benefit, whether it be married couples,
    dependent children, or common-law spouses. So I don't think we
    anticipated it would be a bigger issue, just proportionate to
    any other issue.
        Mr. Cummings. Now, Mr. Franklin, I think I asked Ms. Wright
    the question about this whole idea of morale, but we've also
    heard today that providing this benefit is good for the
    employer because it helps recruit and retain top talents. You
    found that to be the case?
        Mr. Franklin. CalPERS is not exactly the employer. We are a
    broker for the State of California. However, we do ask
    questions regarding recruitment, retention, absenteeism, in
    order to be better performed. We really haven't seen data
    either one way or the other in terms of the retention or
    recruitment. However, satisfaction surveys have shown in the
    past that when you ask questions around diversity and equity in
    the workplace, that this notion or this premise that everyone
    is being treated fairly is one we get very high marks on.
        Mr. Cummings. That's interesting. As I was listening to
    you, Ms. Wright, the whole idea that something can come about,
    and then it's new and a lot of people have questions about it,
    and then what's new becomes old. And then it becomes the norm.
    The problem is getting through the process. And I think that's
    the difficulty quite often.
        My mother used to say, ``Integrity is about doing what you
    believe is right, and then withstanding the criticism and
    waiting for everybody to catch up.''
        And so I think that the things that we are talking about
    today, may be new for some. For some it hasn't even come into
    existence yet. But at some point, I think it will be the norm
    and maybe we'll move to another level.
        Ms. Badgett, let me ask you one last question.
        Your testimony states that you've worked with numerous
    employers on implementing domestic partner benefits. Can you
    tell us what the main reason employers cite for providing these
    benefits, other than costs, and what do they tell you is the
    main challenge in implementing the benefits?
        Ms. Badgett. I would say that employers usually refer to
    two reasons to offer these benefits. The first is the one that
    you hear a lot about. It's about competing with other companies
    for the best employees.
        The second one has to do with equity issues, with treating
    all employees fairly. So they--in my experience--frequently
    cite those roughly equally. Those are the two issues.
        In terms of the implementation piece of it, I think the
    concern that most employers seem to have is with regard to the
    taxable imputed income that they have to adjust their payroll
    systems to reflect. And that can sometimes be a little bit
    unwieldy for employers, but they only have to do it once. So
    it's something that's a one-time cost.
        Mr. Cummings. Did you want to say something?
        We are going to take a slight break. Mr. Lynch is coming
    right back, and then we'll go to our third panel. Thank you all
    for your patience and thank you all for your testimony.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Lynch. I want to thank you all for your patience and
    your willingness to come before this subcommittee and help us
    with our work.
        I apologize for the interminable delays that have gone on
    today. Some of them intentionally, unfortunately. But this is
    an important enough issue that we have a full and fair hearing
    here, and we intend to do just that. I know there were some
    witnesses who have offered testimony in writing, and we'll
    accept that without objection.
        But in continuance of our hearing, I want to introduce our
    next panel.
        Ambassador Michael Guest served as America's first openly
    gay Senate-confirmed U.S. Ambassador during his tenure to
    Romania from 2001 to 2004. Mr. Guest currently serves as senior
    adviser to the Council for Global Equality, which was formed in
    September 2008 by a coalition of human rights organizations
    that advocate for a stronger and more consistent U.S.
    Government and corporate voice on behalf of lesbian, gay, and
    transgendered human rights protections at home and abroad.
        Ms. Lorilyn ``Candy'' Holmes has been an employee with the
    U.S. Government Accountability Office for 33 years in spite,
    believe it or not, of her youthful appearance. She is
    responsible for the oversight of various agency-wide
    information technology programs. A native Washingtonian, Ms.
    Holmes is an ordained clergy with the Metropolitan Community
    Churches, which is the world's largest and oldest Christian
    denomination, with primary affirming ministry to the lesbian
    and gay and transgendered community along with family, friends,
    and allies.
        Dr. Frank Page currently serves as the pastor of the First
    Baptist Church of Taylor, SC, and has previously held the
    position of president of the Southern Baptist Convention. A
    native of Robbins, NC, Dr. Page is the author of several books
    and scholarly articles as well as a member of President Obama's
    Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
        I realize that we have far exceeded the estimated limits of
    time thus far. It is the custom of this subcommittee to ask all
    witnesses who are here to offer testimony be sworn. Could I ask
    all of you to raise, stand and raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Lynch. Let the record indicate that all of the
    witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
        I will begin by offering 5 minutes for an opening statement
    to Ambassador Guest.

     STATEMENTS OF AMBASSADOR (RET.) MICHAEL GUEST, FORMER CAREER
       FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER; LORILYN HOLMES, CURRENT FEDERAL
    EMPLOYEE, REVEREND, METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES; AND FRANK
     PAGE, PASTOR, FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF TAYLOR, SC, PRESIDENT,
                    SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION 2006

                       STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GUEST

        Mr. Guest. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to share
    my perspective on this bill.
        For more than half of my life, I served our country as a
    career Foreign Service Officer. I was honored to represent our
    country, and I am proud of my accomplishments, but in December
    2007, I ended my career after having sought, without success,
    to amend policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian
    Foreign Service personnel.
        While sharing the same service obligation as my colleagues,
    my family had no benefits. My partner had sacrificed his career
    to support me in serving the country that we both love and in
    return was treated as a second-class citizen in our overseas
    postings. And I couldn't reconcile how an administration so
    consumed with the fight against terrorism would knowingly put
    my partner's life at risk and indeed put the security and
    effectiveness of our embassy communities at risk to policies
    that base protections needlessly on marriage, an option that,
    of course, is unavailable to us.
        Mr. Chairman, the State Department's specific inequalities
    that I challenged have framed my perspective, and those are
    offered in detail in my written testimony.
        As examples, the Department would not train my partner in
    how to recognize a terrorist threat or a counterintelligence
    trap, thus putting his life and indeed U.S. interests at risk.
    He had no guarantee of being evacuated whether for life-
    threatening medical reasons or to escape political violence
    that might close an embassy.
        The Department would not train him in the informal
    community leadership roles that he, as my partner, was, in
    fact, expected to fill. Unlike spouses, he had no diplomatic
    protections nor could he compete for jobs that the embassy
    needed to fill, regardless of his qualifications; and while the
    Department paid to transport pets to and from posts, it
    wouldn't pay my partner's airfare as if the government for
    which he sacrificed so much considered him to be less important
    than a dog.
        Now, I trust you can see the ironies. As a diplomat, I
    advanced American principles of equality, fair play, and
    respect for diversity in the countries to which I was posted;
    and yet the very agency that charged me to represent those
    policies showed no respect for those principles and how it
    treated those of us who are gay or lesbian. Nor did that agency
    that drills crisis management, diversity awareness, and
    leadership skills into all employees show any concern at all on
    the issues of health, safety, morale, and effectiveness that
    stem from these discriminatory policies.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I still believe that America is still
    the greatest country on Earth, and I'm proud of the time that I
    spent in the State Department, but my experience in seeking
    redress of these inequalities made me realize that this is not
    the America I believed in when I came to Washington some 30
    years ago to work, in fact, as an intern here on Capitol Hill.
        You see, the issue we are here to address is not about
    personal belief, and it is not the definition of marriage.
    Those are red herrings. It's workplace fairness, and it's civil
    rights. Somehow we, as a country, have allowed the term
    ``equality,'' which is an absolute term, to be redefined to
    mean more rights for some individuals and fewer for others.
        LGBT Americans are not demanding so-called special rights,
    as some claim, through this or any other bill. How is it that
    we are debating even today whether citizens who are gay should
    enjoy the same fundamental protections as others that we work
    with, who live in our communities, work in offices and
    factories, and, yes, share a fellowship in our place of
    worship.
        And, in that regard, I want to mention, when I was a
    student at Furman University many years ago, I attended First
    Baptist Church in Taylor, SC, which is represented here by my
    fellow panelist.
        Mr. Chairman, I was reluctant to relive before this
    committee the most painful chapter of my life, the decision to
    leave a career that I love. But, for me, this is a matter of
    closure. When President Obama took his action on the 17th of
    last month to redress the issues at the State Department, I
    took my partner's hand and quietly apologized to him that this
    action couldn't have come sooner for his sake.
        And now the spotlight is on Congress. The bill before you
    addressees a range of benefit that remains out of reach for
    Federal employees for same-sex partners. These have been
    detailed by other panelists. They're as critical to our
    families as they are to us, and I respectfully ask that you
    close this gap.
        You've heard many solid arguments for this bill based on
    things like worker retention and budgetary impact and
    comparisons to corporate policies, but I ask you to support
    this legislation for different reasons.
        First, principle is at stake. Equality, fair mindedness,
    and respect for diversity are at the heart of America's
    identity. This bill would honor those principles and bring us
    closer to fulfilling those ideals.
        But, second, this bill is about people. Those of us who are
    gay have the same aspirations, the same hopes, and the same
    needs as any of you. We have families that we love, that we
    need to take care of, just as you do. We are humans like you.
    We love and support our country like you do. And we ask only to
    be treated fairly and equally and that our families be provided
    with the same protections and benefits that are provided to
    yours.
        I have been in Washington almost three decades, and I've
    heard over and over that policy issues related to gay and
    lesbian Americans are just too hard to tackle and that other
    agendas must come first and that the time is not now. This
    issue is hard only because we make it so. And surely we can
    come together as a country and as a people to do the right
    thing for families who have yet to recognize and realize the
    equality to which we, as citizens, are entitled.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guest follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.062

        Mr. Lynch. Ms. Holmes, you are now recognized for 5
    minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF LORILYN HOLMES

        Ms. Holmes. Good evening, Chairman Lynch. I appreciate this
    opportunity to testify before you in favor of domestic partner
    benefits for Federal employees. I appreciate that my partner
    and a portion of my family are also present.
        It's been a long time since I have visited the Rayburn
    Building where my father worked years ago as a laborer serving
    in these same hearing rooms. He would take me by the hand and
    walk me through these very halls of Congress explaining this is
    where decisions are made, Candy, that impact us all. I would
    have never imagined I would return to be speaking before you
    today before you now on a topic of such importance to me and to
    countless others. I believe my father is looking upon us from
    celestial heights, proud that I am here. Thank you for
    convening this hearing.
        My name is Candy Holmes, and I am a Federal employee, a
    manager with the Government Accountability Office in
    Washington, DC. I have worked at the GAO for 33 years--
    absolutely 33 years. I am here to speak not only about my story
    but to express my views on the merits and the need for this
    legislation, that it ensures that lesbian and gay Federal
    employees and our same-gender partners receive the same
    benefits that are granted to our opposite-gender married
    Federal employees.
        I am not here speaking as a representative of the GAO. I am
    testifying on my own behalf.
        It is also important for me to share with you that I am
    lesbian, and I am Christian, and for the last 20 years I have
    been a part of the Metropolitan Community Churches, and I am an
    ordained clergywoman. I'm in a same-gender relationship with
    the Reverend Darlene Garner. We are in a loving, committed
    relationship in which we worry about our children, take pride
    in our grand and great grandchildren, make a home together, and
    plan our retirement together.
        Darlene is also ordained clergy with the MCC and serves as
    part of the denomination spiritual leadership. Because she is
    an employee of MCC, she relies on limited employee benefits and
    a retirement plan that will provide less than $120 a month when
    she retires.
        There are many families like ours. The difference is this.
    The government to which I have devoted 33 years of my working
    life will not honor my partnership because I love another
    women, not a man. There are many voices and stories you will
    not have a chance to hear, so I share from our collective
    experiences of unfair treatment and unjust Federal policies.
        I entered the Federal Government in 1977. And in that day,
    it was enough that I was also dealing with the dynamics of
    being African American and a woman in the Federal workplace. So
    I was a closeted lesbian. I worked in utter fear that I would
    be found out and suffer the consequences. Like many others, I
    chose to be silent; and that rendered my life invisible.
        Recently, I came to a tipping point in my life. The
    decision in California to uphold Proposition 8, the ban on gay
    marriage, sent me a stark, clear, yet unbelievable message that
    discrimination can be legalized again. I was outraged. So I am
    here to bear witness openly as a lesbian Federal employee who
    seeks fair and equal treatment.
        Federal employees who are married to someone of the
    opposite gender are automatic beneficiaries of Federal
    benefits. My family and others like us are automatically
    denied. It is disturbing and demoralizing to be treated as a
    second-class citizen and worker and told that I cannot enjoy
    the benefits of my labor on an equal footing with my opposite-
    gender counterparts.
        Being treated as a second-class citizen is eerily familiar
    to me. Same church, just a different pew. There was a time in
    this country when being treated differently because of the
    color of my skin was simply the way it was. Being treated so
    unfairly now because of who I love is more than a matter of
    fairness; it is an issue of civil rights.
        My partner and I are preparing for our retirement years
    now. Unless this act is adopted now, the economic impact of my
    retirement on my family will be dire, as though I had never
    dedicated 35 years of my life to my career as a Federal
    employee.
        No opposite-gender married couple will ever have to think
    about this, ever have to even think about such a thing because
    they had been privileged by right of legislation. Government
    should work for us, not against us.
        In summary, Chairman Lynch, the family benefits in question
    are a significant portion of employee compensation because gay
    and lesbian Federal employees do not receive equal pay for our
    equal contributions. It is clear that this act would be a first
    step in the right direction toward eliminating discrimination
    and compensation.
        As I conclude, I would like to thank the cosponsors from
    both the House and the Senate for their ongoing efforts to move
    this act to this point and for linking their hands with mine
    and others on the arc of history to bend it once more toward
    justice.
        During these days of uncertainty, I remind us all of the
    words of President Obama from his inaugural address: The time
    has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit to choose our better
    history, to carry forth that precious gift, that mobile idea
    passed on from generation to generation, the God-given promise
    that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to
    pursue their full measure of happiness, including Federal
    employees like me. There is no wrong time to do the right
    thing.
        Thank you and God bless. I will be happy to take any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Holmes follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.069

        Mr. Lynch. Dr. Page, we are thankful that you stayed. You
    are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF FRANK PAGE

        Mr. Page. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the
    opportunity to address this committee, though singular you are
    at this particular moment.
        I've heard much talk today in the 6 hours plus that I have
    sat here about diversity, equality, fairness, but I have to
    note for the record in the interest of fairness, I'm the only
    person asked to speak as a witness today who speaks in
    opposition to this proposed bill, H.R. 2517.
        I have heard a great deal of verbiage today about how this
    would make the government on equal footing regarding
    recruitment and retention. I've heard many things about
    fairness; I understand that and I hear that in my heart. But I
    do believe this is a part of a social agenda, and I do speak in
    opposition to H.R. 2517, primarily because of two reasons. One
    is moral; one is financial.
        I do believe that it has been the perennial role of the
    government to support the institutions of society such as
    marriage; and, in this instance, I think this is taking a
    direct role in opposition to a traditional definition in
    support of that which marriage has traditionally been.
        I believe that the government has always stood to support,
    not to discourage. I do believe in moral absolutes. Those are
    words we've not heard today. Those are words that are not
    popular in our culture today. But I do say that I do believe
    there are moral absolutes.
        I was excited to hear Ambassador Guest say that he had
    attended our church. I would love for him to attend again, and
    he would find a place of love and welcome. But he will also
    hear again biblical truth that marriage is one man, one woman,
    freely and timely committed to each other as companions for
    life. We believe that the government ought to support the role
    of marriage in our society.
        We also, as unpopular as it is today, believe that this is
    a part of a social agenda that continues to seek normalization
    of the homosexual lifestyle that I, and I believe many other
    evangelicals, not all, certainly oppose. We care for people, we
    do love people, but we are painted as if we are hateful,
    caricatured as mean spirited. We are not, but we do believe
    there are absolutes, and we stand by them.
        This bill promises equal treatment, but I believe that it
    has created an elitism. For example, it's been pointed out
    today that heterosexual couples, opposite-gender couples would
    not be allowed to have the same benefits. It's been pointed
    out, well, they can get married. Well, there are same-sex
    couples that do not wish to get married. There are opposite-sex
    couples that do not wish to get married for many reasons. This
    sets aside same-sex couples as an elite class, and those same
    benefits would be denied to opposite-sexed couples who choose
    not to marry.
        So I do believe that this is creating a discriminating
    bill. It is a discriminating bill; and, again, I think that is
    improper.
        Do I personally oppose same-sex couples who live together
    without marriage? Yes. Do I oppose opposite-sex couples who
    live together? Yes. We do believe that is improper. For moral
    reasons but also financial reasons.
        I do believe that this creates an opportunity for abuse.
    I've heard the promises today of supposed safeguards. But I've
    got to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I, like many Americans,
    don't trust the government's ability to guard itself in its
    policy real well, and I hope that doesn't come as a great
    surprise to you. But I have deep concerns about the moral
    implications about this bill, also about the financial
    possibilities. I do encourage that this bill will be defeated
    and that we will see the government continue in some small form
    to lead corporations and society in the protection of
    traditional marriage.
        Thank you for listening to my comments.
        Mr. Lynch. Let me begin with Ambassador Guest.
        First of all, thank you for your service to our country. I
    appreciate that greatly. I regret that the situation existed
    that treated you in a way that you felt that you could not
    continue in our service, because I think we have, lost out. We
    have suffered not only because of your own decision, but I'm
    sure that there are thousands of employees that have probably
    made the same decision over time as a result of this policy.
        Let me ask you. You also, in your last few years of
    service, began to advocate on behalf of changing the laws and
    changing the regulations as they apply to Federal employees. We
    are looking at a proposal today offered by Ms. Baldwin subject
    to some technical amendments being suggested by the Office of
    Personnel Management. But, basically, what they're suggesting
    is that, in order to extend these benefits, they will require
    gay and lesbian employees to file a sworn affidavit under the
    penalties of perjury that they have a long-term commitment,
    solid commitment, in some cases, marriages recognized in other
    States, and that they want the benefits that they receive as
    employees to be extended to their spouse, to their domestic
    partners.
        The idea of requiring employees to come forward requiring
    to sign an affidavit, especially in the Federal Government
    context, can be somewhat intimidating. And I just want--I
    wonder how you see that, the administration of that practice,
    affecting the utilization rate among gay and lesbian employees
    in the Federal workplace.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
        I don't think that this is an onerous requirement, to be
    honest. Had we been speaking 20 years ago, things might have
    been different. But I think our society has evolved in a way
    where people are much more open about who they are and more
    honest. Honesty is a value that I think is very, very important
    in life; and I think many people now are much more honest.
        I, frankly, don't know that it is entirely necessary. I
    certainly believe that Federal employees who have security
    clearances would never risk their security clearance on the
    promise of a false affidavit. I don't think that people would
    be willing to jeopardize their employment, also. But I do
    believe that, in the interest of making sure that this process
    works as smoothly and effectively as possible and that there is
    no fraud, that having this sort of an affidavit would not be
    objected to by any member of the Federal Government that I
    know.
        Mr. Lynch. Ms. Holmes, you had a perspective as a parent as
    well as a partner in this. With over 33 years going through--
    you've got a compelling story, and it gives great power to your
    testimony today. How has that affected your extended family
    life in dealing with this policy over the years? How have your
    children been affected by being, I think, unfairly treated by a
    policy that obviously distinguishes between heterosexual
    families and homosexual families?
        Ms. Holmes. Well, Chairman Lynch, in our case, my partner
    and I, when we came together, the children were already grown.
    They were young adults, so we were not impacted by this--not
    being included or not being able to use the health benefits.
        But that being said, such an exclusion still has a heavy
    impact on my colleagues. And I can share from their experiences
    in blending families and with our children, our partners, we
    share parenting responsibilities and love all of the children
    without distinction. However, the Federal Government does not
    consider the children of our same-sex partners as being our
    children.
        I know of many same-sex couples who live in such a blended
    family situation and coverage under the Federal employees
    health benefit program would not cover them. It is not
    available to the children of our partners. When the children
    are ill, the birth or adopted children of Federal employees can
    be treated by a private physician. If the partner is a stay-at-
    home parent, or for whatever reason is uninsured, the partner's
    ill child sometimes must go without health care or it must, at
    most, turn to public services for health care.
        Mr. Lynch. Dr. Page, a number of the members of previous
    panels, in response to questions by the ranking member, Mr.
    Chaffetz of Utah, there was an exchange here on several
    occasions about the idea that, as you stated in your testimony,
    single heterosexual couples living together were being
    discriminated against under this bill because they would not be
    afforded the same rights that gay couples would be afforded as
    it's currently drafted. And the response from some of the
    witnesses, several of them, was that the heterosexual couples
    have the opportunity to marry and upon that marriage,
    unquestionably, they would be afforded the benefits. Nothing
    further needs to be done.
        And you have made the same argument that heterosexual
    couples are being discriminated against. How do you reconcile
    that fact that one couple can go ahead and get married and they
    get the benefits just like that and the other one, the gay
    couple or lesbian couple, can achieve that same result?
        Mr. Page. Well, I mean that is a separate issue. The issue
    of marriage is very clear, that under Federal law right now
    they are not married and they cannot get married. That's a moot
    point to me. Because that is not an even a possibility at this
    point, as far as Federal law.
        But what I was simply saying is this: there are many same-
    sex couples that simply do not choose to get married for
    whatever reason. There are many opposite-sex couples that
    choose not to get married. But there are many people, for
    example, who are in relationships or friendship, may even live
    together, elderly persons, young persons, whatever the age
    might be. Why should they be discriminated against, that
    they're not going to be allowed to get the same benefits that a
    same-sex couple would get?
        I'm simply saying it's discriminatory purposely because the
    only protected clause in this particular piece of legislation
    are same-sex couples, automatically discriminating against
    those who are opposite sex. They choose not to get married.
    That's not my business. That's not your business. That's their
    business. But the government is automatically discriminating
    against them.
        Mr. Lynch. But it is the operation of law that a gay couple
    cannot get married, even though they have a long-term,
    committed relationship.
        Mr. Page. And that is true.
        Mr. Lynch. And it's the operation of law that, you know,
    heterosexual couples can.
        Mr. Page. But I'm not arguing what's legal and what's not
    legal. I'm arguing what is discriminatory and what is not
    discriminatory.
        Mr. Lynch. Is that connected?
        Mr. Page. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Lynch. I understand, but this is a legislative body.
        Mr. Page. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Lynch. I am a lawmaker, so we've got to talk about the
    law.
        Mr. Page. All right. Well, then let's respect the law that
    is currently on the books that says these persons are not
    married.
        Mr. Lynch. The law is not a static entity. We're here
    because a very respected member of the legislature has come
    forward with a proposal to change the law, to extend the
    benefits. And I respect your position. I don't----
        Mr. Page. No, sir, I don't think you do, but thank you for
    saying that.
        Mr. Lynch. No, no, I do respect you. However, we are trying
    to grapple with the issue of, in this case, as presented by
    some, equal work for equal pay or equal pay for equal work. And
    I think that there is a valid case being made when you do a
    comparative assessment of how each person is treated, and I
    think there is a fair statement that it's drastically different
    for Ambassador Guest in his situation versus some of my other
    heterosexual employees and the benefits that have been afforded
    to them. You know, at least from an equal protection standpoint
    I think there's fair argument that's been put forward here.
        Let me just say this. There's no way I'm going to cover the
    whole landscape of questions that need to be asked this
    evening, but what I would like to do is to give each of you
    several minutes. If there are aspects of this debate today in
    the three panels that have not been covered, if there are parts
    of this debate that you'd like to emphasize or amplify or just
    summarize, that you think that a message that has not been
    heard here today, then I want to give you full opportunity to
    do that.
        Dr. Page, I'd like to afford you the first 3 minutes, if
    you'd like to. As I said, just put some messages on the record
    about your feelings on this and your positions on this. You're
    recognized for 3 minutes.
        Mr. Page. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I do recognize that I rise in favor of a minority opinion.
    It's not very popular. It's not politically correct. But I do
    stand and say that the government should be in the process of
    encouraging the traditional marriage that has stood for many,
    many hundreds of years as that way that culture is best
    protected, and I think the government ought to be encouraging,
    not discouraging, and I think this act discourages.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Holmes, you're recognized for 3 minutes.
        Ms. Holmes. Thank you, Chairman.
        I want to start with saying the government is not a
    religious institution. For the Federal Government to afford all
    employees equal treatment does not require anyone to change
    their values or beliefs. It requires only that the Federal
    Government honor the legal doctrine of separation of church and
    State.
        And on a real personal note, it has been demoralizing to go
    to work each day knowing that I must endure the indignity of
    not receiving equal pay for my equal work. The spirit of the
    Declaration of Independence is that all people have the
    inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
    happiness. Yet, being a lesbian and employed by the Federal
    Government has meant that I can't or haven't been allowed to
    exercise that basic American right for myself and my family.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
        Ambassador Guest, you're recognized for 3 minutes.
        Mr. Guest. Mr. Chairman, the three of us who are sitting
    before you now are all Christians. We all are men and women of
    faith and belief, but we are also all Americans. America is
    not, as my colleague has said, a theocratic society. This
    country was founded on certain principles, and among them were
    equality, among them were fair play, fairness, and justice. And
    these are principles that we represent in political discourse
    in this body and principles that we represent abroad when we
    are speaking about what America stands for, and those
    principles are denied by the law the way it now exists.
        You've pointed out that law is not static, that law changes
    both to deal with changing times, and from this perspective I
    would say it's not from changing times. It's to right wrongs.
    It's to right injustices.
        I find the argument that somehow this bill is
    discriminatory sheer sophistry. We would not be sitting here
    today having this discussion about this bill if one of two
    situations existed, one being that we, gay and lesbian
    Americans, were allowed access to marriage because all of these
    benefits that are attached to employment for the Federal
    Government are attached through the institution of marriage.
    The second circumstance would be if the government recognized
    that workplace benefits and protections and fairness should not
    be attached through marriage, that marriage should not be the
    fulcrum on which these benefits are offered, that there needs
    to be a principle established of equal rights for equal
    representation and equal service.
        And that's what this really is about. That's what this bill
    is about, and I would urge that the committee consider it in
    that light.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
        As you know, we had several hearings going on at the same
    time today. It's the way it works around here. It's not the
    best way, but it's the way it works. So what I'm going to do is
    I'm going to leave the record open for 5 days. That will also,
    you know, based on your testimony today will also give the
    other members of this committee an opportunity to submit
    questions to you in writing; and you will have 5 days to return
    those answers to the committee if necessary.
        But I want to thank you each. I really do appreciate all
    the testimony that's been offered to this committee. I thank
    you for your willingness, and it took courage for each of you
    to step forward and offer testimony to this committee under
    oath, and we appreciate that, and we thank you, and we bid you
    good evening.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 8:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2628.072