[Senate Hearing 111-758]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-758
DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS: FAIR POLICY AND GOOD BUSINESS FOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
of the
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 15, 2009
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-848 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JON TESTER, Montana ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
PAUL G. KIRK, JR., Massachusetts
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Lawrence B. Novey, Senior Counsel
Kenya N. Wiley, Counsel
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Amanda Wood, Minority Director of Governmental Affairs
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lieberman............................................ 1
Senator Collins.............................................. 3
Senator Akaka................................................ 7
Prepared statements:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 23
Senator Collins.............................................. 26
Senator Akaka................................................ 28
Senator Burris............................................... 30
Senator Kirk................................................. 31
WITNESSES
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin................................................... 4
Hon. John Berry, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management... 8
William H. Hendrix III, Ph.D., Global Leader, Gays, Lesbians, and
Allies at Dow (GLAD), The Dow Chemical Company................. 10
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Baldwin, Hon. Tammy:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Berry, Hon. John:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 35
Hendrix, William H., III, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 10
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 84
APPENDIX
``How Many Fortune-Ranked Companies Provide Domestic Partnership
Benefits,'' chart submitted by Senator Lieberman............... 25
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from:
Mr. Berry.................................................... 95
Mr. Hendrix.................................................. 104
Statements for the Record from:
John Gage, National President, American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE)....................... 107
Susan Rockwell Johnson, President, American Foreign Service
Association (AFSA)......................................... 112
Charles M. Loveless, Director of Legislation, American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-
CIO (AFSCME)............................................... 113
William Burrus, President, American Postal Workers Union,
AFL-CIO (APWU)............................................. 114
Donna Griffin, Senior Vice President and Chief Diversity
Officer, The Chubb Corporation............................. 116
Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America (CWA)... 120
Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations (DPBO)
Coalition.................................................. 121
Joe Solmonese, President, Human Rights Campaign (HRC)........ 123
Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU)..................................... 125
Jody M. Huckaby, Executive Director, Parents, Families, and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)....................... 131
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College Retirement
Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF).................................. 134
DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS: FAIR POLICY AND GOOD BUSINESS FOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, and Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. Good morning, and welcome to the
hearing. Today, our Committee will hear testimony on S. 1102,
the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, which
Senator Collins and I introduced last year and again earlier
this year to bring equity to Federal workers and to strengthen
the workforce that serves the American people.
We are holding this hearing as part of the Committee's
responsibility under Senate rules for the civil service of our
Federal Government.
Although we conducted a hearing on this legislation during
the last Congress, we felt it would be useful to revisit the
matter this year particularly to give the new Administration an
opportunity to express its views on S. 1102. And in that
regard, we are pleased to welcome the new Director of the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), John Berry. We are also
going to hear from Dr. William Hendrix of Dow Chemical, which
is typical of Fortune 500 companies in that it provides
benefits to same-sex partners of its employees. And first we
will hear in a few moments from our colleague from the House,
Tammy Baldwin, of Wisconsin, who has sponsored companion
legislation in what over here we love to call ``the other
body.''
Senator Collins and I introduced this bill because we
believe it is the fair and right thing to do, and also because
we believe it makes practical sense for the Federal Government
as an employer. Particularly as we approach a generational
change in the Federal workforce that will see the retirement of
approximately one-third of all Federal employees, it seems to
us to be just plan sensible that we do all we can to attract
and retain the ``best and the brightest'' to serve in the
Federal Government in the years ahead, and we are convinced
that this legislation will help us accomplish that.
Our bill would provide that same-sex partners of Federal
employees have equal access to their partners' employee benefit
programs. They would be eligible to receive health benefits,
long-term care, family and medical leave, Federal retirement
benefits, and any other benefits for which the spouses of
traditionally married employees are eligible. Federal employees
and their domestic partners would have the same legal
responsibilities that apply to married employees and their
spouses, such as anti-nepotism provisions, financial disclosure
requirements, and conflict-of-interest rules.
The Williams Institute, at the University of California,
Los Angeles (UCLA), estimated that, as of 2007, over 34,000
Federal workers live in committed relationships with same-sex
partners, and of that number, over 30,000 have partners who are
not Federal employees. These Federal employees have, therefore,
been forced to choose between their commitment to public
service and their commitments to their families and have been
forced in that sense to accept fewer protections for their
families--essentially less compensation--than other Federal
employees or than they could receive at many private employers.
An estimated 18.4 percent of all employees' compensation,
in fact, comes in the form of benefits, including benefits for
family members. Therefore, employees who are not afforded equal
benefits for their families are essentially paid less than
everyone else is.
We often hear people say that the government should be run
like a business. There is truth to that. On the other hand, it
is also true that government and businesses have different
purposes and goals. But in this case, I do think government has
a lot to learn from private sector business models.
The fact is that today--this is a very significant number,
and I am going to say it slowly--almost 10,000 private sector
companies of all sizes provide benefits to domestic partners
and more than half--59 percent--of all Fortune 500 companies do
so. Among them are famous names like Disney, General Electric,
IBM, the Chubb Corporation, Lockheed Martin, Duke Energy, and
Dow Chemical, which will be represented today. I presume that
these companies provide domestic partner benefits not just
because it is the right thing to do but also because they have
determined that such employee management practices make good
business sense.
The fact is also that the public sector is catching up.
Currently, the governments of 22 States, including my home
State of Connecticut, and about 154 local jurisdictions provide
domestic partner benefits, as do over 300 colleges and
universities.
In June of this year, President Obama announced that his
Administration would extend certain identified benefits to
eligible same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees, but
that he could do so only to the extent possible by executive
action under existing law. The State Department promptly
extended certain important benefits to same-sex partners of
employees serving overseas, such as the use of medical
facilities and inclusion in emergency evacuation. OPM has also
proposed that sick leave and long-term care insurance benefits
can be extended administratively. But Federal legislation, such
as that which Senator Collins and I have introduced, is really
necessary to provide to Federal employees and their same-sex
partners the benefits that are available to married employees
and their opposite-sex spouses and that provide the bedrock of
any modern employee-benefit program.
Will this add to the cost of providing Federal employee
benefits? The answer is yes. How much? Well, that is what we
are looking forward to hearing from Mr. Berry today. Of course,
then we all have to make a judgment, which we have made, which
is: Is it worth it? And I believe in many ways it is.
The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act will
balance the scales of justice, but, again, it will also help
the Federal Government be the best it can be, and that is why I
am proud to cosponsor this legislation with Senator Collins,
and I look forward to her opening statement now.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very
much your important leadership on this issue, and I am very
pleased that our House colleague, Representative Baldwin, is
able to join us today.
The title of this hearing really says why we have
introduced this bill. The title of this hearing is ``Domestic
Partner Benefits for Federal Employees: Fair Policy and Good
Business.'' It aptly describes why we believe this legislation
is necessary.
When it comes to employment, the Federal Government must
compete with the private sector in attracting the most
qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health,
medical, and other benefits are a major component of any
competitive employment package.
As the Chairman has explained, the Domestic Partnership
Benefits and Obligations Act, which we have introduced, would
give a Federal employee and his or her domestic partner the
same benefits that are available to married Federal employees.
The Federal Government already faces a two-pronged
challenge in attracting and retaining talented and dedicated
employees.
The first challenge comes from the private sector. As the
Chairman has pointed out, increasingly private sector employers
are offering these kinds of benefits as standard fare. Among
the Fortune 500 companies, domestic partner benefits are
becoming commonplace. According to the Office of Personnel
Management, nearly 60 percent of the Fortune 500 companies,
including some of our top Federal contractors, extend
employment benefits to domestic partners.
But, indeed, if you look more broadly, as the chart before
us demonstrates,\1\ it is not just the largest companies. We
are finding that increasingly businesses of all sizes are
offering equal benefits, and the reason is simple. They want to
have a competitive package to attract and keep the very best
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Collins appears in the Appendix
on page 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second challenge facing the Federal Government comes
from the potential wave of Federal employee retirements in the
next few years. Approximately 60 percent of the Federal
workforce will be eligible for retirement over the next decade.
If the Federal Government fails to attract or retain employees
because of a lack of competitive benefits, then the impact of
these retirements will be magnified.
I recall last year at our hearing we heard from a Foreign
Service Officer who was leaving the Foreign Service over just
this issue. We cannot afford that exodus of talent.
As we learned at our hearing on this bill during the last
Congress, the private sector offers domestic partner benefits
as part of its strategy for building a stronger workforce.
These benefits help foster a sense of loyalty between the
employees and the organization and create a more stable and
productive work environment.
Many State and local governments also have extended
employee benefits to domestic partners in committed
relationships. Like Connecticut, the State of Maine offers
benefits to its State employees who are in committed domestic
partnerships.
If the Federal Government is to compete with the private
sector as well as with State and local governments for the most
talented members of our workforce, and if our goal is to create
a loyal, dynamic Federal workforce for the future, then we
simply must be able to offer competitive benefits.
In that regard, I would note that the Human Rights
Campaign's testimony points out that nearly 13 percent of
employees' compensation comes in the form of insurance and
retirement benefits. So for not providing those benefits
equally, we are really shortchanging some of our employees.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership and for
holding this hearing today. I believe that our legislation will
help to promote a strong Federal workforce.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Collins.
We are really pleased now to welcome our colleague from the
House, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, representing the 2nd
congressional district of the great State of Wisconsin.
I just had a flashback, I believe, being at a Milwaukee
Brewers' game with you some years ago.
Ms. Baldwin. That is an accurate flashback. [Laughter.]
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you for validating that.
It is good to see you. Thanks for taking the time to come
over, and that is why we wanted to give you the opportunity to
speak first and on a separate panel, and then we will let you
go back to the House because I know you have another committee
meeting going on now. But thanks for your leadership on this
issue and others in the House. We welcome you.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,\1\ A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Collins, for affording me the opportunity to testify, for
having this historic hearing, and for your leadership on the
Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. I very much
appreciate this opportunity, and I, too, want to add my
appreciation of the members of your second panel--OPM Director
John Berry and Dr. William Hendrix from Dow Chemical Company,
showing leadership in the private sector on this important
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Baldwin appears in the Appendix
on page 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
compensation and benefits for their equal contributions. And
the Federal Government is not keeping pace with leading private
sector employers in recruiting and retaining top talent.
Mr. Chairman, you have outlined in your opening statement a
lot of the progress made in the private sector, as did you,
Ranking Member Collins, and I will not repeat those statistics
that are revealed in this chart and others. I would just share
one anecdote from my own district, and that is that the
University of Wisconsin and the State of Wisconsin did not have
any domestic partnership laws until very recently, until this
year. And a couple of years ago, we lost an engineering
professor to another university that did offer domestic
partnership benefits because of his feeling that the lack of
those policies was unjust. He brought with him to this new
university his $3.4 million engineering grant, and the estimate
of that loss would have covered the whole cost of implementing
domestic partnership policies in the University of Wisconsin
system. And so one anecdote, not a scientific study, of what
difference these policies do make to retaining great talent.
And Ranking Member Collins referenced Ambassador Michael Guest
and his decision that was a very painful one for him to leave
the Foreign Service because of the lack of domestic partnership
protections.
Under the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations
Act, a Federal employee and his or her same-sex domestic
partner who are not related by blood and are living together in
a committed, intimate relationship 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 to and assume the same obligations
that are applied to married employees and their spouses.
I want to make it very clear that this bill has very strong
anti-fraud provisions, requiring employees to file an affidavit
of eligibility in order to extend benefits to their domestic
partner, and this is significant especially considering that we
do not require married employees to show any documentary
evidence of their marriages when claiming spousal benefits.
The penalties for fraudulent claims for domestic partners
would be the same as current penalties for fraudulent claims of
marriage. For example, intentional false statements on the
Federal Employee Health Benefits form is punishable by a fine
of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to 5 years, and the same
would apply under this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today both as the lead
author of this legislation in the House of Representatives, 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 and married colleagues in the
Congress.
Some quick number crunching would demonstrate that the
difference between my health benefits and yours with regard to
just that benefit alone over the course of my tenure in
Congress is measured in five figures. Although the Federal
Government offers its employees and their dependents more than
300 health insurance plans and subsidizes health insurance
premiums, I am not eligible to cover Lauren under any of these
plans like my straight married colleagues can. And this is a
significant inequality.
Although I can designate Lauren as a beneficiary for my
life insurance, my Thrift Savings Plan, and any unpaid
compensation in the event of my death, if for some reason I had
not taken the extra step of completing that paperwork, the
order of precedence would have prevented Lauren from receiving
those savings. And, heaven forbid, anything should happen to
me, Lauren is not eligible to receive the survivor annuity from
my pension nor health insurance survivor benefits to which
others would be able to gain access.
Unlike the spouses of my colleagues, Lauren is also not
currently subject to any of the obligations related to my
Federal service, and I find this disturbing. Think about this.
All Members of Congress file annual financial disclosures.
Married members must file very important information about
their spouses' income, their investments, gifts, and debts,
etc. Surely the public interest would require that these
obligations apply also to partners of gay and lesbian office
holders.
In June, as you referenced, President Obama signed a
presidential memorandum on Federal benefits and
nondiscrimination which directs OPM 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 the 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.'' And he
went on to say, ``As Americans, we are all affected when our
promises of equality go unfulfilled.''
President Obama recognizes that the full extension of
benefits will require an act of Congress and proclaimed his
strong support for the legislation that you are reviewing
today.
Like our President, I strongly believe that we must address
the significant inequality in compensation experienced by an
estimated 30,000 employees at all levels of the Federal
Government who currently cannot provide benefits to their same-
sex domestic partners. The purpose of the Domestic Partnership
Benefits and Obligations Act is to ensure that hard-working
Americans can no longer be denied equal compensation for equal
work just because of who they love. There is certainly nothing
more American than ensuring that people have equal job
opportunities and are paid fairly for a full day's work.
Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, my thanks to
you again for inviting me to testify.
Chairman Lieberman. Congresswoman Baldwin, thanks very much
for that testimony, which was very strong--strong in terms of
the public impact overall, but also to the extent to which you
talked about its personal impact, which is very real and to me
very compelling.
I do not have any questions. Senator Akaka, do you have any
questions for the Congresswoman?
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, I do have some questions.
Chairman Lieberman. Go right ahead, if you would like.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my full
statement be inserted in the record.
Chairman Lieberman. That is fine. Actually, if you wanted
to wait until afterwards, because she is going to go back,
unless you have specific questions for her, I would welcome
your opening statement.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Is that OK? All right.
Ms, Baldwin, maybe we will let you go because I know you
have the other meeting. Thanks very much, and obviously we will
continue to work together. Our own hope is to mark this bill up
as soon as possible within this Committee and send it out to
the floor, and then obviously scheduling depends on higher
authorities--earthly authorities, but higher. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much. Have a good day. I thank Congresswoman
Baldwin.
Senator Akaka, would you like to make your opening
statement at this time? We would welcome it. You have worked,
obviously, very hard in the overall area of human capital
management. You are the chair of the relevant Subcommittee of
this Committee, so I would welcome your opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
ask that my full statement be placed in the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Akaka appears in the Appendix
on page 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Lieberman. Without objection.
Senator Akaka. I want to thank you and Ranking Member
Collins for holding this hearing. It addresses a very important
issue: Providing domestic partnership benefits to Federal
employees.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of your bill, Mr. Chairman, S.
1102, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of
2009. My Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia has been
working to improve Federal recruiting and hiring in order to
make the Federal Government the employer of choice in the
Nation. This simply is not possible if we deny a subset of
potential employees important benefits that other employers
offer.
A large number of private and public employers, including
my home State of Hawaii, already provide domestic partner
benefits to employees. If the Federal Government is to recruit
and retain the most talented employees, it must follow the lead
of the private sector and offer domestic partner benefits to
Federal employees. Simply stated, Mr. Chairman, providing these
benefits makes sound business sense.
I am pleased that President Obama showed his commitment to
Federal employees by signing a presidential memorandum in June
directing the heads of the executive departments and Federal
agencies to provide certain benefits to the same-sex partners
of Federal employees. As the President acknowledged, however,
this was only the first step, and more work needs to be done on
the issue.
We must not ask our dedicated Federal employees to
sacrifice the needs of their families and loved ones in order
to serve their country. As a Nation and as an employer, we must
hold ourselves to the highest standards of equality. Providing
Federal employees with domestic partner benefits will bring us
a significant step closer to the principle of equality under
the law.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and,
again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka.
We will now go to the Hon. John Berry, Director of the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management. It is great to welcome you
back. I was thinking, of course, I still associate you with
wonderful visits my family and I took to the National Zoo when
you were the Director there, happy as I am that you are at OPM.
And I do have the impression when I drive up Connecticut Avenue
that every now and then I can hear the plaintive cries of some
of the animals there about the fact that they miss you.
[Laughter.]
You were really a wonderfully spirited, effective, and
devoted leader there, as you already have proven yourself to be
at OPM. So it is an important issue, and the new Administration
I know brings a new perspective to it, so we welcome your
testimony at this time.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN BERRY,\1\ DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership over
so many years on this important issue, and, Ranking Member
Collins and Senator Akaka, thank you all for your support and
the energy that you have put behind this very important issue.
We would not be here today without the leadership that you have
provided year in and year out. So thank you, and hopefully we
are closer to the finish line, so we look forward to that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Berry with attachments appears in
the Appendix on page 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify today,
and I will do a short statement in exchange for the more
detailed one for the record.
This critical legislation, as has been discussed, would
provide health, life, and survivor benefits to the same-sex
domestic partners of Federal employees.
I applaud each of you and all of the cosponsors of S. 1102
for introducing this bill in the Senate. Since the 109th
Congress, you have demonstrated your consistent leadership and
your commitment on this issue by continually reintroducing this
legislation. I want to thank you and commend you for your
efforts to improve the Federal Government's competitiveness in
recruiting and retaining our most qualified workers. I also
would like to recognize Congresswoman Baldwin's incredible
leadership in the House on this issue.
The White House and the Office of Personnel Management
wholeheartedly endorse passage of this bill, and I will
summarize the reason why in the next 5 minutes. In my written
testimony, I have mentioned some technical fixes to the bill
that we are seeking, but I guess I would just make the offer to
you and to the Committee staff that we will make all of our
resources in the office available to help you as you move
forward with the legislation.
At my confirmation hearing, I said that two of my primary
goals as the Director of OPM would be to make the Federal
Government the country's model employer, as Chairman Akaka
shares in that effort, and to attract the best and the
brightest of our country to Federal service. The passage of S.
1102 is essential to accomplishing both of these goals.
Under current law, the Federal Government cannot offer
basic benefits like health insurance, life insurance, and
dental and vision insurance to the domestic partners of our gay
and lesbian Federal employees. Opposite-sex domestic partners
are not eligible for these benefits either, but they may gain
eligibility through a valid marriage. Even in those States
where same-sex partners can marry, their marriages are not
recognized for purposes of Federal benefits because of the
Defense of Marriage Act.
The failure to provide these benefits to same-sex domestic
partners directly 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 22 States now, including Connecticut, Maine,
and Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. Almost 85 percent of
the Fortune 100 already offer similar benefits to their same-
sex domestic partner employees. These companies include Dow
Chemical--which is with us today--Chevron, Archer Daniels
Midland, Perot Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Food Lion. The
Federal Government does not effectively compete with these
companies for every talented person when we fail to offer
comparable job benefits to our employees.
We are also at a disadvantage, as has been discussed, in
retaining experienced and highly effective employees--in whom
we have invested, I should add, significant resources in their
training and their job development--who may decide to find
employment elsewhere because of the Federal Government's
failure to keep up with the private sector.
The President took an important first step toward
addressing these shortfalls in the June memorandum, but he also
made clear we need a change in the law to provide these
critical benefits to our employees. I would also note that the
cost of extending these benefits to same-sex domestic partners
is negligible.
Additional premiums for providing life, dental, and vision
insurance to same-sex domestic partners will be borne
entirely--entirely--by the gay and lesbian employees who enroll
their partners in those benefit plans. Adding domestic partner
health insurance and survivor benefits for retirees would cost
approximately $56 million. This cost also includes $19 million
in savings in the short term in that, if you opt to provide an
annuity for your survivor, you opt for a lower benefit payment
in the early years in exchange, just as you do for heterosexual
married couples over the long term, and so there is a $19
million offset savings in the short term that is provided by
the fact that there would be lower retirement annuities paid
out to our Federal employees if we offer this benefit.
Chairman Lieberman. Excuse me. Am I right that is an annual
number?
Mr. Berry. Yes, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Good.
Mr. Berry. The marginal increase, the total cost of the
entire implementation of this program equates to about two-
tenths of 1 percent of the entire cost of our Federal
Government health insurance program. To put this in
perspective, we spend $35 billion a year on the Federal
Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) for our Federal
employees and retirees. I can assure the Committee that the
efficiencies and the program reforms that we intend to put in
place that will benefit our Federal employees and retirees will
more than offset the cost of this program over the life of this
Administration.
Simply put, end to end, extending benefits to same-sex
partners is a good, sound business decision. Dow Chemical and
the other 60 percent of the Fortune 500 which provide these
benefits can testify to that. This legislation is a valuable
opportunity for the Federal Government to enhance an essential
recruitment and retention tool. Just as important, this bill
shows that we recognize the value of every American family and
are committed to the ideal of equal treatment under the law
that our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Thank you, and I look forward to continuing our work
together, and I am available to answer any questions that you
might have.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Director Berry, and
we will have questions.
We are glad to welcome Dr. William Hendrix, who serves as
biology team leader for Insect Traits and Seed Treatment at
Dow, and also chairs Dow's Gays, Lesbians, and Allies at Dow
Chemical Network.
Dr. Hendrix, we are delighted to have you here and would
welcome your testimony at this time.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. HENDRIX, III, PH.D.,\1\ GLOBAL LEADER,
GAYS, LESBIANS, AND ALLIES AT DOW (GLAD), THE DOW CHEMICAL
COMPANY
Mr. Hendrix. Thank you very much, Chairman Lieberman. We
appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hendrix with attachments appears
in the Appendix on page 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, Senator Akaka,
and other Members of the Committee for Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, as has already been mentioned, my name is
Dr. Bill Hendrix, and I am the biology team leader at Dow
AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical
Company. I hold a Ph.D. in Entomology from Iowa State
University and have worked for Dow almost 20 years.
In addition to that role, I also serve as chair for the
company's Gays, Lesbians, and Allies at Dow, or the GLAD
Network. It is an affinity group advocating for gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender and their allied employees within the
company. GLAD is one of the seven employee networks at Dow, all
working toward promoting an increasingly diverse and inclusive
workplace.
First, I should probably provide a little bit more
background on Dow Chemical. Dow was founded 112 years ago in
Midland, Michigan, and that is a small town of about 40,000
people, roughly 100 miles north of Detroit, Michigan. Our
small-town Midwestern roots have encouraged us to establish our
enduring core values of integrity and respect for people. It is
these values that form the very heart of our approach to
diversity and inclusion.
Over the years, as we have grown and become a major player
in the global economy, diversity and inclusion have become key
elements of our corporate culture. Just consider our footprint:
We serve customers in 160 countries, we have manufacturing
facilities in 35 different countries, and at last count, I have
46,000 colleagues who represent 100 different nationalities.
And we are all working together to generate $57.5 billion in
annual sales.
Earlier this year, Dow completed its acquisition of Rohm
and Haas, a $10 billion specialty chemicals company, that will
further expand our growth potential and our reach into new
markets and geographies.
So, clearly, diversity underpins our workforce, our
culture, and absolutely our business model. It is a highly
competitive world where innovation is the key to securing
competitive advantage, and we know that it is our ``human
element'' that is the key to our success. As a result, we know
that creating a respectful, inclusive working environment is
not only a matter of fairness and equality, but also one of
very critical economic and business importance. Likewise, we
feel that S. 1102, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and
Obligations Act of 2009, will similarly help the U.S.
Government create a more respectful and inclusive work
environment.
With a shrinking and ever more diverse talent pool--
particularly in the sciences and engineering--it is essential
for us to actively include everyone to ensure we attract,
develop, and advance the very best talent available in the
marketplace. As an industrial, business-to-business supplier
with almost no consumer marketing, and located largely in
smaller rural areas, we must work even harder to create an
identifiable employer brand to attract our top talent. We see
our proactive stance on diversity and inclusion as a key
element of this brand.
Our open policy allows us to hire the best employees, with
the greatest range of perspectives. When we discuss domestic
partnership policies in the workplace, we do so knowing that
this policy does give us an advantage. Because we do not have
major offices or facilities in the metropolitan areas in the
United States, our employees who would like access to domestic
partnership policies often have more protection and freedoms
under the Dow system than under the laws of their State or
locality.
Specifically, our Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
(LGBT) policies have been good for our workplace for two main
reasons: One, retention of our employees has been enhanced
because they know that they can perform their jobs openly and
with the full support of their family situation without any
fear of repercussions, and, therefore, they have much more
reason to be committed to our company in return; and two,
better recruitment of allies and younger workers, who often use
employee benefits, such as support for domestic partner
benefits and flexible work hours, as a litmus test for
prospective employers.
For Dow, like most companies, the offering of benefits to
LGBT employees has been the result of a multi-stage journey. We
first instituted sexual orientation in our employment
nondiscrimination policies in 2000. We then added parity for
domestic partnerships in 2002. We added protection for gender
identity in 2007. And a copy of our policy was entered into the
written record.\1\ Of special note, I wanted to highlight the
fact that is implemented globally for all 160 countries that we
do business in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The document submitted for the record by Mr. Hendrix appears in
the Appendix on page 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The offering of domestic partner benefits is certainly not
out of the norm, and we have already heard some statistics
about that. According to the Human Right Campaign Foundation
2010 Corporate Equality Index, ``the majority of Fortune 500
companies provide them, and they remain an overall low-cost,
high-return benefit for businesses.'' Currently 94 percent of
the ranked companies in that survey offer domestic partner
benefits to same-sex couples and 70 percent offer them to
opposite-sex couples.
Often domestic partner benefits are seen as just a benefit
for same-sex couples. But domestic partner benefits do not only
attract LGBT employees; many companies report that the
implementation of domestic partner benefits help attract and
retain critical talent from non-gay and lesbian talent. These
particular candidates have reported that the existence of a
domestic partner benefits policy shows that the company values
and truly believes in a workplace that is respectful and
protects their employees. This trend is especially prevalent
among younger candidates in the workforce--a segment obviously
very critical to our success. And I would say you mentioned
statistics of the retirement that is coming in the Federal
Government, and we are looking at a very high rate as well,
roughly 50 percent within the next 5 years. So it is very
critical.
Within Dow, we have instituted policies to create parity
between those who are traditionally married and those couples
who would like to take advantage of our domestic partner
benefits. Therefore, we do offer benefits to both same-sex and
opposite-sex couples, and those who qualify also have access to
a wide range of benefits, which, on the whole, are very similar
to those outlined in S. 1102. Many of these benefits do not
require the company to incur any additional costs. As examples,
in addition to our U.S. medical plan, prescription drug plan,
and our dental plan, employees have access to family leave,
insurance, pension, adoption assistance, and international
relocation benefits. Where a benefit is offered to a
traditional spouse, we try to offer that same benefit to a
domestic partner. Therefore, partners may take advantage of
things like company discounts, visits to the fitness center,
access to the flu prevention program, and have ability to open
up a checking account at the credit union.
Obviously, on an international scale, local law can impact
our offerings within different countries and for international
relocation. However, our global policy is to provide parity
between domestic partners and those that are traditionally
married within the country.
Obviously, our management is sensitive to the very critical
issues related to the cost that offering such benefits would
add to our company's bottom line. After 7 years of offering
domestic partner benefits to both same-sex and opposite-sex
couples, I can tell you that the program does not add
significantly to the bottom line. Currently, Dow Chemical has
105,653 covered lives under our U.S. Medical Plan with an
annual cost of $325 million. Quite in the ballpark of numbers
quoted earlier. This number includes employees, retirees, and
dependents of both our employees and retirees. We currently
have 282 domestic partners who are covered under Dow's U.S.
health benefits. That represents 0.27 percent of our covered
lives. Interestingly, the average net payments for domestic
partners is slightly less--0.24 percent of our total spending,
which is roughly $2,730 per domestic partner.
A second concern is how you create a registry of qualified
domestic partnerships. This does entail a balance between
respecting the individual's need for privacy with the company's
need to install guidelines, as there are no national or State
registries of domestic partnerships in most States, such as
marriage licenses. For your use, we have provided to the record
a copy of our policy for determining the existence of a
qualified domestic partner relationship.\1\ Once this form is
completed by the employee, the couple is granted access to all
of Dow's domestic partner benefits. To date, we have had no
issue with fraudulent claims for benefits. In fact, according
to Lambda Legal, time has shown that fraud has not been a
problem in the domestic partner benefits programs, and it is
probably a lesser risk among employees claiming benefits. It is
probably less of a risk compared to couples in a traditional
marriage situation due to the tax penalty that is incurred with
a domestic partner benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The document submitted for the record by Mr. Hendrix appears in
the Appendix on page 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public policy can also augment a company's diversity
program. Accordingly, Dow continues to strongly support the Tax
Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act,
or S. 1556. Unfortunately, current law requires an employee
whose domestic partner receives health benefits to pay taxes on
their employer's contribution for health insurance benefits,
and both the employee and employer must pay payroll taxes on
this additional taxable income.
Overall, Dow has found it a relatively easy transition to
offer domestic partner benefits. This cost has been minimal
while the impact to the daily culture has been immense. Every
time an email goes out to employees stating that ``spouse/
domestic partner,'' then we send a very positive message for
our workplace inclusion and reinforce our ``human element''
advantage.
Dow appreciates the chance to share our views and applauds
the Committee's work to gather more information on domestic
partner benefits within the workplace. We strongly support the
addition of these policies to all workplace environments and
stand ready to assist in any way to review our own policies in
this area. We welcome any further questions you might have at
this time.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Dr. Hendrix. I
appreciate your opening statement. We will do 7-minute rounds
of questions.
I must say perhaps the obvious, that I think it is really
significant that you are from Dow Chemical, and if you look at
the list of corporations that have provided benefits, equal
benefits to same-sex partners of their employees, it has gone
way beyond what might be called the New Age industries, the
high-tech information technology companies centered around
Silicon Valley or Seattle.
Mr. Hendrix. Absolutely.
Chairman Lieberman. I do not mean this personally, but Dow
is an old business. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hendrix. And we are quite proud of that, and you are
exactly right. It is a very traditional business.
Chairman Lieberman. It is a traditional business, right,
obviously with progressive management, but this very
traditional business has made this judgment based, presumably
again, on what it thinks is fair, but also based on what its
business model is. So I think there is significance in that.
Director Berry, at some point, as we consider this in the
full Committee or out on the floor of the Senate, I am sure we
are going to be pressed to try to estimate the total additional
costs of this. I thought the numbers you provided were very
helpful, and two-tenths of 1 percent not of Federal employee
expenses, but two-tenths of 1 percent of the Federal health
benefits alone. I do not need this now, but to the extent as we
go on, people will ask about what are the cost implications
beyond the health benefits, and if you can help us do that, I
am sure we will benefit.
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, we will definitely get you those
numbers for the record.\1\ We have that on a 10-year basis, and
we can get you all of that. But I think it is important to have
some comparison because this is such an important recruitment
and retention tool. We spend money on important recruitment
efforts. Right now, we are spending $43 million a year on
relocation of employees for the Federal Government. We spend
$85 million in recruitment incentives. We spend $155 million a
year on retention incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information referenced by Mr. Berry appears in the Appendix
on pages 39-83 respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, when you put this in that context, it is in a very
small category in terms of what we can do in terms of tools in
our tool belt that we can have that can help us with
recruitment and retention. This is one of the lowest-cost
options you could give us. So, at the same time it is an
incredibly powerful tool for its price.
And so when I put it in the context of those other tools
that we use, this is a no-brainer for us in terms of a good
deal for the Federal taxpayer.
Chairman Lieberman. That is very well said. I notice on the
chart that you provided to the Committee, you have a 10-year
projection for current employees of $633 million.\2\ I know it
is not even over the 10 years, but if you average it, obviously
it comes to about $63 million, which is--I think those
comparisons are excellent. The other money that is being spent
for the retention incentives are--well, more than twice that
number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Lieberman appears in the
Appendix on page 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Berry. Absolutely, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Have there been--I quoted one study
from UCLA about estimated numbers of Federal employees with
same-sex partners who were not working for the Federal
Government. Have there been any studies or surveys that tried
to quantify, beyond the anecdotal or common sense, the impact
that providing these benefits would have on recruitment and
retention? Obviously, these would be mostly in the private
sector.
Mr. Berry. There are studies in the private sector, Mr.
Chairman, and we can provide those to the staff for the record
so that you will have access to those. A lot of good work has
been done, and it references what Dr. Hendrix referenced, which
is that it is not as if there is a tidal wave of applicants in
any company for this benefit.
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Mr. Berry. It is an important tool, but in terms of the
level of application across the board in companies across the
Nation and in States and local governments that have done this
they have found that the rate of application is very low. And I
think what you have hinted at and Dr. Hendrix hinted at is the
more important fact that this isn't just for the LGBT
employees. This has become a litmus test for this generation.
Kids coming out of school today are looking at companies and
places to work, and they have in the back of their minds
certain litmus tests that they use to determine, ``Is this a
place I want to work?''
Chairman Lieberman. Yes.
Mr. Berry. And young kids today are looking at this as a
basic indicator, that if your company does not have this, you
are not a cool place to be. This is not just important for the
LGBT community. This is important so that we can be competitive
in hiring kids out of college and graduate schools today who,
if we do not have this, are not seeing us as a cool place to
be.
Chairman Lieberman. It is a good point, and it is certainly
validated by the differing opinions among different age groups
on questions of gay rights generally, including this one.
I think your testimony, Dr. Hendrix, has been very helpful,
both in terms of that factor, the impact on recruitment of non-
gay and lesbian personnel to work for the Federal Government.
In Connecticut, we have a large employer, one of whose
major concerns about the current debate about health care
reform is that the employer not be compelled to reduce their
benefits to their employees. And the justification is that they
believe from a business point of view that the provision of
benefits for the workers and their families actually pays off
in more hours, more days at work, fewer days missed, either
because of the illness of the employee or the illness of a
family member.
So I do not know whether there is any experience that you
have had at Dow or you have any other data reflection on this,
but I wonder if, in addition to helping recruitment and
retention, whether this provision of health benefits for
partners of Federal employees also may be beneficial to what I
call ``productivity''?
Mr. Hendrix. I can say that we have not done a firm survey.
Again, it is more anecdotal. But we feel that is very true,
again, with the increased support of the company that they feel
that they are getting in return, it does pay back. And it has
been quite strong.
Like you have already said, if the company helps support
their infrastructure, then that makes them a lot more able to
work and to put more into it. We definitely believe that has
been the case.
Chairman Lieberman. You are talking also, I think, if I am
getting the drift, about loyalty and morale.
Mr. Hendrix. Yes.
Chairman Lieberman. In addition to the domestic partner
being healthy so a worker can go to work without concern. Part
of it is building up loyalty to the company, which hopefully we
would do with the Federal employees.
Mr. Hendrix. Absolutely.
Chairman Lieberman. My time is up. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Berry, in your written testimony, you discussed at more
length a memorandum that the President issued in June in which
he requested that the Secretary of State and OPM identify
benefits that could be extended to the same-sex partners of
Federal employees. In addition, the President directed all
executive departments and agencies to undertake that review.
In light of that Executive Order or memorandum, could you
please explain, in case we get this question, why our
legislation is still needed?
Mr. Berry. That is a great question, Senator Collins. The
President made clear in signing that bill--and my General
Counsel Elaine Kaplan, who is behind me here today--did a
thorough and exhaustive review of Title 5 on this issue as to
whether either OPM or the President has the authority to move
forward and provide this benefit dealing with health insurance
and retirement insurance benefits to our Federal employees. And
the conclusion of that study, which was done in consultaton
with OPM, the Justice Department, White House Counsel, and the
State Department's Counsel, was no, neither the Office of
Personnel Management nor any Federal agency nor, in point of
fact, the President of the United States, can unilaterally
extend these benefits to our Federal employees and retirees in
the absence of law. That is why this legislation is absolutely
critical and essential.
So that has been confirmed now. I know there has been
discussion over the years regarding whether this may or may not
be possible. The conclusion is it is not. Not even the
President has this authority. It requires the passage of
legislation by Congress, and that is why this Act is so
important and critical.
Senator Collins. Thank you for clarifying that.
Mr. Hendrix, I noted in your testimony that you said that
Dow Company offers benefits to both same-sex and opposite-sex
couples who are in committed domestic relationships, and this
brings up a difficult issue that I am going to turn to Mr.
Berry and put him on the spot.
Maine State employees receive employment benefits
regardless of whether they are in same-sex or opposite-sex
domestic partnerships, just as Dow does.
There are some who would say that the reason our
legislation does not do that is that opposite-sex domestic
partners can gain eligibility by getting married; whereas, in
most States, same-sex partners cannot do so.
On the other hand, if our objective is to increase the
recruitment and the retention of qualified, highest-quality
employees, should we be drawing a distinction between two
committed relationships based solely on the gender of the
partner on whether or not it is same sex or opposite sex? Is it
fair? If we are talking about fairness, is that a fair
distinction for us to make? And I know I am treading on
delicate ground here. Mr. Hendrix, let me start with you, and
then I will go to Mr. Berry.
Mr. Hendrix. So it was a discussion, obviously, within Dow
Company as we moved forward with it, but, again, if you are
trying to recruit the best and the brightest and retain those
once you have attracted them, it did not make sense for us to
distinguish. So we were looking for parity between non-
traditional and traditional relationships. What we were trying
to do is establish a committed relationship and how do you move
forward with that.
Senator Collins. Mr. Berry, what is your view on this
issue?
Mr. Berry. Well, Senator Collins, the Administration view
is that right now this bill is correctly drawn in terms of a
first step, and that the cost of this first step is one that we
can manage and can offset over the course and term of the
Administration.
The cost of opening it, as you said, to opposite-sex
couples in committed relationships does have a significant
financial impact. At this point in time, the Administration
feels that impact is of such a size and magnitude that we just
cannot afford to make that step at this time.
Right now the Administration is willing to support this for
same-sex couples. We would look forward to working with you and
the Committee and the Congress in years forward as we identify
the costs and cost offsets better, but you clearly have
identified a fairness issue, and I think we need to keep open
the possibility of exploring how we might be able to move
forward with that in the future.
Senator Collins. Mr. Hendrix, opponents of our bill raise
the issue of fraud, of people trying to get benefits by
pretending that they are in domestic partnerships and filling
out the forms. That is less likely to be the case, they would
argue, if someone is married because it is more easily checked
to see whether people are married.
Has this been a problem at your company, to your knowledge?
Mr. Hendrix. No, it has not been a problem. I put in there
rather ambiguously that fraud has not been an issue, but when
we were searching, we could not find a case in our search, for
the testimony here today. So I am sure it could happen. We have
the policy with documentation required to limit that as a
consequence. So, we think that we have got a good form in place
and a good process that is keeping us from having issues with
fraud.
Senator Collins. Mr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. Senator Collins, I think it is a great point. I
think what will be a significant difference between the public
sector and the private sector on this is that under this
legislation, if a Federal employee were to misrepresent this,
there are criminal penalties. So this is a pretty serious
charge, and we will be obviously enforcing it, just as we do
now, through the use of our Inspector General, who regularly
audits our benefit programs and checks to make sure that such
fraud is not occurring. And so we do not face much fraud on
this, and it is an area where we would not expect fraud, but we
would clearly be on guard for it.
We would ask our Inspectors General to use our oversight
capacity to make sure that was not happening; and if it did,
quite frankly, one or two cases would have quite a chilling
effect on that fraud in that a criminal penalty would be
substantial. And so I do not see this as a big threat or a
deterrent to moving forward with this legislation.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Director Berry, it is good to see you again, as always.
Mr. Berry. Yes, sir.
Senator Akaka. You testified that this legislation is
needed to assist the government in recruiting new employees to
the Federal workforce. Clearly, corporations and public
employers who do offer domestic partnership benefits have a
substantial advantage for recruiting the best and brightest gay
and lesbian employees.
Additionally, many young people today want to work in an
inclusive and diverse environment. As you have suggested, these
potential employees, regardless of sexual orientation, may
prefer an employer that makes its commitment to inclusiveness
clear in its personnel policies.
Can you discuss whether there may be broader recruiting
advantages that domestic partnership benefits might provide?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, it is always
such a pleasure to be with you and Senator Voinovich on your
Subcommittee and talking about so many issues which we all care
deeply and passionately about.
You will recall from my confirmation hearing that when the
President called and asked me to do this job, he said, ``John,
we have got to make government service cool again.'' And I
laughed, and I said, ``Well, Mr. President, I just turned 50,
so by definition, 20-year-olds are going to do the opposite of
what I say, and that will be closer to cool.''
But in this case, this really has become a litmus test for
this generation. I know because I have been out talking with
college students in our recruitment and job fairs. Quite
frankly, this comes up as a regular question: ``Why doesn't the
Federal Government do this?'' And I am at a real disadvantage
in responding.
It is a competitive world out there with the private sector
and with State and local governments. As you know from the
Committee, we have between 10 and 20 positions for which we
issue direct-hire authority to agencies so that they do not
even have to follow the competitive process, because we have
been unsuccessful in recruiting enough applicants for those
jobs that we need to fill.
A good example of that is veterinarians at the Food and
Drug Administration. We cannot hire them right now. And so in
guaranteeing the food safety of the Nation, we are having a
hard time hiring people because we cannot effectively compete
with Dow and other companies who snatch those people up before
we do.
That is a growing problem. Even with the economy, as dark
as it has been, we are still facing these problems with
veterinarians, engineers, doctors, nurses for our Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals. We are not competitive. Proof
of that is that I issue direct-hire authority to agencies so
they do not even have to advertise or compete for the job. In
other words, if the VA finds a nurse and they are walking and
breathing, they can hire them on the spot. They do not have to
go through the paperwork. Well, that is proof that we are
having trouble competing and that we are not effectively
recruiting among those populations.
Will this solve that problem? No, it is not a silver bullet
that will solve everything. But it is one more tool in our tool
belt that can help us, as people might be thinking about
whether this employer is progressive or not. They may not be an
LGBT person. They may not have a domestic partner of the same
sex. They are looking at it as: Is the Federal Government a
progressive employer? And right now you would have to conclude,
if that was their test, no. They would look for people here
who, quite frankly, would also pay them more. And so we are
losing good people.
So this is a good tool. It would be a great tool for us to
have. It is not an expensive tool to have, and I think it will
be very helpful, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Director Berry, for
your positive response.
Dr. Hendrix, you talked a bit about that issue in your
testimony. I would like to hear more about how Dow Chemical
Company's domestic partnership benefits program has affected
its ability to recruit individuals who are not gay or lesbian?
Mr. Hendrix. Yes, I am quite happy to do that--although you
have done a very good job of summarizing it, Mr. Berry.
It is a litmus test. It is a very different situation when
you are interviewing 20-year-olds right out of college, and
this is one of the checks that they look for, for a company
that they might want to be a part of. It gets back to, ``Is the
company going to look out for us as a whole, me as a whole? So
it may not be something I particularly want to take advantage
of, but I know that it is something that as a whole, it is a
great benefit to have.''
The other issue was flexible work hours that we mentioned.
It is a policy we have had for several years as well. These are
the types of things that younger recruits are now looking at.
We also have good examples where we had lost employees, so
this is another reason. It is a lot more expensive to retain a
good employee than it is to attract a new one, and so when you
see one or two people leaving and that is the reason--and
Representative Baldwin also pointed that out--that opens up a
lot of eyes.
So it is definitely there. We do feel it offers us the
competitive advantage.
Senator Akaka. Let me ask this question of Director Berry.
As Senator Collins mentioned, in July, at the President's
request, you issued a memorandum directing agencies to review
the benefits they offer to employees and determine which of
those benefits could be extended to same-sex domestic partners
without legislation. You instructed the agencies to report back
by September 15, 2009. Please comment on the information OPM
received and any recommendations you made to the President, if
you can, based on this information.
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The good news that I am
here to report is that the agencies have all responded to that
request. Our staff is now going through those responses and
preparing a report that will go to the President. We have not
completed that review of the agency response yet, but that is
underway.
The good news is that everyone did respond. We are wading
through that information right now and looking at what might be
able to be done administratively and what might also require
additional legislation. We will be sure to report back to you
and the Chairman and the Ranking Member as to the results of
that as soon as that work is completed. It is underway right
now.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your responses. They
are helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Akaka.
Thanks, Director Berry and Dr. Hendrix. I think your
testimony, Congresswoman Baldwin's, and the exchanges we have
had have really been very constructive and very informational.
I think people will continue to come back to the estimate of
the cost and all the benefits that come from those incremental
costs and the comparison to the other expenditures that the
Federal Government makes to recruit, retain, and increase
productivity. And I think the fraud question will come up also,
but you have handled it very well.
So it is our intention to mark this bill up at our
Committee markup in either November or December, to get it out
to the floor of the Senate by the end of the year, and hope
that we can then take it up sometime early in the next year,
which would be a step forward, and hopefully be in time for you
to put it to work. I thank you for your testimony.
Senator Collins, would you like to say anything in
conclusion?
Senator Collins. Thank you. I just want to echo your
comments by thanking our witnesses today.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much. Yes, Mr. Berry?
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, just in the interest of full
disclosure, since Congresswoman Baldwin did it as well, I also
would personally stand to benefit from this legislation, so I
would like to just disclose that to the Committee in that my
partner does not work for a company that provides this benefit
and so would be likely to take this benefit if it were offered
by the Federal Government. And so I also would just like to
disclose that for the record.
The other thing I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, if I
could before you close, is that if it is of assistance to you
and the Ranking Member, I think now that working together we
will be able to identify efficiencies to fully offset the cost
of this legislation over the term of the Administration. And so
if you need a commitment or a promise to that effect, I am
happy to deliver that, that we will work with both parties to
find efficiencies and improvements that we can both agree on
that will not damage Federal employees, not restrict benefits
in any other way, but fully cover the cost of this program.
Chairman Lieberman. That is a very constructive suggestion
because, otherwise, we would have to fund it incrementally in
the next fiscal year beginning October 1st of next year,
assuming we can get it passed next year, which I hope and
believe we can. But all the better if we can say it is deficit
neutral because you have identified some savings. I appreciate
that.
Dr. Hendrix, do you want to say anything in conclusion?
Mr. Hendrix. Well, I guess I should go for full disclosure,
too, and tell you that my partner of 28 years takes advantage
of the Dow benefits. [Laughter.]
And it is of great peace of mind to us, and I hope one day
that the U.S. Government will also be able to do that. So thank
you.
Chairman Lieberman. I appreciate your saying that.
I do not believe that there is any need for you to recuse
yourself from this, Mr. Berry, as a result---- [Laughter.]
No, I guess it also says that we are lucky to have
attracted you to public service, notwithstanding that
inequitable burden that you have been dealing with, and your
partner has. But the record of the hearing will stay open for
15 days, as is our custom, for additional statements or
questions. I thank all of you very much, and with that, the
hearing will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3848.109