Hearing Held on Partner Benefits Bill

The House subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia held a hearing Wednesday on the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which would extend health insurance, retirement, and disability benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees.

The hearing included scheduled testimonies of eight witnesses, only one of whom -- Dr. Frank Page, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention -- testified against the legislation. "The bill which is being considered at this point, H.R. 2517, continues the agenda that has been set forth by a very small yet vocal minority in our country," Page said in a written statement.

Page, who also sits on a 25-person advisory council for the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, said he opposed the measure, adding, "this is important not only to me but to a huge number of evangelicals as well as others in our country who value a traditional definition of marriage and family."

The partial chipping away at the definition of marriage was an objection shared by Republican representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the ranking member on the subcommittee. But Chaffetz also directed much of his focus at the idea that the measure would offer special benefits to same-sex couples that are not provided to unmarried straight couples. "As I read this bill, doesn't it discriminate by giving same-sex couples greater federal benefits than opposite-sex couples who may not be married?" Chaffetz asked Wisconsin representative Tammy Baldwin, chief sponsor of the bill.

"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," responded Baldwin.

Democratic representative Gerald Connolly of Virginia called Chaffetz's question a "screaming contradiction" since straight couples can legally marry and be recognized by the federal government as spouses. "I find it odd that somebody would even inferentially suggest that this provision could itself constitute discrimination against folks in opposite-sex relationships," Connolly said.

A good portion of the hearing centered on the federal government's ability to stay competitive in the job market.

John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the nation's 1.9 million federal workers, underscored President Barack Obama's support for the bill and said the current policy "undermines" the government's ability to attract the nation's top talent. "Historically, the federal government has in many ways been a progressive employer," said Berry, the Obama administration's highest-ranking openly gay official. "In this case, however, we have fallen behind the private sector and 19 states."

Berry noted that nearly 60% of Fortune 500 companies and 83% of Fortune 100 companies provide such benefits to same-sex partners. "This is essential to maintaining our competitive edge in the 21st century," Berry added. "I look at this as a bottom-line business judgment."

Subcommittee chairman, Stephen Lynch, expressed concern over the government's aging workforce. "With nearly 61% of federal employees eligible to retire within the next seven years, it is essential that we consider sensible legislative initiatives designed to promote federal employee retention and recruitment," he said in a statement.

Lee Badgett of the California-based Williams Institute estimated that about 30,000 federal employees would take advantage of the new benefit at a cost of about $60.4 million in the first year -- a 0.41% increase from health care spending for federal employees in 2008.

A number of different factors would help defray some of the costs, Badgett said, including a short-term reduction in annuity payments to workers who opt for survivor benefits and increased tax revenue on the benefits.

Badgett said an increase in retention rates would also create savings. "The federal government is likely to see reduced costs of employee turnover if this bill were to be passed," she said. "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."

In closing, Representative Baldwin said she sees the bill as a way to address fair compensation practices but not marriage inequities. "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," she said.

Since marriage rights provide couples with hundreds and thousands of benefits, Baldwin added, "I in no way view this measure -- as limited as it is -- as a way to replicate marriage by another name."

Chairman Lynch said the record would remain open for comment for five days following the hearing.