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.
Follow us on Twitter. 
Follow us on Facebook.
Page 1 of 1