LGBT POV

As Washington state is fighting to retain it’s Domestic Partnership law - the subject of a referendum on Nov. 3 – Congressmember Tammy Baldwin today testified how she and her partner of 13 years are deprived of the same federal benefits as her colleagues enjoy as married couples.

Baldwin (WI-02) testified in front of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on behalf of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, H.R. 2517.

This measure would put the federal government on par with a majority of Fortune 500 companies by extending employee benefit programs to cover the domestic partners of federal employees to the same extent as those benefits cover spouses of federal employees.

Key quote:

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, with regard to that benefit alone over the course of my ten years 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 plan like my straight married colleagues can.  This is a significant inequality.

Although I can designate Lauren as a beneficiary for my life insurance, Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), and any unpaid compensation in the event of my death, if for some reason I hadn’t completed this paperwork, the “order of precedence” would prevent Lauren from receiving my savings.   And heaven forbid if anything happens to me, Lauren is not eligible to receive the survivor annuity from my pension, nor health insurance survivor benefits.

Transcript below:

Thank you Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and members of the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to testify today at this historic hearing.

I am very pleased that the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 1102) is the subject of our hearing this morning.   Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, I’d like to extend my sincerest thanks to both of you for your leadership on this bill.  I want to thank OPM Director John Berry for taking the time to testify in support of this legislation.  I also wish to thank Dr. William Hendrix from Dow Chemical Company for his strong leadership on the issue.

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 was a leader in offering important benefits to its employees.  But today we are lagging behind.  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.

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’ committed domestic partners.  For example, over half of Fortune 500 companies now offer health benefits to employees’ domestic partners, up from just 25 percent in 2000.  Overall, more than 8,000 private-sector companies make such benefits available to employees’ domestic partners, as do several hundred state and local governments and colleges and universities.

These employers include top American corporations such as GE, Chevron, Boeing, Texas Instruments, Lockheed Martin, and Dow Chemical Company, whom you’ll hear from later this morning.

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 would assume the same obligations as are applied to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.

I want to make very clear that the bill has 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 the 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 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, 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, with regard to that benefit alone over the course of my ten years 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 plan like my straight married colleagues can.  This is a significant inequality.

Although I can designate Lauren as a beneficiary for my life insurance, Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), and any unpaid compensation in the event of my death, if for some reason I hadn’t completed this paperwork, the “order of precedence” would prevent Lauren from receiving my savings.   And heaven forbid if anything happens to me, Lauren is not 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 disturbing.  All Members of Congress file annual financial disclosures.

Married Members must file important information about their spouses’ income, investments, debts, gifts, etc.  Surely, the public interest requires that these obligations apply also to partners of gay and lesbian office holders.

In June, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination, which directs the Office of Personnel Management (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 the 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 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 day’s work.

Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, my thanks, again, to you for inviting me to testify.