TOPICS

House panel passes amended domestic partner benefits bill

By Alyssa Rosenberg arosenberg@govexec.com July 30, 2009

In a party-line vote, a House subcommittee on Thursday passed a bill that would extend health care and other benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian federal employees, modifying it to ensure retirees are covered.

"Aside from the basic concepts of equity and fairness, passage of H.R. 2517 is essential to promote federal employee retention and recruitment," said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce Subcommittee. The bill's movement is a "significant first step toward placing the federal government on par with the private sector, where health insurance, retirement, disability and other benefits are already widely available to domestic partners."

Five subcommittee Democrats voted to send the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act to the full committee, while three Republicans voted against it. In June, President Obama used an executive memorandum to extend long-term care benefits and family and parental leave to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian federal employees, but said he could not allow them access to other benefits -- including enrollment in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program -- without legislative changes.

RELATED STORIES

At the recommendation of Office of Personnel Management officials, the subcommittee passed technical amendments ensuring that retirees are covered and clarifying the benefits included. During a July 8 hearing, OPM Director John Berry said his staff was concerned that the bill as written included only current federal employees, though its sponsors intended the benefits to continue into retirement. The subcommittee also approved language stating that the legislation covers all of the employment benefits made available to the spouses of heterosexual federal employees under Title V of the U.S. Code, the law governing federal pay and benefits.

Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., offered an amendment that would have broadened the categories of people federal employees could designate as beneficiaries, but it was defeated in a roll call vote. Republicans including Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, have said they might be more receptive to the bill if it included heterosexual couples. Chaffetz said during an interview after the markup that he'd "like to express optimism" that such an amendment could be added to the Senate version of the bill, but that Democratic control of the House and Senate made it unlikely.

As the bill stands, it "attempts to create a new class for benefits, and I'm opposed to that," Chaffetz said. "I think they're trying to redefine marriage, under a different name, and I'm opposed."

VIEW ALL 69 COMMENTS POST COMMENT

COMMENTS

  • I’m at a crossroads here. Should I keep my domestic partner on the benefits rendered to us at work? The cost to me in taxes runs about $1200 a year. Money we desperately need now that my partner is unemployed. I also pay $800 a year for his premium costs. Open enrollment starts today and I need to make a decision here. My partner has no income. Should I just have him go to the free clinic if he gets ill or to the University Hospital for an emergency? If the health care package includes a public option and covers those with little or no income, I know exactly what I will do. I will cancel my domestic partner benefits and let the government pick up the tab. To save money, the government had best take a good long look at taxing domestic partner benefits or there may be thousands who will cancel their domestic partner benefits to avoid paying these additional taxes. pwrblnc Posted October 14, 2009 1:41 PM
  • DOD Employee, I ask that you put this visual in your head, a man, a woman. Now, try to visualize how the Man's private part fits into the Womans private part? See it? This is where the word heterosexual comes from ( and babies). It is not a choice. viv Posted August 18, 2009 7:10 AM
  • This goes out to all of the individuals who continue to proffer that homosexuality is a choice and therefore benefits to homosexual "roommates" should not be provided by using tax payer dollars. If homosexuality is a choice, then conversely heterosexuality must also be a choice. Those of you who are heterosexual have chosen to be that way. Just because you are the majority does not mean that you should have the right to benefits that the minority does not receive. From the Constitution of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." I'm governed, and I'm equal. And like it or not, if I'm making a choice then so are you. My tax payer dollars shouldn't be used to subsidize any benefits for your spouses or children. If we really want to help eliminate some of the national debt we're racking up, how about we stop paying for all healthcare and all benefits except those for the actual federal employee? And why don't we go a step further--do away with the ability for married people to file their taxes jointly. Let's go ahead and have every have to pay the full extent of the taxes they owe. That way lower wage earning spouses can't help bring down a higher wage earners taxes because they combine their tax debt. Here's an idea. Let's make EVERYONE pay their own way in this country. You make the choice to be heterosexual, I'm fine with that. Let you spouse pay for his/her own medical care. I shouldn't have to support him/her. DOD Employee Posted August 14, 2009 1:11 PM
VIEW ALL 69 COMMENTS

TODAY'S MOST POPULAR