Hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee - Business Meeting

Statement

Statement of Senator Susan M. Collins

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, we have several bills and nominations on today's agenda, but I will focus my opening comments on two important matters.

The first is the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 (S. 1102), which would extend health care and survivor benefits to federal employees in committed domestic partnerships. This change is both fair policy and good business practice.

The federal government must compete with the private sector when it comes to attracting the most qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health, medical, and other benefits are a major component of any competitive employment package.

Indeed, private sector employers are increasingly offering these kinds of benefits as standard fare. Among Fortune 500 companies, for example, domestic partner benefits are becoming commonplace. According to the Office of Personnel Management, nearly 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies, including some of our top federal contractors, extend employment benefits to domestic partners.

Additionally, the federal government faces a potential wave of departures in the next few years, when approximately 60 percent of the federal workforce will be eligible for retirement. That means a major recruitment campaign is ahead. 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.

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, creating a more stable and productive work environment.

Many state and local governments also have extended employee benefits to domestic partners. For example, Maine's state government offers benefits to its employees who are in committed domestic partnerships.
Although this bill carries a cost at this time, OPM Director John Berry has promised to the Committee to offset the bill.

As Mr. Berry said at our October 15, 2009, hearing: "working together we will be able to identify efficiencies to fully offset [the cost of this bill] 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."

I intend to hold Director Berry to that promise so that this bill isn't just fair on policy, but also is fiscally responsible. It is my understanding that Director Berry has identified preliminarily some areas where cuts could be made, and OMB is considering these proposals. I will expect specifics as the bill goes to the floor.

The second issue I want to discuss today is the Federal Agency Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2009 (S. 1830). According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program, the federal government consumes 1.6 percent of the nation's total energy -- about $17.5 billion in annual energy costs. Electricity use at federal buildings accounts for almost half of this usage.

I introduced this bill in October and was pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman and Carper as co-sponsors. The measure aims to make the federal government, the world's largest institutional consumer of energy, more energy efficient. It would require that all executive branch agencies set clear goals in order to chart progress in this critical area.

The bill would save taxpayers money. Evidence shows that when federal agencies implement energy savings initiatives, significant savings follow. For example, environmental management systems at two U.S. Department of Energy laboratories led to more than $16.6 million in cost savings and avoidance within a four-year period.

The bill also would enable government agencies at all levels -- federal, state and local -- to share energy-saving technologies in order to continue lowering taxpayer costs. To lead the initiative, the bill would create a Chief Conservation Officer within each federal agency. The officers, appointed from the ranks of career Senior Executives, would provide aggressive and targeted leadership in this effort.

Over the past several decades, achieving energy efficiency within the federal government has been the goal of more than a dozen laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. Despite those efforts, agencies have been inconsistent and sporadic in meeting their environmental goals.
Under this measure, the Chief Conservation Officer within each agency would be responsible for implementing energy efficiency and sustainability policies.

Dedicating a senior-level career official to energy efficiency policy would improve the government's focus on implementation of existing laws and policies, enhance innovation, and help identify future initiatives.

The bill also would make several improvements in government procurement policies, allowing state and local government to purchase "green" commodities and services from the General Services Administration Schedule. This procurement authority would help state and local governments reduce the administrative costs of negotiating their own contracts and would increase competition and lower costs. Federal agencies should also reap the benefits of this program as more goods and services become available at reduced costs. Participation in the program would be voluntary for state and local governments, as well as vendors.

Given the potential score for some of the bill's provisions, I will propose a substitute amendment that eliminates the pilot program that would have allowed agencies to enter into power purchase agreements of up to 20 years for electricity produced by renewable energy sources. Although the legislation would have required a determination that the agreements were cost effective, I would not want this bill to be side-tracked in a dispute over the potential costs of the program.

By promoting accountability for meeting existing energy efficiency mandates and by encouraging initiatives to decrease energy usage and spur innovation, this bill would help "green" our federal operations. The associated savings should improve our government's bottom line -- to the benefit of taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Source