[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S865-S866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     REPEAL MANDATORY DISCHARGE FOR HIV-POSITIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, a very important article appeared 
in today's Washington Post that I commend to all my colleagues. Its 
title is ``Army Sergeant with HIV Feels Deserted by Policy.'' This 
article tells the story of a woman--a sergeant in the Army--who faces 
discharge because of a horrible provision in the Department of Defense 
authorization bill that mandates the release of HIV positive personnel.
  This provision is not supported by the military. It has been forced 
upon them by this Congress. In my view, it is nothing less than 
shameful.
  The sergeant, who used the pseudonym ``Marie'' for this article, is a 
good soldier. She exhibits no signs of illness. Were it not for this 
provision in the DOD authorization bill, Marie would likely get a 
promotion this year.
  Marie may not get that promotion. Instead she may get shown the door. 
I want to share with my colleagues what Marie thinks about this 
provision, mandating the discharge of HIV positive personnel like 
herself. She says, ``no one is looking at the work I've done. No one is 
looking at the commitment I made--I defend the Constitution. It feels 
like the United States has turned its back on me.''
  Mr. President, I have been in Congress for nearly 15 years. During 
that time, I have seen a lot. But I never thought that I would see the 
day that the United States would turn its back on a soldier. The United 
States military has a proud tradition of standing by those courageous 
enough to dedicate their lives to the defense of our Nation. And if 
this provision becomes law, that proud tradition will end. That would 
be a sad day for this country.
  Supporters of this provision argue that it is needed because non-
worldwide deployable personnel degrade the readiness of our forces.
  But I hope all Members realize that the substance of this new policy 
contradicts the rhetoric of its backers. They say that nonworldwide 
deployable personnel degrade readiness, but they only target a small 
fraction of that group.
  Military personnel are placed on non-deployable status if they have 
severe asthma, or diabetes, or cancer. But this provision doesn't 
affect them. It targets only HIV positive personnel--only about 20 
percent of all nondeployable personnel.
  It is therefore perfectly clear: This provision is not about 
readiness or about deployable status, it is about targeting people with 
HIV. It is about discrimination.
  Mr. President, on Tuesday I was proud to stand with all 
Californians--and indeed all Americans--to cheer the return of 
``Magic'' Johnson to the Los Angeles Lakers. The Lakers wanted Magic 
back neither because he was HIV positive nor in spite of it. They 
wanted Magic back because he makes their team better.
  The Army needs sergeants like Marie because she makes their team 
better. She can do the job. And for as long as she can do the job, 
Congress should not intervene to mandate her discharge.
  Mr. President, this forced discharge policy is worse than wrong; it 
is immoral.
  As soon as the President signs the DOD authorization bill, bipartisan 
legislation will be introduced to repeal this outrageous policy. I will 
be an original cosponsor and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor.
  I believe the military's existing policy is adequate. As Asst. 
Secretary of Defense Fred Pang has said:

       As long as these members can perform their required duties, 
     we see no prudent reason to separate and replace them because 
     of their antibody status. However, as with any Service 
     member, if their condition affects their performance of duty, 
     then the Department initiates separation action . . . the 
     proposed provision would not improve military readiness or 
     the personnel policies of the Department.

  We must repeal this provision within 6 months, or else people like 
Marie will feel the consequences for a lifetime. I ask that the article 
be printed in the Record.
  The article follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1996]

            Army Sergeant With HIV Feels Deserted by Policy

                            (By Dana Priest)

       Marie, a staff sergeant who has been in the Army 10 years, 
     figures she has done what has been expected of her, and more. 
     She has worked hard, spent months away from her family on 
     assignments, ``given 110 percent'' to her job and is in line 
     for an important promotion.
       Except now she expects to be forced out of the Army.
       That is because last week Congress passed and President 
     Clinton agreed to sign a defense bill that includes a 
     provision to discharge service members with the AIDS virus, 
     regardless of whether they are sick or can still perform 
     their jobs.
       Marie, who is 34 and has a daughter in elementary school, 
     was infected by her late husband before he knew he had the 
     disease.
       ``I'm widowed from it, I have a child and now I'm going to 
     lose my job,'' she said in a three-hour interview yesterday 
     at a friend's home in Northern Virginia. ``No one's looking 
     at the work I've done. No one's looking at the commitment I 
     made. . . . I signed a contract to uphold freedom of speech, 
     freedom of religion, I defend the Constitution. It feels like 
     the United States has turned its back on me.''
       Marie noted that she was being forced from her profession 
     for having HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, just when many 
     people this week applauded basketball star Earvin ``Magic'' 
     Johnson's return to professional play despite having the 
     virus.
       Afraid of being stigmatized, she will not allow her full 
     name to be used in this article--Marie is her middle name. 
     She has not told her daughter or most of her co-workers she 
     is HIV-positive and only informed her mother last month, 
     although the virus was diagnosed five years ago and she 
     informed her Army supervisors.
       ``It's my family I'm concerned about,'' she said.
       The HIV measure in the defense bill was introduced by Rep. 
     Robert K. Dornan (R-Calif.), a conservative presidential 
     aspirant and former combat pilot who has become a lightning 
     rod for anger among AIDS activists and others, including 
     Marie.
       Dornan has attracted their criticism for comments such as 
     one he made on the House floor in November, when he defended 
     the provision by saying that AIDS ``is spread by human God-
     given free will'' and then listing what he described as the 
     three ways service members get AIDS: ``Rolling up your white, 
     khaki or blue uniform sleeve and sticking a contaminated, 
     filthy needle in your arm . . . heterosexual sex with 
     prostitutes . . . and having unprotected [homosexual] sex 
     with strangers in some hideaway or men's room somewhere.''
       ``I feel outraged'' at Dornan, said Marie. ``I can't go out 
     into the public and talk about my disease because the 
     American people don't understand this disease. How can I feel 
     safe if I have a leader on Capitol Hill who says things like 
     this?
       ``Everything I worked for he's taking away from me, 
     everything I know,'' she said. ``I've left my family to go to 
     school, I've left my family to go overseas. I did it because 
     that was what the military expected of me. If I didn't want 
     to make it my career, I wouldn't have done it. I love my 
     family.''
       There are 1,049 male and female service members who have 
     the AIDS virus. They have been allowed to continue to work 
     and to reenlist as long as they are able to perform their 
     jobs. But the military tests personnel for HIV about every 
     two years, and those with the virus are prohibited from being 
     sent to overseas posts or into combat. Marie went abroad 
     before being infected.
       ``It sounds like a tragic case,'' Dornan said of Marie in 
     an interview yesterday. But, he added, AIDS sufferers put an 
     undue burden on other service members who have to fill in for 
     them overseas. ``She can't go to Bosnia. She can't go to 
     Haiti. She can't go to Somalia. She can't go anywhere in this 
     world . . . and she obviously had unprotected sex with 
     someone whose entire background she didn't know. . . . She 
     should be a good patriot and take her honorable discharge.''
       Defense Department statistics show that half of the service 
     members with the AIDS virus are married.
       Several high-ranking military officials and military 
     organizations have supported Dornan's provision because they 
     believe HIV-positive service members are a drain on military 
     readiness. In 1993, Adm. Frank B. Kelso II, then chief of 
     naval operations, wrote Dornan to say that retaining HIV-
     positive service members ``imposes significant problems for 
     all services, especially the Navy. Assignment limitations 
     cause significant disruption in the sea/shore rotation for 
     all our personnel.''
     
[[Page S866]]

       Clinton is set to sign the defense bill early next week. 
     After he does, Marie, who works on personnel issues at the 
     Pentagon, will be discharged within six months. She will 
     retain her medical benefits but will not be entitled to 
     retirement benefits or the kind of substantial disability pay 
     she could have gotten had she remained in the Army until she 
     became too sick to work. She will also lose the health 
     insurance she has for her daughter.
       White House officials said they hope to have some 
     alternative to the provision ready when Clinton signs the 
     bill. Among the options under consideration is to have 
     Clinton sign an executive order that would allow service 
     members to retain health insurance for their dependents or to 
     support legislation to repeal the provision.

                          ____________________