P. TEXT-7) could be accused of using homosexual terminology. It uses the term
“serial monogamy” and defines it as "an exclusive sexual relationship with one
individual at a time." It goes on to explain: "Practicing serial monogamy and
therefore having several sexual partners, even over an extended period of time, may
place one at risk ...” (emphasis ours). The definition of "serial monogamy” bears a
striking resemblance to the definition of monogamy’ in the homosexual book, The
New Joy of Gay Sex, which reads:

“Monogamy means that two people have declared themselves lovers~an

intimate emotional and sexual relationship... [it] can include sexual adventures

outside the relationship.” (emphasis ours).

The concept of monogamy traditionally consisted of moral commitment, not
convenient compromise. Yet the federal government is now championing this
progressive definition as a part of a new morality it is preaching under the guise of
‘AIDS education.

Masturbation and Drug, Use

‘Some of the manuals produced by other agencies actually promote
masturbation and drug use. The Centers for Disease Control has published a
participant’s manual for use in AIDS training of federal workers. (See Appendix #6,
p. 19.) The document, titled "HIV/AIDS At Work,” urges participants to "avoid
blood and body fluid exposure” through “non-insertive sexual activity (masturbation,
massage, etc.)” Moreover, instead of encouraging drug rehabilitation, this document
urges drug abusers to use “one’s own injection equipment or disinfect [other's] with
bleach.”

‘A Captive Audience

The White House issued guidelines to direct the agencies in how to implement
the program. (See Appendix 7.) Page #2 of the guidelines clearly states that the
administration required each and every federal worker to undergo the training, It
reads: "HIV/AIDS workplace training is mandatory for every federal employee.”
However, after the Washington Times reported on the story on March 29, the White
House Office of National AIDS Policy (ONAP) capitulated. In early April, the
Washington Times followed up its story with a report that the White House had
backed off the mandatory requirement. The article said that AIDS Policy Director
Patricia Fleming now claimed that the initiative was never meant to be mandatory.

The Defense Department, along with many federal agencies, was
understandably confused about the policy. It asked ONAP to clarify. Upon
receiving a response, the Defense Department issued a memo stating: "According to
ONAP, Ms. Fleming’s reported remarks in a recent Washington Times article were
‘taken out of context" The memo went on to say that the Defense Department
“reissued guidance ... stating that the HIV/AIDS workplace training is to remain
mandatory for employees of the Department of Defense.”

4


123

Federal workforce on HIV/AIDS issues.

On September 30, 1993, President Clinton issued memorandum to all Federal agencies directing
them to develop and fully implement comprehensive HIV/AIDS workplace policies and an
‘employee elucation program. USDA took great care in designing an educational program as
svitably informative on the issues surrounding HIV/AIDS as possible and to ensure that the
‘material was seasitively administered to our employees. To assis: agencies in implementing the
President's directive, the former National AIDS Policy Office cocrdinator issued on April 7, 1994,
guidelines for the Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Initetive stating that the HIV/AIDS
‘training was mandatory for every Federal employee. USDA's training was conducted pursuant to
these guidelines.

On April 21, 1995, the current director of the National AIDS Policy Office distributed a
memorandurn to all agencies clarifying that, while each agency rust have an HIV/AIDS training
program, each agency should determine the scope of and participation in such training. The
‘memorandum also stated that the standard chosen by the agencies for this determination should
be consistent with personnel policies for similar training programs

As the Assistant Seorctary for Administration, I am alsa the USDA Safety and Health Officer. In
that capacity, I oversee a number of programs that make the workplace a safer environment for al
Federal workers. I firmly believe that we have a responsiblity to our employees to educate them

regarding what they believe to be potential risks within theic work environment.


25

Forest Service. It took place in the Forest Service's Tahoe Region on May 6, 1994 and was
conducted by a local health official with degrees in sexology, a self-described homosexual
phlebotomist (individual who draws blood), and an HIV-positive woman from the community."

‘Most of the “infectious disease training” addressed HIV/AIDS. The phlebotomist was an ex-

convict who tried to debunk "homophobic" misconceptions. He speculated that many husbands
were involved in homosexual affairs. He showed a variety of condoms and how to apply them to
a life-size replica of erect male genitalia. He even explained a technique for using one’s mouth to
spp the condom. He also explained the proper cleaning techniques when sharing hypodermic

(One of the workers in the audience later complained, “There seems to be no logic or equity in
penalizing one employee for repeatedly bringing up “Christmas' at work, during December

because he oF she believes in God, while instructing ther employees how to use intravenous
drugs or engage in anal sex."

FEDERAL MONEY FUNDS "GAY SCIENCE"

In Fiscal Year 1993, in addition to more than $2 billion for AIDS, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services awarded 84 grants worth over $20 million to research topics that primarily”
involve homosexuals." These grants include:

“Phone counseling in reducing barriers to AIDS prevention,” which studies homosexual men
who are purportedly unable to avoid unsafe sexual behavior.”

A project that examines how “stress generated by societal reactions leads adolescents who
are coming-out to be at higher risk of problems” than their heterosexual peers.””

A project entitled "Drinking, drug use and unsafe sex among gay and bisexual couples” which
explores the relationship “between drinking, drug use and unprotected sex...among gay and
bisexual couples.“

‘A study designed to andlyze behavioral data about HIV transmission among bisexual men in
Mexico.

‘A study by Dr. Dean Hamer provides a good example of how federal funds are being used to
help advance gay political activism,

Dr. Hamer, chief of the Gene Structure and Regulation Section, Laboratory of Biochemistry of
thc Nesonl Cana nates, Naconl Lente of Head Departnant of Health and Horan
Services, published the results of his two year "gay-gene" research project, "A Linkage Between
DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” inthe July, 193 edition of
Science.


154

this manual seems to be unoffensive and informative. It is, so we
agree on that.

There is a list of 82 phone numbers that are described as re-
sources in the metropolitan Washi: yn area for women, and one
of the numbers here is this Lesbian Safer Sex number that you re-
ferred to. It is 1 of 82, and I suppose it is to find some way to ac-
cess people who are more aggressive or whatever, but all it is doing
is listing a number. It is not encouraging, you know, lesbianism or
promiscuity or anything else.

Mr. Mica. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Moran. Yes.

Mr. Mica. The next page you have shows where to buy your den-
tal dams. I never heard of dental dams before this hearing, so I am
learning something.

Mr. Moran. I don’t know what dental dams are either. I don’t
find it offensive because I don’t know what it is.

Mr. Mica. Then on the next page, Pleasure Chest. I know exactly
where that is, but I don’t——

Mr. Moran. Where is it and what is it?

Mr. Mica. I don’t even know if taxpayer money is involved in
this, but I raise questions about some of these things, Mr. Moran,
and their appropriateness; and some people do find it offensive.

Mr. Moran. I understand that and obviously you know much
more about these things than I do.

Mr. Mica. I am learning, Mr. Moran.

Mr. Moran, I will defer to all your in-depth research, Mr. Chair-
man, but on the issue of the survey, you know, I can understand
the assumptions that you make with regard to that survey, but it
does seem to me that there is a need to do some screening of those
people who do perform AIDS instructions.

I wish Mr. Dornan was here because I don’t like to talk about
him other than face to face, which is always a unique experience.
His aide is here; I am sure she is going to communicate it. But Mr.
Dornan is the type of person whom I would find offensive if he was
delivering a lecture because of, actually, what happened today.

I talked about, as you recall, a friend of mine who had been an
ex-priest and who then came to work for the campaign. He ran the
phone bank, and he contracted AIDS; and Bob then Iater on gratu-
itously said, “Well, if your friend, the ex-priest, hadn’t left the
prigsth need for momentary sexual pleasure, he wouldn’t have died
re ”

Well, that showed a bigotry in my mind because in the first
place, he assumed that he had participated in momentary sexual
pleasure or whatever. He didn’t know anything about this person.
I know he has never met him, but that was the assumption. And
it is that kind of bigotry, I think, that we find fairly pervasive in
our society still, at this point, that is counterproductive certainly
to learning the kind of information that we need to be understood
by the American population.

It certainly is counter to the kind of humane attitude that we
ought to have among our brothers and sisters, whether they are

fering from a deadly disease or not.

I would think that at the minimum, we should not make assump-
tions about their life-style or about their threat to us or to anyone


149

Mr. MCFEE. I definitely do and, of course, again, in our case with
high-risk employees, those dealing with patients and in research
with blood research, et cetera, I am sure that the whole Ams
training program, not only within our department, but that is
sponsored by CDC and the Federal Occupational Health program
has saved countless lives.

Mrs. MoRELLA. Does it promote homosexuality? I ask the three
of

you.
Mr. MCFEE. I just answered that question for Mr. Moran, and I
can tell you, it in no way promotes homosexuality.

Mrs. MorELLA. It seemed to me that was the reason that some
people were—felt very strongly against any of these programs. It
seems to me if you think it has created a more productive, under-
standing, sensitive work force, if done the right way, and is not
promoting a particular life-style, that maybe giving OPM even
more strength and vigor to look at the method of instruction and
the curricula, that this is something that is working and is impor-
tant.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady.

I have a couple of questions. One of the problems with the polic
and the guideline is that this is a sort of Forrest Gump approacl
where you have got a box of chocolates and you never know what
you are going to get.

Some of the examples, here again, I don’t have any problem with
HHS. Where the problem comes in with is some of the trainers that
are employed, if they are under contract. We had a lady here today
who obviously felt great distress; who felt that the material wasn’t
appropriate. She gave very specific examples of objectionable ap-
proaches to which I believe if did you this in the workplace, you
could be charged with sexual harassment.

Isn’t it correct, Mr. Heuerman, that up until this April edict, that
you could be fired if you didn’t attend, that participation was man-
datory? Is that correct?

Mr. HEUERMAN. The—

Mr. Mica. It was in the Department of Defense, and still may be.
Again, since that April memorandum that is now discretionary, we
don’t even know. But it can be mandatory within the agency. It is
my understanding that these people testifying today were man-
dated to participate; is that coi 2

Mr. HEUERMAN. The Kristine Gebbie memo of April 7, 1994, and
the training guidelines that her office issued on July 7, 1994 did
indicate that the training was required for all Federal employees.

Mr. Mica. So these people were under threat of being fired, and
some people did feel distressed.

Mr. Townsend, do you feel, again, that it is appropriate for us,
as a Federal Government responsible to the taxpayers, to rate peo-
ple; and how would I be rated?

Now, I have a range of one to five, sex without love, acceptable
to me, unacceptable to me. I would be very disinclined to have this
acceptable. Would I be graded low?

Mr. TOWNSEND. Mr. Chairman, it is not likely that you would be
taking that evaluation——


COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina
WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jr, New Hampshire © LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, New
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York York

STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California

PETER BLUTE, Massachusetts COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida

DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JON D. FOX, Pennsylvania THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
RANDY TATE, Washington GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

DICK CHRYSLER, Michigan BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana Columbia

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, New Jersey JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida GENE GREEN, Texas

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida

MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ——

MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

Carolina (Independent)
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
JAMES L. CLARKE, Staff Director
KEVIN SABO, General Counsel
JuprrH McCoy, Chief Clerk
Bup Myers, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Ind.)
DAN BURTON, Indiana FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

Ex OFFIcio

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR, Pennsylvania CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois

GEORGE NESTERCZUK, Staff Director
SUSAN MOSYCHUK, Professional Staff Member
CAROLINE FIEL, Clerk
Cepric HENDRICKS, Minority Professional Staff

aD


119

Question #10 - Why did it take your agency se tong te provide the information

‘Chairman Mica asked for in is letter of March 30, 1995? As of the date of this
letter, we have mot yet received that information, Please ideatify each person

who worked om preparing your response, describe his or her role, and indicate

‘bow long it teek each persen te accomplish his or her tasks.

‘The Department first responded to the Committee with « letter and a copy of the
‘training manual which was mailed on May 12, 1995. Unfortunately, the Committee
staff did not receive them. Upon learning that the letter had not been received, I asked
‘Donald Donaldson to hand deliver the material on June 14, 1995, We have been in
contact with your staff since June | t0 inform you of the progress of the remainder of
the information. We certainly want to work very closely with your staff on these
issues.

‘The employees working on this project took a great deal of time to compile a package
of information which would be organized and responsive to the Committee's requests.

‘The compilation process, as well 23 the review process, took many hours. Because of
time constraints and limited personnel, we have not yet totally concluded the survey of
our regional offices, and will need until July 17 to provide this information.

‘Mr. Donaldson is the only Department employee designated to research and coordinate

this project. Since receipt of your March 30 letter, he has spent all of his time on this
Project

-12-


Testimony of Lyn Mickley
before the Subcommittee on Civil Service
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives
2154 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC
“Federal Training Programs”
Sune 22, 1995


152

‘Honorable John L. Mica 2

(4) Please provide the information requested by question 6 of Chairman Mica's letter of
June 13, particularly any materials used to rate, score or evaluate responses to the *P
Values Worksheet” on pages TTT-2 through TIT-4 of the Department's “Train-the-Trainer*
‘Manual. Please also explain why these documents were not provided to the Subcommittee before
the hearing

‘The purpose of the Value Worksheet needs clarifying. This worksheet is actually a
portion of the Train-the-Trainer instruments used by the contractor. Its purpose is to enable
potential trainers to conduct a self-assessment so they could examine in advance any potential for
biases that could hinder their ability to present a fair and objective delivery of training information
ina sensitive and caring manner. This assessment instrument is by no means a tool to rate a
trainee's suitability, but rather a demonstration of an extra effort to ensure the quality of our
training cadre. This information was provided to the Subcommittee in Enclosure 1A, Tab-2,
before the hearing,

(5) Please identify each person who worked on preparing your response to Chairman Mica's
letter of March 30, describe his or her role, and indicate how long it took each person to
accomplish his or her tasks.

‘The Department's HIV/AIDS Program Manager, Betty J. Thomas, was primarily
responsible for the coordination of all responses to the March 30 letter. Ms. Thomas received
‘over 100 pounds of data from 29 USDA agencies. Seventeen of these agencies have field
locations, requiring sufficient time for them to redirect the data call to their locations. To fulfill
the Subcommittee's request, USDA staff spent hundreds of hours producing and compiling the
materials. The response to the Subcommittee was reviewed by the staff officals indicated on the
enclosed correspondence clearance sheet,

Sincerely,
WebeuBhe
Wardell C. Townsend, Jr.
Assistant Secretary

for Administration

Enclosure


19

also the designated instroctor for the mandated HIV/AIDS training on our base, I asked Ms. Reeder if termination
for the first offense of failing to attend a training class was the normal procedure for a personnel action ofthis type.
“Absolutely.” she replied, “Besides you're a supervisor, you must set an example for your employees.”

Mr, Smith then presented me with a piece of paper, Attachment (8), and said, “This is a case similar to
‘yours, you might want to read it.” It was a summary of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board, Ryan
vs. Department of Justice, 950 F.24 458 (7th Cir, 1991) in which an FBI agent réfused to investigate a pacifist
‘group on the basis of religious convictions and was terminated, While I did not comment on this case at the

‘mecting I did read it later and did not find the similarity. Ryan refused a work assignment not mandatory training.

‘Mr. Burke, the EEO specialist, then gave me a list, Attachment (9), of the remaining HIV/AIDS training
‘lasses that he would be conducting on our base snd told me that { could go to any class up to February 23, 1995.
| asked Mr, Burke if he, as an EEO specialist, was familiar with the contents of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. He replied that he was and that it did contain 2 prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion. Mr.
‘Smith then added that I would be considered insuboedinate after February 23, 1995 if did not attend one of the

lasses.

then stated that I bad once again reviewed that basic document, A/DS at Work, and felt thatthe
‘objectionable parts were contained in the modnle dealing with Prevention Edncation (30% of the total). As I
‘ished to not be considered an insubordinate emaployee I proposed what I considered a reasonable accommodation.
| asked that the prevention modale be removed. Mr. Burke stated that be would give me a private class if I felt too
sensitive to view this material with my co-workers. Let me add st no time daring this entire process did ary
management offer to make a reasonable accommodation to my religious convictions by removing offensive
materials. Their attitode always was the President hes ordered this course, you must comply totally. Uhimstely 1
declined the offer ofa private screening of the videos as it was not 2 true accommodation. This ended the

disciplinary meeting of Jamaary 24, 1995.

nomediatety after the termination of the meeting I wrote a memorandum for the record, Attachment (10),
‘stating the major discussions at the hearing Ms. Patricia Raeder of the persounel office also prepared a


15

LD&l

la

AIDS lobby has worked hard to
capture America's attention—so
hard, in fact, that ita public rela-
tions campaigns now touch nearly

The Social Impact of the
AIDS Lobby

Robert L. Maginnis

[DISSENTERS SEE RAYS OF HOPE.

‘There are dissenters, however, to this
gloomy prediction. James Mason, former
om os

‘every aspect of Ai life.

that

‘This is due in part to the scope of the
‘epidemic, which is staggering by any stan-
dard. In spite of the world’s best medical
‘care, one million Americans are now HIV.

the AIDS epidemic peaked between 1989
and 1992.

Dr. Robert Root-Bernatein, a Michigan
State AIDS expert and author af Rethink-

and 399,250 have full-blown AIDS,

according to the U.S. government. And the

decade, some predict, AIDS may no longer
be thought of as a gay disease but as @
minority disease. AIDS is now the leading
‘cause of death among black women aged
fifteen to forty-four in New York City and
New Jersey.

The costs are astounding. For fiscal
_year 1994, Congress has appropriated $2.5
bition for AIDS programs, inchuding $1.3
billion for research. Another $10.4 billion
‘will be spent in the United States treating

‘more orphans. Over two million children,
including 45,600 in the United States, have
bbeen orphaned by AIDS worldwide so far,

ing AIDS, contends that the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) keep

‘among changing the AIDS definition to hide the

scope ofthe problema. He points
‘out that the CDC has changed the diag-
nostic criteria three times and that the
most recent change increased the number
of new diagnoses 30 percent to 40 percent
‘over 1992's count. Root Bernstein accuses
the government of hiding these develop-
ments.

Dr. Peter Duesberg of the University
‘of California at Berkeley, one ofthe world’s
leading retrovirus researchers, wrote in
Policy Review that the medical-industrial
‘complex is wrong in pushing the HIV the-
cy aa the cao of the epidermis

“Evidence increasingly indicates,” he
stated, “that large nurabers of people
infected with HIV, probably the majority,
will never: ‘AIDS.” Duesberg’s 1990
article was criticized by many noted
AIDSHHIV experts.

‘Michael Eliner, vice president of the
Health-Education-AIDS Linison of New
York, agrees with Duesberg, stating, “Our
national AIDS policy is crumbling due to

382 THE wont a1

AROADIAT


197

Reductions-in-Force

OPM issued 202 separation notices in the Workforce Training
Service (WTS) Reduction-in-Force. Of that number 71 employees
were eligible to retire and 61 elected to exercise this option.
If buyouts had been authorized for this purpose 131 of the
targeted employees would have been eligible. However buyouts
were not authorized or paid as a result of the RIF due to the
privatization of training functions.

All impacted employees have been offered assistance through OPM's
Career Transition Program. This program provides logistical and
counseling support including, but not limited to, job search,
resume/application assistance, assistance in identifying
occupations in demand, and assistance in identifying training
necessary/available to pursue careers in such occupations.

Of the WIS employees who participated in the OPM program, 91
percent have successfully completed transition. There are 16
individuals still in the process of transitioning. Five of those
are in Washington, D.C., four are in Denver, four in the San
Francisco Region, and three in the Dallas Region.

Most of those separated accepted employment with either the
Graduate School or Brookings. Many others found positions in
Federal agencies, including OPM. As of our latest information
seven people have been hired into private sector positions. Jobs
have also been located in state and local government, and at
least one individual has accepted such employment. Another person
has started a private business.

Overhead Accounts

In response to the question of how much money and how many
positions were attached to the training portion of the revolving
fund, we can state that common services of approximately $5.8
million were associated with the training portion of the
revolving fund. Based on an average annual compensation level of
$43,000, this would equate to 135 positions if all funds had been
directed to personnel expenses. As you might expect with common
services, there were positions supporting more than one program
so this is the best way to estimate the number of positions.

Elimination of revolving fund functions will result in the
elimination of related overhead activities.


128

training plans, which include mandatery briefings on ethics and standards of conduct for certain
groups of employees, including senior executives, Bilers of confidential disclonure reports and
‘others. Approximately 25,000 employees within the Department must be tained each year.
Since issuance ofthat Execative Orde, the Office of Government Ethics codfed this annual
training requicement in Title S of the Code of Federal Regulations (5 CFR 2638.04). Both
USDA Ethics training and the Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Initiative are conducted
through 2 variety of methods including teleconferences and on-site traning sessions.

Finally, as we have discussed with subcommittee suff, it has taken USDA a considerable period
of time to gather the information needed to respond to the Chairman's letter of March 30, 1995
With an organization of over 100,000 employees in 29 agencies worldwide, an extensive effort
‘was required to collect the information requested. We estimate that the request generated over
100 pounds of documents that required hundreds of seaff-hours to produce and review. Much of
what was requested was forwarded last week and efforts are under way to expedite and finalize
the astembly of the remaining items.

would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS

Education Initiative at USDA.

I would be pleased to respond to questions from the subcommittee.


184

he
SINCE 19AN, TEEPE HAVE BEEN ONGOINS EFFORTS AT EDUCATING OUR
WORKEORCR ON THIS ISSUE. DURING THIS TIME, TRATNINS ON Liv AND
AIDS IN TEE WORKPLACE HAS BECOME A STANDARD FEATUNL OF SMPLCYER

HEALTH SERVICES FROGRAMS IN TKR UNITSD STATES. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

BRE AUTHORIZED RY LAW YO PROVIDE HZALTH SERVICES PRCGRAMS TO THEIR
FMTLOYEES

MORE RECENTLY, PRESIDENT CLINTON, IN NOVEMEER 1594, U:RSCTED AGENCY

HEADS TO IMPLEMENT MIV/AIDS TKALNING PROGRAMS AND TO DEVELOP

LICIES WHICH ASSURE A NON-JISCRIMINATORY WORKPLACE (MEMCRANDUM
COR Tae READS Ur EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, SEPYEMBER 30,
1993). OM UELPED DISTRISUTE THIS DIRRCTIv= BY SENDING IT TO

PERSONNEL DIRECTORS. OFM STAFF ALSO INFORMALLY REVIEWED AND

COMMENTED ON THE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE
HIV/ALDS INITIATIVE PRODUCED BY THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL AIDS POLICY.
(GUIDELINES FOR THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE HIV/AIDS EDUCATION INITIATIVE
"AIDS AT WORK," APRIL 7, 1994). OPM WORKED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND KUMAN SERVICES ON DEVELOPING AN HIV/AIDS CURRICULUM AND
‘TRAINING MANUALS.

‘THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY WITH REGARD TO HIGHLIGHTING IDENTIFIED
CONCERNS WITH HIV/ATDS, AS WITH PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS, IS BASED
ON THR PREMISE THAT IT 19 IN THE EMPLOYER'S SELF INTEREST TO HAVE
AN INFORMED AND EDUCATED WORKFORCE KITH REGARD TO HIV/AIDS AS A
WEALTH AND WORKPLACR ISSUB. THR POLICY CONTINUES THE REQUIREMENT
NOT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EMPLOYEES WHO ARE HIV-INFECTED OR WHO

WAVE OTHER DISABLING MEDICAL CONDITIONS. WE BELIEVE THAT BY


189

‘Yes, the Department took action to respood to valid employee .
concems, and implemented their suggestions for improvement.
Many employees who rated the training other than favorable
often did not include comments on which the Department could

take action.


178

United States
office
Personnel Management —wastingion. 0c 20415-0001

‘The Honorable John L. Mica

Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service
‘Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
United States House of Representatives

B-371C Raybum House Office Building
‘Washington, DC 20515-6143

Dear Representative Mica:

This is in response to your July 10, 1995, request to answer questions posed by
Congressman James Moran related to your recent hearing on the Administration's AIDS
‘raining program. Congressman Moran asks the following questions:

‘Question 1. What exactly does OPM do when alleged abuses of agencies’ training
authority are brought to its attention?

‘When we leam of complaints or alleged inappropriate actions, we work with

agencies to solve or resolve the matier. We first ensure that agency officials with
authority to correct the problem are fully aware of it, and its implications for their
‘organization. The great majority of the complaints that come to our attention are
successfully resolved by this approach,

If this approach does not resolve the issue, OPM has authority to require
that agencies adhere to the provisions contained in the laws and regulations
that we administer. nithough it has noi been necessary for OPM to exercise
its authority in this manner with regard to agency training programs, we
‘would take whatever action was necessary and consistent with OPM’s
authority to correct serious problems in the training area. For example, we
‘might raise the issue at a higher level within the Administration, or even.
refer it to the Office of the Special Counsel or to the Department of Justice.
i should be noted that section $ U.S.C. 4118 does not authorize the Office
of Personnel Management to prescribe the types and methods of intra-
agency training or to regulate the details of intra-agency training programs.


74

ary 24th of this year, I had a disciplinary hearing at which my
manager told me that if I did not attend I would be considered in-
subordinate and would be terminated from Federal employment.
Reluctantly, when faced about unemployment, I compromised my
beliefs and attended the training.

Was the training that bad? Well, I would say it would get a PG
rather than an X rating, it did contain the subtle attempts to ma-
nipulate our thought that “AIDS at Work” desired. The video
shown told churches what doctrines they should preach and told
parents how they should raise their children. Churches were to
teach the safe sex message and parents were to buy condoms for
their 10-year-old sons so they could practice. Both of these state-
ments were in the video, “The Many Faces of AIDS,” distributed by
the American Red Cross and the Department of Health and
Human Services.

The other video, “AIDS for Supervisors,” put out by the Navy,
had a section dealing with myths and rumors about AIDS. One of
the myths to be exploded was “AIDS is a judgment on people who
get it.” How could anyone know the answer to this question? Have
they had a private revelation from the Almighty?

Also, why do we have reminders to bleach needles when man:
Federal employees are subject to random drug tests? This AID!
training, in my opinion, is not well designed to meet agencies’
needs in improving mission and performance goals. It deals too
much with changing employees’ attitudes and the factual informa-
tion, safe sex, is very controversial. There is dissatisfaction among
my fellow employees with the AIDS training, particularly among
those with a strong religious background. This dissatisfaction is
muted as people hear what can happen to them if they openly re-
sist.

What would be appropriate AIDS training for the Federal work-
place? All employees have received equal opportunity employment
training. Perhaps only supervisors need a refresher on privacy pro-
tection, workplace accommodation and disability retirements.

In conclusion, AIDS is a public health problem. The training
course was developed with all good intentions by the Office of Na-
tional AIDS Policy. However, the spread of AIDS has not only a
medical dimension, it has a moral and ethical one as well. Many
Americans, including many civil servants, base their moral code in
their religious beliefs. So mandatory training on moral questions
can easily impinge on individuals’ beliefs and their first amend-
ment freedoms.

I hope this will be taken into account when future training
courses of this type are mandated.

Thank you for the opportunity. I am ready to answer any ques-
tions.

[Note.—The attachments to Mr. Herron’s prepared statement can
be found in subcommittee files.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Herron follows:]


32

Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Dornan. And as I understand it, you
are on the National Security Committee and you are also chairman
of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness. When we return——

Mr. Dornan. Personnel, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mica. Personnel. When we return, I’d like to know what
kind of taxpayer dollars are involved in this pamphlet that I under-
stand is used by DOT in training. And if you could supply us with

* that information, I’ll be in and out myself.

Mr. Dornaw. Shall do.

Mr. Mica. Thank you. And if you’re going to raise your hands in
the back, you all are going to asked to leave. You do have a
right to demonstrate outside the committee room, but please don’t
conduct demonstrations within the committee or disrupt the hear-
ing. And this is your first warning.

Thank you. We will recess for approximately 15 minutes.

Thank you.

{Recess.]

Mr, Bass [presiding]. The Civil Service Subcommittee will come
to order.

As vice chairman of the committee, I'll be acting as chairman. I
regret to say the chairman has a conflict for a short period of time.
He should be back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Charles F. Bass follows:]


103

colleagues to be disabled and treated inappropriately as a result.
Whether employees are dealing with program beneficiaries (e.9.,
patients or individuals applying for disability benefits) or
colleagues with HIV/AIDS, they must comply with the requirements of
the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and follow

Departmental policy.

These issues are pot covered as part of occupational safety
training, and they are relevant to employees in all work settings

in the Department. our HIV/AIDS education effort focused on these

issues, with special emphasis given in ions for supervisors on
how to respond to HIV infected employees or employees with AIDS and
to the concerns of their co-workers. Informal feedback from
trainers based on end-of-session evaluations indicated that staff
felt they had learned something new, either about HIV/AIDS or about
the Department's work place AIDS policy.

Im responding to the Presidential initiative we made every attempt

to reach all employe

Face-to-face training sessions were held

only in sit

with large concentrations of employees, and
attendance was required. For employees who did not wish to attend

ssion, a self-study guide was made available. All employees
were clearly told, however, that they could not discriminate
against or harass employees or program beneficiaries affected by
BIV/AID8, or any other chronic or disabling illne:



39

Now, | would like to talk about the AIDS prevention
training, which is probably the real issue of this hearing. |
don’t think anyone would argue about the importance of job-
related or mission-related training, particularly 'n light of the
survival training received by Air Force Captain Scott O’Grady.
However, | believe President Reagan understood that you
can’t separate AIDS issues from organizational performance
and bottomline results, when he encouraged American
businesses to examine and consider adopting education and
personnel management policies addressing AIDS. Business
leaders embraced this recommendation, not just because it
was the right thing to do, but because it made business
sense.

Congressional officials and policy makers who believe
they can stand as onlookers as the effects of AIDS devastate
our country and citizenry are sadly mistaken. They don’t
understand the systemic effects environmental and social
issues have on an organization's performance! Nor do they
buy into the reasoning that if the pandemic tliat is AIDS is
crippling our Nation, doesn’t it seem logical thut it will
eventually cripple our workplaces? AIDS is the principte /
cause of death for Americans between 25 and 44 years of
age. Approximately 50 percent of permanent, full-time civil
servants are in this age group.

Indeed, the effects of AIDS are far reaching and do and
will continue to impact an agency’s and a worker's ability to
perform. Ane employee living with HIV/AIDS, who is
ostracized and no longer receives vital information from hig/e
colleagues, will see a decline in performance. The individual,
ng Js uneducated about AIDS, yet is uncomfortable because
hig'éolleague with AIDS sneezes, will see hig performance
decline. e federal manager, who is preoccupied with
burning the office furniture of a former Federal employee
with AIDS, will see his performance decline. } .

In a publication entitled, HIV/AIDS: A Challenge for the
Workplace, the National Commission on AIDS wrote, "As
people with HIV disease remain at work longer, employers
must be able to manage HIV-related workplace concerns on a
day-to-day basis. This means, among other things, staying

3


164

ones -- will respond favorably to an adult discussion of this
issue.

Indeed, it may surprise you to learn that American workers
already agree that AIDS education should be available. In a
study done by The National Leadership Coalition on AIDS in 1992,
50 percent of working Americans cited AIDS as their chief health
concern, More than 75 percent said that employers should offer
AIDS education in the workpla And 94 percent of employees
whose boss offered AIDS workplace education approved of such a
program.

AIDS is not a lifestyle issue, although some may focus on
lifestyles they do not share with others as a rationale for
eliminating such training. The Federal Government has had for
years an effective anti-drug use training program. People agree
you don't have to embrace a drug user's lifestyle to be against
drugs. But you do have to understand what drive's people to take
drugs, and you need to know enough about the drug user's
lifestyle to help others and protect yourself.

At the same time, we cannot allow the misconception to be
perpetuated that AIDS is a disease that strikes only homosexual
men and only intravenous drug users. Statistics from the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention support the tragic realization
that HIV and AIDS have made strong inroads into the heterosexual
population, among Hispanics and women of color. It has moved
into all socioeconomic levels and out into all parts of the
country.

All Americans, everywhere, are at risk. That makes it a
national problem requiring leadership from the federal
government. The federal government can exercise that leadership
by making HIV/AIDS in the workplace training mandatory for all
federal employees. The federal government can demonstrate its
strong support for the effectiveness of HIV/AIDS education
through the example it sets with its own employees.

Help keep federal workers safe and productive through
mandatory HIV/AIDS education in their respective workplaces.
Help save taxpayer dollars by promoting a healthy federal
workforce free of HIV and AIDS because an educated employee is
key to prevention of HIV/AIDS. Help end AIDS by leading the way
in educating all Americans about this tragic, always fatal
disease.

Mr. Chairman, the business community is working hard to do
its part to stem the spread of HIV and AIDS. HIV/AIDS education
in the workplace works. It saves lives, protects our employees
and helps keep us productive and profitable. We ask that the


64

The administration’s AIDS program focuses almost exclusively on

awareness and has little impact on behavior change. Since HIV is
contracted through behavior and not from breathing bad air, train-
ing that ignores diagnosis and fails to contribute to behavior modi-
fication will have minimal impact.
_ Second, what have Federal civil servants told me about the train-
ing? I’ve heard from civil servants throughout the Nation. They
complain that the training was offensive, a big joke, a waste of
time, and it promoted homosexuality. Most objected that the train-
ing was mandatory, and those who protested were threatened with
adverse personnel actions.

The training includes a brief history of HIV, symptoms, and some
emphasis on prevention and risk reduction. There is a discussion
of needle sharing and sexual contact. Federal employees were told
to reduce their HIV contraction risk by practicing safer sex by
using barriers like condoms, dental dams, plastic wrap, and latex
gloves. An employee manual states the following, “A dental dam or
plastic wrap may be used for oral, vaginal, or oral anal contact. All
types of barriers are effective against HIV transmission only if they
are used correctly and consistently from start to finish.”

One employee labeled the training as a glorified high school sex
education class with sensitivity training on the side. Others ob-
jected to the graphic explanations of sexual activities.

Third, what kind of S training is appropriate for the Federal
workplace? The Federal Government spends billions of dollars each
year on AIDS research, education and treatment. Much of that
money is wasted because it fails to involve diagnosis. If the Govern-
ment wants to impact the epidemic in the workplace, it must link
HIV diagnosis with followup counseling and training.

Such a program would be less expensive than the administra-
tion’s program and far more productive. For example, an AIDS test
now costs the Defense Department $2.49. The Federal Government
could test the at risk civil servants and then with the results in
hand, provide confidential followup counseling and training. Limit-
ing the spread of the virus through behavior reinforcement or
modification should be a top priority. A test-linked program is the
only meaningful type of training that will help arrest the epidemic.

And finally, is legislation needed to better define the kinds of
training in the Federal workplace? The answer is yes. Most of the
AIDS training is not offensive, but there are alarming exceptions.
For example, the Forest Service Tahoe region sponsored AIDS
training last year. It was conducted by a sexologist, a self-described
homosexual phlebotomist, and a HIV positive woman from the com-
munity.

The phlebotomist was an ex-convict who tried to debunk
homophobic attitudes. He speculated that many husbands were in-
volved in homosexual affairs. He showed a variety of condoms and
how to apply them to a life size replica of an erect male genitalia.

So in conclusion, the Clinton administration has mandated AIDS
awareness training to appease activists and to provide a platform
for the promotion of homosexuality as a moral equivalency of het-
erosexuality. This training is a subset of the diversity agenda
which permeates the Federal bureaucracy today.

Thank you, sir.


203

air

Aa ) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ee OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AOMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON. D 20250-0100
AUG 11 1995
Honorable John L. Mica

Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U. S. House of Representatives

B 371-C Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

J am submitting the following clarification to the June 22, 1995, testimony
regarding the Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Initiative.

Specifically, pages 123, 138, and 139, I offer the following reply to your statements
in reference to the Values HIV/AIDS Worksheet and the Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) March 30 video satellite broadcast HIV/AIDS educational package:

Page 123: (2917-2926)

Mr. Townsend: Mr. Chairman, that particular instrument you were looking at, was
used in our train-the-trainer process. It was developed and provided by the
contractor. The purpose of the Values about HIV/AIDS Related Issues
Worksheet was to assist the trainees in identifying his/her own values, and to
understand differing values of those individuals they would be responsible for
training. This instrument is by no means a tool to rate a trainer’s suitability but
rather a demonstration of an extra effort to ensure the quality of our training
cadre.

Page 123: (2938)

Mr. Townsend: Mr. Chairman, the publication in question represents HIV/AIDS
educational mat in association with USDA's video satellite broadcast that
aired March 30, 1995. The specific document you referenced was taken from the
resource book provided by the American Association of World Health announcing
World AIDS Day held December 1, 1994, on "AIDS and Families." The Office of
Personnel Management distributed this publication to all Federal agencies with
permission to reproduce. USDA agencies participating in the broadcast were
allowed to provide additional materials in their employees’ education packages.
This publication was used by one of USDA’s agencies participating in the

March 30, 1995, satellite broadcast on HIV/AIDS. We are unaware of any
adverse comments or actions received from USDA employees regarding this
particular publication.



148

Mrs. MORELLA. Actually, OPM is the agency I meant to get at
in terms of the limited role with regard to the training. So please
forgive me.

jut I am wondering, do you also share in any way? I mean, if
a program is working in a superlative fashion, do you share it with
any other agencies? Is there any mechanism for that?

Mr. McFE£E. I think Mr. Heuerman in his testimony mentioned
that he worked with us. Our model program was shared with OPM.
They used it with other agencies. We definitely do that.

rs. MORELLA. So OPM is the lead in terms of making sure that
qualitative and effective Programs are shared?

Mr. HEUERMAN. We do play a role in sharing training informa-
tion of all kinds with Federal agencies working through this
Human Resource Development Council that I mentioned. With re-
spect to the AIDS/HIV training, as Mr. McFee just mentioned, we
did work with HHS and some other agencies on developing one
specific curriculum that was used by—at least a modification of it
was used by OPM, I believe; and I believe it was also used by other
agencies, but I am not sure specifically by whom. But as has been
testified, there were a whole variety of specific training curricu-
lums that were used under the guidelines issued by the Office of
National AIDS Policy.

Mrs. MorELLA. Has the AIDS prevention training impacted on
your mission-related training or impacted on your ability to fund
or deliver your mission-based training?

Has there been an impact? Has it been an adverse impact?

Mr. McFEE. I probably have a different answer than my col-
leagues will. Because our mission is related to public health issues,
everything we did in AIDS training related to our mission.

Mrs. MORELLA. So it did not prevent any other mission base
training from taking place?

Mr. MCFEE. No. It reinforced it.

Mrs. MORELLA. Good. It has not been an impediment?

Ms. Moony. It has not been at Energy either, no impediment.

Mrs. MORELLA. Do you think it saves lives, frankly?

Ms. Moony. I don’t know that it saves lives at Energy, but I
know that it certainly made an aware employee population that we
would not have had had we not held the training, and certainly
caused less fear in the workplace than there was in the beginning.

Mr. TOWNSEND. Mrs. Morella, at the Department of Agriculture,
not in concrete terms, have we saved lives, but if you take it a cou-
ple of steps—not to be opaque about it, but if we can carry out our
mission at the Department of Agriculture, in terms of our perform-
ance, more effectively and more efficiently, then in the end, yes, it
will safe lives because we provide food, not just in the United
States but around the world.

But within the context of a working environment, if you can min-
imize tension and stress and have people devoting their attention
to other things than health concerns and working conditions, yes,
you do improve efficiency and performance; and that is very impor-
tant because the key here is education, and knowledge in the con-
text, even in a working setting, can be power.

Mrs. MORELLA. So you feel it has been effective.

Mr. McFee, you would agree?


35

specter of one particular sex over another or socioeconomic back-
ground.

I can remember vividly at the Republican convention the one per-
son in that convention who brought tears to everybody’s eyes and
total sirens in terms of hearing, was Mary Fisher, who is now a
constituent of mine in Montgomery County, MD, and who spends
a great deal of her time talking to people about how she has AIDS,
the effect on her children, her lifestyle, and tries to educate people
in terms of the need to understand and the devastating effects.

Indeed, the effects of AIDS are far-reaching and do and will con-
tinue to impact an agency’s and a worker's ability to perform. An
employee living with HIV/AIDS who is ostracized and no longer re-
ceives vital information from his or her colleagues, will see a de-
cline in performance. The individual who is uneducated about HIV/
AIDS, yet is uncomfortable because his or her colleague with AIDS
sneezes, will see a decline in performance.

The Federal manager who is preoccupied with burning the office
furniture of a former Federal employee with AIDS will see perform-
ance decline. In a publication entitled “HIV/AIDS, a Challenge for
The Workplace”, the National Commission on AIDS wrote, “as peo-
ple with HIV disease remain at work longer, employers must be
able to manage HIV-related workplace concerns on a day-to-day
basis. The workplace, where most adults, including young adults,
spend time every day, is a very logical point of access for preven-
tion education to a significant proportion of the U.S. population.”

To understand the need for AIDS awareness training, we need
not look any further than to the White House, and this has been
mentioned, where several gay legislators were given the rubber
gloves treatment. The Secret Service men in earnest and ignorance
thought they were protecting themselves.

AIDS is a terrible disease. However, the public’s ignorance about
AIDS strips away the remaining dignity from those who are fight-
ing their greatest battle. Don’t we owe these individuals the kind-
ness, the respect and the understanding that can be brought about
through training? However, my support for AIDS prevention train-
ing should not be confused for support with specific training meth-
odologies. I do not condone or like statements involving the sexual
practices of grandmothers.

I myself am a grandmother, and an instructor should have more
decency than that. As a former English professor, I recognize how
easy it is to deviate from the course outline or to make an unfortu-
nate statement. An agency would have very little control over this,
but if agencies are not fully establishing their policies, documenting
their instructor guides, and properly preparing their trainers for
this very sensitive subject, they have done irreparable damage to
this initiative and a disservice to those who elected or were man-
dated to attend.

I am, however, pleased that anonymous information suggests
that the AIDS awareness training for the most part went and is
going well. But I would also call upon this subcommittee to assure
that the next time governmentwide training is done, that the ap-
propriate strategy is in place for a cohesive and cost effective train-
ing approach.


67

Also, alternately, short optional training videos could have been
used, but I don’t feel that a 2¥2-hour mandatory training session
was a necessity.

Again, thank you for your time, and I’d be happy to answer any
questions you may have.

(The prepared statement of Ms. Mickley follows:]


190

QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESSMAN JAMES MORAN

QUESTION #2:

ANSWER:

What if any disciplinary action was taken against those of your
employees who declined to participate in AIDS/HIV training?

The Department did not take disciplinary action against
employees who did not attend the training, During the training
at the Department very few employees formally asked to be
excluded from the classes. Through their training coordinators
and their managers, employees knew they had the right to refuse
the class and arrange for altemative education which included «
self study manual and watching the Red Cross Video, “AIDS in
the Workplace." Any employee who had concems about their
‘attendance st the training could call the Department HIV/AIDS

training contact or the Office of Employee Relations.


196

5
Tess

WABMINGTON, D.C. 20418

csi on re omer oct - 2 06

Honorable John L. Mica
Chairman

Subcommittee on Civil Service
Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight

U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The additional information you requested regarding the
privatization of OPM's Workforce Training Service is enclosed.

If you have further questions or need additional information,
please contact Mr. Ira N. Forman of our Office of Congressional
Relations.

You have set a very full agenda for the Subcommittee this fall,
and I look forward to testifying again.

Sincerely,


104

Over 109,000 employees were trained between September 1993 and
March 1995. The direct cost of the training materials and delivery
was just over $3.00 per employee trained. If you include the
salaries of the attendees, the cost rises to approximately §34 per
Person trained. Training was provided under the authority of the

Government Employees Training Act and P.L. 79-658,

amended,
which establis!

the Federal occupational health program.

HHS employees -- 130,000 at the time of the training -- are spread
all across the country, some in extremely isolated locations. The

time frame of a year to meet the Presidential mandate was

relatively short given the sige and geographic spread of our

employee population. Consequently we had five major criteria for

selecting a vendor for our training program: availability of an
existing program that focused on work place issues and Federal work
Place policy; experience and reputation for quality in the field
of HIV/AIDS training; ability to deliver training to our employees

throughout the country; ability to meet our time frame; and cost.

Hi-Tech International, Center for HIV and Substance Abuse Training,
was already under contract with the Public Health Service to design
and deliver HIV/AIDS training to state and local substance abuse
treatment providers. Their HIV/AIDS training was short,
appropriate for the work place, and already in the public domain.
‘They vere willing and able to work with us to design an additional

module to cover the work place policy. All training material would


167

It also includes a discussion of the epidemic itself globally, na-
tionally and locally. The training concludes with an explanation of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities
Act——

Mr. Mica. Go right ahead.

Mr. GOODMAN [continuing]. Specifically as it pertains to the han-
dling of employee—I am sorry—specifically as they pertain to work-
ing with disabled employees; and the Privacy Act of 1974, specifi-

ly as it pertains to the handling of employee personnel and med-
ical records.

These trainings are conducted in a format which is respectful,
professional, nonthreatening and family friendly. I would like to re-
peat that because of the buzzing.

Mr. Mica. Go right ahead. Don’t let us stop you.

Mr. GoopMAN. They are conducted in a format which is respect-
ful, professional, nont! atening and family friendly.

In his 10-point action plan of August 5, 1988, President Ronald
Reagan called for, “the adoption of education policies based on the
OPM and Centers for Disease Control guidelines.” The curriculum
we use is based on this conventional public health model. It empha-
sizes prevention, informed decisionmaking and disability aware-
ness. This model is endorsed by the American Public Health Asso-
ciation, the American Medical Association, the American Nursing
Association, the American College of Pediatrics, the American Red
Cross, the U.S. Public Health Service, the National Institutes of
Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and former Surgeons Gen-
eral C. Everett Koop and Antonia Novella. In short, Mr. Chairman,
this model is endorsed by the virtual unanimous consensus of the
public health community.

It has been suggested that these trainings involve extended dis-
cussions on various bizarre sexual practices and is an assault on
religion and traditional family values. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Congressman Dornan himself has argued in the

st that, ideally, parents should educate their children about sex
in the home. We agree. By providing to workers who are also par-
ents and spouses—this crucial clinical information about sexually
transmitted disease and other bloodborne infections, we are at-
tempting to create happier, healthier families and, correspondingly,
a healthier and more productive work force by reducing fear, alle-
viating stress, preempting costly discrimination suits and, most of
all, by giving our employees the skills that they need to protect
themselves and the ones they love from this awful disease.

The bottom line is, how has this training been received by the
Federal work force? In a single word, Mr. Chairman, enthusiasti-
cally. Contrary to what you have heard today, the response to our
HIV/AIDS trainings has been overwhelmingly—overwhelmingl
positive. Our data, gathered from thousands and thousands of eval,
uations, which we can make available to the committee upon re-
quest, indicates that the vast majority of employees felt that the
training was useful and appropriately presented.

Some of the data: When asked if they would like to see anything
added to the presentation, the most common responses were, more
time for questions, more information on department policy, and
more information in general.


126

1) Informing employees regarding their obligations to comply with the civil rights
Jaws and other applicable statutes, in their work activities affecting other

employees or program beneficiaries with HIV/AIDS,

2) Educating Federal employees in HIV/AIDS prevention to help protect them from
contracting the disease, either inside or outside the workplace, thereby prolonging
their lives and on-the-job productivity, and promoting a safe work environment
free from disruption and fear;

3) Educating Federal employees on workplace policies and procedures related to their
responsibilities when interacting with, and providing services to, co-workers and
‘customers living with HIV/AIDS and other chronic illnesses, as well as overall
organizational performance; and

4) Informing USDA employees of cisks to thei: safety and health that might arise in
the workplace so that they wil have the Facts to enable them to respond

to such risks if they arise.

Fifth, the authority for conducting this HIV/AIDS training was not statutory but rather based on

the Presidential directive cited earlier. In our opirion this training program fulfilled the objectives

of assisting USDA in achieving its mission and performance gouis by improving employee and
cath fe


45

Mr. Dornan. I think there was a cover letter with that, that ex-
plained the positive nature. So you probably had good instructors
there. But we didn’t know what to do with 8,000 forms. And I think
we directed it to this committee, because they were civilian Federal
workers and I can only handle people, men and women in uniform.

Mr. Moran. OK. But—

Mr. Dornan. I was briefed on it, Mr. Moran.

Mr. Moran. But I would like to get a sense of the hundreds of
thousands of people who have received HIV/AIDS training in the
Federal Government, how many have found it objectionable? Do
you have any estimate of that?

Mr. Dornan. I don’t, and I think that is why it is——

Mr. Moran. I mean we have a handful of witnesses today, but
if that is the total scope of those who find it objectionable, that is

a pretty—

Vir, Donnan. Well, I think what is enjoyable to consider is if the
election on November 8th had gone the other way, we probably
wouldn’t be having these hearings at all. And innocent, decent peo-
ple would be fired from their job. And that would be an outrage.

Mr. Moran. Well, I don’t know about that. I mean that’s pure
speculation on your part.

Mr. Dornan. It is.

Mr. Moran. Can you tell us what individual or organization pro-
vided the training to the Defense Department that you referred to,
they had a slide show covering sex toys and flavored condoms, so
on, what organization was that that provided that slide show?

Mr. DoRNAN. The Department of Defense, I am happy to say, has
not been subjected to the same types of briefings as have the civil-
ian Federal workers. That is what I said was so frustrating and
also why I am testifying here today, is I would have had hearings
under the Military Personnel Subcommittee as chairman, but it ap-
pears that there is better discipline and control among the uniform
supervisors in Department of Defense. It is the civilian workers in
the Defense Department that think I am a chairman over them
and I am not.

Mr. Moran. Well, your testimony said a Defense Department
worker said her class included a slide show of sex toys and flavored
condoms. I am trying to find out who did that.

Mr. Dornan. She is a civilian worker. I have her name. I will
be glad to show xu that letter in private, Mr. Moran.

. MoRAN. But who provided the training? That’s what we're
trying to get at.

Mr. DorNAN. She didn’t go into that much depth. That is why
this committee is holding these terrific hearings.

Mr. Moran. Well, wait a minute. Certainly if we are going to
come out publicly, I read about this stuff in the paper, it is on tele-
vision, there is a big formal hearing here, clearly you looked into
it to make sure that that was accurate.

Mr. Dornan. Oh, I did. I had a Reserve Marine major call me
from a building not 800 yards from here, the Department of Trans-
portation, that said he was getting on his e-mail screen all of these
invites to Lesbian Pride briefings.

Mr. Moran. Wait a minute, I’m trying to get at——

Mr. DoRNAN. That was the first warning on that radar.


87

Ms. MICKLEY. No, but there was also a $10 charge per individual,
at least what was listed here and what came out of the Office of
AIDS Research.

[The information referred to follows:]


agenda or to celebrate or legitimize homosexuality. They are
wrong. AIDS training is only used to protect federal employees
and their co-workers. It acknowledges that federal employees do
engage in sexual practices and reinforces that safest way to
engage in those practices. Some fear that AIDs training is
forcing people to do something contrary to their religious
beliefs. The AIDS training only teaches people to treat those
afflicted with a deadly disease with dignity and respect. I am
not aware of any religion that does not do the same.

I am pleased that we are having this hearing today and I
look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.


THE ADMINISTRATION’S AIDS TRAINING
PROGRAM

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1995

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Olttce Building, Hon. John L. Mica (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Mica, Gilman, Burton, Morella, Bass,
Moran, and Mascara.

Staff present: George Nesterczuk, staff director; Garry Ewing,
counsel; Susan Mosychuk, professional staff member; Caroline Fiel,
clerk; Cedric Hendricks, minority professional staff; and Jean Gosa,
minority staff assistant.

Mr. Mica. Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of
the House Subcommittee on Civil Service, and welcome our wit-
nesses and also spectators today. And I hope they can—Caroline,
can you try to get those folks in so we could get started quietly?

Again, I would like to welcome you to the House Civil Service
Subcommittee hearing this morning. I have some opening com-
ments and then I'll yield to my colleagues for opening comments.
And we have our first witness with us also.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Civil Service Subcommittee meets
today to discharge one of its most important functions: oversight of
the rules and practices affecting the civil servants in the executive
branch of government. In particular, we will examine employee
training focusing especially on the administration’s AIDS training

‘am.

Employee training is an important issue. However, it is one that
often generates little public interest. According to the Office of Per-
sonnel Management, Federal agencies spend more than $1 billion
to train executive branch employees. When used wisely, money
spent on training can be money well spent. A well-trained work
force can be more productive, more efficient, and better equipped
to lower the cost of government services.

As the Federal Government is reinvented, reengineered and re-
structured, training Federal employees becomes more important,
not less important. That is why this subcommittee has a respon-
sibility to look carefully at the training provided to Federal employ-

. We owe it to the taxpayers to make certain that their hard-
earned tax dollars are used only for training that will truly make
employees more efficient and government less costly. We also have

qa)


150

Mr. Mica. But if I were a trainer, this is how you evaluate. Is
this not the material used for evaluation?

Mr. TOWNSEND. On a volunteer basis. On a volunteer basis. It is
not mandatory.

Mr. Mica. Again, the trainers that you picked, you used these
criteria to evaluate them. Homosexuality for my child, acceptable
to me or unacceptable. It wouldn’t be acceptable to me. I just don’t
consider that an acceptable life-style. I mean, if they chose that,
that is another thing. For me, it is not acceptable. But then I would
be raed down in this, right?

ir. TOWNSEND. According to the scale, yes.

Mr. Mica. Sterilization for a woman who is HIV-infected, who
has an HIV-positive child. These questions on selecting the trainers
start to make me wonder about what we are doing.

And your manual—again, this is taxpayer money. Mr.
Heuerman, and you have an oversight responsibility. Should we be
using taxpayer money to advocate sexual behavior as the title here,
or to recommend nonmicrowaveable plastic wrap for oral sex with
a woman? Are these acceptable?

The problem is that we have a very wide range of training in
this. The guidelines are not very clear and some of the trainers do
go overboard—or some of the training for the trainers goes over-
board. That is what I think people find objectionable. Up until
April, people were working under the threat of losing their jobs and
some still may be working under that hazard. It is very difficult.

In fact, I was surprised that Mr. Herron would even come for-
ward, given the problems he has had and the harassment he has
endured.

Mrs. MoRELLA. Would the Chairman yield?

Mr. Mica. Yes, I will.

Mrs. MORELLA. On that issue, what happens if somebody doesn’t
score well on that? Do you throw them out?

Mr. Mica. No. Then you are downgraded.

Mrs. MORELLA. Not an instructor; is that it?

Mr. TOWNSEND. You can become an assistant to the instructor.

[The information referred to follows:]


42

Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mrs. Morella.

The Chair at this time will recognize the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Gilman, for an opening statement.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I want to welcome our panelists who will be with us today,
particularly Congressman Dornan who is waiting to testify.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to participate in this
hearing in order to discuss AIDS education training in the Federal
workplace. And I welcome our witnesses from various departments
of the Federal Government, and I hope that their testimony will
help us more fully evaluate what aspects of this training have been
successful and what portions need to be changed.

As many of us know, current statistics show that the HIV virus
has infected millions of people in our Nation. Given these state-
ments, the odds are that every workplace in America will eventu-
ally confront a portion of the AIDS epidemic. Accordingly, I believe
that AIDS education in the workplace is important to reduce fear
in the workplace by teaching employees just how the disease is
spread and how to minimize the risk factors that enable this dis-
ease to spread. I believe that knowledge and education is an impor-
tant tool in the battle against this deadly disease.

It is fair to say that this kind of education will cause some indi-
viduals to discuss issues that may make them somewhat uncom-
fortable. I hope that in today’s hearing we will engage in a mean-
ingful dialog that will help us develop ideas for a curriculum that
will disseminate the information that is required to manage a situ-
ation where a fellow employee is tragically struck with this disease,
while maintaining a reasonable comfort level for those who will re-
ceive this training.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Gilman. It is my under-
standing that the gentleman from Indiana does not have an open-
ing statement at this time?

1 Mr. Burton. No, Mr. Chairman, I am just here to listen and
learn.

Mr. Bass. Very well. Thank you very much.

It is my understanding, Congressman Dornan, that you have de-
livered your testimony, and we are now at the point where we will
be taking questions from members of the committee. And having
had the opportunity to read your testimony during the brief recess
that we took, I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask

you.

First, from your review of the training materials that you make
mention of, what portion of them in your opinion is appropriate or
necessary for Federal employees to have in the process of the train-
ing parameters that you see as important?

‘r. DORNAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know how the other
Members in the room discuss things at high schools when they are
asked to come and visit with students. But I discuss HIV and AIDS
quite comfortably and openly with high school children. Like Mrs.
Morella, I have a 10th grandchild on the way. Our five children are
all grown, in their late 30’s. I have no problems with discussing
AIDS. I discussed this virus with both President Reagan and then
President Bush.


161

We found something very astounding when that survey was com-
pleted. Over 50 percent of the workers said they wanted education
and over 70 percent said they thought that the employer should
provide it because they were a credible source.

Now, the question is, is the government a credible source? Only
you can answer that, but I think it is worth looking at and perhaps
answering.

Finally, in closing remarks, I would say that the effort that you
have undertaken to understand this issue is an important one. The
thing that you, all seem to agree on is that training is needed and
that it is necessary. So the question is, how can you bridge the
things that you disagree on and find the common ground that
makes you a leader as the major employer in this country? That
is your challenge as far as I see it.

I believe training is necessary. It is important that you provide
it and perhaps be a model to the world about how it is done be-
cause this is not just a national issue. It is a world issue.

So I thank you, and I will close with that; and I would say that
as a mother, as a grandmother, as a taxpayer, I would like to see
us lead on this issue. I would like to see our government step up
to the bar and say, we stand for something, we care about human-
ity, compassion, lives and economics, and that it is all connected.

you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Belton and Mr. Lauber follows:)


73

Mr. Mica. I thank you for your testimony.

And now, we'll turn to Mr. Thomas Herron, the last Federal em-
ployee today. . .

Mr. Herron, J appreciate your complete documentation of your in-
volvement in this matter, and also your testimony which I did re-
view in advance and, again, the detail and manner in which you
detailed the problems you experienced with your agency.

We look forward to your testimony.

Mr. HERRON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, my name
is Tom Herron and I am a supervisory logistics manager at the
Naval Air Technical Services Facilities, Philadelphia. However, I
am here today as a private citizen and do not represent the Depart-
ment of Defense in any official capacity. My opinions are my own.

I have been employed by the Federal Government for 21 years.
When I took the oath to uphold the Constitution in 1974, I thought
that the free exercise of religion clause of the first amendment ap-
plied to me as well as to every other Federal worker. I am here
today to speak to you because on January 24th of this year, as a
result of the mandatory AIDS training for Federal employees, I
found myself in the position that no civil servant should face. That
is either to violate my religious convictions or face losing my job.

About a year ago I received a copy of “AIDS at Work” issued by
the Office of National AIDS Policy. After a careful review, I found
that the mandatory training that was to be given to all Federal
workers had as its stated goals the changing of employees’ atti-
tudes and behavior relating to people who might be suffering from
HIV/AIDS rather than just giving factual knowledge about the dis-
ease. There were 17 attitude and behavioral objectives and only 15
knowledge objectives. In brief, this mandatory training was to in-
still politically correct ideas about the whole HIV/AIDS questions
in our minds.

The training was to have a prevention module which was to in-
clude both abstinence and safer sex practices. There was no indica-
tion in “AIDS at Work” that many religious people hold that the
only acceptable safe sex practice is a faithful monogamous union of
aman and woman in marriage, or that this position would be hon-
ored during the instruction. This training also required every em-
ployee to attend the same detailed safe sex brief, without regard
to interest, risk, or moral beliefs. Finally, a major emphasis of the
training was the passing of AIDS information to children. As every
Federal employee I have ever met was at least 18 years of age and
legally an adult, why was this feature of the training necessary?

After careful review of “AIDS at Work,” I found that the founda-
tion of the Prevention Module was against my religious convictions
and I sought to be exempted from at least that part of the manda-
tory training under the first amendment’s protection. I wrote to
several Members of Congress and to President Clinton during 1994.
I did receive a reply from the White House stating that my request
would be passed to Office of Personnel Management for review.
That was on February 2d. I am still waiting for an answer.

In January, my agency announced that the mandatory AIDS
training would begin shortly. I passed the reasons I could not in
conscience attend the training up the chain of command. On Janu-


supportive” of those with AIDS. A woman stated that “Churches must educate people in safe sex * When I hear
‘comments ofthis type repeated in a video officially sanctioned by the Department of Health and Human Services in
8 government facility on government time I must ak. whatever happened to the so-called “wall of separation
‘between Church and state”?

‘However the most objectionable part of “The Many Faces of AIDS” was a none-too-sublle put down of
Premarital chastity. They did this in the name of giving adults information to spread the safe sex message 10
children. An AIDS counselor was introduced and he stated, “All kids are at risk, all need the same explicit
information.” Then a nurse was shown who stated that she ada ten year old soa. She told the audience, “Parents
should get embarrassed. I'm going to give my son a package of condoms and say this isn’t permission just practice
‘oow. Then pat them in your bureau drawet and keep them for your wedding night.” In AIDS at Work (p. 7) one of
the Behavioral Objectives listed for training participants is to“4. Share HIV prevention information with others.”
iss the foderal government, through official sanction of this video, determined that parents will be considered
unit if they do not “Share HIV prevention information” with their children by giving them packages of condoms?

‘After the videos were shown the training class concluded with one of the instructors, Mr. Coleman,
‘explaining 10 us what dental dams and finger cots were and for what purposes they were used. 1 will state that 1
hhad never heard of either of them or did I feel that Thad any great need to know.

Several days aflet the date I attended the HIV/AIDS training class, on Friday February 3, 1995, I recetved
call at ny desk from Mr. Burke, the EEO counselor. (See Attachment (21) my memo for the record om this call)
“How did you like the training?”, he asked. I replied that my opinion of the mandatory HIV/AIDS training had not
‘changod; that | still Firmly felt it to be a violation of my constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion.
Furtber I told Mr. Burke that I had been considering the definition of “hostile work environment” under the Navy's
efinition of sexual harassment. AS I understood this a “hostile work environment’ could be created by an
individual forcing a discussion of a sexual nature opon an unwilling co-worker. Therefore I could consider this
rwandatory training class creating a hostile work enviroament for me and that {was thus the victim of sexual
harassment, Mr. Burke told me that I was taking the definition ot of context. We soon terminated our phone
conversation.


THE ADMINISTRATION'S AIDS TRAINING
PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CIVIL SERVICE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

JUNE 22, 1995

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

ci

20-584

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-585 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
‘Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

SZ ISBN 0-16-055096-3
PO



108

office, for example, a

1f-study computer-based training was
loaded on the LAM where each individual could complete it.

3. Project officer and Contracting officer Training:
Training leading to certification is required for all
contracting and project officers before they can serve in
those capacities. A standard curriculua with courses tailored
to the size and type of contract is delivered throughout the
Department in classroom settings.

This concludes my testimony. 1 would be happy to answer any
questions.


182

Honorable John L. Mica 2

11. Copies of all correspondence, notes, memoranda, recordings, or other documents
(nctuding non-identical copies of all such documents and documents stored on
computers, computer disks or tapes, or electronic mail) that relate or refer to criteria
for the selection of instructors for AIDS training,

Recognizing the diversity of our workforce, the USDA agencies selected their
AIDS instructors based on their assessment of the individual's capabilities. The AIDS
instructors were subsequently certified based on peer feedback, self-assessment, trainer
feedback, and performance on a pre-post test assessment. (See Enclosure 1A, Tab 2,
page TIT-4,)

12, Describe all actions you have taken to protect your employees from the kinds of
abuse detailed in the Washington Times article and explain when you took such actions,

(1) In the design and development of USDA’s HIV/AIDS employee education
program, numerous hours were spent with our contractor to ensure that the utmost
sensitivity of this national and global health epidemic be demonstrated in the production
of this employee education program for USDA employees.

(2) To represent the diverse employee population of USDA, a participatory
advisory forum consisting of the 29 Agency AIDS Coordinators was established. This
forum provided management with valuable information that contributed to the
development of USDA's successful employee education program. Monthly meetings
were held to advise and address any issues agencies might encounter with regard to
AIDS training.

(3) Our rigorous certification process as explained in response to item 11 above
demonstrates the extra effort we gave to ensuring the quality of our training cadre.

‘The information we have provided in this and our earlier response clearly
demonstrates that the information contained in the Washington Times article does not
represent the quality and content of USDA's HIV/AIDS program.

For additional information, please have a member of your staff contact Betty J.
‘Thomas at (202) 720-8247.

Sinferely

DAMGLICKMAN
Secretary

Enclosures.


181

SYALEMENT OF
AGLAN HEUERMAN
ASSOSIATE DIKECKOR, HUMAN RESOURCES SYSTEMS SERVICE
U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORN AND OVERSIGHT

on
OVERSIGHT OF CIVIL SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS
TUNE 22, 2995

MR. ChAIRMAN AND MENBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE

THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME EERE TODAY TO DISCUSS OPM‘S ROLE IN
DESIGNING, IMPLEMENTING, AND OVERSEEING THE TRAINING OF FSDERAL
EMPLOYEES.

THE HEADS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES AND OPM 3CTH HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES
POR TRAINING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES THAT ARE DEFINED IN LAW. AGENCY
HEADS ARH REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH, OPERATE, MAINTAIN, AND EVALUATE
THEIR OWN TRAINING PROGRAMS. PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMTN-
ING THE TYPES AND METHODS OF TRAINING TO BE USED, AS WRIT, AS

EVALUATING THE RESULTS OF THE TRAINING, RESTS WITH AGFNCY HEADS.

UNDER THIS AUTHORITY, AGENC>ES CONDUCT A GREAT NEA‘, OF EMPLOYEE
TRAINING ZACH YEAR. FOR EXAMPLE, IN FISCAT. YEAR 1992, THE MOST
RECENT YEAR FOR WHICH WE HAVE DATA, FEDERAL AGFNCIES SENT EMPLOYEES
TO TRAINING IN ABOUT 2.4 MILLION INSTANCRS. TRAINING REMAINS VERY
IMPORTANT IN A PERIOD OF DOKNSIZING, SINCE EMPLOYRES WIIO STAY IN


159

Mr. Mica. And the record will reflect that our friends with the
rubber gloves have left, so we will just have the swearing-in cere-
mony and that will be all.

I would like to welcome you. I thank you so much for your pa-
tience and for your willingness to testify today, and I am going to
call on Erline Belton first, president and CEO of the Lyceum
Group. If you would like to summarize your testimony, we could
submit the entire statement for the record and if you would pro-
ceed. Thank you.

STATEMENTS OF ERLINE BELTON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE
LYCEUM GROUP; AND KENNETH D. GOODMAN, WHITMAN-
WALKER TRAINING INSTITUTE

Ms. BELTON. I would like to submit the written testimony, and
I think——

Mr. Mica. Without objection.

Ms. BELTON. Without objection, and I think it would be more ap-
propriate for me to talk about some of the issues I have heard here
today from a private-sector perspective, because I think it would be
most helpful to you.

Just in the way of background, I was at a major corporation
where we had 131,000 employees around the world in 31 countries,
and we established in 1986 what we called an AIDS Education pro-
gram office, and when I went to the CEO to do this, his first ques-
tion to me was, what does it have to do with work?

What I am concerned about as a business woman is three things:
economics, productivity and humanity, and that is what we were
focused on in our corporation. It was a Fortune 500 corporation,
and that is really what this ought to be focused on, because it is
an economic issue. It is a productivity issue, and it is about being
humane.

I think Congresswoman Morella put it very well. People are
dying, and we need to be concerned about that. We need to get mis-
information corrected, and that is a part of why we do this work

What
it I would like to address specifically is what we did, because
I think it would be helpful.

One of the things that is very clear to me as I have listened to
the testimony this morning is that some mistakes have been made,
and I don’t think you need to be beating yourself up for being less
than perfect. This epidemic, we have no experience in how to do it,
and so we have to make our mistakes; but the important thing is
that we correct them, and we begin to do it in a way that Ss
sense.

I want to first address the whole issue of training. I have been
in charge of training and organization development. I have been in
corporate America for 18 years. I have never seen a training pro-
gram where everyone came away happy, ever in my life, and it is
probably never going to happen.

So it is important that you start from that premise, that what-
ever you do, someone will find fault. There will be some people who
will be enormously satisfied, and there will be others who will find
everything wrong with what you have done, even though you have




191

QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESSMAN JAMES MORAN

“QUESTION #3:

How has your AIDS/HIV training program been evaluated?
‘What if any changes have been made in the program as a result
cof what has been revealed in participant's evaluations?

‘The HIV/AIDS training program was evalusted in several ways.
In the beginning several pilot courses were conducted by the
‘National Headquarters’of the American Red Cross. Much of the
information which shaped the Department's HIV training was
received through candid discussion with members of the pilot
groups which included almost every DOE organization.

In addition, in the early months of the Federal Workplace
HIV/AIDS Education Inititive, the Department and the National
Headquarters of the American Red Cross evaluated the impact of
the HIV/AIDS training using a “pilot” survey instrument. These
carly evaluations were used based on recommendations of the
Office of National AIDS Policy, the National Headquarters of
the American Red Cross, and the Centers for Disease Control
Business Responds to AIDS evaluation staff. Only a small
population of the DOE employees, and for the most part, only
attendees of pilot sessions completed these surveys at
‘Washington DC and Golden, Colorado.


109

Mr. Mica. We thank you for your testimony and will now turn
to Corlis S. Moody from the Department of Energy.

Ms. Moony. Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee,
thank you for asking the Department to testify about a very impo! =
tant issue, HIV/AIDS training. HIV/AIDS training is authorized by
the Government Employee Training Act, which was amended in
1994, and states, “In order to assist in achieving an agency’s mis-
sion and performance goals, to improve employee and organiza-
tional performance, the head of ea agency shall establish, oper-
ate, maintain, and evaluate programs for the training of employ-
ees.”

In addition, the efforts of the Reagan and Bush administrations
culminated in President Clinton’s memorandum of September 30,
19938, “AIDS at Work,” which was a commitment to do everything
possible to “prevent discrimination against those infected by HIV.”
In his memorandum, President Clinton called on each cabinet
member to implement “ongoing HIV/AIDS education and preven-
tion programs” by World AIDS Day 1994. The Department’s train-
ing satisfies the requirements of the Government Employee Train-
ing Act and the President’s memorandum.

HIV/AIDS creates a range of day-to-day management challenges
related to HIV disease—job accommodation and disability require-
ments, concerns about confidentiality and privacy, discrimination
issues, employee fears, harassment of infected workers, health in-
surance and health care costs, customer concerns, work disrup-
tions, lawsuits and declines in worker productivity and morale.

A review of current events as well as research concerning work-
place issues indicates that of the employees’ concerns, fear is the
greatest. Fearful employees, including managers and supervisors,
may act toward others in a manner that leads to unfair treatment,
low morale, and productivity problems.

In the past, fear has caused employees to avoid HIV/AIDS class-
es because of the undue stigma associated with the disease. Some
employees feared being perceived as either having HIV/AIDS or
knowing someone who does. This type of reasoning was one of the
prima factors which led to the requirements listed in the Federal

orkplace HIV/AIDS Education Initiative.

The Department’s HIV/AIDS training was designed to educate
employees and eradicate unnecessary fears so that employees can
work together to achieve the Department’s mission. The training
was also designed to answer present and future work force needs.
Let me explain with both national and local statistics.

In 1993, the National Commission on AIDS reported in its publi-
cation HIV/AIDS, a Challenge for the Workplace, June 1993. “The
majority of the estimated one million HIV-infected individuals are
between ages 25 and 44, so about 1 in every 100 adults in this age
group is affected. They are most likely to be employed and in their
prime working years. Sixty percent of the Nation’s work force falls
within this age range. People in this age range also are among the
most, sexually active and therefore at increased risk of contracting

As people with HIV/AIDS remain at work longer, employees
must be able to manage HIV-related workplace concerns on a day-
to-day basis. This means, among other things, staying abreast of


30

36. Robert L. Maginnis, "New CDC Report ages False Confidence in C Insight by the Family
Research Council, IS93KICI, p 7

37. “HIV/AIDS Surveillance Repon.” U.S, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Convol
and Prevention, Vol. 5, No.4, December 1993, p. 8

38. “Infectious Disease Training.” Forest Service memo to Hope Pineda, Personnel Officer, Tahoe NF, June 7, 1994
39 Tod

40 Ibid

41. Robert L. Maginnis, “Taxpayer Funded ’ Gay-Science! or Legitimate Cancer Research?,” Family Research Council
Insight IS94B2HS, p. 1

42. Project number MH46792-03. The investigator is Roger A. Rofiman wath the University of Washington, Seanle,
‘Washington

43. Project umber MH43520-06, Title HIV Center -- Clinical and Behavioral Studies. The investigator ts Mary
Jane Rotheram-Boris of New York, NY.

44 Project number AAQ9320-02. The investigator 1s George R. Seage of Boston, MA

45. NIH project number HD28305-04, Title. Influencing Risk Behaviors of Bisexual Males in Mexico, Kathryn
Tolbert isthe investigator.

46. Dean H, Hamer, Stella Hu, Victoria L. Magnuson, Nan Hu, Angela M. L Pattatucci, “A Linkage Between DNA
Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science, Vol. 261, July 16, 1993, pp. 321-327,

47 Robert L Maginnis, op cit

48 NCI Fact Book, National Cancer Institute, 1992, “Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Funding
Activity Fiscel Year 1992," Division of Cancer Biology, Diagnosis and Centers $13,620,000. This 1s cited from
page 68 The 1991 version of NC's Fact Book (page 63) awards Dr. Hamer’s division $13,457,000 These funds
are not broken down to the individual sections or laboratories This researcher vinted the office of Dr Alan Rabson,
‘Chief for the Division of Cancer Biology, Diagnosis and Centers on December 8, 1993 (room 3A11, building 31,
NIH) and asked for copies of the Division's budgets for FY1991-94. No one was available to discuss the budgets
nor did anyone return telephone calls Linda Anderson, Office of Cancer Communications, Building 31, Bethesda,
‘Maryland stated that Dr. Hemer's study cost $420,000. She indicated that this figure sncludes salanes. This information
Comes from a telephone conversation between Ms. Anderson and FRC researcher Craig Gotlieb on December 1. 1993
‘Ms, Anderson followed their conversation with a fax transmission on December 2 which states, “The budget figure I gave
you for Dr Hamers study is total including staff salaries * Dr. Magnuson indicated thatthe research salanes are not part

‘of Hamers research budget
49. Conversation between Linda Anderson, NC's press office, and Craig Gottlieb on December 1, 1993

50, NCI Press Release entitled "New Smdy Finds Genetic Link to Homosexuality,” July 15, 1993. This information
ts tsken from Dr. Hamner’ answer to question 9: “Why was the research supported by the National Cancer institute?”

51. "National Cancer Insutute Scandal: Gay Rights Instead of Cancer Research,” Family Research Report, September-
October, 1993, p 6


89

HOW TO REGISTER:. —

Contact your Administrative Officer or your ICD HIV/AIDS Training Coordinator (consult list below)
for specific registration procedures. Choose a course date from the dates listed in this flyer and apply for
‘an appropriate session (manager/ supervisor or non-supervisor) and make sure that correct information

island (your name, SSN, address, phone, and THE COURSESECTION, DATE,
ani .

YourICD AIDS Training Coordinator wil fexreystration forma for your CD o the Training Center
‘where they will be placed in sections of the courses on a “first-come,

‘TheNIH Training Center will confirm all accepted nominations via letters to individual participants (we

If the course date you requested has been filled by earlier
nominations, we will send you a confirmation letter for a later session. If you have not heard from the
Training Center by one week prior to the course date you requested, call the HIV/AIDS Training
Information Line - 496-3115.

Note: the nomination deadline is three weeks prior to the course date. Employees who have been
confirmed for a specific session must attend that session or call their ICD HIV/AIDS Training
Coordinator to arrange for a substitute participant. Participants will eign in at each eession. If 2
manager, supervisor, or employee does not attend a session for which they have been naminated and
confirmed by the NIH Training Center, the ICD will be charged.

ICD HIV/AIDS In The Workplace Training Coordinators:.

Name 1D Miéem Tele ‘Nene iD Mdm ele,

Stacey Bauman = CC NOYINGSZGIGIB. Lena Eads NIDA/ARC Balt 410550-1509
‘Karen Pascal oc 10/IN2S2 61618 ‘Maryann Pafitis NIDA ‘Pkin 10-21 39053
‘Stacy Vandor DCRT = A/KBI 6-651 ‘Donna Brooks NIDCD  (31/3Cl1 (20508
Carol Striker DRG WW/48 47279 Gayle Mandell NIDCD 31/3C1 20508
Sharon Nicbenting FIC 31/B2C ‘Sy Carter NIDDK 31/9430 641
Deirdre McQueen-Davis NCHGR 31/3831 24833 Faye Harbeant NIDR 31/720 Geom
Pam Temple Na ‘EPS/S19. 6003 Jennifer Anderson NIEHS 101 (919-541-2361
‘Sonia Gaskin NCRR 12A/4055 61989 ‘Kellee Miller NIGMS WW/83 = (7-767
‘Barbara DiSimone = NEI. ‘31/618 64 ‘Margot Darby NIMH = Pkin7C1S) 3-904
‘Ruth Pritz: NHLBI 31/SA10 GSMS ‘Carolyn Nichols NIMH = 10/4C101 65337
‘Susan Haas NiA-Beth 31/2002 65M7 ‘Marjorie Kuhn NINDS = -31/8A23 cecal
‘Terri Neibuhr NIA-Balt 410-558-611 Cherry Eset NINR ‘31/5806 2261
Basbara Lindstedt = NIAAA Wilco 406 443-0281 ‘Marilyn Chaikin NLM —38/2N0S 6443
Holly Taylor NIAID 31/7A08 69088. Lavinia Dowdy. oD 2392
Patrica Redos NIAMS (31/4C21 60036 ‘Angie Dixon. oD 2392
‘Sherrie Davis NICHD 31/2A25 63365, Dolores Jeter OD/ORS 31/2813 218

(page 2)


199

Conflicting Responsibilitie:

OPM has responsibility for overseeing all civil service laws,
rules and regulations including those relating to training
provided to Federal employees. Training is just one area where
OPM has maintained an operational program and an oversight
responsibility for that program. We do not believe there is an
inherent conflict between direct delivery of training and our
Governmentwide responsibility to oversee training. Furthermore,
OPM's direct training delivery role is becoming much less
extensive due to privatization.

Also, OPM has created an organizational entity, the Office of
Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness (OMSOE), which is
charged with ensuring that government human resources management
programs, including training, are carried out in accordance with
applicable laws and the merit system principles. This is an
independent organization that reports to the Director of OPM.

While we remain ready to expand oversight of agency training
programs should it become necessary, there have not historically
been significant problems in this area. The primary
responsibility for determining the types and methods of training
to be provided and for evaluating the results of training rests
with the head of each agency. We take our oversight role very
seriously, but attempting to monitor closely every aspect of
every training program offered at every agency is not feasible,
nor is it a wise use of the limited resources available. Rather,
we set broad standards and guidelines for agencies, including
OPM, to follow. The independent nature of OMSOE should allow it
to exercise any oversight necessary without internal conflict or
compromise. Our commitment is to ensure that any training
delivered by OPM meets all applicable laws and that it focuses on
the goals of improving individual and organizational
effectiveness.

OPM has not encountered problems meeting the standards and
guidelines. If such a problem should arise the independent
nature of the OMSOE should enable us to deal with the situation
without any conflict of interest.

Scope of Privatization

Bach agency will have to make decisions on what training should
be conducted by its' own employees and what training should be
contracted with vendors be they private companies, individuals or
governmental entities. Commercial vendors provide a substantial
portion of government training already either through contracts
with agencies or through individual training requests. It is
likely that agencies will decide to provide some "in house"


uring the videos, that some of them might have been expressing some degree of unhappiness with the mandatory
(raining. Finally | would add that while | expreased open reservation about the Prevention Education module due
‘to my retigious beliefs I never counseled or encouraged any cmployce to be insubordinate by not attending the
HIV/AIDS training.

3) Given the sututory objectives what kind of AIDS training, if any, would you consider appropriate for the
federal workplace?

5 think it would be very hard, if ot impossible, forthe government to successfully develop training
‘course oo a disease that has not just a public health dimension but a moral and ethical one as well. Tuberculosis,
another contagions disease, is making a come back after many years but | do not see the federal government
‘mandating training forall employees. As the spread of HIV/AIDS has 2 moral snd ethical dimension for large
‘ambers of poopl this equates toa religions matter. Therefore, 2s I vhink you can understand from my narrative
‘some individuals wil resist the imposition of moral goals that they foe! contradict their religious beliefs even ifthe
‘government, with all good intentions, is trying to improve public bealth. | think that the oly appropriate training
‘would be for supervisors and that would center oo a refresher course dealing with privacy protection as well as
Gisability vetirements and scoommodating employees with special nends.

{wish to express my deepest thanks to the subcommittee for allowing my to present my testimony.

Pe Dyhhonm

Thomas J. Herroa


12

then rated and depending on their score are assigned to become
“lead trainers, co-trainers, or just assistant trainers.” Trainers are
therefore not scored on their knowledge of the issue at hand, but
rather on their values, their personal values, as they relate to HIV/
AIDS issues. Considering the system by which undesirable leaders
are weeded out, it is obviously—obvious that those who hold tradi-
tional family values need not apply. And why would they, those
who hold those values, knowing that they would have to lecture
workers about the “benefits of non-insertive sexual activities,” such
as masturbation or massage, or encourage addicts to bleach their
needles with Clorox before injecting themselves with dangerous, il-
legal narcotics, how did these people get on the Federal payroll
anyway, feeding a narco-chain of distribution that involves violence
and murder at every level.

Since President Reagan was quoted twice, let’s remember what
Nancy Reagan said, that you cause the death of human beings in
Colombia when you shoot up with drugs in this country. You kill
people in the Golden Crescent or the Golden Triangle when you
stick a filthy or a clean Clorox-treated needle in your arm. People
die in the drug wars in the Shan Province of Burma.

Mr. Chairman, it is not the responsibility of the Federal Govern-
ment to subject Federal workers to seminars that lecture them on
how to live their sex lives or use illegal killing drugs in order to
avoid contracting HIV or AIDS. The last time I checked, abusing
drugs and having sex in the workplace were not specified job re-
sponsibilities for Federal workers or any other workers. Why then
are we instructing Federal employees under our oversight, many of
them against their will, about such nonrelated work issues? If one
of the goals of the training is to educate people about how not to
contract the deadly virus that causes AIDS, then a case could eas-
ily be made for educating workers about the risks associated with
heart disease, cancer, as these are the No. 1 and No. 2 leading
causes of deaths in the United States and among Federal workers.
Yet no such education initiatives are being pursued by the Clinton
administration. Why the bizarre double standard of choice on AIDS
education above all else?

T’ve two concluding paragraphs, I think we can make it. I'll press
on, Mr. Chairman.

Federal training programs are required to meet statutory objec-
tives in assisting agencies achieve their “mission and performance
goals by improving employee and organizational performance.”
Clearly, the HIV training in question does not meet this objective.
Sex education for adults does not in any way improve a Federal
worker’s ability to perform on the job.

Having said all this, Mr. Chairman, I find it outrageous that the
Federal Government is coercing its employees and at our taxpayer
expense to undergo hours of training which in many cases is not
only highly offensive, but promotes homosexuality and also by in-
ference drug abuse, as just another lifestyle choice. Because pro-ho-
mosexual policies have infiltrated the Federal Government at all
levels since the Clintons took office, I have introduced legislation
that would provide Federal programs from promoting, condoning,
accepting or celebrating homosexuality, as you can see in the lobby


54

the information on how HIV is transmitted. However, the instruc-
tor quickly proceeded beyond information and into application.

He asked the class what would qualify as a nonrisky sexual ac-
tivity. Masturbation was the first item listed on the overhead pro-
jector. The instructor continued by making jokes about phone sex

‘ing a nonrisky activity.

The instructor then proceeded to cover “somewhat risky” and
“risky” sex activities. The discussion included topics like anal sex,
exchanging sex toys, and oral-anal contact.

The entire 2 hour class was littered with the instructor’s off-color
jokes ranging from everything from condoms to bizarre lubricants.
Clearly, this class did more to embarrass and perhaps desensitize
workers than to effectively and efficiently educate them about

The White House gave the agencies the option of either contract-
ing organizations to come in and perform the training or recruiting
volunteers from within the office to lead the seminars.

The Department of culture opted for the latter. I received a
copy of the Agriculture Department’s “Train the Trainer” notebook.
According to the facilitator’s guide, volunteers for leadership must
undergo a 4-day training seminar in order to become certified in-
structors. One of the exercises each volunteer must complete dur-
ing the training is a values worksheet.

The survey asks participants how they feel about such issues as
sex without love, love without sex, homosexuality for other people,
and homosexuality for my child. It is not clear how much this—how
much influence this values worksheet has on the volunteer’s overall
score, but regardless, the Department of Agriculture has no busi-
ness probing employees about their beliefs on these subjects.

The Department of Agriculture goes out of its way to keep in-
structors from offending certain groups. It gives them a style guide
which designates 23 terms they should avoid using. For example,
the guide directs instructors never to use the term promiscuous, be-
cause that implies an inappropriate moral overtone. They should
not refer to drug users as addicts, because such terms imply a
judgmental attitude.

In other words, instructors should never use terminology that
might make those living high risk life-styles uncomfortable. the
other hand, not a second thought is given to the sensibilities of
those who hold traditional values.

Moreover, these classes refuse to discourage risky behavior. In-
stead of encouraging drug rehabilitation, the Centers for Disease
Control manual urges drug abusers to use one’s own injection
equipment, or disinfect others with bleach.

The Department of Agriculture’s trainer’s handbook specifically
coaches instructors on how to break down audience resistance. The
document states that this resistance usually comes from religious
beliefs or biases and prejudices. The trainer’s handbook provides a
list of labels for people who dare to challenge the curriculum.
Trainers are further coached on how to avoid engaging those who
do challenge them. They are effectively taught to limit or eliminate
the challenger’s opportunity to speak.

In conclusion, ave a hard time seeing how this p. am en-
hances the effectiveness or efficiency of the Federal workplace. The


171
community.

It has been suggested that these trainings involve extended Giscussions on various
bizarre sexual practices and is an assault on religion and traditional family values. Nothing
could be further from the truth, Congressman Doman has argued in the past that, ideally,
parents should educate their children about sox in the home, We agres, By providing to
workers-who are also parents and spouses--this crucial clinical information sbout sexually
transmitted disease and other bloodbome infections, we are attempting to create happier
healthier families, and correspondingly, a healthier, more productive workforce by reducing.
fear, allevinting stress, pro-empting costly discrimination lawsuits, and most of all, by giving
‘our employees the skills they need to protect themselves and the ones they love from this

‘awful disease. ~~

‘How has this training been received by the workforce? In a single word:
‘enthusiastically. Again, contrary to what you've heard today, the response to our HIV/AIDS
trainings has been overwhelmingly positive. Our data, gathered from thousands of evaluation
forms, indicates that the vast majority of employees trained felt that the training was useful
‘and appropriately preseated. Some data:

When asked if they would tlke to seo anything added to the presentation, the most
‘common responses were "More time for questions", "More info on department
palicy*, and more information in gencral,


96

before their coworkers were even aware that their colleagues had
an illness, they now are more likely to continue to work for a
longer period of time. This increases the chances for misunder-
standing and discrimination, which impact on morale, productivity,
and performance.

Finally, workplace policies, particularly in the area of leave and
benefits and reasonable accommodations for disabling conditions,
have changed considerably. Supervisors have to respond appro-
priately to requests for reasonable accommodation, leave, disability,
retirement, and other benefits.

Given the impact of these changes, our Department, even prior
to the announcement of President Clinton’s AIDS training initia-
tive, moved to address the need for further education related to
AIDS in the workplace. I have provided the committee with an ex-
ample of a brochure which we provided our employees with basic
information about HIV/AIDS and the Department’s policy. This
was designed and distributed to all employees through our Em-
ployee Assistance Program in the fall of 1993.

The need for AIDS education within the Department varies given
the work environment within which our staff are employed. My
prepared testimony identifies three levels of risk and the different
types of training that are provided for each of these.

At greatest risk for HIV/AIDS infection are our employees pro-
viding direct patient care, such as at NIH or the staff of the Indian
Health Service clinics, or working in laboratories with blood or
blood products. At somewhat less risk are employees who work in
settings in which accidents are more common than in the normal
office environment.

But even in the areas where there is a minimum level of risk,
ie. the regular office environment where most of our employees
work, the risk of AIDS transmission may be minimal but accidents
still occur and information is needed about universal precautions in
dealing with these situations.

Beyond the obligation to assure a safe environment and reduce
any health threat that might occur in the Department, we must
prevent discrimination and maintain an environment that fosters
organizational and individual performance. Although the medical
facts regarding HIV transmission are generally understood on an
intellectual level, that understanding does not always translate
into appropriate behavior in the workplace. Discrimination and
harassment of any kind have a direct and a negative impact on em-
ployee performance and morale. Eliminating ignorance that fosters
such behavior minimizes the potential for its occurrence.

Discrimination and harassment are issues that are covered as
part of the occupational safety training, and they are relevant to
employees in all work settings in the Department. Our HIV/AIDS
education efforts focused on these issues, with special emphasis
given in sessions for supervisors on how to respond to HIV-infected
employees or employees with AIDS and to the concerns of their co-
workers. Informal feedback from trainers, based upon end of ses-
sion evaluations, indicated that our employees felt they had
learned new things, either about HIV/AIDS or about the Depart-
ment’s policy on AIDS in the workplace.


185

neither recorded nor included as a criterion for effectiveness
assessment. This has been documented in the Red Cross Final
Evalustion previously sent in Binder #1, Section #2.

‘The Red Cross training survey at our Nevada Operations office
as well as the two pilots mentioned earlier, did include the
following question: "How likety are you to volunteer for
HIV/AIDS related community work?" That is the only place in
Red Cross evaluations that we find wording similar to yours.
The Red Cross included this question to respond to the Centers
for Disease Control Business Responds to AIDS initiative which
defines five principles of workplace education, including
volunteering in the community. The summary evalustion for the

‘Nevada Operations Office is in Binder #4.

Another survey instrument, designed by the Center for Disease
Contro] Business Responds to AIDS evaluation staff, wes used
in one pilot session at the Oakland Operations Office and these
are included in Binder #6.


170

prepared comments very brief. I will address two specific areat: first, the workplace
raining curriculum which we use; second, the response to our training efforts by the federal
workforce.

‘The Workplace HIV/AIDS Program is a standardized two-hour training [Ire houts
for supervisors}. It begins by describing HIV and AIDS, the progression of the disease, how
the virus is transmitted and how it is not transmitted, risk reduction, and HIV testing. It also
Includes a discussion of the epidemic itself, globally, nallonally, and locally. The training
concludes with an explanation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990--specifically as they pertain to working with disabled employees-and
the Privacy Act of 1974--spocifically as it pertains to the handling of employee personne! and
medical records. These trainings are conducted in a format which is respectful, professional,
non-threatening, and family-friendly,

In hs ten-point action plan of August 5, 1988, President Ronald Reagan called forthe
“adoption of education....poticies based on the OPM and Ceniers for Disease Control
guidelines." ‘The curriculum we use fs based on this conventional public health model. Tt
emphasizes prevention, informed decision-making, and disability awareness, Thig model Js
endorsed by the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Association, the
‘American Nursing Association, the American College of Pediatics, the American Red
Cross, the U.S. Public Health Service, thc National Institutes of Health, the Centers Por
Disease Control, and former Surgeons-General C. Evereit Koop and Antonia Novella, In
short, this mode! is endorsed by the virtual unanimous consensus of the public health


15

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONTO +
U.S, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
(COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
‘SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE

‘THOMAS J. HERRON

JUNE 22, 1995


36

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mica, for calling this
hearing, and I appreciate your providing me the leeway to make
this statement early also in the event I may have to go and vote
for my Science Committee.

But I want to also as kind of a postscript indicate that I have—
I have worked with a constituent who has rienced discrimina-
tion_as a Federal employee living with AIDS. There was a breached
confidentiality of his medical records and tremendous harassment.
I believe that Federal AIDS training does have relevance, as I have
said in my statement, in the work force, and, as we will also hear
from the private sector, and Federal agency witnesses.

The problems here are particular instances, in which the imple-
mentation of that training is eae coblomatie I don’t, however, believe
that the relevance of AIDS training to a productive work force is
reall in question.

you again, Mr. Chairman.
tre prepared statement of Hon. Constance A. Morella follows:]


181

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WABHINGTON, D.C. 20880

«Bin 2 6 1995

Honorable John L. Mica

Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
USS. House of Representatives

B 371-C Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear John:

This is in further response to your March 30, 1995, request for information on the
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) implementation of the Executive Office of the
President Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Initiative (FWAEI). As discussed
with members of your Subcommittee staff, the remaining requested information for items
1, 2, 11, and 12 is enclosed.

1. Copies of all correspondence, notes, memoranda, recordings, or other documents
(including non-identical copies of all such documents and documents stored on
computers, computer disks or tapes, or electronic mall) that relate or refer to any
conversations or correspondence regarding AIDS training in the Federal workplace
between any officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture and any person
employed by or acting in behalf of (1) the White House National AIDS Policy Office,
(2) the President, (3) any of his principal assistants, or (4) representatives of the Office
of Personnel Management,

Enclosure 6 contains three correspondence sections to address (1) the White
House AIDS Policy Office, (2) the President, and (3) the Office of Personnel
Management.

2. Copies of all correspondence, notes, memoranda, recordings, or other documents
(including non-identical copies of all such documents and documents stored on
computers, computer disks or tapes, or electronic mail) that relate or refer to any
complaints, comments, suggestions or other remarks by employees of the Department of
Agriculture related to AIDS training at the Department,

Enclosure 7 is divided into two sections to address (1) employee complaints and
(2) employee correspondence and employee HIV/AIDS training evaluations.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER


48

The body of knowledge on how you contracted the HIV virus was
changing rapidly. The jury is still out on the No. 1 drug to help
people, AZT.

It’s not a scientific survey, but all of the famous people who are
on it appear to have their health collapse more quickly, and there
are people I see appear on television have been HIV positive for
over 10, 12 years, that said it is because they don’t take AZT. But
none of us is qualified to see what is happening with that.

Maybe there is another subcommittee that can investigate it. But
yes, the pamphlets should project the absolute state-of-the-art in-
formation. Ma: including the greatest mystery that they’ve told
me about at the Louis Pasteur Clinic in Paris, I went personally,
to the World Health Organization in Geneva, I went personally, the
Pan-American Health Organization here, now the Centers for Dis-
ease Control in the Speaker’s district, and op to NIH, and I think
T’m the only Congressman that’s been to five of those places,
that was true a year ago.

They tell me that everything is back to square one. It is very de-
essing. The search for a cure is a serious thing to mislead people.
’ye been told there never ever will be a cure, that it is a vaccine

we're looking for, and they’re back to square one. And the greatest
Tnystery now in all these places is there appears to be people that
have S who didn’t test positive on HIV.

Mr. Burton. I guess the point I'd like to make is that I have no
problem with informational pamphlets given to all Federal employ-
ees or anybody in the country talking about the dangers of AIDS
and how "AIDS is transmitted. But where there is doubt, where
there are unanswered questions about how pervasive it is and how
widespread it is and how it can be transmitted, it seems to me that
we should give the widest latitude in the pamphlet to modes of
transmission so people can protect themselves.

The Lancet and other publications J have seen have published
articles saying that it has been transmitted through saliva, it has
been transmitted through sweat or perspiration, and if that is the
case, then even though it is a remote possibility, it is a possibility.
And I think that employees who are going to be given pamphlets
should know that leading medical publications, journals, around
the world, do have a divergence of opinion, and that they ought to
take the test measures possible to protect themselves.

And I think that should be in these pamphlets.

Mr. DorNAN. You're absolutely correct. Under my purview as a
chairman, the HIV cases that we have in the military, most of
them come from drug use, illegal drug use, that means they’re vio-
lating the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, or young men al-
lowed to go to houses of prostitution in Thailand and the Phil-
ippines before we were out of Subic.

Thad a long argument with an admiral about why they let-—why
they use these places as ports of call for liberty. And he said, Con-
gressman, boys will be boys.

I said what an ignorant line, you ought to go tell that to Pat
Schroeder. I said haven’t you realized that that line is not effective
any more? He said, well, we give them all the condoms we can. And
here is what should be in every condom pamphlet, should be taught
across the Federal Government.


UT

‘science professionals. However, policies and procedures which apply to HIV/AIDS, as
alle Lil ober ita testaing Mmases wate e pet ot maared reins fo aes
supervisors and managers (as well as any managers and supervisors who may not have
had the HIV/AIDS training )

‘Question #8 - In the wake of adverse publicity AIDS training received, did your
agency review its own training program? If so, what were the results of your
review, and did you alter your program im any way after the review?

Yes. The Department's HIV/AIDS training was constantly monitored and changed to
meet the needs of the employees and to meet the sited objectives and goals.
‘Employee evaluations, recommendations, and opinions were considered very carefully.

As an example, information about First Aid Kits, their contents and locations became
very important to employees. Employees wanted to know more about the blood
supply and this information was added to the course. Television programs and
newspaper articles about various types of viruses, especially Ebola, caused employees
to ask more scientific questions. The novels Hot Zone, smd The Coming Plagues
‘ded to these questions. As a result, NOVA Research Instructors were required to
read a scientific and historical account of viruses, The Dancing Matrix by Renee
Hellig.

Also, after the article, "Sessions oa AIDS" by Mike Causey in the Washington Post
which was critical of HIV/AIDS training at the Office of Personnel Management, the
Department of Energy became even more seasitive to reports of employee concems.
‘The Department of Energy continually took every effort to make the HIV training
effective, appropriate, and sensitive to the needs of all employees. Because of the

. Standards developed for the Department's training, many agencies have looked to the
Department for leadership in the development of their own programs.


53

DOD, they have not allowed that pamphlet to be circulated, to my
knowledge. I may be wrong.

Mr. Mica. Well, we'll look further into that, and I hope you will,
as chair of another subcommittee. We thank you for your testimony
and participation today.

I'd like to excuse you now and call our second panel, if I may.
First, we have Trudy Hutchens, Concerned Women of America. We
have Thomas J. Herron, a Federal employee. We have Lyn Mickley,
also a Federal employee. We have Robert Maginnis, from the Fam-
ily Research Council. If you would come up and please stand to be
sworn in.

Other than Members of Congress, it is the custom of this com-
mittee, which is an investigations and oversight committee of the
House, and of this subcommittee to swear in our witnesses. So if
you could remain standing, raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn].

Mr. Mica. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in
the affirmative. And I’d like to call our first panelist, Trudy
Hutchens, who is with the Concerned Women of America and, I un-
derstand, has done some extensive research on the question of Fed-
eral training relating to AIDS.

So welcome to the panel and Ms. Hutchens, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.

And also, if you have written testimony, it will be made part of
the record. If you can, summarize, because we do have three more
panels and each of them are chuck-full of witnesses, but again, we
welcome you and hope you can summarize in the 5 minutes.

Ms. Hutchens.

STATEMENTS OF TRUDY HUTCHENS, CONCERNED WOMEN OF
AMERICA; THOMAS J. HERRON, FEDERAL EMPLOYEE; LYN
MICKLEY, FEDERAL EMPLOYEE; ROBERT MAGINNIS, FAMILY
RESEARCH COUNCIL

Ms. HUTCHENS. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to address you here today. My name
is Trudy Hutchens and I am the research specialist for Concerned
Women for America. I’m here today to testy on behalf of Beverly
LaHaye, president of Concerned Women for America, and our
600,000 members nationwide.

Last year, President Clinton mandated that all Federal workers
undergo AIDS training. Ostensibly his goal was to help prevent the
spread of AIDS and to develop nondiscriminatory workplace poli-
cies for employees living with AIDS.

Tf the ite House had stayed true to its stated goals, the pro-
gram would have generated little controversy. Unfortunately, the
mandate became a vehicle for activists to push acceptance of homo-
sexuality on each and every Federal worker. I have spent months
investigating this mandate and how it is being implemented.

While a few Government offices actually stuck to the stated
goals, many other agencies used the mandate as a platform to dis-
cuss everything from flavored condoms to sex toys. On April 17, I
attended an S training class for FDIC employees.

Let me begin by sharing the high points of my own experience
at the FDIC is training. Early in the class, the instructor presented


Honorable John L. Mica 2

Page 138: (3307-3308)

Mr. Townsend: Qualified volunteer trainers for USDA were first, nominated by
their agencies and second, met criteria for certification. Certification for training
was based on peer feedback, self-assessment, trainer feedback, and performance
on a pre- and post- assessment. A cumulative score of 90 was necessary to
become lead trainer, 80 for co-trainer, and below 80 earned the assistant trainer
designation. There was no single factor to determine the quality of trainers
selected to present USDA’s HIV/AIDS training activity. Moreover, the failure to
be selected as a trainer was in no way viewed as a negative determination as to
the employee not selected at the end of training.

Page 139: (3311-3312)

Mr. Townsend: It is important to stress that certification of trainers was based on
peer feedback, self-assessment, teachback, and trainer feedback. There were no
right or wrong answers to the worksheet but, more importantly, it provided a
means to determine how trainers would address issues and concerns that could be
raised by participants.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the HIV/AIDS testimony
for the record.

Sincerely,

(hb Clone

Wardell C. Townsend, Jr.
Assistant Secretary
for Administration

39-585 (208) °


138

is a required training course on AIDS/HIV, that they are permitted
under the civil rights laws to request reasonable accommodation to
attending that mandatory training, and that the agency has an ob-
ligation to provide an alternative means of the employee receiving
the » information that the agency feels is important for the employee
to know.

Mr. Mica. Is that now in a written form for the AIDS policy of-
fice or OPM?

Mr. HEUERMAN. It is not yet at this point. OPM does have some
plans to issue that.

Mr. Mica. To your knowledge, has anyone been threatened with
dismissal for not attending these courses? It appears that the
courses were mandatory. For example, I think it was mandatory at
some Point at DOD. What is the situation now and has it indeed
change i

Mr. HEUERMAN. Well, with respect to being threatened with dis-
ciplinary action, I think I am personally aware of two stories that
this took place. And of course Mr. Herron’s report this morning re-
garding the meeting he had. The other incident, I don’t recall spe-
cifically, but I vaguely recall reading another news report of an em-
ployee.

Mr. Mica. But if a Federal employee asks me now is it manda-
tory, do I say maybe? How would I respond as chairman of the
Civil Service Subcommittee?

Mr. HEUERMAN. Well, I think the best statement in that regard
with respect to administration policy is Patricia Fleming’s April 21,
1995, Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agen-
cies. And I will simply quote from that, “individual agencies should
determine the scope of and participation in this stage of training
for all personnel within their agencies.”

Mr. Mica. So they are free to determine whether it is mandatory
or nonmandatory?

Mr. HEUERMAN. That would be my interpretation, yes.

Mr. Mica. So some still could have a mandatory requirement?

Mr. HEUERMAN. I believe that’s possible.

Mr. Mica. Another thing that concerns me, Mr. Townsend, is
that some of these pro; , I don’t see anything offensive in the
HHS program, but in the Department of Agriculture questionnaire
for trainers, you get into such questions as sex without love, homo-
sexuality, your attitudes for my child, sterilization for a woman
who's -infected—there are kinds of questions that I wonder
whether they come under the responsibility of the Federal Govern-
ment.

And then I guess you score people. I’d be afraid to take this test
and see how I was scored. I just don’t know that this is the appro-
priate role of the Federal Government. Have any of you had any
questions raised about this training?

Mr. TOWNSEND. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that particular instrument
there, tool that you were looking at, was used in our train-the-
trainer process. It was developed and provided to us by the contrac-
tor that provided the base for train-the-trainer. The tool itself was
to help either self-selection—in other words, individuals who found
that—in response to the questions, that they may have biases, un-
intended biases, perhaps. What—our effort was to gain the best


49

I said, admiral, how effective is a condom after the user has had
10 beers and liberty at the bar down the street, or 5 beers? How
is his digital dexterity at that point? Oh, it is a tough world, isn’t
it, Congressman.

No, we’ve got a lot of tough decisions to make, and I hope you
have good hearings here, because the pamphlet should be maybe
longer, comprehensive, and a pamphlet is not worth anything if it
doesn’t discuss the Russian roulette involved with this No. 1 dis-
ease for young people if it doesn’t discuss abstinence.

Mr. BurTON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Burton.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Mascara, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Mascara. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

b We all agree that we have a problem. I’m going to be less com-
ative.

Mr. Dornav. All right.

Mr. Mascara. But this is my hero.

Mr. Moran. That’s kind of disappointing.

Mr. Dornan. We're friendly in the halls.

Mr. Mascara. I have respect for my colleague, Mr. Moran, and
Tm learning every day from Mr. Moran. But we all agree we have
a problem. We all agree we need to do something about it.

We can’t agree on how we should approach this problem. But I
think we all agree that there is a cost associated with it.

And in my former life as an accountant, I would like to ask can
someone put a number on what it is costing the Federal Govern-
ment to participate in this training? Does anyone know that num-

er?

I don’t expect you to.

Mr. Dornan. No, no, that’s a great question. This hearing is cost-
ing taxpayers’ dollars. And as I've learned listening to my liberal
colleagues on the House floor, when they are absolutely correct on,
say, anti-Semitism or racism, if there is only one class being taught
at a college, just one that is bigoted and offensive, then all Federal
aid should be cutoff until that one teacher or that one class is
stopped.

So the numbers are important, the money is important, but if
people are getting fired over conscience issues or this whole pro-
gram is adrift, then it is up to us in the Congress to correct it. But
T hope this subcommittee can find out what the cost factor is here
in all this teaching.

Maybe a pamphlet would be more effective with a feedback in
areas where there is some hurt because people don’t understand
this terrible killing and heartbreaking problem.

Mr. Mascara. Well, but we still don’t know, really know, what
the cost is that is associated with the training?

Mr. Dornan. No, and Mr. Mascara, I’m not diverting anyone
here, but there is a related scandal that went on at the Transpor-
tation Department with our tower operators. I mean, a 30,000-year
old Cro-Magnon warrior named Ramfa being used in training ses-
sions for our tower operators?


18

(OPM for further information oa my request. To date I have written the Director of OPM, Mr. King, twice but have
‘not received a reply.

Early in Jamuary 1995 my agency announced tha all employees would be scheduled for this mandatory
HIVAIDS training, Atachment (5). On January 18, 1995 I wrote to the Technical Director, Naval Air Technical
‘Services Facility, Mr. William Smith, stating thst I could not attend the required training for the reasons 1 have
described above, Attachinent (6). Several drys later I was tokd by my department bead, Mr. Robert Leibrand, that
there woaldbe a mectiog concerning my memo inthe ice ofthe head of the permonnel department Janoary
24,1995 and that 1 could ring representation. As have been fist level eperviar for over eight years when |
hear that an employee may bring representation | understand it to be a disciplinary mecting. I adked my
department bead, Mr. Ledbrand, if this was the case and be sid he did not know.

‘That discussion touk place on a Friday and the proposed date for the meeting was the following Tuesday.
‘When I came to work on Monday I wrote an email to Mr. Senith and Mr. Leibcand stating that my representative
‘would be the formes Director of the Philadeiphia/South Jersey Chapter of the Catholic Leagne for Civil and
Political Rights, Mr. James Nolan, Attachmest (7), Later that day I was told by Mr. Leibrand that Mr. Michael
‘Abbott, the head of our servicing persounel ofSce, had called our Technical Director and stated that as this was not
‘a disciptinary meeting I was not allowed to bring a representative.

‘The meeting took place the following afternoon, Mr. Smith opened the moeting by stating that we were
there only to discuss my memo of January 18th and not my letter to the President. He staned that HIV/AIDS
training had been mandated by the President and that, therefore, we federal employees mmst assome that his
directives had the force of law. Therefore, Mr. South state, that if 1 persisted in not stiending this required
‘raining be wonld recommend my termination from federal employment. | asked Mr. Smith if presidential
directives negated the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. He replied that, “We federal employers taust assunae
that the president is correct and attend mandatory training. If we find something offensive we can grieve later.”

Present at this meeting with Mr. Smith were my department head, Mr. Leibrand, Ms. Patricia Raeder, an
eaployee reistions specialist from the persomne! office, and Mr. Fred Burke, an EEO specialist. Mr. Burke was


88

HIV/AIDS In The Workplace:

Awareness and Education
Training for Federal Employees

agencies stating
that every Federal employee must receive
‘comprehensive training on HIV/AIDS awareness

Pe ee
to
posed by the HIV, ‘and
‘bouT Fane ad equ Teves ln the workplace
the Federal, st
eaxployerinthenatio itishoped hatby educating
three million about HIV/AIDS, we
‘Oh reaching out to share
en important information with our families
and communities.

To respond to this mandate, the NIH Office of
AIDS Research, Office of the Director, and the NIH
Training Center, Division of Personnel
Management, have developed a training program
designed for all employees. The program
consists of two training modules, one for all
non-supervisory employees and the other fot

Key Topics for All Sessions:

managers and suj ‘The intent of both
modules is to ensure that all employees are
about and behave in accordance

responsibilities of supervisors in dealing with
workplace issues related to HIV/AIDS.

Both types of modules will last approximately
2.1/2 hours. Most of the manager /supervisory
fading ls schesuld in, Beastie Plan South
Most non-supervisory training will be held in
Building 1 in Wilson Hall, although several dates
are also available in Lipsett and
Masur Auditorium, both located on campus in
Building 10.
(Additional training sessions for field locations
‘will be announced separately. These will be held at the
Parton Bung: in Freer and Baltimore, MD;
Research Triangle Park, NC; in Hamilton, MT;
Phoenix, AZ)

° are nenabitation Act of 1973 and other Federal
policies and how these apply to people living
ith HIV/AIDS in the workplace

changing demographics of the HIV/AIDS
epidemicin the United States and the important
events in the history of the epidemic

‘+ Thedifference between being HIV positiveand
having AIDS

+ How HIV attacks and destroys the immune
system and the disease progression

+ How to protect one's self to avoid HIV infection

+ Facts about HIV Antibody Testing - what itis,
‘what t measures, the “window period” and the
difference between

mous” testing

© Information about NIH, local, and national
resources that can offer additional information,
counseling, etc.

Maneger/Supervisor Sessions Will Also Cover:

© “Reasonable accommodation” and how to
handle such requests

* Dealing with corifidentiality and personal
medical records

‘* Emotional issues that exist for employees who
are living with life-threatening illnesses,

© Common case scenarios that can occur when an_
‘employee has HIV/AIDS and how managers/
superstore can respond appropriately in

Cost: $10.00 per participant for either session

{page 1)


43

President Bush is only 9 years older than I am, but it might as
well be 50 given the generational gap considering the
uncomfortableness discussing some of these issues in public, par-
ticularly how you contract HIV, and including in the early years
from polluted blood supplies. I watched an hour television show
yesterday morning with all hemophiliac people who were all tested
positive for HIV. I have no problem with discussing this in public
and I think that it would be fine in certain Federal forums to dis-
cuss this, particularly the ignorance of how it is contracted, held
by some fellow citizens.

I guess it is the way it is being done and that there are obvious,
from what I can tell, hidden agendas here. Right down to what I
said in my opening statement about how you select the instructors,
this peculiar, if not offensive values quiz.

To illustrate this for some of my colleagues, let me tell you how
I was first aware of this. In an unrelated subject involving sexual
harassment, where obviously the U.S. Navy needed some training,
I guess somebody in the White House decided they should start at
the top at the Pentagon. So they called over 100 admirals and gen-
erals into a room where a female instructor in her 30’s came before
the admirals and generals and said they didn’t get it, they had to
get over their hang-ups. And she says, for example, watch this.
And then she says vagina, vagina, vagina. Look, you're all blushing
and getting uptight.

One of the admirals and two of the generals told me if there was
any color in their face, it was anger that they were being treated
by schoolchildren and wasting hours of valuable flag level talent to
engage in that kind of stupidity.

Now did they need lectures on sexual harassment? Given
Tailhook, the scandal in Las Vegas, obviously.

Did it have to be conducted in such a childish and offensive and
stupid way?

Of course not. So that was my first contact with training sessions
under the Clintons. And I pluralize the name Clinton, because ob-
viously the First Lady has a key role in this. They have set up at
the Pentagon an Office of Diversity Management. To set up an of-
fice like that, you have to have a directive. The hunt is on by this
chairman to find the written copy of the directive setting up the Of-
fice of Diversity Management.

Then I started getting letters like the ones I have here and I’ve
supplied them to the subcommittee, blocking out the names of all
the people. And this started as early as last summer. I talked to
Mr. Wolf about it, who Chairman Mica referred to, and my frustra-
tion was I had to keep telling civilian workers, including those at
the Department of Defense, that you come under this distinguished
subcommittee, not my chairmanship of military personnel. And
now I find that it is creeping over on to the military side.

And I—because this man did use his name, Anthony, in an open
letter last September, I’m sorry the wheels have und so slowly
here, to give these people some relief, but we have had an interven-
ing major tidal change election. He says the diversity trainers
lacked formal training in the subject. It was obvious. Under their
leadership, we explored some of the hottest and most emotional so-
cial issues of the day. Sometimes painful emotional experiences,


129

Mr. Mica. We thank you for your testimony. And without objec-
tion, all of the witnesses’ complete statements will be made a part
of the record.

Our last witness in this panel is Allan Heuerman, with the Office
of Personnel Management. We saved the best for last. Welcome,
and you're recognized.

Mr. HEUERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the sub-
committee.

We appreciate this opportunity to be here today to discuss OPM’s
role in designing, implementing and overseeing the training of Fed-
eral employees. I will summarize my submitted statement.

The heads of Federal agencies and OPM both have responsibil-
ities for training Federal employees that are defined in law. Agency
heads are required to establish, operate, maintain and evaluate
their own training programs. Primary responsibility for determin-
ing the types and methods of training to be used, as well as evalu-
ating the results of training, rests with agency heads.

Under this authority, agencies conduct a great deal of employee
training each year. For example, in fiscal year 1992, the most re-
cent year for which we have data, Federal agencies sent employees
to training in about 2.4 million instances.

OPM’s statutory role involves coordinating and promoting Fed-
eral employee training programs, in addition to issuing regulations
and collecting certain information. We exercise this leadership re-
sponsibility primarily through an interagency group of training di-
rectors, the Human Resource Development Council.

We participate in joint developmental projects, share best prac-
tices, and identify innovative approaches. OPM is expressly prohib-
ited by law from prescribing the details of training programs that
are designed by an agency for its own work force. As far as OPM’s
oversight authority is concerned, we are authorized to ask agencies
to provide whatever information is needed for effective supervision
and review of training programs for Federal employees.

The OPM Director also has authority to enforce Civil Service
laws and regulations, including those relating to training. This au-
thority is quite broad.

Consequently, we do not believe there is a need for an expanded
statutory authority to conduct oversight.

Mr. Chairman, you also asked me to address the administration’s
HIV/AIDS training program. For approximately 10 years, it has
been widely recognized that HIV and AIDS—both from a health
standpoint and an employment policy standpoint—are a concern of
both public and private employers. In 1988, President Reagan di-
rected every Federal agency to provide information and education
services to employees regarding HIV and AIDS.

President Reagan also directed OPM to offer Federal agencies as-
sistance in this endeavor. Since 1988, there have been ongoing ef-
forts at educating our work force on this issue. During this time,
training on HIV and AIDS in the workplace has become a standard
feature of employee health services programs in the government.

More recently President Clinton in November 1993, directed
agency heads to implement HIV/AIDS training programs and to de-
velop workplace policies which assure a nondiscriminatory work-


113

Question #2 - Was employee attendance at your ageacy's AIDS training program
mandatory?

Yes. After Kristine Gebbie's (former National AIDS Policy Coordinator)
memorandum of April 7,,1994, attendance was required, but no enforcemeat actions
have been taken against employees who did not attend.

Question #3 - How much has your agency spent (including all time employees
spent in training) in conducting its ALDS training for employees.

Information in this part of the testimony will be limited to Headquarters training. We
will provide information about regional HIV/AIDS education activities on July 17,
1995.

Since 1993, The Department has allocated $127,000 to cover administrative support,
development, and class training for the HIV/AIDS initiative at Headquarters. These
funds provided enough classes for all Headquarters employees. These will be the only
Headquarters contract costs for the initiative.

For Headquarters employees, we estimate that 4,500 employees spent approximately
2.5 hours each in HIV/AIDS training, a total of 11,250 hours. We estimate the
average hourly cost per employee to be $31; therefore, salary and training costs for
AIDS training for these 4,500 employees is approximately $100 per employee.
{Actual training expense, per employee, is $28).

Training costs for regional offices to be reported in July are expected to be less.
‘Training was provided at many offices by employee assistance counselors, staff nurses,
‘and local chapters of the Red Cross. .

Question #4 - How does your AIDS training program meet the statutory
objectives cited above?

HIV/AIDS creates a range of day-to day management challenges related to HIV
disease -- job accommodation and disability requirements, concems about
confidentiality and privacy, discrimination issues, employee fears, harassment of
infected workers, health insurance and health care costs, customer concems, work
disruptions, lawsuits, and declines in worker productivity and morale.

‘The National Commission on AIDS report, HIV/AIDS: A Challenge for the

+6.


122

STATEMENT OF WARDELL C. TOWNSEND, JR.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE
OF THF.
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
Thursday, June 22, 1995

The USDA Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Initiative

Mr. Chairman. Tam pleased to appear on behalf of Secretary Glickman to testify on the topic of
training at the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and more specifically, on our implementation
of the Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Initiative.

Before I address the specific questions that were raised in your invitation to testify, I would like to
set the context for USDA's HIV/AIDS training. For almost ten years, it has been widely
recognized that HIV and AIDS afe health and emplcyment policy concerns for both public and
private employers. In 1988, President Reagan directed every Federal agency, and he asked
private sector employers as well, to provide information and education services to employees
regarding HIV and AIDS (Memorandum for Head of Departments and Agencies, August 5,
1988). As part of this effort, President Reagen asked the Attomey General to review how the
Federal Government should provide direction and leadership in discouraging discrimination

against HIV-infected individuals. There have been ongoing efforts since this time to educate the


127

Sixth, in implementing the HIV/AIDS Education Program, USDA used the "Train the Trainer”
methodology . This method allowed a group of 184 individuals to be trained to conduct the full
coursework for other USDA employees. This was a cost-effective approach to educating our
world-wide workforce. Nine "Train the Trainer” sessions were held. The USDA instructors
wore selected by their agencies for these training sessions based upon an assessment of the
individual's capabilities, Some agencies preferred to enlist their health personnel; while others

used human resource professionals.

Seventh, a8 I mentioned earlier, further HIV/AIDS education will be conducted as en integral part
of USDA's ongoing training on a variety of health and safety related issues,

Eighth, during the course of "Train the Trainer* sessions, evaluation and review of the materials
‘were ongoing. Some employees raised personal objections to participating in the training course
‘As « result, those employees were permitted to forego the training. Constructive criticisms were
used to upgrade and improve the training wherever possible. USDA took great care to ensure
that our training program was suitably informative and sensitively administered. An introduction
to the HIV/AIDS Education satellite video teleconference was written end broadcast to assure

viewers that their personal beliefs were not under attack.

Ninth, USDA conducts several mandatory training programs, For example agency-wide
mandatory ethics training. The requirement to conduct annual ethics training rests in regulation

rather than law. Executive Order 12674 of April 12, 1989, required agencies to develop annual


151

Suppo.
MUG. 8 BS

ASSEN Of DE 20790 01

Honorable John L. Mica

Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U. S, House of Representatives

B 371-C Rayburn House Office Building
‘Washington, D.C. 20515

‘Dear Mr. Chairman:

In response to your June 23, 1995, letter requesting supplemental information regarding
the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) AIDS training, I offer the following information:

(1) Why were the other 39,000 employees not trained during this period?

With an organization the size of USDA, it is not possible to train all of its workforce at
one time. We relied heavily on telecommunications to conduct training, reaching over 60 percent
of our workforce in a single broadcast—something never achieved before. Training was
incomplete partly because the Department has different technology for delivery of training
electronically, and because we have a considerable number of employees in the Forest Service at
very remote work locations. Another factor is that USDA has been heavily involved in
reorganization initiatives causing considerable delay in fully implementing the Federal Workplace
HIV/AIDS Education Initiative.

(2) Will those other 39,000 employees be trained?

Ongoing employee HIV/AIDS training programs will be integrated with employee health
training programs and other safety and health activities. From the onset of this initiative, we have
encouraged the inclusion of HIV/AIDS training in conjunction with other established conferences
or meeting activities. USDA certified trainers will be updated via video when new information
becomes available. USDA agencies will continue HIV/AIDS training in conjunction with other
scheduled training

G)__Iff'so, what will it cost you to train them, and will they be required to attend such training?

AIL HIV/AIDS Trainers were trained and certified during phase | of the action plan. The
costs to provide HIV/AIDS training for the remaining employees will be relatively small. In
addition, we have encouraged our agencies to incorporate this training in other scheduled training
courses. HIV/AIDS training will not be mandatory.


155

else. But only armed with accurate information can we treat people
properly, particularly people who are suffering under tragic cir-
cumstances; and I find it offensive that people would rush to as-
sumptions, very pejorative assumptions about other people, without
having any information.

Some of the information I think we have gotten is either mislead-
ing, and in some cases inaccurate now; it ranges the whole gamut
from very misleading to just minor.

Well, let me just ask, the woman from NIH said people are
charged a $10 fee. I have never heard that. Is that true? Has any-
body been charged a fee for those programs?

Mr. McFex. I was as surprised as you when I heard that. I know
of no fee. It may have been a chargeback to the administrative of-
fice that she worked for or something, but I will look into that and
let you know.

(The information referred to follows:]


CONTENTS

Hearing held on June 22, 1995
Statement of:

Belton, Erline, president and CEO, the Lyceum Group; and Kenneth
m, Whitman Walker Training Institute
rt K., a Representative in Coi

Hutchens, Trudy, : A "
eral Em Employee; Lyn Mickley, Federal Employee; Robert Maginnis, Fam-
Research Council
tee Thomas, Assistai
Corlis S. Mood: , Director, ‘Office of Economic Impact and Diversity,
Department of Energy; Wardell C. Townsend, Jr., Assistant Secretary
for Administration, Department of Agriculture; and Allan Heuerman,
Associate Director, Human Resources Systems, Office of Personnel
Management
Letters, statements,
Bass, Hon. Charles F., a Representative in Congress from the State
‘New Hampshire, prepared statement of .
Belton, Erline, president and CEO, the Lyceum Group and Mr. Lauber,
prepared statement of ..
Dornan’s, Hon. Robert K., attachments to prepared statement
Goodman, Kenneth D., Whitman-Walker ining Institute, prepared

statement of
Herron, Thomas J., Federal Employee, prepared statement of .
Heuerman, Allan, Associate Director, Human Resources Systems, Office
of Personnel Management:
HIV/AIDS Training Program at the U.S. Office of Personnel Manage-
ment
Prep: jared statement of ..
Hutchens, Trudy, Concerned Women of America, prepared statement o
McFee, Thomas, Assistant Secretary for Personnel Administration, HHS:
Prepared statement of .
sponses to questions
Micki y iyn, Federal Employee:
Information from the Office of AIDS Research
Prepared statement of ..
Moody, Corlis S., Director, Office of Economic Impact and Diversity,
Department of Energy, followup questions and answers ...
Moran, Hon. James P., a Representa’ in Congress from the State
of Virginia, prepared statement of ...
Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland, pre] statement of ....
Townsend, Ward C. a Jr, Assistant ‘Secretary for Administration, De-
partment of Agricul!

Information concerning training
Prepared statement ang

an

159
10

53

162

151
122


OFFice oF THE DIRECTOR
April 6, 1994
MEMORANDUM FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.

FROM MICHAEL GRANT
DEPUTY CHIEF ‘AFF AND
OPM LIAISON TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR HIV/AIDS

RE: HIV/AIDS TRAINING AT OPM

(On September 30, 1993, President Clinton directed that by December 1, 1994, all federal
workers be trained in HIV/AIDS, particularly as it relates to the workplace. The U.S. Office
of Personnel Management has launched its effort to fulfill the President's mandate, and we
need you, OPM employees to achieve our goal.

‘A committee of OPM employees- including representatives from AFGE Local #32, the
Director of the AIDS in the Workplace Project for the AFL-CIO and HI-TECH, a group of
training consultants who have expert knowledge of HIV/AIDS- has created a training program
that conveys the up-to-date medical knowledge about HIV/AIDS and how supervisors and
employees can deal with the issue in the federal workplace.

‘We are now looking for up to thirty individual OPM employees to become trainers and to
conduct this training in joint employee-supervisor training sessions for all OPM

We are looking for people who display a sensitivity to the issue of HIV/AIDS and the topics
that accompany discussion of the disease and its effect on the workplace. Although some
knowledge of HIV/AIDS and the immune system is helpful, it is not a prerequisite for you to
become a trainer. Your sensitivity to the issue and your ability to be an effective trainer are
more important.

Please refer to the attached informational flyer and application for details on the project and
how to become involved. Any questions can be directed to Kim Exeter at (202) 606-1993.

Attachment


106

training and continued to use them to fulfill the Presidential
mandate.

The Maticnal Institutes of Health (NIH) contracted with a local
firm, the Whitman:

ker Clinic, well known for its AIDS education
program. MI paired trained in-house staff with health, educators
from Whitman-Walker to deliver a program that added parts of the
modules on Federal work place policy that were developed by Hi-Tech
International to Whitman-Walker's standard curriculum.

at pr

mnt there are no plans for an agency-wide follow-up
initiative. Mew employee orientations will contain information
about the Department's AIDS policy,

they would other polici

relevant to working in HHS. Required occupational health and
safety programs will, of course, continue, as will optional health

education sessions run by our EAP and occupational health units.

The training as it unfolded in HHS did not generate adverse
publicity. In fact, although t!

@ were scattered individual
complaints, the respo:

was overwhelmingly positive. I credit
this response to the careful planning that went into the design of
the curriculum, the explicitness with which we stated our objective
of focusing on work place issues, and the caliber of the trainers
from within and outside the Department who delivered the

curriculum.


66

The instructor admitted she did not know where to place oral sex
on the scale of risk of infection. But she did suggest that the only
way to determine the risk factor for that kind of sexual behavior
would be to do a study of partners who only participate in oral sex.
And hoping to get a laugh from the audience, she suggested a sign-
up sheet at the back of the room for those who wanted to partici-
pate in such a study. In an offhand remark, she stated that a per-
son participating in oral sex would have to, “brush their teeth in
preparation for the moment.”

A second example of casual indifference was an apparent joking
reference to sex toys. The instructor advised the audience not to
share these toys, as they could provide a form of HIV transmission,
which goes against what your mother always taught you to do, that
is always to share your toys.

A third example was the instructor’s advice to, “make your
condom your friend.” This was in reference to instruction on how
to open a condom, and when you do so she instructed the audience
not to use fingernails or teeth. I had difficulty finding any direct
bearing of this instruction to the stated purpose of the seminar,
which is, I will quote again, was “to educate Federal employees
about the challenges posed by the HIV/AIDS epidemic and about
fairness and equity issues in the workplace.”

During the discussion of HIV transmission, the instructor,
through the use of overheads and a lecture format, told how HIV
is transferred from person to person, through sexual intercourse,
dirty needles, blood transfusions, tattoos, needle sticks, and trans-
mission from mother to baby. The training continued with a discus-
sion of ways to prevent and reduce the risk of infections.

After a brief acknowledgment that abstinence was the only effec-
tive way to prevent HIV infection, the instructor proceeded to rec-
ommend ways to reduce the risk of infection. For drug users, she
suggested sterilizing used needles with 1 part bleach and 4 parts
scalding hot water. Then for about the next 30 minutes we were
lectured on the use of condoms, what kind to buy, the colors they
come in, the flavors they come in, proper storage and the use of
spermicides.

Throughout the lecture I kept wondering what does this have to
do with the workplace? In fact, it seems to me to be more of a class
in sex education rather than a seminar to educate Federal employ-
ees about the challenges posed by the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Mr. Chairman, you had asked me in your letter of invitation if
the AIDS training program was well designed to meet the statutory
objective of assisting the agency in achieving its mission and per-
formance goals improving employee and organizational perform-
ance. In my opinion, it was not well designed. The training did not
improve my performance in the work place.

Th my opinion, increasing AIDS awareness in the workplace
could be accomplished through the use of brochures, a few of which
I submitted with my testimony, one in particular was put out by
the Department of HHS and addressed specifically S in the
workplace. My suggestion would have been if every agency would
have put out a similar brochure, that would have answered the
questions of their individual employees, perhaps this training
wouldn’t have had to be done in the manner that it was.


52

where there are questions that are unanswered, where lives might
be jeopardized, where transmission is possible, that the pamphlet
explain that these questions remain unanswered.

For instance, can you get it by kissing, can you get it through
sweat, so forth and that sort of thing. And if that is the case, then
I think an informational pamphlet ought to say that these ques-
tions do remain unanswered or that is a divergence of opinion on
them, and because of that the person reading the pamphlet should
take the widest possible measures to protect themselves. If you
give them false or misleading information or inaccurate informa-
tion, you really at some point might be jeopardizing somebody’s life
or health and safety.

And that’s why I think it is important if we give out informa-
tional pamphlets, that’s the only problem I have with Dr. Koop’s
pamphlet, is that it gave hard and fast answers where there still
was a divergence of opinion among the scientific community.

Mr. DoRNAN. We could not pass out Koop’s pamphlet today,
you're correct.

Mr. BurRTON. So I think it is really important that if we’re going
to do a pamphlet, that where there is some difference of opinion,
where there are some unanswered questions, we leave them unan-
swered and let people know to take protective measures. And I
thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DoRNAN. We probably at some point should have a panel,
maybe this is not the appropriate subcommittee, of Dr. Tony Fauci
and some of the excellent peo le who have become friends of mine
at the National Institutes for Health, and give them the pamphlet,
sitting in front of a House committee or Senate committee and say
is this pamphlet accurate, or is there misinformation or a lack of
information that can cause people to die. Yes, we’re dealing with
life and death issues here, and this material should be precise and
accurate.

Mr. GILMAN. Well, just so we're clear, all of us here on the panel,

you have no objection to properly prepared information and dis-
tribution; is that correct?

Mr. DorNAN. None whatsoever.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mica. Well, I thank the gentleman from New York.

T also thank Mr. Dornan. Mr. Dornan, this again is the pamphlet
that I referred to, and I don’t know the answer to the question,
that’s one reason we held this hearing, but on page 14, it talks
about AIDS presentation and safer sex seminars and says “Wet,
Wild and Well: Lesbian Safer Sex” and a 202 number. And I’m just
wondering again if this is a part of their curriculum of this training
in the Department of Defense. And you chair one of the subcommit-
tees and I hope that we can find out how taxpayer dollars are being
spent on some of these promotions.

Mr. Dornan. I looked into this during the break, Mr. Chairman.
And again, all of the people who wrote to me, most of them I had
to refer to your subcommittee because they were civilian Federal
workers.

And that pamphlet came up, but to my knowledge, and maybe
we'll find out if this is televised or written about extensively, to my
knowledge that stronger leadership in the military services under


173

Mr. Mica. Well, we thank you, Mr. Goodman, and also Ms.
Belton for your testimony. I think both of you have provided us
some insight. The insight, Mr. Goodman, you have provided with
your program, I have a number of questions which I would like to
submit to you in writing, specifically on your program.

Ms. Belton, I think you have made some great observations, hav-
ing endured the entire hearing, and from your perspective in the
private sector.

I thank my colleague, the ranking member, Mr. Moran, for his
participation and his comments—Mrs. Morella. It has been a very
long hearing; we didn’t expect this lengthy a hearing. It is a very
important subject, and if we spend $1 or $100 million on this, we
need to make sure we are doing an effective job and a job that is
in the best interests of the Federal employee and the taxpayer. So
that is our goal.

I wish we had more time. Not only do we have a vote; it is going
to be followed by other votes. So I will conclude this hearing.

I will ask the minority to submit additional questions and if
there are other questions from this side, we will leave the record
open. I also invite any of those who didn’t get an opportunity to
testify to submit statements which will be made part of the record.

It is our intent to try to do a good and proper job in an important
area that affects the very lives of many Americans and Federal em-
ployees.

So with those comments, I thank you for your participation and
for your patience, and I declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you.

ereupon, at 2:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:}


101

eave and benefits and reasonable accommodation for disabling
conditions, have changed. Supervisors must respond
appropriately to requests for reasonable accommodation, leave,

disability retirement, and other benefits.

Given the impact of these changes, our Department -- even prior to

the announcement of President Clinton’

AIDS training initiative --
had moved to address the need for further education related to AIDS
in the work place. A brochure providing employees with basic
information about HIV/AIDS and Departmental policy was designed and

Gistributed to all employ: through our Employee Assistance

Program (ZAP) in September 1993.

‘The need for AIDS education within the Department varies given the
work environment in which our staff are employed. At greatest risk
for HIV/AIDS infection are our employees providing direct patient
care (e.g., staff at the Indian Health Service clinics) or working
in laboratories with blood or blood products. The

employees
receive intensive, specia) training on blood-borne pathogens
(including the AIDS virus) on a regular basis in compliance with

occupational health and safety standards.

At somewhat less risk are employees who work in settings in which
accidents are more common than in normal office environments. Such

settings include loading dock: kitchens, print shops,

manufacturing, and emergency services (e.g., firefighters at the


26

‘The Family Research Council published an investigative report on Dr. Hemer's study. The
report shows problems with the study, Hamer's promotion of homosexuality in the media, and
questions whether federal funds were properly used.”

While published NCI budgets do not identify money earmarked for Dr. Hamer’s research, funding
for Hamer's research (which totaled $420,000) apparently came from money designated for
research into Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). NCI's press office indicated that Hamer's study looked at
KS, which is an AIDS-related cancer prevalent among gay men.” And Hamer promoted his
research as a multifactorial study investigating host genetic factors for Kaposi's sarcoma and
lymphoma *

‘Yet, curiously, Hamer “ran no tests to determine whether his clients had KS.""! And Hamer
stated in a court deposition that he has never published anything on Kaposi's sarcoma.""”

More taxpayer-funded gay research is in the works. Hamer wrote a letter to Health and Human
Services Secretary Donna Shalala arguing for the creation of an NTH Office of Gay and Lesbian
Health Concerns. The American Medical News reports that the HHS will seriously consider
Hamer's proposal. Hamer envisions the office going beyond research into the origins of sexual
orientation to include HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, breast and gynecologic
cancers, substance abuse and adolescent suicide ®

In addition, Angela Pattatucci, one of Hamer’ research assistants, has an ongoing project that
deals with genetics and lesbianism. According to Victoria L. Magnuson of Hamer’s NIH office,
Pattatucci’s “lesbian study has a cancer component.” Yet the advertising fliers developed for this
study call it a study of the "genetic nature of sexual orientation... gay gene study.” They state
that "per diem and travel expenses” would be covered by “NIH,” and that subjects would be
interviewed by “gay-positive" persons. *

(Pattatucci's track record raises serious questions about her objectivity as a researcher. She
recently told Network, a homosexual magazine based in New Jersey, "I believe the most important
thing a gay person can do is to be public about his or her homosexuality.” That article included a
picture of Dr. Pattatucci holding her jacket open to reveal a T-shirt with the word "DYKE"
written in large, bold type *)

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ON THE GAY AGENDA FRONT

USS. Patent and Trademark Commissioner Bruce Lehman is a self-described homosexual who
promotes Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's "Diversity Policy.” For those who object, Lehman
states, "As far as T'm concerned, i's got to be forced down their throats. If they want to be
bigots, they can go work for someone else's department." The agency's director of human
resources created a “diversity recruitment support team" to spend up to 15 days of diversity
recruiting in 1995 *


22

Mandates unions to become proactive in the "sexual diversity" movement.
Requires that contracts include domestic partner services
Guarantees government child care for children of an employee's domestic partner
Considers gay and lesbian owned businesses when arranging local purchase agreements.
“The proposals encourage Forest Service employees to lobby for the following
‘Amend federal travel regulations to incorporate the needs of domestic partners.

Adopt this definition of a family: “A unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related
together over time by strong social and emotional bonds and/or by ties of marriage, birth, and
adoption, whose central purpose is to create, maintain, and promote the social, mental, physical
and emotional development and well being of each of its members *

‘Advocate to the Small Business Administration the inclusion of gay- and lesbian-owned
businesses eligible for minority set-aside contracts

Advocate that retirement benefits include domestic partners.

‘Add non-discrimination provisions to all private sector contracts prohibiting discrimination
based on sexual orientation excepi for bona fide religious and youth groups

DIVERSITY TRAINING MANDATORY

Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Katherine Abraham, whose performance agreement
with Secretary of Labor Robert Reich includes diversity training, hosted three-hour diversity
training sessions for BLS employees. The paid guest speaker began each session by stating,
"Diversity means our national survival "® He closed the session by reading a letter from
homosexual BLS employees complaining about discrimination, The guest concluded, “What's
necessary in the workplace is for everybody to have the attitude that people are not good, not
bad, just different “?

‘The U.S. Postal Service is also promoting diversity. During a November 1, 1994 diversity
seminar a guest psychologist suggested that "aggressive recruitment is needed,” that governments
must, "develop, attract and retain members from under-represented groups.” His speech followed
Jegal counsel's presentation on the new non-discrimination policy for gays, lesbians, and
bisexuals.”

The Forest Service has a training booklet entitled, "Valuing Diversity." Inside the booklet are
“atements such as’ "Fact: Psychological and social influences alone cannot cause


105

be in the public domain, could be duplicated in-house, and could be
made available in hard copy or on disk to other agencies to tailor

for their own training purpos For th

reasons, Hi-Tech was

elected. After the program was designed, it was pilot tested and
revised before being put in final form.

The model program -- which in its final form included separate
curricula for supervisors and employees and a self-study guide --
was made available to the various agencies within the Department,
and all but two Public Health Service agencies chose to use it.
Training was largely conducted by Hi-Tech's staff or by staff from
the Public Health Services’ office of Federal Occupational Health.
A few sites used in-house staff to deliver the training. aA
suggested set of criteria to select in-house trainers was sent out
when plans for accomplishing the training vere solicited. The

criteria, which were previously provided to the subcommitt.

included

sitivity to the issues raised by the training, level of
knowledge about HIV/AIDS, and ability to deliver the curriculum.

Two of our components in the Public Health Service have special

expertise and responsibilities in Arps re:

rch and education, and
they elected to provide their own specialized HIV/AIDS training.
‘The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta had
begun its HIV/AIDS training before the Presidential initiative was

announced. They had selected the Red Cross to deliver their


162

STATEMENT OF

ERLINE BELTON AND MICHAEL R. LAUBER

ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEADERSHIP COALITION ON AIDS

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM & OVERSIGHT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE

JUNE 22, 1995

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. We appreciate
this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on Civil
Service and share our views on the importance of effective
HIV/AIDS training in the workplace.

We are here today as business people to speak about the
impact the AIDS epidemic has had on America's business community,
and upon the Americans who staff our assembly lines, offices and
plants. We are here to talk about the emotional toll and the
economic damage that AIDS exacts from our workforce. And we are
here to talk about what we believe is the Federal Government's
role in defeating the ignorance that directly perpetuates the
spread of HIV/AIDS.

First, we believe people must acknowledge that while AIDS
may be 100 percent fatal, it is also 100 percent preventable.
Scientists know precisely how the disease is transmitted. From
that information, we know precisely what Americans must do to
protect themselves. And we believe Americans have a right to
that information, a right to protect themselves from this always-
fatal virus.


165

federal government heed the lessons learned by the business
community when responding to the information needs of federal
employees.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. We appreciate
the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to discuss our
views on the federal government's role in HIV/AIDS in the
workplace education.

Erline Belton, is President of The Lyceum Group and a partner in
Belton & Nobles Consultants. She has been Senior Vice President
for Human Resources for The Progressive Companies. Prior to
this, she was International Corporate Employee Relations Director
at Digital Equipment Corporation. Ms. Belton was an advisor for
Harvard University's Center for Social Policy and Change for the
Massachusetts School System as well as several corporations. Ms.
Beiton has also served as a member of the Board of Directors of
The National Leadership Coalition on AIDS.

Michael R. Lauber is president and CEO of Tusco Display, one of
the nation's leading point-of-purchase display manufacturers,
located in Gnadenhutten, Ohio. Mr. Lauber is Chairman of the
Board for the Point-of-Purchase Advertising Institute. He holds
a B.A. in Economics and English from the College of Wooster and
an M.B.A. from the Amost Tuck School of Business Administration
at Dartmouth College. he has been an active member of the
National Leadership Coalition on AIDS Minority and Small Business
Advisory Panel. He also serves on the Coalition's Board of
Directors.

The National Leadership Coalition on AIDS is the only national
non-profit organization that deals exclusively with AIDS in the
workplace. The Coalition is comprised of member businesses both
large and small, as well as labor groups and non-profit
organizations. The Coalition produces materials on AIDS
workplace policies, practices, education and other tools that
help businesses effectively minimize their legal risks, manage
employee benefits and educate the workforce about AIDS. The
Coalition's mission is to marshal the collective resources of
business and labor to prevent and combat the spread of HIV
disease.


‘Thank you for bringing the altentlon of your committee to the Important work which
we do. We are eager for an opportunity to showcase the unprecedented success of our
‘Warkplace HIV/AIDS training program,

‘My name is Ken Goodman, and I run the Whitman-Walker Training Insiittte, which
4 affiliated with the Whitman-Walker Clinic of Washington, DC, Whitman-Walker was
founded in 1973 and today is the largest front-line provider of HIV/AIDS services in the
Mld-Adante sates, We were the first agency to offer HIV/AIDS education tothe Federal
government, and today we are the largest provider of these services to the government,
During the past two years, we have provided training and technical assistance to the
Departments of Commerce, Intetior, Defense, Treasury, Transportation, and Labor, as well
fs to numerous independent agencies ranging from the General Services Administration and
the Consumer Product Safety Commission to the Panama Canal Commission. I have been
with Whitman-Walker since 1991, and was a member of the team that developed the training
guidelines issued from the Office of National AIDS Policy in April 1994.

Since our time is lied today, and you have many questions, I will keep ray


34

Mr. Bass. At this time, I will recognize Congresswoman Morella
for an opening statement.

Mrs. MorELLA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank Chairman Mica for calling this hearing to exam-
ine the effectiveness and the responsiveness of governmentwide
training policy and oversight in the administration of the AIDS
prevention training initiative. Needless to say, the June hearings
in this subcommittee have been to say the very least provocative,
and this hearing has the potential to be just as provocative.

Let’s talk about training. At its highest level, training enhances
organizational performance and has measurable results that qual-
ify and quantify the effort. The role in promulgation of training pol-
icy should be to facilitate this.

In my opinion, there have been three major authorities that cur-
rently provide the framework for conducting and evaluating train-
ing in the government: The Government Employees Training Act,
which is Executive Order 11348, and the Government Performance
and Results Act. These authorities provide a sufficient framework
for effectively training Government employees.

I feel the breakdown in Government training is not so much the

olicies, but the implementation of policies. I am appalled at the
i service Federal agencies give to training and strategic planning.
ile you could count them on your hands, the agencies that are
really pursuing the alignment of the training function with their
strategic planning processes, alas, are too few.

I find it is hard to comprehend, when you look at the importance
of training and retraining to Federal workers and agencies in this
period of downsizing and reinvention. But, Mr. Chairman, I’m not
here to admonish Federal agencies, but merely to suggest that they
do a better job on this, and to put forth the recommendation that
agency plans be developed for aligning training with the agency’s
strategic planning process.

Now I'd like to talk about the AIDS prevention training, which
is probably the real issue of this hearing. I don’t think anyone
would argue about the importance of job-related or mission-related
training, particularly in light of the survival training received by
Air Force Capt. Scott O’Grady.

However, P believe President Reagan understood that you can’t
separate AIDS issues from organizational performance and bottom
line results when he encouraged American businesses to examine
and consider adopting education and personnel management poli-
cies addressing AIDS. Business leaders embraced this rec-
ommendation not just because it was the right thing to do, but be-
cause it also made business sense.

Congressional officials and policymakers who believe they can
stand as onlookers as the effects of AIDS devastate our country
and citizenry, are sadly mistaken. They don’t understand the sys-
temic effects, environmental and social issues have on an organiza-
tion’s performance, nor do they buy into the reasoning that if the
pandemic that is AIDS is crippling our Nation, doesn’t it seem log-
ical that it will eventually cripple our workplaces?

AIDS is the principal cause of death for Americans between 25
and 44 years of age. Approximately 50 percent of permanent, full-
time civil servants are in this age group. And also age is no re-



115

‘As an HIV positive individual with valuable private eactor skits | can aftest to the fact that this nation has lost
{ons of bilions of tax dollars because of AIDS. No one has calculated the future cost of HIV and AIDS. But
wo can be certain that the costs will be much greater than they are now. Lost productivity. Lost tax
revenue and increased costs in care, treatment, housing and more.

With that in mind, itis criminal that this president through his office of AIDS policy has done nothing of
‘substance to save lives. History will record that under Bill Cinton’s watch, more Americans will have died
{rom AIDS, become HIV positve or received an AIDS diagnosis than during the terms of Ronald Reagan
and Bush...times two! And make no mistake, deposed AIDS Czar Kristine Gebbie and current
‘AIDS Czar Patsy Fleming exist only to cover up that record of death and buy the votes of the next
HIV postive Americans wit more lee and deceptions. When ACT UP called AIDS genocide
because the |

thig Republican congress develops a sound policy and leads on AIDS, we will follow.

‘The Clinton Administration continually points to the AIDS in the federal workplace program as proof of its
‘commitment and accomplishments on AIDS. The Whito House AIDS press office deflects criticisms and
challenges to the Ciinton AIDS record and the string of broken promises.

Organizations ike the Human Rights Campaign Fund view AIDS as nothing more than an opportunity to
‘aise more tunds. They have bent over backwards to apologize tor Bill Cinton and his failed AIDS record.
‘say this to you foday so that you all understand that the Human Rights Campaign Fund does not now. nor
have they ever spoken to the needs of HIV positive Americans. Certainly not this HIV positive American.
So when they, end Feng’ milo ol you that a fecusion of favored condoms amed at the men and
women who is v ‘saves

‘Areal AIDS Czar with cabinet-status could ettectively implement AIDS policies on a national level. That
‘was Bill Clinton's promise. There are four reports from the earlier National Commission on AIDS with a
sari of poly recommendations wich frm te bopre of what seus be a nallondty coordinated
response to the AIDS epidemic. Those reports and those recommendations are stil gathering dust.
‘There's no AIDS czar with tho power and author to mnploment them. Thank you forthe oppestunty to
‘address my concams to you today. ACT UP. Fight Back. Fight AIDS.


115

employees such as housekeeping staff, janitors, and others. This information
‘was included in the training to answer questions about transmission at work.

Question #5 - What legal authority authorized the AIDS training you conducted?

HIV/AIDS training classes are authorized under the Goverment Employee's Training
‘Act which states: "In order to assist in achieving an agency's mission and
performance goals by improving employee and organizational performance. . ."
“Agencies shall establish, operate, maintain, and evaluate programs for the training of
employees.” As noted earlier, this training was designed to educate employees and
eradicate unnecessary fears so that employees can work together to achieve the
agency's mission.

President Clinton's memorandum of September 30, 1993, culminated the efforts of the
previous administration by calling on cabinet members to implement “ongoing
HIV/AIDS education and preveation programs by World AIDS Day, 1994." The
Department's training satisfies the requirements of the Government Employee's
Training Act, as well as the President's memorandum. In addition, 5 US. C. , 7901
authorizes agencies to provide health service programs for their employees.

Question #6 - Who selected the individual trainers for your AIDS training
program? What criteria were used in making that selection? Please identify and
provide copies of aay questionnaires, rating guides, or other documents used ia
making those selections?

Contractors were selected by Corlis S. Moody, Director of the Office of Economic
Impact and Diversity, and Donald Donaldson, a Department of Energy Federal
‘employee. Mr. Donaldson, a nationally recognized trainer, was assigned to lead the
program because of his training qualifications, his teaching experience, educational
background, and interest in HIV/AIDS.

Representatives from our personnel department were chosen from the Office of
Employee Relations because of their job responsibilities which include training in
personnel and managerial issues, as well as experience with the subject mater These
instructor's names and positions in the Department are included in the Introduction
Section of the Binders submitted previously.

‘The Department used two contracting sources for the Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS
Education Initiative, The companies trained and hired their own instructors. The Red


194

Sa

a
a; DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ASHASTON U6 20250 0
SEP 18 1995
Honorable John L. Mica
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
USS. House of Representatives

B 371-C Raybum House Office Building
Washington, D.C, 20515

‘Dear Mr. Chairman:

‘Thank you for your letter of July 10, 1995, regarding my testimony on the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) HIV/AIDS employee education training program. The responses to the
questions submitted by Congressman Jim Moran follow:

(1) Were any employees ever disciplined for refusing to participate in your HIV/AIDS

No
2) How is your training program evalusted?

‘The USDA HIV/AIDS training program evaluation process involves feedback from
employees attending the training by completing program evaluation forms. For the March 30
Interagency HIV/AIDS Training Program, over 10,000 viewer evaluations were received.
‘Overall, the evaluations indicated the training program was well received by its audience, Of
those, 81 percent rated the training program as effective, 12 percent rated the training ineffective
or not useful, and 3 percent rated the program very ineffective or not at all useful. The remaining,
4 percent did not express an opinion.

(3) Your statement indicates that your training materials were upgraded as the result of the
information gained through program evaluations, Explain the specific changes made?

‘As mentioned in my June 22, 1995, statement, constructive criticisms were used to
upgrade and improve the training wherever possible. The specific program changes included the
following:

[AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER


136

-6-

I HCPE THIS INFORMATION HAS BESN HELPFUL TO YOU, MR. CKAIRMAN.
IF THERE ARE AREAS YOU WOULD LIK TO DISCUSS IN GREATER DETAIL, 1
WOULD BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTIONS.


177

John L. Mica 2

Question 3. Does OPM currently have the authority to prevent an agency from conducting
‘training that does not meet the statutory goals established by title 5 U.S.C. § 4103 or that is
not being conducted in a manner suitable for the Federal workplace?

Section 4103(a) of title 5, United States Code, vests general responsibility for
training in agency heads, OPM's primary role is to provide policy direction,
oversight, guidance as to proper interpretation and application of the law, and
assistance to agencies wishing to improve their internal training programs.

‘When we learn of complaints or alleged inappropriate actions, we work with
agencies to solve or resolve the matter. We first ensure that agency officials with
authority to correct the problem are fully aware of its implications for their
organization. The great majority of the personnel concerns that come to our attention
‘are successfully resolved by this approach.

If unsuccessful in gaining an agency's cooperation, OPM has authority to
require that agencies adhere to the provisions contained in the laws and
regulations that we administer. Although it has not been necessary for OPM
to exercise its authority in this manner with regard to agency training
Programs, we would take whatever action was necessary to correct serious
problems in the training area. For example, we might raise the issue at a
higher level within the Administration, or even refer it to the Office of the
Special Counsel or to the Department of Justice. It should be noted that
section 5 U.S.C. 4118 does not authorize the Office of Personnel
‘Management to prescribe the types and methods of intra-agency training or to
regulate the details of intra-agency training programs.

Thope this is helpful to you. Should you need additional information, please contact
Ira N. Forman, Director of our Congressional Relations Office, on (202) 606-1300.

Sincerely,

EEE?

Acting Associate Director for
Human Resources Systems Service


certain groups. Within the first page of the Trainer's Script, (See Appendix #2, p.1)
the instructor is coached to “point out that it is sexual and drug use activities that
transmit the virus without regard to gender and that sharing infected body fluids, not
sexual orientation or identification with any group, leads to transmission. Note that
for this reason, we avoid referring to ‘high risk groups.” The Department of
Energy's trainers manual called "Walkin’ the Talk" (See Appendix #3, p-TEXT-1)
‘states this same sentiment almost verbatim. But homosexuals and drug abusers are
‘groups who are defined by their behaviors; and those behaviors transmit AIDS. So
‘even though homosexual males account for 57 percent of all AIDS cases in the US.
and IV drug abusers account for another 23 percent, trainers are forbidden from
referring to either as a “high risk group.

Further illustrating the great Tengths trainers must go to in order to avoid
insensitivity, the Department of Agriculture provides instructors with an HIV/AIDS
Style Guide (See Appendix #4), which designates 23 terms they should avoid using.
For example, the guide directs instructors never to use the term “promiscuous”
because that "implies an inappropriate moral overtone.” Instead they should say,
“multiple sex partners.” And they should not refer to drug "addicts" because such
terms imply * ‘a judgmental attitude, which is not appropriate.”

In other words, instructors should never use terminology that might make
those living high-risk lifestyles uncomfortable. On the other hand, not a second
thought is given to the sensibilities of those who hold traditional values.

Embracing Homosexuality

Some facilitators also promote radical homosexual organizations in the AIDS
training. The director of the Department of Agriculture's AIDS education program
said she likes to provide a Directory of HIV/AIDS-Related Services (See Appendix
#5) to all personnel undergoing the training. Listed in this document are such radical
pro-homosexual groups as Whitman-Walker (listed 14 times), the Sexual Minority
Youth Assistance League (SMYAL), and the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-
UP). Whitman-Walker is a medical and counseling facility that readily promotes
homosexuality, regularly advertising in Washington, D.C.’s homosexual newspaper,
the Washington Blade. In fact, Whitman-Walker has been contracted to perform the
AIDS training at a number of federal agencies. SMYAL is a homosexual youth
organization, advancing the homosexual agenda among teens. It's difficult to find a
group more radical than ACT-UP. This group has been known to give high school
kids "safe sex” kits that explicitly coaches them on how to perform homosexual sex
acts.

Some of the organizations listed provide such AIDS services as “condom
availability.” AIDS expert and president of Americans for a Sound AIDS Policy
(ASAP), Shepherd Smith, reports that perhaps the biggest misconception about AIDS
is the idea that condoms will end the epidemic. Still these organizations dispense
thousands, all under the banner of “AIDS prevention.”

‘The radical agenda is not limited to the Department of Agriculture. The
Department of Energy’s trainers manual titled "Walking the Talk" (See Appendix #3,

3


112

Conversely, employees with HIV/AIDS may fear that others will “find out" about their
infection. They fear being mistreated, shamed and shunned, when they must come
forward to discuss absences associated with their illness These employees fear losing
their jobs, and fear losing the respect of their fellow employees.

In the past, fear has caused employees to avoid HIV/AIDS classes because of the
‘undue stigma associated with the disease. Some employees feared being perceived as
either having HIV/AIDS or knowing someone who does. This type of reasoning was
‘one of the primary factors which led to the requirements listed in the Federal
Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Initiative.

‘Again "fear" is an important factor in computing the costs benefits analysis of this
training. White 1 cannot give you specific dollar amounts, I can assure you that fear
of coworkers with HIV/AIDS reduces productivity and increases conflicts.
Consequently, managers lose production time. The Department's HIV/AIDS training
reduced fear, and as a result, will reduce future loss of productivity and related
personnel costs associated with these actions.

HIV/AIDS and other life threatening illnesses have a financial impact on the
Department, both directly and indirectly. While the most commonly cited costs are
associated with health, life and disability insurance and pension plan payouts, other
less recognized costs involve those associated with employee replacement, retraining,
and possible legal actions. Because the Department's training focused primarily on
specific policies and procedures addressing these issues, we believe in the long run the
Department will incur fewer complaints and therefore reduce the potential for any
related legal and associated personnel costs.

‘The training was designed to answer present and future workforce needs. Let me
explain with both national end local statistics. In 1993, the National Commission on
AIDS reported in its publication, HIV/AIDS. A Challenge for the Workplace, June,
1993. "The majority of the estimated 1 million HIV-infected individuals are between
25 and 44 years of age, so about one in every one hundred adults in this age group is
infected. They are most likely to be employed, and in their prime working years.
Sixty percent of the nation’s work force falls within this age range. People in this age
range also are among the most sexually active and therefore, at increased risk of
‘contracting HIV."

This year, the Centers for Disease Control reported that AIDS is now the leading killer
of Americans between the ages of 25-44. We assume that the incidents of HIV
infection for DOE employees is the same as in the general population. Therefore,
HIV education is of utmost importance to the Department of Energy's employees.


16

‘Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen my name is Thomas J. Herron and I
am a supervisory logistics manager at the Naval Air Techical Services Facility in Philadelphia, PA. I have been
‘employed by the federal government at NATSF for nearty twenty-one years. I enjoy my work and have always:
‘tried to follow alll the rales and regulations that govern the lives of federal employees so you can understand that
‘my testimony here today, as welll as the events that led up to it, are very much out of character for me. However I
will say that during my career I have always tried to follow the oath I took on October 9, 1974, when I entered the
federal civil service, “io uphold the Constitution ofthe United States” as well as the principles of the Code of
Ethics for Government Service, adopted by the 85th Congress. The Code (Astachment 1) states that “Any Persoa.
in Government Service Shoold: Pat loyalty tothe highest moral principles and to country above loyalty 10 persons,
party or Government department.”

‘Chairman Mica, is is letter inviting me to this hearing dated June 16, 1995, has asked me to relate my
‘experience with the mandatory AIDS training program for federal employees. He also states in his letter that your
‘soboommitice wishes to evaluate the HEV/AIDS training to see if they “mect the statutory objectives of astisting the
‘agency in achieving its ‘mission and performance goals by improving employee and organizational performance.
‘must state at the outset that Jam bere as an instvidual wbo is a federal employes, Also, I nmst make the normal

disclaimer that what [ am about to tell you may act reflect the official position of the Department of Defense. Any
opinions expressed relating to the topic are my own but the facts in the case did happen as I will describe them in
‘the narrative and I bave placed 21 sttachments to document my sioty. The Chairman also asked me to respond 10

tree specific questions, hopefully I will indicate my position in the course of the narrative and I will specifically
‘answer them at the conctusion.

My knowledge of the mandatory HIV/AIDS training began nearly a year ago due to the fact that | am my
‘agency's collateral duty Occupational Safety and Health manager. As such I received an advanced copy of the
‘report A/DS at Work, dated April 7, 1994, prepared by the Exxcative Office of the President, Office of National
‘AIDS Policy. When I reviewed this document I found that there would be mandatory training for every federal
‘employee that was to, in the words of the introduction, “to serve 2s a model forall businesses” in the country.
[Daring my review I found a mumber of objectionable things proposed in AIDS at Work. These inciuded: (1) the


28

The Clinton Administration is methodically unleashing an avalanche of pro-homosexual policies
and advocacy. It is costing the federal taxpayer millions of dollars and discriminates against
workers who object on religious and/or other grounds. The 104th Congress should investigate
this abuse and reverse the federal government's promotion of homosexuality under the label of
diversity,

Robert L. Maginnis is a policy analyst with the Family Research Council in Washington, DC.

ENDNOTES
1 Environmental Protection Agency memo to all EPA employees, Octaber 14, 1994, signed Carol Browner
2. US. Department of Housing and Urban Development, memo for “All HUD Employees," Subject Policy Statement --
Equal Employment Opportunity, Affirmative Employment, Prevention of Sexual Harassment, Discrimination Based on
Sexual Onentation, August 30, 1994, signed by Henry G. Cisneros

3. "Equal Opportunity Pohcy Statement, US. Department of Transportation memo “To All DOT Employees,” May
27, 1993, signed Fedenco Pena

4. “FBI Guidelines Stress Ethical, Sexual Behavior,’ The Washingzon Post, March 8, 1994, p. A-3 and David
Johnston, “Gay Stand Costs Prospect a Justice Post," New York Times, October 20, 1994, p A-20

5 Joan Biskupic, “Reno Prohibits Bias Against Gays in Security Clearances,’ The Washington Times, December 3
1993, p Ad

6 bid

7. Memorandum for Mary Maguire Dunne, Acting Chair, Board of immigration Appeals, from the Attomey General
(signed by Janet Reno), Subject: Attorney General Order Designating Bosrd of immugration Appeals Case as
Prevedent, undated

8 Paula Span, “A Week About Gay Pride, and Prejudice,” The Washingion Post, lune 16, 1994, p. A-1

9 “GLOBE Gains Official Recognition in OPM,” Federal EEO Update, Vol 5, No. 01, January 1994, p. 1

10, USDA GLOBE Bylaws, U S Department of Agnculture, March 25, 1994

11, GLOBE/GSA (Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual Employees/GSA) flier with statement of purpose. The documant lists
8 GSA Diversity Coordinator at 202-501-2127

12. “Rest in Peace?,” The Washington Times, July 12, 1993, p A-6.
13. Ruth Larson, “FAA Employee Objects to Gay-Pride Voice Mail” The Washington Times, June 28, 1994
14, "Community Closeness: DOT GLOBE Celebrates Gay Pride Month,” Intercom, May 31, 1994, p. 6

15 Alston Chase, "Does Ranger Rick Love Murphy Brown?,* The Washington Times, August 30, 1994

10


94

a training session, would you think that you might have grounds
for a charge of sexual harassment?

Ms. MICKLEY. Could you repeat that, please?

Mr. Bass. Certainly.

We heard Ms. Hutchens and Mr. Herron talk about certain allu-
sions to explicit sexual acts, so forth. If this—let’s say, for example,
your boss started to give you a training session, if you will, of this
nature, that was not called an AIDS training seminar. Would this
sound to you like you might have possible grounds to file charges
against him or her for sexual harassment?

Ms. MICKLEY. Well, my boss, first of all, is a physician, and I
would think he was explaining it more from a doctor/patient rela-
tionship as opposed to something that would be sexual harassment.
So that’s a hard one for me to answer.

Mr. Bass. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I don’t have any further questions.

Mr. Mica. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BurTON. I just want to say that I understand, some of my
colleagues may not, but I understand what you’re saying. And I
think it is unbelievable that somebody’s job should be jeopardized
because of their religious beliefs that they have to go listen to some
of this trash. And I think it is trash.

If they want to talk about how AIDS is transmitted, if they want
to give you literature on how AIDS is transmitted, that’s fine. But
to get into sexual activities or possible sexual activities, where men
and women are present together, is just wrong.

I wouldn’t want my wife or my family to have to sit through that
stuff. And I think this government is yay, out of line. If we’re going
to teach people about the dangers of HIV, fine. Let’s do it in a re-
sponsible way.

But to start putting men and women in a joint session where
they’re talking about how to put a condom on an artificial penis is
just wrong. And if my colleagues don’t see that, then there is some-
thing wrong.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Mica. Well, I see that we’re well into a vote, and I’d like to
thank each of you. I will keep the record open and we will, if
there’s no objection, allow members from both sides of the aisle to
submit questions to you, and if you would respond we’d appreciate
it.

We thank you also, the Federal employees who have come for-
ward to testify. We know you subject yourself to possible additional
harassment. But we thank you for coming here at your expense
and time.

We thank the organizations who have looked at this issue for
their input. We are trying to see what the proper role of the Fed-
eral Government is in HIV and AIDS training. So we appreciate
your contribution to our subcommittee.

We will recess now for approximately 10 to 15 minutes, and then
come back for the next panel.

Thank you again. You're excused.

(Recess.]

Mr. Mica. I'll call this meeting of the Civil Service Subcommittee
back to order.


9

Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman, the ranking member, and I'll
yield to Mr. Mascara now for his opening comments.

Mr. Mascara. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

This morning we will be considering a very sensitive issue, AIDS
training for Federal workers. In the wake of the first National
AIDS Commission Report issued in the 1980’s, President Reagan
directed every Federal agency to adopt policies to address the treat-
ment of AIDS-infected persons in the work force. This effort helped
make training on AIDS a basic component of employee health in-
formation programs throughout government and the private sector.

In November 1993, President Clinton took a further step, direct-
ing agencies to implement an AIDS education and prevention pro-
gram for all workers and to develop policies to ensure those who
are infected with AIDS are treated with compassion and fairness.

AIDS takes thousands of lives each year. Obviously Federal
workers, like every other American, should receive basic informa-
tion on how to prevent the transmission of this tragic disease. How-
ever, because this disease is largely transmitted through sexual en-
counters or intravenous drug use, sensitivity must be shown in the
instruction process.

Every effort must be made not to offend Federal employees. In
those instances where workers do not run the risk of AIDS expo-
sure as a result of their duties, attendance should be encouraged,
not dictated. And I’m glad several of the agency witnesses today
will clarify that this is the case in their departments.

My experience over the years has taught me people respond bet-
ter to training and retain more information if the training is con-
ducted under such acceptable conditions. Also, if workers have com-
plaints about the AIDS training and the methods of instructions
used, their complaints should be looked at promptly and, perhaps
more importantly, such sensitive training should be monitored very
closely and careful lly by agencies and OPM to ensure that it is ap-
propriate.

I regret that a representative of the Office of the National AIDS
Policy is not here today to explain the administration’s policy and
answer questions. I think that would have helped defuse this issue
and put the training into proper perspective.

The bottom line is workers need to be instructed to prevent all
types of health hazards, including the transmission of commu-
nicable diseases like AIDS.

AIDS is not going to go away. Countless private sector firms pro-
vide AIDS training to their workers. Perhaps we need to take a cue
from businesses across America and find out how they accomplish
this goal, while still promoting harmony in the workplace and mak-
ing every possible effort not to offend their employees.

look forward to learning a great deal from this morning’s testi-
mony.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.

Mrs. Morella had to vote, and I will also have to leave in order
to resent some legislation in another committee, so I will be in
and out myself today. But thank you. And I know when she gets
back, Mrs. Morella wants to give an opening statement. But we
have our first witness and will now proceed.


cstablishment of a ‘politically correct’ thought patsern in federal employees, in the words of the report, “io create
(positive attitndes about wacking with people...with AIDS/HIV.” and to “foc! eas judgmental towards

persons... ving with HIV/AIDS (with respec tothe presumed or known behaviors that resulted in their
infectioo).” (2) The desired curriculum was to inctade 30% Prevention Education, “inciuding both abstinence and
safer sexual practices.” There was no indication that many religions peuple hold that tbe only acceptable safe wx
practice was a frithfal, monogamous enioa of 2 man and woman in legally binding marriage or that this position
‘would be honored curing the instraction. (3) The training, in the words ofthe report “required targeted
‘continmous, linguistically specific and cuittraily based information. Its impractical to ive op a workplace
based on risk factors.” So every camployee was to bear the same graphic ‘safe sex’ information regardless of
‘interest, risk or moral beliefs. Finally (4) the report ad as a centerpiece the need forthe training to have the
passing of AIDS/HIV information to children, Why was this required when every federal employee I have ever
‘oct as been at least 18 years of age and is therefore legally an adult?

| sent these objections to the required training to several members of Congress during the latter part off
1994, | asked that they sock to add conscientions objector stats so that federal employees, who felt this training
‘was a violation oftheir Fit Amendment rights to freedom of retigion, would not be faced with the horrible choice
cof going against the dictates of their religious beliefs or Face loosing their jobs. { never beard back fro the
members on this issue. Attachment (2) is a sample of my letters outlining my objections.

Finally on December 19, 1994 | wrote to President Clintoa, Attachment (3), asking for relief from having
to atid the HIV/AIDS required training on groands that it would violate my fce exercise of religion guaranteed
by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I told hin in that letter that, 2s a practicing Catholic, [ found the
whole thrust of the training mandated by AIDS at Work was against the principles of my faith which holds that all
‘spaual activity outside of marringe is seionsly wrong.

‘Several days after | was forced to attend this training I received a reply from the White House dated
February 2, 1995, Attachment (4). While the letter neither accepted nor rejected my request it did sate that I had
raised some issues that would be referred to the Office of Personne! Management for review. 1 was told to contact


With that I will end ay narrative af my experiences relating to mandatory HIV/AIDS training for federal
ceamployces. In summary let me state to the subcommittee that speaking for myself, as well as many other federal
‘eamployees who are also religions believers, I am here today to ask for mo special consideration from you. I only ask
that our First Amendment right to free exercise of religion be reaffirmed. If this requires adding some type of
‘conscientious objectos stam 1o attendance at training classes with high moral or ethical content, then this wonld be

‘my recommendation to your subcommittee,
have been asked by Chairman Mica to answer the following questions:

1) Basod on your own experience with the Administration's AIDS training program, i it, in your opinion, well-
designated to mext the statutory objectives cited?

I cannot see how the training clas I attended would assist the Naval Air Technical Services Facility in
‘achicving its mission and performance goals by improving employee and organizational performance. My
‘agency's mission isto procare, manage and distribute technical manwals and engineering drawings in support of
‘Naval aviation. While all employees receive Equal Employment Opportunity training, particularly sapervisors, T
‘ust sate that the HIV/AIDS training does not appear to me to it the training goals that I have been aware of up
tonow., When I read pages 5 to 7 of the governing document, A7DS at Work, 1 see there are 15 knowledge
‘bjectives and 17 attitude and behavior objectives listed for both employees and managers. So from that 1 would
conciode that giving employees knowledge about HIV/AIDS was secondary to changing their attindes and
behaviors. tis not, therefore, well suited to assist in improving my organization's performance 2s, in my opinion,
it deals fundamentally with what are personal matiers such as attitudes and behaviors.

2) Are you sware of any dissatisfaction among your fellow employees with the AIDS training conducted by your
agency?

‘Yes, Iam famitiar with some dissatisfaction among some of my co-workers. It was particularly strong
openly to management, particularly when they heard of my proposed termination if | failed to aticad the class. I
an only jue from the employees 1 obwerved signing inst the class and walking out the back door, or seeping


5

Now, the way in which the training is conducted, I’m interested
to see how it is done. Some of it may not be consistent with what
we would consider to be proper, but I’m not sure of that and I'm
anxious to listen to people who actually provide the training and
those who have been trained by it.

An example of the ignorance that exists with regard to AIDS was
shown by the personnel at the White House when Secret Service
personnel feel they need to don gloves because the President is
being visited by gay and lesbian group indicates that there is clear-
ly a widespread and deep misunderstanding of how one contracts
the HIV virus. And I'd be interested to know why the Secret Serv-
ice hadn’t participated in mandatory training, or at least why they
hadn’t learned the lessons that they were supposed to learn from
such training. .

I guess about three-quarters of the work force has participated
in it. It is a deadly disease, but I think ignorance is also a disease
that we ought to try to avoid as well. You know, I had a full-time
volunteer in my 1992 campaign, Mr. Chairman, he was a former
priest. He was a stockbroker with me in the same firm. And we got
to know each other, and he volunteered to run the phone bank. He
contracted AIDS.

When it became obvious that he had AIDS, people avoided him
like a leper. And the fact that people on my campaign staff under-
stood how one contracts AIDS and were willing and in fact anxious
to shake his hand and pat him on the back and show him the ordi-

friendships that we show other human beings, meant a world
of difference to him. He eventually died, but he made it clear to us
that the acceptance that we showed him changed the last days of
his life dramatically.

And it was all because people understood how one gets exposed
to AIDS and understood a lot of the information that is common
currency is not accurate. I would hope that we would use this hear-
ing and this visibility to Ferhaps add a little quality to other peo-
ple’s lives by educating the American people on the real threats,

ow to avoid AIDS, but also how to show people who might test
positive for HIV that they are still human beings that we want to
treat with the same kind of respect and dignity that we would treat
anyone with a deadly disease.

learly, it is a different disease than heart disease and cancer,
which are also deadly, but they’re not seen as infectious. Maybe an
objective ought to be to treat everyone with such a disease in such
a tragic situation with the same level of respect and dignity. So
with that objective in mind, I appreciate you having the hearing
and let’s hear from the rest of our colleagues.

[The prepared statement of Hon. James P. Moran follows:]


lil

Question #1 - What is the problem in the workplace that your agency's AIDS
training is designed to address, and how will you evaluate whetber it is
successful? Is there, for example, a health problem at your agency related to
ADs?

‘The Department of Energy's HIV/AIDS training was designed to educate employees
and eradicate unnecessary fears of encountering employees or members of the public
‘with HIV. It was also designed to update employees on policy information concerning
many administrative procedures related to HIV/AIDS, as well a number of other health
and leave issues.

As people with HIV/AIDS remain at work longer, employers must be able to manage
HIV-related workplace concems on a day-to-day basis. This means, among other
things, staying abreast of health care options, legal and regulatory requirements,
co-workers concems, and maintaining a productive working relationship with affected
individuals. The Department's training was successful in bringing these varied topics
together in a two and one-balf hour session.

To evaluate success, and compile opinions of the course, an evaluation form was given
to each attendee. Of the 3,639 evaluations received at Headquarters for approximately
4,400 attendees, over 95% rated the training in top categories (good, very good and
excellent) for overall impression of the training. Fewer than two percent rated the
training as "poor" or “fair.” Two percent of respondents did not complete the item on
overall impression.

A separate evaluation provided by the Red Cross is attached for training performed in
Tate 1993 and early 1994, and this reflects equivalent approval ratings. (A chart
reflecting these numbers, as well as formal comments received from employees, is
included in Section #2 of Binder #1, in the material provided to the Subcommittee
staff on June 14, 1995.)

Based on these evaluations, it can be concluded that tne Department was successful in
meeting the goals and objectives as listed in the Federal guidelines issued by the
‘Office of National AIDS Policy.

In response to your questions about problems associated with HIV/AIDS, a review of
Current events, as well as research concerning workplace issues indicates thet fear is
the grestest problem. Fear causes some employees to not work with someone with
HIV/AIDS. Fearful employees may act toward others in a manner that leads to unfair
treatment, low morale and productivity problems.



81

‘produced with support from the Department of Health and Human Services, the American Red Cross and the
National AIDS Information Council, Mr. Bure did note during the traning session thatthe information we were
being given had been approved by the Red Cross, The instraction took place in the Definse Industrial Support
Center's aodiorium on our base. Employees had to sign an attendance sheet prior to the beginning of the class. T
id note that a umber of individuals signed in at the front ofthe sditoriam znd then proceeded to walk out the
‘back door. Further, [ noted that a mumber of employees appeared to be sleeping when the lights were turned off and
the videos were running.

10 my opinion the videos did contain information, from whet must be considered official sources, to make
federal employees change their presumed attitades about HIV/AIDS and people who are infected with the disease.
[realize that the phrase is wor by use but I soe no other possibility but to labe it asthe establishment of politically
correct thought patterns in federal employees. This is not a rsh conclusion: there is basic theme running
through the document AIDS at Work to the two videos. The Office of National AIDS Policy report stated thatthe
ga of the training was “io create positive attitades abot working with people...with HIV/AIDS” and to have
employees “foe! less judgmental towards persons..
‘behaviors that resulted in their infection)” The official Navy video had a section dealing with “Ramors and

with HIV/AIDS (with respect to the presumed or known

Myths”. One of the ‘aryths’ was, according to the narrator, “AIDS is a jodgment oa the people who get it.” It was
never stated whose jodgment the Navy was talking about here. As AIDS is a fatal disease, did the narrator mean &
Divine jadymeat? After all who cise coald inflict fatal diseases om people? The word, “judgment” is readily
Iksown to anyone who bas a passing knowledge of the Bible. If CNET/BUMED mean God in this context then [
defiminely feel that we are ina situation where am agency of the govermmcst is mandating to employees what
religions beliefs they are allowed to have.

‘The other video, “The Many Faces of AIDS", certinly contained the “required targeted continmous,
linguistically specific and culturally based information” thet A/DS at Work mandated. Tt also told Churches what
they should be preaching and what was the proper sex education that parents were to provide their children. In
this video there were at least two people who stated that the Churches of this country bad to be more proactive in
AIDS education. The former Secretary of HHS, Dr. Lovis Sullivan, told us that “churches should be more


188

QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESSMAN JAMES MORAN

QUESTION #1:

‘You indicated that 85% of the employees who received training
at your department rated it very good or excellent. How did the
other 15% of the participants rato the training? Did you take
‘ny action as a result of what you leamed from those giving the
training less than a very good rating?

‘The following information was compiled from evaluations
received from Headquarters employees who attended the
HIV/AIDS training and were asked sbout their “overall
impression” of the training.

° Approximately, 4,400 employees attended

© 3,639 completed evaluations

© 1,594 (44%) rated the training as “Excellent”

© 1,448 (41%) rated the training as "Very Good"

© 407 (11%) rated the training as *Good"

© 63 (1%) rated the training as "Fair

© 43.(1%) rated the training as “Poor”

0 84 (2%) did not complete this question

Any questions asked of our employees attending the HIV/AIDS
training were intended to measure the effectiveness of the
training and gather concems and comments. This information
‘was used to improve content and delivery of the course. The
Department listened seriously to the concems of our employees
and made many improvements throughout the past two years to
the course design and delivery, and the evaluation tool


107

While agency-vide mandatory training is relatively rare, there are

currently three such requirements.

2, Ethics Training: section 301 of Executive order 12674,
signed on april 12, 1989, required the office of Government

Bthics to ai

st agencies in training staff under the new

ethics regulations. Implementing regulations, 5 CFR 2638,
Subpart G, mandate annual ethics training for all employees
required to file a financial disclosure report (public or
confidential). The design of this training has varied from
year to year and from one part of the Department to another.
‘The training

first required in 1992, and for that first
year it was delivered primarily in a classroom setting. since
that time a number of different formats have been used
including self-study guides, video tapes, and satellite

broadcasts.

2. Computer Security Training: P.L. 100-235, the Comput.

Security Act of 1987, requires that all employees receive
computer security orientation and training commensurate with
their level of responsibility and access to computer systems.
‘The Department has an Automated Information systems Security
Training and Orientation Program Guide that outlines
appropriate content and type of training to be delivered
epending on the kinds of jobs individuals hold. How the
training is

‘Livered varies throughout the Department. In Ry


92

tle bit later in the video, there was a lady sitting in a church and
she said, “Churches have to preach the safe sex message.” Church-
es must educate people in safe sex particularly.

And finally, there was a section in the Many Faces of AIDS that
said how to spread the word to children. And an AIDS counselor
stated, “All the kids are at risk, all need the same explicit informa-
tion.”

And also in the most explicit put down of premarital chastity in
the video, a nurse was introduced who said she had a 10-year-old
son. Quote, “parents who get embarrassed, bring home a package
of condoms and say, this isn’t permission, just practice now, then
put them in your bureau drawer and keep them for your wedding
night.” Yes, Congressman, I found that offensive.

Also, there was a humorous point in the video or in the instruc-
tion, too, I should say, is that our instructors talked about the, and
it is attachment 20 to my written submissions, about prevention.
They list masturbation as an alternative, and the word obviously
didn’t get from Washington to Philadelphia, but I believe that’s
what the former Surgeon General was fired for directing on about
December ist, Dr. Elders. And here we have 2 months later, the
same thing is——

Mr. Moran. Who provided the training?

Mr. HERRON. These were Government, Federal employees, who
were trained at the Navy hospital in New London with Red Cross
input.

Mr. Moran. So it wasn’t contracted?

Mr. HERRON. No, it was not contracted.

Mr. Moran. It was Federal employees.

And Ms. Hutchens.

Ms. HUTCHENS. Well, to find offensive things in the training I sat
through at the FDIC, I hardly know where to begin. There was so
much. The instructor thought it was perfectly appropriate to make
jokes about everything from masturbation to phone sex and he
thought it appropriate to discuss everything from anal sex to oral-
anal contact. And then he went into a deluge of jokes about
condoms and bizarre things to use for lubricants.

Mr. Moran. OK. And this was a Federal employee?

Ms. HUTCHENS. This was held at the FDIC and it was—the in-
structor was from the American Red Cross.

Mr. Moran. It was American Red Cross?

Ms. HUTCHENS. Right, which actually surprised me. I thought it
might prove to be one of the more innocuous trainings.

Mr. Moran. And who was offended, whose religious beliefs were
offended? All three of you?

Mr. HERRON. Yes.

Mr. Moran. And it was this business that churches should teach
safe sex, is that what was religiously offensive?

Mr. HERRON. Well, that’s partially it, Congressman. Also the fact
that they put down premarital chastity.

Mr. Mica. There has been a suggestion—we're going to have a
vote here so I want to move on. There is a suggestion that it pro-
moted homosexuality. Does—is there a consensus among you that
that was the case?


180

John L. Mica

T hope this is helpful to you. Should you need additional information, please contact
Ira N. Forman, Director of our Congressional Relations Office, on (202) 606-1300.

Sincerely,

‘Acting Associate Director for
Human Resources Systems Service


183

@/22/*#S

Department of Energy
‘Washington, DC 20585.
August 7, 1995

The Honorable John L. Mica

Chairman

Subcommittee on Civil Service

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515 -

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On June 22, 1995, Corlis S. Moody, Director, Office of
Economic Impact and Diversity, testified regarding the
Administration’s AIDS training program.

Enclosed are the answers to the questions submitted by you
and Representative Moran to complete the hearing record.

If we can be of further assistance, please have your staff
contact our Congressional Hearing Coordinator, Barbara Barnes, on
(202) 586-6341.

Sincerely,

ds hu AL

herr Watts
Acting Assistant Secretary
Congressional and Intergovernmental
Affairs

Enclosure

QD rr rte mrnenen


In mid-May, the White House Office of National AIDS Policy struggled to
further clarify its position. "The policy is the same as it has always been,” Richard
Sorian, a spokesman for the office, told the Washington Times. "Each agency is
required to set up the training program, but employees are not required to attend.”
Apparently, the Department of Defense is taking a hard line on this. I received a
phone call just last week from a civilian woman who worked at Hill Air Force Base.
She said she had refused to undergo the training and was told she would receive a
formal reprimand. She said that being reprimanded would likely harm her career
advancement. She is not the only federal employee who faced a letter of reprimand.
In Appendix #8, I've included a copy of a letter I received from a employee of the
Bureau of Reclamation. He stated that all employees were threatened with a letter of
reprimand if they refused to attend the training.

Breaking Down Resistance

In the Department of Agriculture's Train-the-Trainers program, one section of
the trainers handbook, titled "Themes for Facilitation /Presentation Skills Discussion,”
(Gee Appendix #9) specifically coaches instructors on how to "break down audience
resistance.” The document says that this resistance usually comes from "religious
beliefs" or "biases and prejudices.”

The trainers handbook provides a list of labels for those who dare to challenge
the curriculum. (See Appendix 10.) Among those listed is "The partisan” who "takes
an intransigent point of view on controversial issues such as needle distribution,
condom distribution in schools, etc." Also included is "The moralist" who believes
"People who are HIV infected through sex or drug use deserve what they get!” and
“The mule" who is "stuck on a position or point of view.”

Trainers are effectively directed to avoid engaging those who challenge them.
Recommendations include: "Summarizing and moving on; stating, ‘Let's hear from
some folks who haven't had a chance to speak on this topic’; or diffusing the
interferer by enrolling him or her as an expert and calling on him or her only at
specified times.” In other words, limit or eliminate the challenger’s opportunity to
5

is goal of this whittling away at audience resistance is to meet the
“attitudinal objectives” laid out in the guidelines. (See Appendix #7.) Objective #4
states: "Feel less judgmental toward persons who are chronically ill, including those
living with or perceived to be living with HIV/AIDS (with respect to the presumed
or known behaviors that resulted in their infection).” (Emphasis theirs.)

Objective #5 reads, "Experience little or no fear of interacting with employees
who are chronically ill, including those living or perceived to be living with
HIV/AIDS." And if personnel don’t meet this objective, they will likely face
“disciplinary action.” A handout titled "Employee Rights: Managers’ Checklist" (See
Appendix #11) directs managers and supervisors on how to handle employee
misconduct. The sheet reads, “Information and counseling should be offered first
(followed by corrective/disciplinary action) to employees reluctant or unwilling to
work with HIV-positive employees." That means employees who are apprehensive

5


SQhOMEN
JeMERICA

Testimony of Trudy Hutchens
Research Specialist
Concerned Women for America
to The Subcommittee on Civil Service
of The Government Reform and Oversight Committee
United States House of Representatives
June 22, 1995

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
address you today. My name is Trudy Hutchens and I am Research Specialist for
Concemed Women for America. I am here today to testify on behalf of Beverly
LaHaye, President of Concerned Women for America and our 600,000 members
nationwide. Last year, President Clinton mandated that all federal workers undergo
AIDS training. Ostensibly, his goal was to help prevent the spread of AIDS and to
develop "non-discriminatory workplace policies for employees living with AIDS."

If the White House had stayed true to its stated goals, the program would
have generated little controversy. Unfortunately, the mandate became a vehicle for
activists to push acceptance of homosexuality on each and every federal worker.

T have spent months investigating this mandate and how it is being
implemented. The agencies were given a certain amount of freedom in how they met
the AIDS training requirements. While a few government offices actually stuck to the
stated goals, many other agencies used the mandate as a platform to discuss
everything from flavored condoms to sex toys. I have received phone calls from
federal workers all over the country who were offended by these classes they were
forced to sit through.

‘On April 17, I attended an AIDS training class for FDIC employees. What I
experienced in that class was in-line with everything federal workers had reported to
me.

AIDS Training at FDIC

Let me begin by sharing the high points of my own experience in the FDIC's
AIDS education seminar. When I learned the class would be taught by the American
Red Cross, I honestly thought it might prove to be one of the more innocuous
versions of Federal AIDS Training. I was wrong.

Early in the class, the instructor covered information about how HIV is
transmitted. He emphasized over and over again that HIV is transmitted through
blood, semen, vaginal fluids, and breast milk. At that point, the class could have

1

‘370 -Enfam Promenade, S.W Suite 800-Washington, D.C, 20024 -Phone(202) 488-7000 = Fax(202) 488-0806


18

‘Today, Elders has the support of the
‘CDC, which released a recent report claim-
ing that condoms are effective against HIV.
Relying primarily on a single European
study, the report boldly dismissed scientif
ically established problems with condoms
‘and ignored the fact that teens and adults
‘donot use condoms correctly, if at all—even
when taught to do ao

‘THE EFFECT ON BUSINESS.

Finally, the AIDS lobby has an impact
on business. The Americans with Disabil
ities Act, enacted in 1992, forces compa-
nies to hire HIV-positive applicants, thus
‘elevating insurance premiums.
‘Several companies, such as AT&T,
have joined the AIDS awareness effort by
‘sponsoring filma such as Sex Education in
‘merc: IDS and Adolescence This fm
promotes pex ‘and attacks abeti-

‘According to Alan Brownstein, execu
tive director of the Nationa) Hemophilia
Foundation, the epidemic has created “a
heightened awareness of the responsibility
to protect the recipients of blood”
Although public ansiety remains, the CDC
‘says the threat of contracting HIV from
tainted blood ia about one in 225,000.
‘Medical professionals are especially
‘sensitive to the threat of contracting the
virus. Indeed, the government has docu-
mented thirty-seven cases of health-care
workers contracting the disease from
W. Shepherd Smith, Jr. of Amer-
jeans for a Sound AIDS/HIV Policy con
‘tends that the true figure is much higher
Physicians face a less than sympathetic
Judicial system, which believes denying
‘care to HIV patients is a civil rights issue.
AIDS victims denied treatment have been

nence programs. It tells teens that unless
they have repressive parents who keep
them locked up, they obviously need con-
doms, Elders stated at the film's Capitol
Hil screening last November, “The only
‘cure we have for AIDS is education, edu-
cation, edueation.”

‘Small-business owners are “eriminal-
ized” when they deny service to HIV-pos-
itive patrons. Under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, federal law defines HIV
as # handicap, making discrimination
based on HIV illegal at moet public sccom-
modations, such as child-care centers,
restaurants, health spas, and hospitals.

‘The health-care industry is particu-
larly affected by AIDS, especially the
nation's blood banks. HIV-1 testing of the
‘blood supply, which increased per-unit
conts by five dollars, was instituted in
1985. That was too late for thousands of
blood recipients who became infected

high damages, and doctors’ insur-
lance premiums continue skyward.

‘The AIDS lobby has manipulated
practically every power center in America
‘While the average American suspects the
Jobby’s motives, the AIDS juggernaut gar-
ers ever greater sums of taxpayer money
for treatment, research, and education and
is now trying to shift the blame for the epi-
eric to promiscuous heterosexuals rather
than homosexuals.

No one seriously doubts that there is
an AIDS crisis, but there is no consensus
about the true nature of the epidemic or
its sokution. There is also little reason to
hope that the AIDS lobby will step back
from ite current supercharged level of
activity to reconsider the impact of its
‘efforts on society and the collective good.

iain tacieariacace

S

‘apa sop 395


47

Mr. Moran. How about the organization that provided the train-
ing to the Bureau of Reclamation employee, do you know who that
was?

Mr. DorNAN. I am going to find out through your committee’s
hearings, and I am looking forward to it.

Mr. Moran. Where was the value survey that you spoke of in
.your testimony administered to the trainers, where was the value
survey administered?

Mr. Dornan. I assume here in Washington, but I am going to
find that out through the excellent investigating of your committee.
Mr. Burton will tell me or Mrs. Morella, when she finds out.

Mr. Moran. You suggested that if we're going to have training
on HIV/AIDS, that we ought to have training on heart disease and
cancer, because they are the No. 1 and No. 2 killers. Would you
admit that there is a difference in the fact that HIV/AIDS can be
infectious, whereas cancer and heart disease not, would you recog-
nize that there is a difference?

Mr. Dornan. Of course, but just as we have nutrition training
in some Federal agencies, everything that increases the health of
our Federal workers or workers in U.S. industry is good and can
be part of on the work education and increase the work value of
our work force in America, to keep them healthy. I am looking for-
ward to these hearings, I'm going to learn a lot from these hear-

ings.

Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Congressman Dornan, and we’ll
probably hear more about this when OPM testifies because they're
responsible for organizing these.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Bur-
ton, for 5 minutes.

Mr. BurTON. I won’t take 5 minutes, I don’t believe, Mr. Chair-
man.

I would just like to ask my good friend from California about the
information that might be given out in the form of pamphlets to
people telling them about how they can contract AIDS and the dan-
gers of it. Some of the information that I have seen, in particular
the information that was sent out by Dr. Koop, didn’t jibe with
some of the recommendations that have been made by other doc-
tors and scientists.

For instance, and I’d just like to have your opinion on this, ac-
cording to the information I have, there are 230 million AIDS vi-
ruses that will fit on a period at the end of a sentence. And it is
in every bodily fluid. And that includes perspiration, saliva, blood,
and all body——

Mr. DoRNAN. Tears.

Mr. BurTON. Tears. And since there is a divergence of opinion
among some scientists about transmission, shouldn’t pamphlets il-
luminate those differences and say that if there are to be errors
made, they should be made on the side of safety?

Mr. Dornan. Well, I was one of those who circulated the letter.
I think we only got about 55 signatures, to get Dr. Koop that ap-
pointment. It was a tough fight. And he disappointed me on some
things, but I must defend him and say he was trying.


51

seems to be a done deal. But that was my piece of the action to
save millions of dollars and not to put out of the service healthy,
deployable, combat-ready people to over-politically correct a situa-
tion with about 1,300 people in the military who are HIV positive.

In the Federal workplace, for civilians, I’d say treat them with
respect. If you get violations or instances of ignorance and preju-
dice tow: them, fine, take care of that by the supervisors. But
we're going to find out, Mr. Mascara, although I know Mr. Mica
will, how much is all this costing and what are we going to do to
protect people’s lives and dignity who don’t want to go to a seminar
that is offending their basic core values.

Mr. Mica. I you, Mr. Dornan.

Mr. Mascara. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more.

Mr. Moran. Frank’s going to try to get the answer.

Mr. DornaN. No, he’s going to give me the answer.

Mr. Mica. We have three more panels.

Mr. Mascara. I promised to be less combative than Mr. Moran
and my question to you concerning whether or not there was a
piece of legislation or a bill, you said none.

And I have a copy of H.R. 862. Could you explain how that inter-
faces, if it does at all, with the subject matter that we’re entertain-
ing here today? That’s the prohibition on—this is H.R. 862—the
Prohibition on Use of Federal Funds To Promote Homosexuality. Is
that somehow tied in with what we're discussing here today?

Mr. Dornan. Oh, no, no, no. That’s the problem that you can see
in the lobby of the Interior Department building. It is related, but
it comes under the broader heading of the hidden agenda in push-
ing so-called diversity.

But, no, I wouldn’t say that was related here. And I might ob-
serve something, Mr. Mascara, and Mr. Moran, too, sometimes
somebody will say what’s the theory of relativity? And you'll say,
basically E equals MC squared, and their response will be, duh, an-
swer my question. Sometimes you answer questions, and people
just don’t get it, to use that overworked phrase.

Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman for his question.

Mr. Dornan, we have also Mr. Gilman.

The gentleman from New York is recognized.

Mr. Gitman. Our very distinguished panelist, Mr. Dornan, from
reviewing your testimony and your comments, if the materials were
properly prepared and presented, you’d have no objection then to
presenting this kind of training to Federal workers? Is that correct?

Mr. DornaN. None. But I would also ask—I wouldn’t object to it
coming first, but I would also want to know what other programs
do you have to save lives. Drunk driving programs, marital coun-

ing, because our family breakup rate is shredding the whole fab-
ric of our society, what other programs do you have? Is this one
getting special treatment because it takes your breath away to look
at some of the agendas out of this White House? I’m wondering, ev-
erybody is wondering what's going on. It is reflected in all my mail

ere.

Mr. BurTON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILMAN. Yes, be pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BuRTON. I want to reiterate one thing I said. I think it is
extremely important if we give out informational pamphlets, that


‘memorandum for the record of ber opinion of what transpired at the meeting. A copy of her signed memo is
‘Attachment (11). While there are minor differences in the two memos, it should be noted that they both agree oa,
‘the fact that Mr. Smith threatened to fire me if did not attend the HIV/AIDS taining,

Jus prior to the meeting of January 24, 1995 Mr. Leibrand had given me a series of documents that he
hhad received from the personne! office. These were a series of six directives down the Navy chain of command on
‘the mandatory HIV/AIDS training. They incinded President Clinton's memo of September 30, 1993 and Christine
Gebdie's implementing instraction of November 3, 1993. These documents are Attachments (12) through (17).

‘After discussion of my situation with my wife, Kathleen, } called Mr. Burke on the morming of January 26,
1995 to say that I would attend oae of the HIV/AIDS training classes with reservation and under protest, [ kept a
‘memo of this phone call as Attachment (18).

‘attended the mandatory training class on HIV/AIDS on the afternoon of January 31, 1995. 1 took
extensive notes and these are included as Attachment (19). Also Attachment (20) is one of the hand outs presented
to all attendees by Mr. Burke and his associate insiracior, Mr. Ed Coleman. Let me say at the outset that after
_aentively listening to what was presented during the clas | found it offcasive tomy religious beliefs and I sil
considered that my First Amendment rights were violated by being forced to attend it. One of the most interesting
featnres of this course was found in the page on Prevention in the hand out. Three no-risk sexual activities, from
the point of view of catching AIDS, are listed. These are (1) no sex (i.¢., abstinence), (2) masturbation and (3) sex
‘only with an uninfected, monogamous partner wo docs not share nonles and syringes, | say this i most
interesting as the former Surgeon General, Dr. Elders, had been fired from ber position not two months before this
date for calling for masturbation education.

Ow
instructors, Mr. Burke and Mr. Coleman, stated that they had received training in this nsterial from the American
‘Red Cross and the Naval Hospital, New London, CT. We were then shown two videos one called “AIDS for
‘Supervisors” issued by the Chief of Naval Education and Training (CNET) in cooperation with the Navy Burem of

Medicine (BUMED). The other was titted “The Many Faces of AIDS” and its credits indicated that it was


142

Mr. Mica. Thank you, and I will yield now to the gentlelady from
Maryland, Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MorRELLA. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Just a
few questions to our panelists here.

First of all, I am wondering, how is the selection of instructors
for the agencies’ HIV/AIDS prevention training done? How did you
select who was going to be doing the instructing?

I guess I will ask the three agencies.

Mr. TOWNSEND. Mrs. Morelia, Wardell Townsend with Agri-
culture. U.S. Agriculture was on a volunteer basis. The agencies es-
tablished a—on a volunteer basis to accept people who would go
into the training—or be trained as trainers; and through that proc-
ess—there were also some points of self-review that was used as
well, and of course it was on a voluntary basis that we had trainers
come forward.

Mrs. MORELLA. Did you have final say about who was going to
be doing the training as a result of maybe the course or question-
ing or—in other words, did you look to who was ultimately se-
lected?

Now, you say voluntary basis.

Mr. TOWNSEND. Well, I am sure that—this was up to the agen-
cies because the agencies put forward individuals they thought
would serve them well, and I am sure that some of those had—
were people from Personnel, Human Resources background for the
most part.

Mrs. MORELLA. You see what I am getting at, just simply getting
at the fact that you don’t just say, I have a vacancy for teachers,
but rather, people have to meet certain qualifications and maybe
take some initial tests and prove that they can do it well; and I
think a lot is in it.

Would the other agencies like to respond?

Mr. MCFEE. I would like to respond.

Mrs. MoRELLA. Mr. McFee.

Mr. McFEE. We provided the subcommittee with a very detailed
list of the kind of criteria that we were looking for in trainers. They
can be summarized really in three areas: attitudes, knowledge, and
training skills. We used the same criteria for contract trainers, and
we required our contractors to follow the same criteria that we
used for our in-house trainers.

We did—one of the complaints, for example, that we got of the
three complaints I was telling you about was complaining about
some inappropriate deviation from the curriculum by a trainer. The
minute we found out about that, we contacted the contractor imme-
diately and that behavior stopped and we did not have any more
problems with it. In one area, we actually canceled a contractor de-
cided not to renew a contract and go to another organization be-
cause of the fact that we did not believe the trainers were well
qualified and they had deviated from our curriculum.

Mrs. MORELLA. Do you feel you have a strong enough role in
this—in the training procedure?

Mr. MCFEE. I think we did for this particular project because we
paid very close attention to it right out of the Secretary’s office.


135

“8.
PROVIDING INFORMATION INSTEAD OP MISCONCEPTIONS. HIV/AIDS
TRAINING HELPS TO PREVENT WORKPLACE DISRUPTIONS. POR EXAMPLE,
THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES OF EMPLOYEES REFUSING TO WORK IN THE
SAME OFFICE AS A CO-WORKER WITH HIV.

BY PREVENTING SUCH
INCIDENTS, THE TRAINING CAN HELP ENHANCE PRODUCTIVITY AND ENSURE
THAT EMPLOYEES ARE TREATED FAIRLY. AT THE SAME TIME, WE
UNDERSTAND THAT SOME EMPLOYEES MAY HAVE STRONG, PERSONAL
OBJECTIONS TC PARTICIPATING IN THESE TRAINING COURSES. IN SUCH
INSTANCES, IT 7S UP TO EACH AGENCY AS TO HOW TO HANDLE THESE
SITUATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, USDA HAD SOME FMPLOYEES WHO HAD STRONG
RELIGIOUS OR MORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE TRAINING, AND THE DEPARTMENT
MADE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THEM.

HIV/AIDS TRAINING IS NOT THE FIRST GOVERNMENTWIDE TRAINING
MANDATE. THE COMPUTER SECURITY ACT OF 1987 REQUIRED THAT ALL
FEDERAL EMPLCYEES BE TAUGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPUTER SECURITY,
BASIC COMPUTER SECURITY POLICISS, AND EMPLOYBES’ RESPONSIBILITY
FOR COMPUTER SECURITY. ALSO, IN 1992, TH2 OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT
ETHICS REQUIRED THAT EVERY FEDERAL EMPLOYSE RECEIVE AN
ORIENTATION IN ETHICS. IN ADDITION, TRAINING FOR CERTIFICATION
TS REQUIRED FOR ALL CONTRACTING AND PROJECT OFFICERS BEFORE THEY
CAN SERVE IN THOSE CAPACITIES. AS IN THE CASE OF THE HIV/AIDS
TRAINING, GUIDELINES WERE ISSUED TO HELP ASSURE UNIFORMITY OF THE
INFORMATION DELIVERED TO EMPLOYBES.


13

of the Interior Department this very morning. Congress has a re-
sponsibility to put an immediate end to such offensive nonsense.
am hopeful that with the help of this subcommittee we can do

so without further waste of taxpayer funds and equally precious
time which also translates into money.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify.

(The attachments to Hon. Robert K. Dornan’s prepared state-
ment follow:]


187

Mr. Mica. Again, I thank all the panelists.

We have another vote, but I think I’ve got time to get my ques-
tions in, and I'll start with Mr. Heuerman. You testified that there
were about 2.4 million employee training sessions; is that correct?

Mr. HEUERMAN. Yes, what we call instances of employee train-
ing. That is when an employee has been sent——

Kir. Mica. And these, it appears, last about 2, 2¥2 hours. I guess
some of the sessions are 2¥2 hours and some of them have up to
4-day training sessions for the trainers.

Mr. HEUERMAN. In terms of the HIV/AIDS training that was
done under the administration’s policy, it is my understanding that
these range from 2 to 3 hours. I believe the guidelines

Mr. MICA. So we're looking at about 5 million hours?
wm HEUERMAN. Well, the 2.4 instances is total training of all

inds.

Mr. Mica. Six million hours, if we took about 2% hours, it would
be 5 to 6 million employee hours.

Mr. HEUERMAN. Well, again, the 2.4 million that I quoted in my
testimony refers to all kinds of training, not HIV/AIDS training.

Mr. Mica. Oh, I see, OK.

Mr. HEUERMAN. Yes, it is total training for that fiscal year.

Mr. Mica. Do you have any estimate of what the cost is for the
Government? Some previous witnesses have testified they esti-
mated it was $80 to Foo million for the AIDS training programs,
both for the in-house trainers and also for the employees.

Mr. HEUERMAN. No, sir, I do not have a governmentwide esti-
mate of the cost of training for HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Mica. It also appears regarding OPM guidelines and policy,
that there doesn’t seem to be a very clear policy, or at least the
agencies are not informed as to exactly what their responsibilities
are. Do you think this is an accurate description?

Mr. HEUERMAN. With respect to HIV/AIDS training, the specific
guidelines for this training were issued by the Office of National

S Policy on July 7, 1994. OPM did not issue any guidelines re-
garding /AIDS training in addition to those guidelines issued

y the Office of National AIDS Policy.

Mr. Mica. But you’re charged with oversight of these programs;
is that cor 2

Mr. HEUERMAN. OPM does have oversight authority with respect
to all aspects of personnel management.

Mr. Mica. Are you aware of problems with some of these agen-
cies? We've had Mr. Herron, a Federal employee, and others testify
here today, that they objected to these programs. What have you
heard from Federal employees and also how do you handle these
situations?

Mr. HEUERMAN. I would say the majority of inquiries we received
directly from Federal employees had to do with issue of wheth-
er or not they would have to attend training if they objected to it
on religious grounds. And when we started receiving those kinds of
inquiries, we researched the issue and discussed it with I know
HHS specifically, and I believe also with the Office of National
AIDS Policy.

And we have been advising employees and agencies for that mat-
ter that if an employee objects to attending what he or she believes


55

administration is concerned—if the administration is concerned
about educating Federal workers on AIDS, a one-page handout or
a brochure that tells how AIDS is or is not transmitted would have
been sufficient.

But this training is about more than education. It is about
changing attitudes, as the White House guideline so blatantly
states. As a result, it is imperative that Congress take action to
more narrowly define what is appropriate for workplace training,
and it is crucial that Congress establish some sort of accountability
system so that these programs are monitored and don’t again be-
come a bully pulpit for activists pushing anti-family policies.

‘hank you.

[Note.—The attachments to Ms. Hutchens prepared statement
can be found in subcommittee files.]

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hutchens follows:]


2

a responsibility to Federal employees. We owe it to them to make
sure that the training they receive will give them the knowledge
and skills they need to do the best job they can for the American
people and to advance in their careers as far as their abilities will
allow. And we also have an obligation, both to the taxpayers and
Federal employees, to ensure that employees are not subjected to
training that is inappropriate for their workplace, either in content
or in the manner in which it is presented. This responsibility is es-
pecially critical when it comes to mandatory training.

By statute, the goal of all employee training should be to, and
I quote, assist in achieving an agency’s mission by improving em-
ployee and organizational performance. In short, it should be truly
job related.

Unfortunately, recent reports of agency actions and congressional
hearings suggests that some Federal training programs have
slip) from their moorings. For example, Congressman Frank
Wolf held a hearing on March 30, 1995, to examine controversial
taxpayer financed cult-like training. News articles have also de-
scribed incidents in the administration’s AIDS training program
that, if true, seem totally unrelated to improving employees’ on-the-
job performance, and totally inappropriate for the Federal work-
place. What role does speculating about the likely sexual practices
of an employee’s grandmother, descriptions of sex toys, including
flavored condoms and other graphic descriptions of sexual prac-
tices, serve in our Federal employee training?

What role does providing instructions on bleaching needles used
to inject illicit drugs have in our Federal training programs? We
must ask ourselves some of these questions.

We cannot simply ignore these reports without breaking faith
with both our constituents and Federal employees. This sub-
committee has an obligation to determine whether the AIDS train-
ing program has gone astray. And if we find that it has, it is our
duty to find a way to keep future programs within proper bounds.

I believe there may be a place for AIDS training in the work-

lace, AIDS is a horrific disease. It is fatal and there is no cure.
t is rightly feared by everyone. Sometimes this fear leads to mis-
understanding and embarrassing incidents. The recent flap over
the Secret Service officers at the White House who wore gloves
while inspecting the bags of a group of gay officials visiting the
White House is a prime example. At first, it appeared they were
discriminating against gays by doing this. But later reports we re-
ceived say that officers were just following the recommendations of
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and they al-
ways wear gloves when searching bags.

Therefore, it is appropriate to provide Federal employees with ac-
curate information relating to the real risks they face and the po-
tential of contracting AIDS in the workplace. It is appropriate to
teach Federal employees what rights agency policies or Federal
laws extend to employees who are HIV positive or who have AIDS.
It is appropriate to teach Federal employees how to deal safely
with workplace accidents or injuries tt might expose them to
AIDS or other contagious diseases. It is also appropriate to teach
supervisors what to do if an employee discloses that he or she is
HIV positive or has AIDS. And it is appropriate to teach Federal


174

Testimony of Stephen Michael
Chairman of the Coordinating Committee
ACT UP Washington
202.462.0104

House Government Retorm and Oversight Committee on Civil Servica
June 22, 1995

Good Morning

Tam here today to tell the members of this committee, the congress and the American people that ACT UP
Washington opposes the continuation of the current AIDS training in the federal workplace. The program
's a charade, a fraud and a laroa. The White House Ottice of AIDS Policy is litle more than a press ottice on
AIDS. a smoke and mirrors operation. The AIDS Office, down to but three and a halt fulltime staff
members, functions litle more as the homosexual wing of Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign.

‘ACT UPis the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power. We were founded in 1987 and have chapters across this
‘ation and in 8 countries committed to ending the AIDS epidemic. Wo have fought too long to promote
‘sound AIDS policy recommendations to allow this admunsstration to continue with its make-believe AIDS
office pratending to have a national AIDS policy.

‘Ms. Patricia Floming, the Director of AIDS Policy, deigned not to be here because she says she's White
House stat. This is strange because the office is funded through the Department of Health and Human
Services. The positon 1s 60 ill-defined. no one knows who Ms. Flaming reports to, least of all Ms. Fleming
= does she report to Donna Shalala. of to the White House Domestic Policy advisor Carol Rasco, of Chiel ot
‘Staff Leon Panetta, or is it Assistant Secrotary Phil Lee? 1d lka to thank the committee tor atleast raising
the office out ofits low level obscunty. We ware supposed to have an AIDS Czar who reports directly to
the President, but Ms. Fleming has never mat one on one with the chiol executive. And that is why we
hhave no coherent national AIDS policy. This tragedy was dramatized for the nalion during the recent
rubber-glove debacle.

‘The glove incident exposes the weakness of the White House Office of AIDS Policy. Clinton's AIDS czar
‘simply doas not have the power an authority to imploment national AIDS policy, even within the contines.
‘of the White House grounds.

Security personnel never know hat they’te going to tind when they inspect a bag or portorm a body
search. Officers routinely encounter everything trom diy diapers to syringes to used sanitary napkins.
The wearing oF surgical gloves is not only sensible in some cvcumstances, it should be standard
procedure,

Yet iaw enforcement stil has no standard set of guidelines and procedures for dealing with HIV and other
tar more infectious agents like hepatitis B. A hall day sensitivity training on AIDS, which is touted by the
AIDS office as its major accomplishment, is no substitute for the real policies and procedures implamented
bya real AIDS Czar.

In the area of police procedure alone, agencies involved range trom the Secret Service and the ATF in the
‘Treasury Department, the FBI and INS in Justice, thé Departments of Defense, State, and Interior, not 10
‘mention state and local law enforcement authorities. Patsy Fleming lacks the authority to coordinate these

with the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the Occupational Safety and Health
‘Administration (OSHA). and the Department of Health and Human Services to establish appropriate
procedures.

The AIDS training in the federal workplace program is a joke, but we're not laughing. The priorities of the
AIDS epidemic are overwhelming. We need a real AIDS czar to implement policy recommendations across

government departments. Instead, the AIDS office is coordinating workplace training at places like the
Niaional inatutes of Health, whore tp researchers Hee Dy. Tony Fauci and Dr. Bob Gallo ae ok they
‘must spend a hatf a day listening to a prevention Make no mistake ACT UP Washington does not

Suppor Brown away precious AIDS dolars wh otros on tho Neary of al Sex


198

Legal Authority to Sell

The concerns Ms. Mitchelson addressed in her testimony were that,
first, OPM had no statutory authority to sell to the private
sector, and second, if OPM intended to contract for the
performance of its training obligations then OPM would have to
conduct that procurement in accordance with the requirements of
the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and the Competition in
Contracting Act (CICA).

Even if OPM had the statutory authority to sell to the private
sector, it still would have been required to conduct a
competitive procurement, Also, the statutory authority would
have to be fairly specific as to what could be sold to the
public, given that there are statutory authorities that allow
sale of certain items by other agencies to the public. an
example is the Federal Property and Adminitrative Services Act
of 1949, which authorizes the General Services Administration to
sell government property to the public. See 40 § U.S.C. 424,

Privatization Options Costs

In our February "Options Paper" we estimated that the cost of
outright termination of the training program would be $39.2
million, versus $34.2 million for the cost of an instrumentality,
as defined in the options paper. As of June 30, 1995, we
estimated that these costs would be $35.0 million and $31.3
million, respectively. Included in both June estimates is $30.2
million of "fixed costs". The fixed costs represent:

a. The Revolving Fund Training Program deficit at June 30,
1995.

b. An estimate for the cost of severance pay for the
employees who would be separated from government
service.

c. An estimate of the undepreciated costs of the assets
which would be written off when operations cease.

d. An estimate of the uncollectible accounts receivable
which we would write off.

The June estimates include variable costs of $4.8 million and
$1.1 million, respectively .
The variable costs represent:

a. Estimate of the cost for incremental staff time for
implementation of the instrumentality option.
b. Estimates of the incremental costs for compensation,

outplacement /retraining services for affected employees
and costs of representing the Agency in adverse actions
arising from the implementation of the termination
option.

¢. The decrease in the deficit for the four months ended

June 30, which we estimate would not have been realized
under the termination option.

‘These amounts are still estimates, as full costs have not yet

been realized.


163

Many businesses have addressed this dilemma effectively on a
very pragmatic basis. We know, for example, that AIDS is the
leading cause of death among Americans age 25 to 44. According
to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 54 percent of
this nation's workforce fall into this same age category. So
AIDS is striking hardest at the very core of this nation's
workforce.

Two out of three of our nation's largest businesses, and at
least one in 10 of our smallest businesses have already
experienced AIDS in their workplace. When AIDS strikes among an
ill-informed workforce, we have seen the workplace disrupted,
coworker fears run rampant and production halted.

Treating an employee with AIDS costs businesses a lot of
money. The CDC estimates it's costing this nation $15 billion a
year. For non-healthcare related costs, an employer can expect
to spend a maximum of $32,000 over five years on an HIV-infected
employee, while the average cost runs about $17,000, again
according to CDC statistics.

But these medical expenses -- and the expenses associated
with loss of productivity and disruptions in the workplace -- are
easily avoided through effective workplace education on HIV and
AIDS.

Importantly, we believe effective workplace education
protects a business's single most important asset: its
investment in its employees. The business community views
HIV/AIDS education as an economic issue. And we see the
potential for greater economic damage in the future if we don't
act now. AIDS threatens to make further inroads in the young
adult population -- where the epidemic is growing fastest.

Educating our workforces on HIV and AIDS makes sound
business sense. We believe strongly that all American workers
should receive a comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention education.
And we believe we must look to the Federal Government for
leadership and its strong support for this critically important
workplace education.

At the same time we acknowledge that discussing AIDS may
make some people uncomfortable. It is, for the most part, a
sexually transmitted disease that all sexually-active adults are
at risk of contracting. We believe, however, that the discomfort
some may feel over a public discussion of sex is far outweighed
by the critical life-saving information that this discussion can
convey. And we believe adults -- with a compelling interest in
protecting their lives and the lives of their families and loved


12

through sexual intercourse, dirty needles, blood transfusions, tattoos, needle sticks, and
transmission from mother to baby. The training continued with a discussion of the ways to
prevent and reduce the risk of HIV infection. After a brief acknowledgment that abstinence
was the only effective way to prevent HIV infection, the instructor proceeded to recommend
ways to reduce the risk of infection. For drug users, she suggested sterilizing used needles
with one part bleach and four parts scalding hot water. Then, for about the next thirty
minutes, we were lectured on the use of condoms--what kind to buy, the colors they come
in, proper storage, and the use of spermicides. Throughout the lecture, I kept wondering
“What does this have to do with the workplace?” In fact, it seemed to be more of a class in
sex education, rather than a seminar to educate Federal employees about the challenges posed
by the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Mr. Chairman, you had asked me in the letter of invitation if the AIDS training program
‘was well-designed to meet the statutory objective of assisting the agency in achieving its mission
and performance goals by improving employee and organizational performance. In my opinion,
it was not well-designed. The training did not improve my performance in the workplace. In
my opinion, increasing AIDS awareness in the workplace could be accomplished through the use
of brochures or short optional training videos— not a 2% hour mandatory training session.

‘Again, thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.


27

‘The nation's former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders told homosexual magazine The Advocate,
“Americans need to know that sex is wonderful and a normal...and healthy part of our being,
whether it is homosexual or heterosexual." She endorses adoption of children by homosexuals
and called the Boy Scouts’ ban on homosexual Scouts and Scout leaders "unfair."*”

Roberta Achtenberg is HUD's assistant secretary for Fair Housing and Equa! Opportunity.
She appeared in San Francisco's 1992 gay pride parade riding in the back seat of a convertible
next to her “partner” (Mary Morgan, a San Francisco municipal court judge) and *their" child
The sign on the car said: "Celebrating Family Values."**

While a member of the San Francisco board of supervisors and a member of a United Way
chapter in that area, Achtenberg helped to defund the Boy Scouts for their moral standards
She has continued her activism in the federal government.”

In February 1994 Achtenberg signed a diversity policy that requires managers to “participate
as active members of minority, feminist or other cultural organizations" to qualify for an
“outstanding” rating ©

Some federal agencies have appointed homosexual watchdogs to ensure employee compliance
with pro-gay diversity policies. For example, the Foreign Agriculture Service has a gay, lesbian
and bisexual program manager. This is a collateral duty to take no more than 20 percent of the
manager's time Her task is to promote the gay, lesbian and bisexual employment program and to
develop and disseminate information on employment matters throughout the agency.“

DISCOURAGING DISSENT

Federal employees who object to the diversity push beware! U.S. Merit Systems Protection
Board Chairman Ben Erdreich has embraced diversity. The MSPB is the agency that rules on
federal employee appeals of personnel actions. Erdreich told his employees on November 19,
1994: "T have a strong commitment to diversity and equitable treatment in the

workplace... Managers will be graded on...respect for diversity in the workplace and {the
extent to which they} perform responsibilities without regard to the differences of race,
color...sexual orientation..."

Department of Agriculture and senior EEO manager Karl Mertz ran into the diversity wall
On March 4, 1994 Mertz told a reporter when asked about then-Secretary Espy's gay-rights
agenda, the AG Department should be headed "toward Camelot, not Sodom and Gomorrah."®

Mertz was later told that his interview conflicted with Department civil rights policy "which could
‘seriously undermine your ability to perform your responsibilities." He was transferred to a non-
management job.

CONCLUSION


10

Progression.

© How to protect oneself to avoid HIV infection.

© Facts about HIV Antibody Testing—-what it is, what it measures, the
“window period”, and the difference between “confidential” and
“anonymous” testing; and

© Information about NIH, local, and national resources that can offer

additional information, counseling, etc.

While these “key topics” were addressed in the seminar, a disproportionate amount of
time was devoted to how to protect oneself to avoid HIV infection.

‘As a health professional, I agree that educating the public to dispel fears about
contracting AIDS from a co-worker is a good thing. However, 1 do question the 2% hour
time frame required for the training, the manner of presentation, the content of the training,
and the costs to taxpayers to send 17,000 NIH employees to the sessions.

Let me share my personal experience. Upon arriving at the seminar, 1 was surprised
to learn that the primary instructor was a psycho-social worker from the Whitman-Walker
Clinic here in Washington. Given the many qualified doctors, researchers, and HIV care-
givers on the NIH campus, it certainly seemed odd that an outside entity was brought in to
conduct the seminar.

After introducing herself, the instructor opened the session by telling us that she
would be direct and forthright—and she was. In fact, the manner of presentation throughout
seemed to reflect a casual indifference to the sensitivities of those present. No thought

seemed to have been given to the audience make-up. For example, during the discussion of


146

Join the Fight
Against HIV/AIDS!

Become A Trainer!

As part of its HIV/AIDS awareness initiative,
OPM is seeking employees to conduct
*HIV/AIDS In The Workplace” workshops.
The workshops will provide information to
OPM employees about the virus and its
prevention, and general policies on HIV/AIDS
at the worksite. As a first step, selected
volunteers will attend a "tain-the-trainer”
workshop. You need not be an expert!

The train-the-trainer
workshop will be
held:

May 24-25, 1994

"HIV/AIDS In The Workplace" Trainer Application/Selection Process:

1 Applications (including supervisory approvals) are to be submitted to Kim Exeter, Training
and Development Division, Room 1447, (or FAX (202) 606-1732) by April 22, 1994.

2. A Panel Interview will follow the initial screening of applications.
3. Employees will be notified of their selection by May 13, 1994.

4, In addition to the 16 hours of training, selected trainers will be expected to devote
approximately 12 to 15 hours over a six-month period beginning June 1, 1994.

If you have any questions, please give Ms. Exeter a call on (202) 606-1993.


63

Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony. And I’m going to turn
now to Mr. Robert Maginnis, from the Family Research Council,
another organization that has looked into this matter.

Mr. Maginnis.

Mr. MAGINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it’s a pleasure to
address you today concerning the administration’s AIDS training
program.

My name is Bob Maginnis and I have a quarter century of train-
ing experience as an Army colonel. President Clinton announced on
September 30, 1993, to all heads of executive departments, his
HIV/AIDS policy. The policy requires each Secretary to designate
a senior staff member to implement HIV/AIDS training programs
and to develop workplace policies for employees with HIV and
AIDS. The training has received a mixed review.

Some Federal employees have called the Family Research Coun-
cil to complain that they found the training offensive. Others have
said it was relatively benign.

Now, the administration’s AIDS awareness training has numer-
ous problems in my opinion. It does not reduce the risk of contract-
ing HIV, and it merely recites the provisions outlined in the Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Act as well as the Federal Rehabilitation Act
of 1993—or 1973, rather.

The training duplicates other Federal AIDS education programs
and it has been used to promote homosexuality.

You asked me to address four specific questions. No. 1, does the
training meet the statutory objective? The governing statute de-
fines training as the process of providing for and making available
to an employee information which will improve individual and or-
ganizational performance and assist in achieving the agency’s mis-
sion and performance goals. It remains a mystery, though, to me,
as to how this training meets this objective.

The Government’s publications provide little help. For example,
the Treasury Department’s AIDS awareness booklet quotes Presi-
dent Clinton. It says, “We need to set an example.”

And what is that example, I ask? In a session I attended, the Age
riculture Department outlined its training goal. I heard, the goals
are to shatter the myths about AIDS, explain how to treat people
with AIDS, to encourage employees to keep an open mind to better
understand AIDS, and to emphasize that AIDS is difficult to con-
tract. There was no attempt to link the agency’s mission and goals
with the training.

While Agriculture’s AIDS goals could also be made for cancer or
heart disease, which kill many more Americans every year, the
Federal Government doesn’t mandate 3 hours of training to pre-
vent these diseases. In fact, Federal Government-sponsored AIDS
awareness training may have been a good idea back in 1987, but
after spending $500 million per year on AIDS education for many
years, the Clinton administration’s program appears to be a total
waste of taxpayer money.

Conservative estimates of the cost to the taxpayer of the admin-
istration’s program are somewhere between $80 and $100 million
in lost productivity, material and fees. Congress should demand a
full accounting of that.


20

homosexual misconduct, Reno removed any reference to sexual orientation from application
forms Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), an open homosexual, stated, "The clear implication
is that, outside the uniformed military services, being gay will not be a relevant factor "*

Moreover, Reno ruled that a foreigner, who claimed that he was persecuted by his government for
being homosexual, may be eligible to immigrate to the U.S.” In 1994 the Attorney General
waived immigration laws so that avowed HIV-infected homosexuals could participate in New
York's "Gay Olympics

This official recognition of homosexuals is taking place without legislative action. Indeed, there
are no laws requiring these changes, and little chance that such laws could be passed
Homosexuals are being awarded a special class status based solely on behavior, not on a benign
characteristic like race or gender

The Administration's official recognition goes further. Office of Personnel Management Director
James King sent a memo to all OPM employees in January, 1994 announcing the formal
recognition of the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Employees (GLOBE) as a professional association
This recognition bestows on GLOBE the same privileges extended to other associations For
example, GLOBE can now use government facilities, communication systems, bulletin boards,
and have official representation at personnel meetings”

GLOBE's stated purpose is to “promote understanding of issues affecting gay, lesbian and
bisexual employees, provide outreach to the gay, lesbian and bisexual community; serve as a
resource group to the Secretary on issues of concern to gay, lesbian and bisexual employees,
‘work for the creation of a diverse work force that assures respect and civil rights for gay, lesbian
and bisexual employees, and create a forum for the concerns of the gay, lesbian and bisexual
community." There are more than 40 chapters throughout the federal government."

‘The Department of Transportation GLOBE chapter earned some notoriety when posters
depicting famous people alleged to be homosexual were displayed on bulletin boards The posters
‘were made at government expense and identified Eleanor Roosevelt, Virginia Woolf, Errol Flynn,
and Walt Whitman as homosexuals "

Federal Aviation Administration employee Anthony Venchieri complained when he received a
DOT voice mail message inviting him to “celebrate with us the diversity of the gay and lesbian
community." The message was broadcast to all 4,100 DOT voice-mail users. He was removed
from the system after complaining but was later reinstated, FAA's Office of Civil Rights
spokesman stated, "The Department of Transportation has offically recognized the organization
[GLOBE]... The FAA complies with this recognition of an employee association which
contributes to employee welfare and morale and assists in fostering a climate of diversity and
inclusion “””

GLOBE also uses government facilities to promote homosexuality. During June 1994, many
federal agencies permitted GLOBE chapters to use space to host homosexual programs For

2


37

STATEMENT OF THE
HONORABLE CONSTANCE A. MORELLA
*” HEARING ON ;

TRAINING POLICY AND OVERSIGHT &
ADMINISTRATION AIDS TRAINING PROGRAM
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE
JUNE 22, 1995

| would like to thank Chairman Mica for calling this
hearing to examine the effectiveness and responsiveness of
governmentwide training policy and oversight and the
administration of the AIDS prevention training initiative.
Needless to say the June hearings of this subcommittee have
been very -- to say the least -- provocative, and this hearing
has the potential for being just as -- provocative.

Let’s talk about training. At its highest level, training
enhances organizational performance and has measurable
results that qualify and quantify the effort. The role and
promulgation of training policy should be to facilitate this.

In my opinion, there are three major authorities that
currently provide the framework for conducting and
evaluating training in the Government. Two are clear cut,
and one is not so clear cut -- the Government Employees
Training Act, Executive Order 11348, and the Government
Performance and Results Act.

Last year, through the Federal Workforce Restructuring
Act, Congress amended the Government Employees Training
Act, including the definition of "training." This modification
placed emphasis on "mission-related” training rather than
“job-related” training for employees. This, in turn, gave
managers the flexibility to prepare employees for new
responsibilities outside their current occupations to meet new
skill demands or to help alleviate skill shortagés.

£.0. 11348 directs OPM to provide assistance to the
Federal agencies in the improvement of training programs and
in developing sound training programs. The Government
Performance and Results Acts (GPRA) was designed to

1


157

Page 2 -- Response to Congressman Moran's Questions

4. Various units within your department have used different
organizations to provide their training. NIH used Whitman-
Walker. The Centers for Dit Control used the Red Cross. The
rest of your workers got their training from Hi-Tech. How do the
different programs compare? How were each of these programs
evaluated? what if any complaints were received about each of
the prograns? What if any action vas taken on complaints
received

Response: raining covered two major areas: medical and
Bplicuisiogice! informstion on HIV/AIDS and werk place policy
issues related to dealing with employees affected by the virus.
‘The presentation of medical/epidemiological information varied
slightiy depending on the contractor, though the content was
similar. For example, Whitman-Walker's prevention module (used
at the National Institutes of Health) was slightly expanded
compared to that in the Department's model curriculum delivered
by Hi-Tech and Federal occupational Health instructors. The Red
Cross (at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) put
more emphasis on HIV/AIDS issues facing the community as a whole
(e.g-, in schools). ‘The section on workplace policy issues was
typically covered by Departmental personnel specialists who
generally followed the outline developed by Hi-Tech, regardless
of which contractor provided the medical/epidemiological modules.
Copies of all three curricula have been previously submitted to
the subcommittee.

Each of our contractors obtained written evaluations from
participants at the end of each session. As stated in my
testimony, we received very few complaints about the HIV/AIDS
training. In fact, the majority of the written evaluations were
quite positive. The few complaints we did receive did not focus
on the training content as much as on individual trainers and how
they handled the delivery of the training. The problems with
individual trainers were addressed immediately by discussing the
situation with the contractor who counseled the instructor about
appropriate delivery of the training or, as a last resort,
removed the trainer.



57

adjourned and the President's primary goal would have been met. However, the
instructor proceeded beyond information and into application. He asked the class
what would qualify as *non-risky” sexual activity? Masturbation was the first item
listed on the overhead projector. The instructor continued by making jokes about
phone sex being a “non-risky” activity.

‘The instructor then proceeded to cover "somewhat risky” and “risky” sex
activities. The discussion included topics like “anal sex,” “exchanging sex toys," and
“oral-anal contact.”

‘The entire two-hour class was littered with the instructor's off-color jokes
ranging from anything from condoms to bizarre lubricants. I fail to see how these
discussions are crucial to the federal workplace. Clearly, this class did more to
embarrass and perhaps desensitize workers than to effectively and efficiently educate
them about AIDS.

Implementing the Program

‘As I mentioned earlier, training varied from agency to agency. The White
‘House gave the agencies the option of either contracting organizations to come in and
perform the training or recruiting volunteers from within the office to lead the
seminars. The Department of Agriculture opted for the latter.

T received a copy of the Agriculture Department's "Train the Trainer”
notebook. The manual raised several disturbing issues. The Facilitator's Guide
explains how the department selects its trainers. Volunteers for leadership must
undergo a four-day training seminar in order to become "certified instructors.” One
of the exercises each volunteer must complete during the training is a worksheet
tiled "Values About HIV/AIDS-Related Issues.” This survey probes into a person's
deepest feelings about sex and homosexuality. It asks participants how they feel
about such issues as sex without love, love without sex, homosexuality for other
people, and homosexuality for my child. (See Appendix #1.)

‘After completing the survey, participants are to discuss their answers with
another person and then with the entire class. They are also invited to change their
answers as they change their minds,

At the end of the 4-day training seminar, the participants are given a score
based on: peer feedback, self assessment, trainer feedback, and performance on pre-
and post-assessment. Volunteers cannot become a “lead trainer" unless they are
awarded a score between 90 and 100 percent. If they score between 80 and 89
percent, they are allowed to be a co-trainer. And if they score less than 80 percent
they are eligible only to be an assistant trainer. Assistant trainers can only present
courses with a lead trainer. It is not dear how much influence the "Values
Worksheet” has on the overall score, but regardless, the Department of Agriculture
has no business probing employees about their beliefs on these subjects.

Non-Judgmental Atiudes

t of Agriculture’s "Train the Trainer” notebook spends a lot of
time focusing on nstracent atonal Instructors must be careful not to offend

2


23

homosexual Fact: A biological (genetic, hormonal, neurological, other) predisposition

toward homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual orientation is present at birth in all boys and
girls." No source for these “facts” is provided, nor could there be.” So-called genetic studies on
homosexuality are flawed and conducted by homosexual activists.

The U.S. Health and Human Services department sponsored a "Multi-Culture Day" in Dallas,
Texas in April, 1994. An HHS employee gained official permission to man an exhibit,
“Highlighting Our Gay and Lesbian Culture."

Four federal agencies hosted a "Global Diversity Day” on May 25, 1994 at San Francisco's
U.S. Customs House. The activities were attended by 300 federal employees and included
displays by gay, lesbian, and bisexual representatives. On display were a rainbow flag that
was flown at the 1993 March on Washington, posters displaying famous homosexuals, and
cultural items such as books and GLOBE applications.*

Possibly the largest diversity event was hosted by the U.S. Navy on September 8, 1994 near
the Pentagon. Diversity Day ‘94 included an opening ceremony with a welcome by a three-star
admiral who stated, "The federal and private sector must make diversity part of business." He
also said that the work environment “is not a matter for moral issues.”

‘The government's guest speaker was diversity expert and professor at Northeastern Ilinois
University Dr. Samuel Betances. He equated racism, sexism, and homophobia and then stated,
"We can start all over if need be."TM He explained that former Alabama Governor George
Wallace, a one-time racist, started over by recanting his racist beliefs

Betances encouraged homosexuals to organize “to get respect” much like women, blacks, and
Latinos organized.” He emphasized that all of us "must be prepared to unlearn” old ways,

He observed that homosexuals are "part of the diversity equation whether we like it or notTM and
that they “need a climate of respect"?

The activities included a seminar entitled "Another Color of the Rainbow: Sexual Minorities
in the Workplace” taught by an acknowledged lesbian, and a videotape, “On Being Gay,"
which promotes homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality

The U.S. Air Force Academy already has a diversity day scheduled for April 1995. The
symposium is entitled, "Strength Through Diversity Leadership Symposium.” Conference
director Colonel David Wagie says that his program will not include "sexual orientation" issues.
He explained, "We are interested only in using the term as offically defined and used by DOD."

‘The Navy, however, is cruising toward sexual diversity. Secretary of the Navy John Dalton
wrote the following in his diversity policy statement on May 23, 1994: "Our continued success
requires that each civilian employee and applicant be afforded the opportunity to excel without
regard to his or her race, color, gender, sexual orientation....“”


144

uly 25, 1995

HIV/AIDS TRAINING PROGRAM
AT THE
U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Training P D
~ Program developed by an HIV/AIDS Partnership Committee chaired by the Deputy
Chief of Staff, and inchuding representation fom AFGE Local 32, AFL-CIO, OPM Employee
Health Services policy (responsible for agency wide HIV/AIDS policy), Employee Assistance
Program (EAP) counselor, and the OPM training office
‘Training Materi
- Adapted from training manuals developed by the Center for HIV/Substance Abuse
Training (under contract to HHS)
Instructor Selection Process

- Trainers were OPM employees who volunteered to teach the subject (see attached
‘memorandum from Deputy Chief of Staff, dated April 6, 1994)

- Selection was made by the Partnership Committee based on the expectations outlined in
‘the informational flyer attached to the April 6, 1994, memorandum referenced above

1 Traini

= Initial cadre of instructors received their basic HIV/AIDS training from the contractors
who developed the governmentwide training materials for HHS - subsequent instructors were
trained by experienced OPM instructors

- OPM instructors received additional training by experts from the National Center for
Health Statistics (Centers for Disease Control) and the American Red Cross

Attachment - April 6, 1994, Memorandum for all Employees


90

Mr. Mica. A $10 charge to attend?

Ms. MICKLEY. Yes, that came out of —

Mr. Mica. I haven't heard of that before.

Ms. MICKLEY. So if you add that on top of your salary.

Mr. Mica. Again, I am not aware of any charge in these. But
we'll look into that matter, too.

Mr. Maginnis, also did you look into the aspect of training the
trainers and the cost involved in that, the time?

Mr. MAGINNIS. I did not look specifically at that, no, sir.

Mr. Mica. And you don’t know what percentage is done, say, in-
house or what contracted services inform the training?

Mr. MacInnis. I’ve spoken with trainers that went through the
training, but I don’t know how much money was involved.

Mr. Mica. And, Ms. Hutchens, I think you referred to the De-
partment of Agriculture’s training manual for trainers, and some
of the questions were quite objectionable. You don’t feel that it is
appropriate that taxpayer dollars be expended on training public
employees at the Federal level in these specific questions and ap-
proaches?

Ms. HUTCHENS. Certainly, and I might also point out, again, that
at the Department of Agriculture, the trainers went through a 4-
day training seminar before they were allowed to lead classes.

Mr. Mica. Finally, Ms. Hutchens, Ms. Mickley, Mr. Maginnis,
and Mr. Herron possibly, you have looked at the different pro-
grams. I have seen some of them—Department of Energy has one.
Is there a model that you think should be the standards that you
think are appropriate for taxpayer support for AIDS and HIV posi-
tive training?

Ms. MICKLEY. As I said, I think it is important to increase AIDS
awareness for the general public, not just Federal employees.
But——

Mr. Mica. The question was did you see any Federal program
that you consider acceptable?

Ms. MICKLEY. I can only speak for the one I attended.

Mr. Mica. Ms. Hutchens.

Ms. HUTCHENS. From the ones I investigated, no, I didn’t think
any of them were acceptable.

Mr. Mica. Mr. Herron.

Mr. HERRON. I can only speak for the one I attended, sir. But I
would add that I am a collateral duty occupational safety and
health manager for my agency and we do give handouts to all our
employees, let’s say on the common cold, and boating and summer
safety.

Mr. Mica. Is that where the rubber gloves for the White House
security officers are contained?

Mr. HERRON. I heard that this morning.

Mr. Mica. I’m not sure myself.

Mr. Maginnis, did you see any programs that were acceptable
with any of the Federal agencies?

Mr. MaGInnis. Not in their entirety; no, sir.

Mr. Mica. I thank the witnesses and I’d yield to the ranking
member, Mr. Moran.

Mr. MoraN. Thank you, Mr. Mica.


172

‘When asked about the information presented during the training, 29% sald “extremely
‘uscful*, 63% said “very useful", and an additional 6% indicated "useful" for an
overall usefulness rating of 97%.

‘Whea asked thelr overall impesesion of:the-program,-1n astonishing 31% circled the
‘box which said “one of the best I've seen". ‘The overall approval rating war'96.54%.

‘The American Red Cross is another major provider of HIV/AIDS education to the
Federal government. ‘They, (00, have similar evaluation data, reflecting similar syocess,
While they were unable to aitend today, T understand thal they have submitted to the
‘committce & complete report of their evaluation data and the success of their program.

Mr. Chairman, in your invitation to testify, you asked me if T thought that the Pederal
government has a special obligation to its employees and their families with regards to
RIV/AIDS training, ‘The answer to your question is self-evident; under our Constitutional
mandate to promote the genemal welfare, we must. Every public health official in the nation
‘will tell you that Ignocance 1s one of the major risk factors of HIV transmission. If we turn
back now, if we start limiting knowledge rather than expanding it, if we suggest thatthe
overnment dots not have a compelling, vested interest in the publle health, o He, wolf
being of its workforve, how wilt we explain it to our children if we fail them at this critical
hour?


44

showing they were affected by racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and
he puts in quotes, “homophobia,” there is a thing called familia
phobia, a phobia of the family, or other traumas.

In short order, tempers were on the boil, that white men were
being on the receiving end of such invective as, quote, not getting
it, not understanding life in a white male dominated society. Then
it got into one’s insensitivity. And he said, finally, when I brought
up religious objections, he goes on to say, I was told my faith was
my baggage.

How many times have I heard that in the last 10 years? And I
had to work it out. So let me just say this. If Bob Dornan as a
young Air Force lieutenant or captain was subjected to this, I
would have walked. I would have raised holy hell. Nobody plays
around with my faith.

And the problem here is you are going to have in the next panel,
and I look forward to this, I think I will stay for it, Thomas Herron,
who has written an extensive statement. I read it during the break.
He’s going to be fired if he doesn’t subject his faith to what he
thinks is a rude, obnoxious and in-his-face briefing. And they're
trying to negotiate with him to get 70 percent of the briefing in
public, and then they'll give him a makeup session in private on
safe sex in the other, for the other 30 percent. This is bizarre.

Mr. Bass. Congressman Dornan, the clock should be running on
me here. I’d like to ask you just to respond as briefly as you can
to whether or not you think that it is appropriate, as is stated here
in your testimony to educate Federal workers on how AIDS is and
is not transmitted in the workplace and so forth.

Do you think there should be basic mandatory training on how
to deal with AIDS versus all the other stuff that we have been
talking about, the problems, so forth? Do you think that is an ap-
propriate part of the training process for Federal employees?

Mr. Dornan. I would say the way two surgeon generals ago did
it, a pamphlet at taxpayer expense. They did this in England, sent
to every Federal employee, maybe a little tougher than the vague
one—it wasn’t so vague, it was pretty good, that Doctor Koop
mailed to every household in America at our taxpayer expense. And
then if at a certain base or in a certain department there are com-
plaints of People with the HIV virus saying they are being treated
rudely or with insensitivity, then there might be some selective
training verbally.

But to eat up millions of dollars of person hours bringing people
into auditoriums and obviously with the training problem I'd say
no. I’d say first you handle it by pamphlet, see what the feedback

As.

Mr. Bass. All right.

Thank you very much, Congressman Dornan.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Moran, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Bass.

Bob, you were offered by a Federal employee in Denver, CO,
more than 8,500 evaluation forms of HIV/AIDS training, and that
were all positive. And I understand your office rejected them. Is
that the case?



85

Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Herron, and also our other panelists,
for your testimony.

Mr. Herron, I read all of your testimony and some of the back-
ground information. Can you tell me what the policy is now in
DOD? Is AIDS testing or AIDS training mandatory in ?

Mr. HERRON. Well, Congressman Mica, I have just heard word of
mouth that it will not be repeated. I was speaking to the gen-
tleman who was my instructor, and he said, well, they’re not going
to do it anymore.

Mr. Mica. But it is not mandatory anymore, you're saying?

Mr. HERRON. That’s what I hear, but the documents that I have
iven you down the chain of command in the Navy, unless they
ave been rescinded or updated in some way, say it is.

Mr. Mica. You were called into a hearing at one point, I believe,
and told to bring representation. And it is my understanding you
took notes and also someone from—was it Office of Personnel?

Mr. HERRON. It was our local personnel office, she also took
notes.

Mr. Mica. And they also indicated that you would be terminated
if you did not attend these training sessions, is that correct?

Mr. HERRON. That’s right, if I persisted in not going to it. They
gave me a window. We have about 5,000 to 6,000 people employed
on our base, and the training was staggered over a month. I missed
the—we have a small agency. I missed the training dates for my
agency and so I had to go and make up class with some other folks.

Mr. Mica. And you asked also for some opportunity to opt out
of part of the training and that was also denied?

ir. HERRON. Well, at the discipline hearing, I said my objections
going back to the document, AIDS at Work, put out by ONAP, was
in the prevention module, because that was a safe sex brief. I have
no objection to learning or relearning, as a supervisor, personnel
practices with handicapped or disabled employees, disability re-
quirements, no problem with that whatsoever. Just with the safe
sex part.

ir. Mica. It ap) that, Ms. Hutchens, Ms. Mickley and Mr.
Herron, at least agree that they don’t object to AIDS training
in the Federal workplace, it was some of the content and approach
and some of the doctrine that was presented. Is that correct, from
the three?

Ms. MICKLEY. Yeah. The manner I think in which it was pre-
sented, and the fact that, at least in my experience, I was part of
a research institution where a lot of pretty credible sources of HIV
researchers are there, and why there had to be an outside entity
to come in to do that, why we couldn’t have used someone in-house.

Mr. Mica. And it appears that AIDS training, as a requirement,
appears to be sort of a bipartisan mandate, both from President
Reagan and from President Clinton. Again, Ms. Hutchens, your ob-
jection is to the manner and the content?

Ms. HUTCHENS. The content, yes. But we also need to consider
the taxpayer aspect of it. I believe that if you are going to address
this in_an office government worker setting, it can be effectively
and efficiently done in a half hour, not 2 to 3 hours.

Mr. Mica. Mr. Herron, do you know if anything is in your per-
sonnel record as far as this matter?


mye Personnel Management — wasiingion. 0c 20815.0001

Office

‘Washington, DC 20515-6143

Dear Representative Mica:

‘This is in response to your letter of June 23 requesting supplemental information on the
U.S. Office of Personne! Management’s (OPM) role in overseeing Federal employee

‘Question 1. Describe actions OPM took to look into the abuses of the Administration's
AIDS training program.

‘The Federal Workforce AIDS Initiative was a White House initiative with specific

‘would appropriately deal with the concems expressed and that no OPM action was
required,

‘The story also reported alleged complaints from unnamed Department of Defense
(DOD) employees. We made no inquiries of DOD because no DOD agency was
identi, "Your panel asd winenses a the Jue 24, 1995 bering which DOD
‘agencies were the subject of the complaints. The witnesses did not know.

‘Question 2. Describe actions OPM took to look into abuses of the FAA training

programs.
In 1993, OPM leaned of alleged improprities with Federal Aviation
‘Administration courses. Again, OPM staff informally discussed the

‘Department of Transportation ¥ ic
‘was aware of the allegations and was taking appropriate corrective action.


Bud ANAONYL

bb 8 Mi alavinva

Z0€ ZOE dsxis

NOILWZILWAId NOLLVNIWY3SL

{OL

Ov

(suoljiw ut $)
NOILVZILVAIYd “SA NOLLVNINYSL ONINIVEL
LN3ZIWS9SVNVW TANNOSU3d dO 391440


62

CONCERNED
ea)

Responses to Rep. Jim Moran’s Questions

QUESTION: Your statement indicates that your organization received calls from federal
workers from all over America about AIDS/HIV training. What led these employees to call
your organization?

Initially, calls came from CWA members who are also federal workers; therefore they were
required to attend the AIDS training. Knowing that we monitor these issues, many of our
members took the initiative to call and write us about how this AIDS training is being
misused. As a result, we investigated the program and how it is being implemented. After
we broke the story in our Family Voice magazine and began talking about it on the radio,
calls flooded into our office from federal workers who were offended by what they were
forced to sit through. Most would not reveal their names because they feared it would
negatively impact their careers, but they wanted the truth to be told.

QUESTION: How did you gain access to the FDIC training course? Are you an FDIC
employee?

J am not an FDIC employee. After hearing me discuss the subject on the radio, an FDIC
employee called me saying he was scheduled to attend the AIDS training on April 17, and he
asked if | would join him. This provided the ideal opportunity to get a first-hand account of
what was being taught, so I accepted.

QUESTION: Did you ever attempt to convey your concerns about the FDIC program directly
to either the trainer or officials at the FDIC?

Since I am not an employee at the FDIC and because | knew abuse of this program was not
limited to this one occasion, contacting FDIC officials about the offensive nature of the
training would have been pointless. However, the Washington Times article that exposed the
AIDS training classes apparently caused a stir at the FDIC. In response to employee concerns
about the nature of the training, an e-mail went out to FDIC employees assuring them that
their training would not be offensive. The e-mail stated that the training would be
“workplace specific." As my testimony shows, the training violated both of these assurances.

QUESTION: How did you obtain copies of the Training Facilitators Guides used by the
Agriculture and Energy Departments?

‘The Department of Energy manuals were sent to me by a CWA member who works at that
department. The Department of Agriculture manuals were a part of their train-the-trainers
notebook which | obtained from the department's AIDS Specialist Betty J. Thomas. I received
other department-specific information when I sent out a series of letters to the various
departments asking how the AIDS education initiative was being implemented in the
respective agencies.

$370 Enfant Promenade, $W Suite 800-Washingzon, D.C. 20024 -Phone(202) 488-7000 - Fax (202) 488-0806


86

Mr. HERRON. Not that I’m aware of, Mr. Chairman. It was—I
think my management considered it overcome by events by the fact
that I did attend the training. Although I did get a copy of the for-
mal minutes of the discipline hearing.

Mr. Mica. Was it this Whitman-Walker Clinic, did they supervise
your training, or was it another group? I know some are contracted
and some are done internally. Do you recall who did the training?

Mr. HERRON. They were two of our EEO specialists, Mr. Chair-
man, and I believe they went to the naval hospital in New London,
CT, the BUMED, and received their training there. They also men-
tioned that they had been certified by the American Red Cross. So
it was Government employees doing the training.

However, the Whitman-Walker Clinic was featured in the “Many
Faces of AIDS” video. There were a couple of people who worked
there and they were featured—their comments were featured dur-
ing the video.

Mr. Mica. You’re in a supervisory position. Have you seen OPM
guidelines on training and other guidelines relating to AIDS train-
ing?

Mr. HERRON. No, I have not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mica. Are you aware of any guidelines?

Ms. MICKLEY. No.

Mr. Mica. So there’s no guidelines.

Mr. Maginnis, you testified you estimated the cost of this exer-
cise to the taxpayers, $80 to a $100 million. How did you come to
that figure?

Mr. MAGINNIS. Sir, I contacted the Census Bureau and the Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics to find out what the average wage was for
the Federal employee this past year. And I received a different fig-
ure from each. And that’s why I have a bracket. And I looked at
the total number of civil servants, according to the Census Bureau
this past year, and then I just multiplied the two. That's why I say
somewhere——

Mr. Mica. Did you calculate that on 2 million employees and
then another million in the military?

Mr. Macinnis. I did not—

Mr. Mica. Is this also for the active military, Mr. Herron?

Mr. HERRON. I believe it is. There were—

Mr. Mica. Probably in the 4 million range.

Mr. N. I would assume so, yes.

Mr. Mica. Again, I don’t know the exact figures. But 242 hours
of training, is that what you based it on?

Mr. MacInnis. I based on 3 hours, sir. I have a syllabus from
some of the agencies where it outlines 3 hours. And so I used the
3-hour number, multiplied that times the average income both
from the Department of Labor and Department of Census Bureau,
and then multiplied it times the number of Federal civil servants.

So it was between 80 and 100. Of course,-that doesn’t include
fees that are paid and other incidentals.

Mr. Mica. Are any of you aware how many contracts are let to
private training organizations for this?

Mr. HERRON. No, I’m not.


121

Personnel Management’s guidelines, which authorizes agencies to
establish health service programs for employees.

The purpose of this policy was to increase the understanding of
AIDS and to facilitate the ¢ proper handling of personnel situations
where AIDS is a factor. The goal of the Federal Workplace HIV
Education Initiative is to provide all Federal employees with HIV/
AIDS prevention information, and with information on workplace
policies and procedures relating to persons living with HIV/AIDS
and other chronic diseases.

This initiative is expected to improve employees’ organizational
performance in four ways: one, by informing employees regarding
their obligations to comply with civil rights laws and other applica-
ble statutes in their activities ing other employees and pro-
gram beneficiaries who have HIV or 1S; two, educating Federal
employees in HIV/AIDS prevention to help protect them from con-
tracting the disease, either inside or outside the workplace, thereby
prolonging their lives and on-the-job productivity and promoting a
safe work environment, free of disruption and ; three, educat-
ing Federal employees on workplace policies and procedures related
to their responsibilities when interacting with and providing serv-
ices to coworkers and customers living with HIV/AIDS or other
chronic illnesses, as well as overall organizational performance;
and fourth, informing USDA employees of risks to their safety and
health that might arise in the workplace so that they will have the
facts to enable them to respond to such risks if they arise.

Finally, as we have discussed with your subcommittee staff, it
has taken USDA a considerable amount of time to gather the need-
ed information to respond to the chairman’s letter of March 30,
1995. Our organization, having over 100,000 employees and some
29 agencies around the world, we've delivered on just about all of
the responses and I think in the next week or so you'll have the
balance of USDA’s responses.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Townsend follows:]


195

‘Honorable John L. Mica 2

© Increased the teachback segment of the Train-the-Trainer (TTT) training instruction to
afford the trainees the opportunity to become more familiar with the content and training
curricula, Overall, this exercise helps in assessing the trainee's readiness to teach others
and assists in self-assessment.

© Additional training materials were provided to the trainers:

« alist of USDA certified HIV/AIDS instructors and Safety Officers.

= a comprehensive vocabulary/"terms most often used” pertaining to the subject matter
‘were added to the training manual

~ contact information for state AIDS offices throughout the country

© Adjusted time allocation of the TTT program to provide additional time for the Person
With AIDS (PWA) presentation,

In view of public interest regarding our HIV/AIDS Employee Education Program, we are
organizing a working group to review all HIV/AIDS education training materials. Additionally,
‘we will continue to evaluate overall program effectiveness and make adjustments where
appropriate.

Sincerely,
Monae 4 /
‘Wardell C. Townsend, Jr.
Assistant Secretary
for Administration



124

In the United States, AIDS is now the leading cause of death for Americans in their 20s, 30s, and
40s, a large segment of the working population, Even if the average Federal worker doesnt yet
know someone with HIV or AIDS, the chances are that he or she soon will. We are not sure of
the exact number of Americans who have been exposed to the AIDS virus, This means any
number of people we know, work with, or come in contact with may have HTV or AIDS, and may
or may not know it. AIDS is no longer confined to certain groups. It is growing at alarming rates

among Americans in the prime of life, among minority groups, and among womea and children.

As the result of this alarming growth rete, many people have developed misconceptions regarding
HIV/AIDS. Many of our managers in the federal workforce want to better understand the legal
and personnel issues in order to appropriately respect the rights of their employees who may be
HIV positive. In addition, many employees who have co-workers with the disease want to know
how they can be supportive and responsive and, in some cases, are feerful of contracting the

disease from these same co-workers.

T would like to address the specific questions raised in your invitation to testify before this

subcommittee.

Firs, the Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS Fducation Initiative was designed to provide information
to Federal empioyees that was preventive in nature, As early as January 1990, USDA had a
vritten policy on AIDS in the workplace in compliance with Office of Personnel Maragement

‘guidelines, and 5 USC 7901, which authorizes agencies to establish health service programs for


31

52. Telephone Deposition of Dean Hammer, taken October 11, 1993 in case of Richard G. Evans, et al, v. Roy
Romer, et al, District Court City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, Case No. 92-CV-7223, Courtroom 19,
. 70. A search of NIH Librarys files on Dr. Hamer reveals 71 postings for published studies. The “gay-gene”
study was the first of is kind for Dr. Hamer

$3. Brian McCormick, “Researchers, Doctors Press for Gay Office at NIH," American Medical News, September
13, 1993, p. 10.

54 Interview of Victoria L. Magnuson, NCI's Biochemistry Laboratory, Building 37, NIH, December 8, 1993. The
interview was conducted by FRC research assistant Craig Gontheb, « Cornell University student

‘55. "Media Spike ‘Gay Gene’ Researcher's Homosexuality," Lambda Report, October 1993, p. 12.
56. The Washington Times, Septerber 8, 1994, p. A-6

51. Joyce Price, "Elders Calls Gey Sex " Wonderful “Healthy.” The Washington Times, March 19, 1994,

58 Joyce Price, "Lesbian Nominee’s Foes Light Up Senate Phones,” The Washington Times, May 21, 1993, p.A-3.

59. Tid

60. “Cenifetion of te Mandatory Exual Employment Oppornsiy/irnaive Emploment (EEOIAE), Clu
Diversity Critical Element and Performance Standards for Managers and Supervisors,” US Housing
and Urban Development, Jenuary 13, 1994, signed by Roberta "Aiseberg Roan Sexe Fat Hots e
Equal Opportuuty and Manitynn A. Davis, Assistant Secretary for Administration.

61, "Announcement Soliciting Applications. Ge), Lesbian and Bs-Sexual Program Maneger (Collateral Duty Assignment),
Foreign Agriculture Service, not dated

62. Ruth Larson, “Employees to be Graded on Support for Diversity.” The Washingion Times, December 2, 1993,
PAT

(63. Max Boot, “A Different Kind of Whistle-Blower,” The Wall Street Journal, April 27, 1994

64 Ibid


156

RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN MORAN'S QUESTIONS REGARDING
‘THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES'
WORKPLACE HIV/AIDS TRAINING

1. You indicated that the need for AIDS education varies with
the level of risk found in the particular workplace setting.
Does your agency provide different educational programs to your
employees based on their varying degrees of risk exposure?

Response: As stated in my testimony, the Department's employees
are at varying levels of risk of HIV/AIDS infection depending
upon the environment in which they work. Employees who provide
direct patient care or work in research laboratories with blood
or blood products, for example, are at higher risk of exposure to
HIV/AIDS than are those in a general office environment.

The training materials used to meet the President's HIV/AIDS
initiative and provided earlier to the subcommittee were
developed for the general work force and were not specifically
targeted at high risk employees. However, the Department.
conducts special, intensive training on blood-borne pathogens on
a regular basis for all employees in high risk positions. This
training complies with occupational health and safety standards
applicable to the type of job and level of exposure in the work
environment. ‘The occupational health and safety experts at the
Public Health Service have provided this kind of training for our
employees for many years.

2. You indicated that a self-study guide was provided to
employees who did not wish to attend the training. How was this
guide developed?

Response: The self-study guide was developed under contract by
HIV/AIDS training consultants from Hi-Tech International's Center
for HIV and Substance Abuse Training. Designed to closely follow
the face-to-face curriculum developed by Hi-Tech, the self-study
guide was piloted several times before being distributed. A copy
of that guide was previously provided to the subcommittee.

3. Were any of your employees disciplined in any way for not
participating in the training?

Response: No employees of this Department were disciplined for
refusing to participate in the training.


179

John L. Mica 2

Question 2. What specific guidance did OPM offer for the Administration's HIV/AIDS
training guidelines and for the development of the HHS curriculum and training manuals?
‘Was your guidance adopted?

OPM staff reviewed the "Recommended Guidelines for Federal Workplace
HIV/AIDS Initiative: AIDS at Work" and responded informally to the
‘Office of National Aids Policy (ONAP) staff. Our comments in general
were that the guidelines should be less prescriptive in terms of course
content, that agencies should have more flexibility in designing the
curriculum, and that agencies should decide whether or not supervisors and
employees should participate in the training together. Our comments were
considered, with others, and integrated into the final document, published
April 7, 1994,

OPM participated with other agencies in an interagency workgroup hosted by
Department of Health and Human Services, to develop an HIV/AIDS curriculum
and training manuals. Our staff was satisfied with the curriculum material
developed by the group. That curriculum was used by OPM interagency training
delivery centers. Approximately 16,000 Federal employees received this HIV/AIDS
training from OPM training centers. We also used the manual for internal OPM
training.

Question 3. Should Congress take action to provide OPM additional resources to permit
routine oversight of agency training programs to ensure that they meet the statutory
objectives.

‘There are millions of training instances a year, with very few problems. ‘The
“training law" places primary responsibility on agency training staff and
management responsible for taking appropriate and prudent actions regarding the
training of Federal employees. Complaints can and should be corrected by their
efforts to the maximum extent possible, We believe OPM has sufficient resources to
review periodically Federal agency training programs and to address serious
complaints that are not resolved by the agency,


We have mandatory AIDS training in the federal workplace
because we have federal employees who are ignorant of the AIDS
disease and who do not know how to treat those who have AIDS.
This was evident in the mid 1980s when Social Security workers
would not help AIDS inflicted individuals who came into their
office. This was evident last week when officers of the Secret
Service donned rubber gloves to greet gay and lesbian visitors to
the White House. AIDS training was necessary in the 1980s and is
necessary today.

We have mandatory AIDS training because AIDS, unlike cancer
or heart disease, is a highly contagious disease that has been
spreading among all segments of the population. AIDS also
differs from cancer and heart disease because people are not
discriminated against because they have cancer or a heart attack.
People are not afraid to shake hands with someone who has cancer
or heart disease.

Almost three fourths of the federal workforce has
participated in the AIDS/HIV education programs. The numbers of
those complaining about the content or mandatory nature of the
program has been extremely small. I am afraid that some are
trying to use those complaints and anecdotes to advance their own
agenda and eliminate a program that works well.

AIDS is a deadly disease. It is also a dreaded disease.
People do not exactly how it is contracted and they are afraid.
People are afraid that they can contract the disease from insect
bites, toilet seats, and sharing papers. People who are ignorant
of the disease shy away from those who have it or who they think
may have it. They discriminate against innocent people whose
only fault may be that they are inflicted with a deadly disease.

Mr. Chairmai all the Administration asks with this AIDs
training program is that you respect the dangers of the disease
and that you treat those who have the disease with the dignity
and respect you owe every American and every human being.

I had a full time volunteer on my 1992 campaign who had AIDS
and who subsequently died of AIDs. This poor man came into my
campaign office every single evening to do the thankless task of
running my phone bank. Ali he asked of me and all he asked of
his fellow volunteers was that we give him the respect and
dignity we owe to every person. It was hard for him. He lived
in fear of the infections, illnesses, and virus that withered
away at his body every day. He also lived in fear of the abuse,
discrimination, and prejudice that withered away hie soul every
day. To you and me the simple touch of another person, a simple
handshake or pat on the back is insignificant. To him it was a
sign that he was welcome and accepted and that we would never let
his disease create a wall between us.

Some see AIDS training as a means to advance a political


139

that we could in terms of balanced—balanced trainers, trainers
who would not have strong biases.

Mr. Mica. I also have questions with the manual, which I guess
you published too.

Is this your manual? It is from one of the training sessions,
March 30, 1995, and it gets into sexual behavior for oral sex with
a woman and then recommendations on nonmicrowaveable plastic
wrap and then some other things I won't get into. I am wondering
if this is an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer dollars for instruc-
tions like this. you feel it is appropriate?

Let the record show that there is some consultation with a high-
er pay grade level.

Mr. TOWNSEND. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mica. You don’t want to make a statement on behalf of the
Department?

Mr. TOWNSEND. Well, I will be—I could defer and answer, of
course——

Mr. Mica. We will submit it in writing. But again, these things
disturb a lot of the taxpayer population who are paying for this.
Mr. Heuerman, do you oversee some of these types of activities
with the agencies? ér don’t you feel this is part of your oversight
responsibility?

ir. HEUERMAN. We do not oversee specific individual agency
training programs, mainly because of lack of resources, and we
think the law primarily places the responsibility for developing and
evaluating training—specific training courses and their content and
method—on agency heads.

Mr. Mica. We do have a vote now, and I would appreciate it if
the members of this panel would remain. I think the minority may
want to question you and I have several more questions.

So we will recess temporarily for about 15 minutes. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. Mica. I would like to call the subcommittee back to order.
I see our ranking member has returned and we will give him the
opportunity now to question the panel.

ir. Moran, you are recognized.

Mr. Moran. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
ask the panelists if any of the training instructors teach about the
things that Mr. Dornan referred to in his testimony—flavored
condoms, sex toys, grandmothers having anal sex. Is this any of the
information that is being included in the instruction by the person-
nel under your direction? Whom shall we ask?

Tom McFee, you seem anxious to respond to that question.

Mr. McFEE. It will be short. No.

Mr. Moran. No. Good.

Anybody? Well, Mr. Dornan, though, refers in some graphic de-
tail about this stuff. Where is all this stuff coming from, other than
the fertile mind of Mr. Dornan?

Mr. McFEE. I am answering in relationship to my Department.
I can’t answer for the other Departments, but——

Mr. Moran. Department of Energy?

Ms. Moopy. I would have the same response. No, we were not
using any of those issues in our training, and I am not aware of
where it is coming from.


ui

Application

"HIV/AIDS In The Workplace" Trainer

Complete the front and back of this application and submit it to Kim Exeter, Training and
Development Division, Room 1447, or FAX (202) 606-1732 by April 22, 1994.

Name:

Organization:

Telephone number: FAX number:
Building: Room number:

‘As you know, discussions about HIV/AIDS often can generate strong feelings. As trainers,
you will be expected to:

- display sensitivity to the often controversial or emotionally charged issues (c.g.,
feelings of those infected with HIV/AIDS, or Issues of gender, sexual orientation,
and racial/ethnic differences);

+ have a working knowledge of, or a willingness to learn, the up-to-date factual
knowledge of HIV/AIDS; and

= have experience in training or believe you have the skills to be an effective trainer.
In the space provided below (or continue on a separate sheet), please explain why you would

like to participate as a trainer, and why you would be effective. Please include any experience,
education, references or other appropriate information.



153

Mr. Mica. But you have to instruct only with one of the people
whose score is higher; is that correct? .

Mrs. MORELLA. This is one of those situations where I think
OPM has a role they should be fulfilling. They should not be out
in the wings. They should be out in center stage working with
USDA.

I would agree with you about that questionnaire. I think it is de-
plorable to have—— .

Mr. Mica. Again, different people with different sets of values, if
the gentlelady will yield back. Some people are pretty liberal, some
people are pretty conservative, just like we have in the Congress.
But I mean, to a grandmother, a conservative, or a religious per-
son—did you not testify that most of your complaints came in the
religious area? Someone who is a fundamental Christian, for in-
stance, is going to find some of this very offensive, are they not,
sir

Mr. HEUERMAN. Ghat is What they indicated and — 1
ir. MIca. it is why you changed part of your policy; is
it not? Under the Civil Rights Bet, they have rights too, don’t they?

Mr. HEUERMAN. Yes, and that is what we advised them, that an
accommodation for religious reasons was provided for under the
Civil Rights Act.

Mr. Mica. I don’t want to take sides in this. I chair this sub-
committee and my responsibility is to see that the public money is
spent in the public interest with the Federal employee work force
well served. And I don’t object to AIDS training. It sounds like
McFee over here has a program that has worked fairly successfully.

There are problems we saw with your training with at least one
trainer. But it seems important that somebody oversee this. We are
paying, public money to recommend “Wet, Wild and Well Lesbian

jafer Sex” with a publication that the Federal taxpayers are pay-
ing for. Somebody needs to be overseeing this.

Again, there are things that we consider appropriate, as a soci-
ety, as a Congress, and as a subcommittee overseeing the Federal
work force. it is our role here today. We are not playing God or
making final life determinations. Helping people to extend their
lives should be the purpose for this training.

Sorry, I got carried away here. I am not chiding you because
some of you have done a good job. But obviously we have some
problems with the program that we would like to address, and we
seek your assistance—particularly OPM.

I am sorry the Office of AIDS Policy is not here. They should be.
The administration should be taking a more active role so we can
do a better job in this. I would appreciate your encouraging them
to participate in this process.

Mr. Heuerman, can you urge the administration to work with us
on this?

Mr. HEUERMAN. I will relay your request to the proper authori-
ties. Thank you.

Mr. Mica. Were there further questions?

Mr. Moran.

Mr. Moran. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was going to defer, but since
you just stirred it up again, you have referred half a dozen times
to this manual. I understand, but all of the basic information in


46

Mr. Moran. We have had conversations before, Bob, and I leave
you and I never know what exactly the answer was to the question
I asked sometimes. I’m going to try t-——

Mr. Dornan. It is just something wrong with the input, Mr.
Moran. As I told you about your——

Mr. MoraN. That may be, so let me-——

Mr. Dornan. As I told you about your priest who died of AIDS
for a moment of thrill, he might still be alive.

Mr. Moran. What?

Mr. Dornan. Yes, because I didn’t track you, I didn’t know why
you brought up a former priest who came to work for you, who then
people shook his hands and then all of a sudden you said he died.
Well, maybe if he lived his life normally, he wouldn’t have died.

Mr. Moran. People shook his hands after he contracted AIDS.

Mr. Dornan. As I shake hands with anybody who has AIDS.

Mr. Moran. And you don’t know that he died from sexual activ-
ity or from——

Mr. Dornan. No, he might have had a heart transplant, gotten
polluted blood.

Mr. Moran. He could have had a blood transfusion, too. You
made that assumption and to suggest that a former priest be for
a moment, you know, just a momentary lapse and died of AIDS,
that’s a pretty stupid——

Mr. Dornan. I was just showing that I didn’t track your state-
ments sometimes.

Mr. Moran. All right. Can you tell us what individual or organi-
zation provided the training to the Army Corps of Engineers em-
ployee that complained to you?

Mr. DorNAN. Again, am I having trouble here? You handle the
civilian employees. I handle the men and women in uniform.

Mr. Moran. Well, you made these accusations. We have a formal
hearing on television. I want to find out who did it.

Mr. DorNAN. I’ve got their letters here. They came to me and I’m
giving the information to you.

Mr. Moran. Who provided the—I’m not interested in the employ-
ees as much as the organization that provided the training, if they
were paid for with taxpayers money. You said in your testimony an
employee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wrote in a letter to
me talking about stuff I don’t even want to repeat but you said it
in your testimony. What organization provided that training?

Mr. DorNAN. Guess what, Mr. Moran?

Mr. Moran. What?

Mr. Dornan. Your excellent chairman is going to find that out
in these hearings and tell you all about it.

Mr. Moran. So you are making these accusations without finding
it out yourself, without knowing even whether the information you
were given is accurate? Is that the case?

Mr. DorNAN. Read my lips. That is your job, Congressman.

Mr. MorAN. No, it’s your job to make sure that you don’t make
accusations that——

Mr. DorNAN. I verified this is a real person. All this mail is real.
Do your job.


comurt
covennent aon JAMES P. MORAN
ERNMENT REFO fects mer oF aon
wemmmaratanera tet , “Romouscis
comme Congress of the United Dtates — wscncroe sea
a ‘on eae
erowoasionanons ae of eprttte
sconneTrt€ ON ishington, BE 205154608

Statement of Representative James P. Moran
‘On AIDS Training in the Federal Workplace
Subcommittee on Civil Service
June 22, 1995

Mr. Chairman:

I appreciate your having this hearing today. It is proper
that we take this opportunity to examine AIDS training policies
and procedures in the federal workforce.

I am pleased that you are committed to a balanced and
educated examination of this policy. AIDS is far too serious an
issue to demagogue and politicize and this policy is far too
important to the federal workforce and the nation as a whole.

At the outset, I believe it is important to provide some
background into the development of this policy. The federal
government first began giving serious attention to AIDS as a
government-wide workplace issue seven years ago after the Reagan
Commission on Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic issued a
report recommending a wide range of actions that employers should
take to address the problems posed by HIV infection. President
Reagan responded to the report by immediately directing federal
agencies to adopt workplace policies to address the treatment of
HIV infected persons in the workplace. President Clinton
expanded the Reagan initiative by directing agencies to establish
employee education and prevention programs.

Here is a copy of the “Employee HIV Education Manual* used
by the Department of Energy. I know that this manual was sent to
the office of every Subcommittee member and . hope you all had a
chance to review it. This manual is an extremely helpful and
extremely informative manual. It does not condone any sexual
practice it does not advance any agenda. It only shows employees
how to protect themselves from AIDS, how to recognize the early
warning signs of AIDs, and how to treat a co-worker who has AIDS.

Mr. Chairman, when we examine this policy we mist step back
and look at the issue in its entirety rather than focus on the
complaints of a few disgruntled employees. We have mandatory
AIDS training in the federal lace to ensure that federal
employees are aware of what AlDs is, what behaviors can increase
your risk of contracting AIDa, and how to treat those employees
‘and those Americans who may have AIDS.


40

abreast of health care options, legal and regulatory
requirements, coworker concems, and maintaining a
productive working relationship with affected individuals...
The workplace -- where most adults, including young adults,
spend time everyday — is a very logical point of access for
prevention education to a significant proportion of the US
population.”

To understand the need for AIDS awareness training, we
need not look any further than to the White House, where
several gay State legislators were given the “rubber gloves”
treatment. The Secret Servicemen, in eamest and ignorance,
thought they were “protecting” themselves.

AIDS is a terrible disease; however, the public's
ignorance about AIDS strips away the remaining dignity from
those who are fighting their greatest battle. Don’t we owe
these individuals the kindness, the respect and the
understanding that can be brought about through training?

However, my support for AIDS prevention training
should not be confused with support for specific training
methodologies. | do not condone or like statements involving
the sexual practices of grandmothers. | am a grandmother
myself, and an instructor s should have more decency than
that.

‘

As a former English professor, | do recognize how easy
it is to deviate from the course outline or to make an
unfortunate statement, particularly in response to a question.
| believe most of the incidents cited are such deviations, and
an agency would have very little control over them. But, if
agencies are not fully establishing their policies, documenting
their instructor guides and property preparing their trainers for
this very sensitive subject, they have done irreparable
damage to this initiative and a disservice to those who
elected, or were mandated, to attend.

In addition, | would call upon this subcommittee to
assure that the next time govemmmentwide training is done
that the appropriate strategy is in place for a cohesive and
cost-effective training approach. | was astonished as | read

4


120

Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony. We'll call now on
Wardell Townsend from the Department of Agriculture, welcome.

Mr. TOWNSEND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to appear before you on behalf of Secretary Dan
Glickman to testify on the topic of training at the Department of
Agriculture, and more specifically, on our implementation of the
Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Initiative.

Before I address the specific questions that were raised in your
invitation to testify, I would like to set the context for USDA’s HIV/
AIDS training. For almost 10 years it has been widely recognized
that HIV/AIDS, and AIDS, are health and employment policy con-
cerns for both public and private employers.

In 1988, President Reagan directed every Federal agency, and he
asked private sector employers as well, to provide information and
education services, to employees regarding HIV and AIDS. As part
of this effort, President Reagan asked the Attorney General to re-
view how the Federal Government should provide direction and
leadership in discouraging discrimination against HIV-infected in-
dividuals.

There have been ongoing efforts since this time to educate the
Federal work force on HIV/AIDS issues. On April 21, 1995, the cur-
rent Director of the National AIDS Policy Office distributed a
memorandum to all agencies clarifying the HIV/AIDS Training ini-
tiative.

While each agency must have HIV/AIDS training programs, each
agency should determine the scope of and participation in such
training. The memorandum also stated that the standards chosen
by the agencies for this determination should be consistent with
the personnel policies for similar training programs.

As the Assistant Secretary for Administration, I am also USDA’s
Safety and Health Officer. In that capacity, I oversee a number of
programs regarding safety, including training in the areas of radi-
ation safety and fire fighting safety. And these, of course, would en-
hance the workplace and make it a safer environment for all Fed-
eral workers. I firmly believe that we have a responsibility to our
employees to educate them regarding what is a potential risk with-
in their work environment.

As a result of an alarming growth rate, many people have devel-
oped misconceptions regarding HIV/AIDS. Many of our managers
in the work force want to better understand the legal and person-
nel issues in order to appropriately respect the rights of their em-
ployees who may have HIV—who may be HIV positive.

In addition, many employees who have coworkers with the dis-
ease want to know how y can be supportive and responsive.
However, in some cases, they are fearful of contracting the disease
from the same coworkers.

In summary, I’d like to address several of the specific questions
raised in your invitation to testify, knowing that my full statement
will be inserted in the record.

First, the Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Initiative was
designed to provide information to Federal employees that was pre-
ventive in nature. As early as January 1990, USDA had a written
policy on AIDS in the workplace in compliance with the Office of


700
‘Thine St, NW
“ait $00

Aingon, DC
20005
202) 392-2100
AX (202) 393.2134

19

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PROMOTES HOMOSEXUALITY
USING "DIVERSITY" COVER

by
Robert L. Maginnis

The federal government is using taxpayer money to promote homosexuality as the
moral equivalent of heterosexuality. This is happening under the guise of diversity
and it links virtually every aspect of government to the homosexual agenda,

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS HOMOSEXUALS
OFFICIAL STATUS

‘During the first two years of the Clinton Administration, most federal
have amended their equal employment opportunity and civil rights policies to
include the term "sexual orientation." These changes are not justified by law.

For example, Carol Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, sent a memo to all EPA employees on October 14, 1994 stating, “Today,
the EPA joins the growing list of public and private sector employers which have
‘added ‘sexual orientation’ to our equal employment opportunity poticy."”

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros did the same in
‘August, 1994 with a memo that states, "Sexual harassment and discrimination
base on seal vation ar umacepabl ithe workplace and wl 91 be
condoned at HUD."?

nt of Transportation Secretary Federico Pena published his statement in
1993 which declares, "[NJo one [can] be denied opportunities because of his or her
race, color, religion, sex..or sexual orientation"?

‘The Federal Bureau of Investigation joined the chorus when director Louis Freeh
stressed that "homosexual conduct is not per se misconduct and adopted a new
policy to admit homosexuals to the ranks of the Bureau.‘ Several homosexuals are
‘now being trained to become FBI agents.

Freeh’s boss, Attomey General Janet Reno, declared that the Department of Justice
will not discriminate on the basis of semal orientation when conducting security
clearances. Although

homosexuality has long been a marker for
1594L2HS


14

Dee apa
FTR

ATTACHMENTS to:

Testimony of Rep. Robert K. Dornan
Hearing before Subcommittee on Civil Service
“HIV/AIDS in the Workplace Training”
for Federal Employees
Chairman Jobo L. Mica

Thursday, June 22, 1995



3

employees, particularly supervisors and managers, about the insur-
ance and retirement options available to employees who also are
HIV positive or who have AIDS.

However, my constituents would, quite frankly, be outraged to
discover that their tax dollars are used to force Federal employees
to learn how to use a condom. They would rightfully ask, “How
many emp) loyees need to know that in order to perform their Fed-
eral jobs?” My constituents would also be shocked to know that.
their tax dollars were used to teach Federal employees about the
relative merits of microwaveable versus nonmicrowaveable Saran
Wrap for use, not in the kitchen, but in the bedroom! The people
in my district would also be appalled to find themselves footing the
bill to distribute booklets advertising, “Wet, Wild and Well: Lesbian
Safer Sex”, and listing sex shops that would sell various items. Yet
these are some of the very things that have happened in this AIDS
training program for employees. I have a copy of one of the pam-
phlets here.

I looked at this material last night, and one of these is pretty ex-
plicit and, I understand, taxpayer-financed. I have also acquiesced
to a request to hear from the group that publishes this pamphlet,
which will be part of our last panel, I understand. This is the pam-
phlet I’m talking about, and, again, I understand it is taxpayer-fi-
nanced.

My constituents would also object to training aimed at not just
increasing employees’ Knowledge about AIDS and the HIV virus or
their behavior on the job, but changing their personal attitudes and
beliefs. Yet clearly that seems to be one of the goals of the adminis-
tration’s training program. In fact, the administration’s guideline
tells agencies that one of their most difficult tasks will be docu-
menting whether the training, “has an impact on the knowledge,
attitudes, beliefs and behavior of the employees.”

It is no wonder that many Federal workers have found these
training programs offensive, because the administration has made
attendance at these programs mandatory for every employee, and
all are forced to participate.

Many have been faced with a cruel dilemma. Do they violate
their own consciences or religious principles by attending, or do
they run the risk of being disciplined if they refuse? I would like
to ask our staff to look into whether employees have been dis-
ciplined for not participating, and also ask them to see if these
quotations in their employee records are left as a permanent mark
against them.

In reading the material again last night, I was quite disturbed
by the changes in the administration’s position and also the imposi-
tion on some of the Federal employees that seemed unfair in mak-
ing this mandatory.

We're pleased today to honor the requests of our distinguished
colleague from California, Congressman Robert K. Dornan, to ap-
pear before this subcommittee and provide us with his evaluation
of the administration’s program.

We will also hear from Trudy Hutchens of the Concerned Women
for America, and Robert Maginnis of the Family Research Council,
both of whom attended a Federal AIDS training class for employ-


182

2
‘THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE NERU TO BE PREPARED TO DO MORE OK ULPFERENT
work.

CPM'S STATUTORY RCLE INVOLVES COORDINAY:NS AND PROMCTING FEDERAL

EMPLOYEE TRAINING PROGRAMS. WE EXERCISE OUR LEAVERSKI? IN

COLLABORATICN WITH AN INTERAGENCY GROUP OF TRAINING DIRECTORS, THE

BRD COUNCIL. WE FARTICLVATE IN JOINT DEVELOPMENTAL PROJECTS, SHARE

BEST PRACTICES, ANY IDENTIFY INNOVATIVE APPROACHES. WE ARE
EXPRESSLY FXUNIMITED BY LAW FROM PRESCRIBING TKE DETAILS OF
TRAINING PROGRAMS THAT ARE DESIGNED BY AN AGENCY STRICTLY FOR ITS

(OWN WORKFORCE.

OPM'S DIRECI TRAINING DELIVERY ROLE IS BECOMING LESS EXTENSIVE DUE

TO PRIVATIZATION. HOWEVER, OPM WILL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE
GOVERNMENT'S MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTIVE TALENT AT THE FEDERAL

EXECJTIVE INSTITUTE AND THE MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.

AS FAR AS OPM'S OVERSIGHT ROLE ES CONCERNED, WE ARE AUTHORIZED TO
ASK AGENCIES TO PROVIDE WHATEVER INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR
EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION AND REVIEW O? TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES. THIS AUTHORITY I$ ALREADY QUITE BROAD, SO WE DO NOT

BELIEVE THERE IS A NEED FOR EXPANDED STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT
OVERSIGHT.

IY IS MORE IMPORTANT, I THINK, TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH
02M CARRIES OUT THIS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY. AS I MENTIONED

EARLIER, A TREMENDOUS NUMBER CF TRAINING PROJECTS ARE BEING


110

health care options, legal and regulatory requirements, coworkers
concerns, and maintaining a productive working relationship with
affected individuals.

The Department’s training was successful in bringing these very
topics together in a 2¥2-hour session. Of the 3,639 headquarters
employees who evaluated our training program, 85 percent of em-
ployees rated the training as very good or excellent.

‘his year, the Centers for Disease Control reported that AIDS is
now the leading killer of Americans between the ages of 25 to 44.
We assume that the incidence of HIV infection for DOE employees
is the same as in the general population. Therefore, HIV/AIDS edu-
cation is of utmost importance to the Department of Energy’s em-

loyees.
P Detailed answers to your requested questions are included in the
information attached to the testimony submitted. I will be happy
to answer any questions you may have.

[Followup questions and answers of Ms. Moody follow:]


69

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is a privilege to be here this
morning to present testimony on my views of the AIDS training program at the National
Institutes of Health (NIH). I come here today not as a representative of the National
Institutes of Health, but as a private citizen. I've been employed at the NIH since 1982 as a
medical technologist, and for the last nine years I’ve been employed by the National Cancer
Institute (NCI) working in cancer research.

| appreciate the opportunity to share my personal experience as an attendee at the
mandatory AIDS training program at the NIH. In September 1994, I attended the mandatory
“HIV/AIDS In The Workplace Training Seminar” developed by the Office of AIDS Research

and the NIH Training Center, Division of Personnel Management. This seminar was put

together in response to President Clinton's directive of September 1993, which required all
Federal departments and agencies to provide HIV/AIDS training to its employees.
According to literature sent to me by the Office of AIDS Research, the intent of this mandate
was to educate Federal employees about the challenges posed by the HIV/AIDS epidemic,
and about fairness and equity issues in the workplace.
Key topics for each training session were to include:
© The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and other Federal policies and how
these apply to people living with HIV/AIDS in the workplace.
© The changing demographics of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United
States and the important events in the history of the epidemic.
© The difference between being HIV positive and having AIDS.
© How HIV attacks and destroys the immune system and the disease


24

AIDS AWARENESS OR MORE DIVERSITY TRAINING?

President Clinton announced on September 30, 1993 to all heads of executive departments his.
HIV/AIDS policy. The policy requires each secretary to designate a senior staff member to
implement HIV/AIDS education and prevention programs and to develop workplace policies
for employees with HIV/AIDS.

The training has received a mixed review Federal employees have called the Family Research
Council to complain that they found the training offensive

‘Two supervisors and 41 employees in the Federal Communication Commission's audio services

division chose not to attend mandatory "AIDS Awareness Training" An FCC employee stated,
"The classes are basically an adult version of high schoo! sex ed, with the modern-day sensitivity
training thrown in"

Department of Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary created "“Walkin’ the Talk" AIDS training
materials for three-hour, mandatory training sessions. The DOE’s Office of Economic Impact
and Diversity coordinated the funds for the training. A memo from the Department's Federal
Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Coordinator states, "All employees are required to complete
this training "*

‘The training includes a brief history of HIV, symptoms and prevention and risk reduction

There is a discussion of needle sharing and sexual contact. Federal employees are told to

reduce their HIV contraction risk by practicing “safer sex" by using barriers like condoms, dental
dams, plastic wrap, and latex gloves. ‘The manual states, "A dental dam (a small, square piece of
latex) or plastic wrap may be used for any oral-vaginal or oral-anal contact. All types of barriers
(condoms, dental dams, and plastic wrap) are effective against HIV transmission only if they are
used correctly and consistently from start to finish "TM*

The training materials are based on government “evidence” and the materials espouse confidence
in latex which is not supported by research, For example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention misrepresent a wealth of conflicting scientific evidence. The CDC does a
disservice to the American public when it promotes condoms as a responsible prevention strategy
CDC places its hopes on the correct and consistent use of condoms, an unreached and
unreachable goal "TM

‘The Energy Department makes a disclaimer: “HIV is transmitted without regard to gender,
age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or identification with any group. For this
reason, we avoid referring to ‘high risk groups" Not identifying “high risk groups” is
imesponsible. The CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report shows that at least 87 percent of HIV
victims either contracted the virus from homosexual encounters or by sharing needles.”

Probably the most outrag’ ~s example of government-sponsored AIDS training was done for the


143

Mrs. MORELLA. It seems to me that you have a very limited—a
limited part, a limited role to play in this, and maybe it could in
some way be enhanced and strengthened.

How about the other agencies? Would they like to comment?

Ms. Moopy. The Department of Energy started with the Red
Cross, and in conjunction with the Red Cross and the consulting
group called Nova Research, combined employees along with those
two groups, to come up with pilot initiatives. Employees then gave
input in the initial sessions and then we designed the training
around it. Nova and Red Cross were both selected at minimal cost
to the agency. We also had employees from our Employee Relations
Group in Human Resources and others who were trained and had
this sort of expertise.

Mrs. MORELLA. Would you like to comment?

Mr. HEUERMAN. I am not familiar with the precise arrangements
OPM internally had for training its own employees. I do recall that
the trainers—it was a voluntary basis. The trainers were trained
themselves in terms of the subject matter and how to present.
Their training was monitored, especially during their first few of-
ferings of it. Additional information, I would have to provide you
for the record.

{The information referred to follows:]


10

I'd like to welcome our distinguished colleague, Mr. Dornan.
Mr. Dornan, you’re recognized.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT K. DORNAN, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. DornaN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the homework you have done on this
very peculiar issue, because it makes my job much easier here. I
want to thank you personally for convening these hearings on this
matter of mandatory HIV/AIDS education training for Federal
employees, and I know that I speak for thousands of Federal work-
ers.

This training, according to the mail and the phone calls that my
office has been receiving, is an outrageous and fraudulent abuse of
the taxpayers’ money, and is also a clear violation of the moral and
religious rights of our Nation’s Federal employees. I am grateful
again for your willingness to investigate this abuse.

As you know, on September 30, 1993, Mr. Clinton signed a direc-
tive instructing all Federal departments and agencies to provide
comprehensive HIV/AIDS in the workplace training for employees.
Since I was quoted in an article published in the Washington
Times saying I would look into the many complaints I was receiv-
ing about that training in the Department of Defense, as the chair-
man of Military Personnel, many complaints were coming to me;
and since that article was published, my office has been flooded
with calls and letters from employees who do not understand that
if they are civil servants, it is the committee that has the respon-
sibility to look into their complaints.

Since then, that article, my office has been flooded with calls and
letters from people who are outraged, and I mean outraged and
upset about the content and particularly the delivery of the train-
ing, which apparently varies greatly. And I should emphasize that,
it seems to vary greatly from agency to agency and location to loca-
tion.

Many people would not leave their name with my office for fear
of strong reprisal from superiors. And while this training was sup-
posedly designed by the former AIDS czar, Kristine Gebbie, to fos-
ter tolerance in the workplace for HIV-infected employees, I am
concerned that it is instead being used to aggressively advance a
redefinition of the family and in many cases, judging again from
my mail and the phone calls, a blatant pro-homosexual agenda.

Calls and letters to my office indicate that much of the training
has included graphic discussions about sexual activities that many,
maybe most, Federal employees find is lewd, objectionable, and
humiliating. A Defense Department worker said her class included
a slide show of some things you have already mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, sex toys and flavored condoms.

Remember, this is all at taxpayer expense. We have to keep re-
minding ourselves of that. I’ve spoken with workers who said the
were lectured about the probable sex practices of their grand-

nts or other relatives. In fact, according to an article in the
fashington Times by a Federal worker who had the guts or was
so outraged to print this over his real name, she said she was,
“shocked and upset when the instructor personalized anal sex for


141

training she did complain to the agency that she works for, didn’t
she?

Mr. McFEE. I do not think she did. I checked with NIH, and they
said they had no complaints from her; they did not know the na-
ture of her complaint or even realize where she worked in NIH
until they looked it up.

Mr. Moran. So she never complained about the things that she
brought before a House committee this morning?

Mr. McFEE. Not that I have any record of.

Mr. Moran. Holy smokes. Well, let me just ask one other ques-
tion.

This video that we were told this morning was taught by the Red
Cross and the Department of Health and Human Services, what
role did you have in that, Mr. McFee? You represent the Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services. How much did you pay for
that video?

Mr. McFEE. The video was produced by the Red Cross in co-
operation with the Department. I am aware of the fact—I saw the

iim some time ago, and I remember that the then Secretary, Dr.
Louis Sullivan, was in it and was urging people to make AIDS
awareness an important issue.

Mr. Moran. Sullivan was Bush’s appointee, the Department of
Health and Human Services?

Mr. McFEE. I remember he was in the film.

Mr. Moran. This is the film that was found to be so offensive?

Mr. MCFEE. At least I believe that is what the witness con-
cluded, that the film was offensive.

The film was produced by the Red Cross. We did not get involved
in a review of the production, but one of the requirements for sup-
port on these types of AIDS training initiatives is that any product
produced has to be subject to a community sensitivity review, and
there is a board comprised of people in the community, not just
people that are concerned with the issue of AIDS, but a broad
range of community people that have to review this product. It is
my understanding that that Red Cross film went through that re-
view.

Mr. Mora. So you didn’t see anything offensive in it?

Mr. McFEE. I can’t remember. It was a number of years ago that
I saw it. I am sure that if I had seen something offensive, I would
have remembered it.

Mr. Moran. I don’t know. I know the Red Cross very well. I have
been very much involved with the Red Cross over the years, and
of course it is run by Senator Dole’s wife, Elizabeth Hanford Dole.
I am a little surprised that they would be producing the kind of in-
formation that was found to be so offensive by our panelists, and
particularly that Dr. Sullivan, whom I can’t imagine anyone find-
ing fault with in terms of his moral rectitude, would have partici-
pated in this very same video that is being used as an example of
offensive material.

So there seems to be a disconnect here from what we are hearing
is so offensive, some of the more bizarre accusations that Mr. Dor-
nan has alluded to and what the facts are; and that is what we
need to get to. So I hope we can do that, Mr. Chairman.


184

QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESSMAN JOHN L. MICA

QUESTION #1:

ANSWER:

Why did the Department evaluste the impact of training on
employee attitudes (¢.g., on their willingness to do volunteer
work)?

In the early months of the Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS
Education Initiative, the Department did evaluate the impact of
the HIV/AIDS training on employee attitudes in limited pilot
testing of new survey instruments. These early evaluations were
used based on recommendations of the Office of National AIDS
Policy, the National Headquarters of the American Red Cross,
and the Centers for Disease Control Business Responds to AIDS
evaluation staff. Only a small population of the DOE
employees, and for the most part only attendees of pilot sessions,

were asked questions concerning attitudes.

‘The American Red Cross pilot tested an instrument in a fow
initial presentations that were made to DOE staff in Washington,
DC and Golden, Colorado. This early survey included items that
assessed employee attitudes relevant to the role of HIV/AIDS in
the workplace. No other attitudes were assessed. The Red
Cross indicated to the pilot attendees that “there were no right or
‘wrong answers to these questions.” Because of survey
administrative difficulties, an inadequate number of responses

were received for these items. Thus, attitude measures were


29

16 “Diversity Policy Statement,” Secretary of Transportation memorandum “To All DOT Employees,” May 27, 1993,
signed by Federico Pena

17. “Establishment of USDA GLOBE," Department of Agriculture memo to Pat Browne, Spokesperson, USDA
GLOBE; signed Wardell C. Townsend, Jr, March 25, 1994,

18, Tim Crews, "USF.S Now ‘Prosctive’ For Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals,” The Sacramento Valley Mirror, March
15, 1993,

19. "RMT Decisions on Sexual Orientation Report Recommendations,” U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest
‘Service, February 24, 1993, signed by Ronald E. Stewart, Regional Forester

20, Kishore Jayabalan, “Typecastng “Diversity,” The Washington Post, Devember 4, 1994, p C-5.
21 Tb,

22. “Inspection Service Diversity Network Meeting Memo," United States Postal Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, October
31 to November 1, 1994

23 "Valuing Diversity,” U S Forest Service, Northen Region Phase I, not dated,
24. The Washington Times, April 18, 1994

25. "Pacific Southwest News Log," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pecfic Southwest Region, June,
1994, pp. 12-13

26. Robert L Maginnis attended the Diversity Day ‘94 welcoming ceremony This comment reflects notes taken
bby Maginnis at that ceremony on September 8, 1994 in the Crystal City Forum, Crystal Cuty, Virginia.

27. thd.
28 Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.

31. "Strength Through Diversity Symposium." Center for Character Development, Commandant of Cadets, United
‘Sines Air Force Academy, October 12, 1994.

32. "Equal Employment Opportunity/Diversity Policy Statement,” Department of the Navy, Office of the Secretary,
‘May 23, 1994, signed by John H, Dalton.

33. “Big Brother Is Watching,” Inside the Beltway, The Washingion Times, August 8, 1994, p. A-8

34, “Information about the Federal Workplace AIDS Education Initiative and Class Schedule Announcement.”
Department of Energy, from Donald Donaldson, Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Coordinstor, October 9,
1994

35. "Walkin’ the Talk,” HIV Education Materials for Managers, Supervisors and Team Leaders, The Deparunent of
Energy, Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, in conjunction with the Federal Workplace HIV Education
Initiative, not dated, p. 8


166

Mr. Mica. And now we will yield to Mr. Kenneth Goodman with
the Whitman-Walker Training Institute.

Mr. GoopDMAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the com-
mittee, ladies and gentlemen——

Mr. Mica. Now, do you have additional witnesses?

Mr. GOODMAN. These people will not be testifying, thank you. We
ask for the indulgence of the committee in this. Ladies and gentle-
men——

Mr. Mica. If they are not going to testify, would it be more ap-
Propriate if they —

ir. GOODMAN. These persons are germane to the testimony of
the witness. We ask for the indulgence of the committee. Thank

you,

Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Mica. Wait a second. Could you identify the people that are
sitting at the witness stand?

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes, sir. The person immediately to my right is
Mr. Joseph Goodman; to his right, Ms. Nancy Goodman; and to her
right, Ms. Shirley Goodman.

ir. Mica. And they are not going to testify?

Mr. GoopMaNn. They are not going to testify.

Mr. Mica. All right. Well, we will go ahead, but again, I will not
hear from them during this hearing. Go ahead.

Mr. GoopMAN. Thank you. Thank you for bringing the attention
of your committee to the important work which we do. We are
eager for this opportunity to showcase the unprecedented success
of our HIV/AIDS workplace training program.

My name is Ken Goodman, and I am here today with my family.
I run the Whitman-Walker Training Institute, which is affiliated
with the Whitman-Walker Clinic of Washington, DC. Whitman-
Walker was founded in 1973, and today is the largest frontline pro-
vider for HIV and AIDS services in the mid-Atlantic States. We
were the very first agency to provide HIV and AIDS education to
the Federal Government, and today, we believe that we are the
largest provider of these services to the Federal Government.

During the past 2 years, we have provided training and technical
assistance to numerous agencies, amongst them the Departments
of Commerce, Interior, Defense, Treasury, Transportation, and
Labor, as well as numerous independent agencies ranging from the
Panama Canal Commission to the General Services Administration
to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

I have been with Whitman-Walker since 1991, and was a mem-
ber of the team that developed the guidelines issued from the Of-
fice of National AIDS Policy in 1994. Since our time is limited
today and it is late, I know that everyone is impatient. I will keep
my prepared comments very brief.

I vill address two specific areas: first, the workplace training
curriculum which we use; and second, the response to our training
efforts by the Federal work force.

The workplace HIV/AIDS training program is a standardized 2-
hour training, 3 hours for supervisors. It begins by describing HIV
and AIDS, the progression of the disease, how the virus is trans-
mitted and how it is not transmitted, risk reduction, and HIV test-
ing.


186

In early 1994, the Department selected another contractor,
NOVA Research Company, to provide the HIV/AIDS training at
Headquarters, and a new course was implemented. The
evaluation instrument designed for these classes, representing a
significant majority of the training at Headquarters, did not
include questions relating to employees’ attitudes. These

evaluations were included in our previous submission to you.

‘The information binders provided to you on July 21, 1995
contain all the surveys and evaluations we received from the
HIV/AIDS training coordinators in our regional and area offices
For the most part the evaluations used throughout the regions
were shorter and did not include questions about employees’

attitudes.

1 want to emphasize that the comments we received from our
employees throughout the Department were taken very seriously.
“These comments provided the best guidance in correcting
misunderstandings, and more importantly, improving the

HIV/AIDS training.



98

T conclude my testimony with some examples of where manda-
tory training is used in the Department, and I would be happy to
answer any of your questions.

{The prepared statement of Mr. McFee follows:]


140

Mr. Moran. Mr. Townsend, are you aware of any of this stuff
being taught to Federal employees?

Mr. TOWNSEND. No, sir, 1 am not. Not aware of it—not aware of
it at the Department of Agriculture. It is not a part of our training,
training practice.

Mr. Moran. It is not a part of any of the training manuals that
you teach. Mr. Heuerman.

Mr. HEUERMAN. It is not part of the training that OPM provides
to its employees.

Mr. Moran. Well, let me see how we get at this, because I am
trying to figure out what is driving all this and whether the infor-
mation we are being given is accurate or representative of the sub-
ject that is before us.

I know that Mr. Dornan apparently enjoys talking about things
like sex toys and condoms and all that stuff, but I don’t know
whether or not it is relevant to the issue before us; and the first
thing to determine is whether it is any official part of any kind of
training manual. And clearly it is not, and all of you testified to
that extent.

Is there any advocacy of homosexuality in your training manuals
such as was the accusation by some of the panel members? Do you
recall that testimony? Is any of your training material specifically
advocative of homosexuality?

Mr. McFEE. No. The training material that was developed by
HHS in no way condoned or promoted a homosexual or a promis-
cuous life-style.

Mr. TOWNSEND. And likewise, Mr. Moran, at the Department of
Agriculture, I can say likewise. Our materials do not promote any
particular life-style.

Mr. Moran. And I assume you will agree, Ms. Moody?

Ms. Moopy. I agree.

Mr. Moran. Now, Mr. Heuerman, are you aware of any training
material provided to Federal employees that promotes the homo-
sexual life-style, as Mr. Dornan said in testimony this morning?

Mr. HEUERMAN. I have not personally seen or reviewed any au-
thorized training material put out by Federal agencies that pro-
motes the homosexual life-style.

Mr. Moran. Well, so we have a real disconnect from the people
responsible for the training and what we heard from Mr. Dornan
and from three panalists.

Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees, I gather, have been
instructed, according to one of the Federal employees. He assumed
that every Federal employee had. Mr. Mica suggested that people
in the military have, as well, which brings you up to 4 million peo-
ple. So out of those 4 million that are being used in the calculation
to estimate the cost of this, how many complaints have we re-
ceived? Are you aware?

Mr. McFEE. Again, I can tell you that we trained over 109,000
employees and, up until today, I have known of only three com-
plaints. Today I learned from Lyn Mickley that she had a com-
plaint. I have not heard from her officially.

Mr. Moran. Let me explore that. She was trained at the Na-
tional Institutes of Health. Clearly, if she was this upset about the


91

What was it that was not acceptable about the training, anybody
that wants to answer?

Mr. MAGINNIS. Sir, I'll begin if you’d like.

I spoke with a naval captain who went through the training 2
months ago. And she told me that she felt like crawling under the
chair when they pulled out a model, erect model of a male genitalia
and started to explain how in detail to put on a condom. She found
that very offensive.

Mr. Moran. What was offensive to you? That’s what I’m trying
to determine. What was offensive about the training to you?

Mr. MAGINNIS. The training that I went to, sir, I did not find of-
fensive. I found the material—

Mr. Moran. You didn’t find the training offensive?

Mr. MaGInnIs. I found the material they provided in the booklet
offensive.

Mr. Moran. But you didn’t find the training you went through
offensive?

Mr. MacInnis. I did not find anything that was said in the ses-
sion that I attended offensive.

Mr. Moran. What did you find offensive? Did you find anything
in the training that you went through offensive?

Ms. MICKLEY. Yes, sir, and I think I stated that in my testimony,
the three examples that I gave you, which was her discussion and
her remarks on suggesting a sign-up sheet in the back of the room
for those who wanted to participate in an oral sex study. I think
these off-hand comments about brushing your teeth in preparation
for the moment in response to participating in oral sex. t’s pret-
ty offensive, and I think it would be to you, sir.

Mr. Moran. I can understand. What organization provided that
training?

Ms. MICKLEY. The Whitman-Walker Clinic here in Washington.

Mr. Moran. And what was the sites?

Ms. MICKLEY. Excuse me?

Mr. Moran. Where was it provided?

Ms. MICKLEY. At NIH.

Mr. Moran. At NIH, and provided by the Whitman-Walker, and
those are the specifically offensive—

Ms. MICKLEY. Yes. I can add more, I have them. But they’re all
here in the testimony.

Mr. Moran. No, I can understand why that would be considered
offensive.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. HERRON. Yes, Congressman Moran. In attachment 19 to my
written statement, I had my memo for the record of the training
class. I’m describing here the video, “The Many Faces of AIDS,” put
out by the American Red Cross and HHS. A young woman named
Candy, identified as an AIDS victim, was shown giving out
condoms on the street. It was said she worked in the Whitman
Clinic in Washington, DC. Candy said, “Anyone who doesn’t use
protection is insane. Some straight people engage in anal and oral
sex just like gay people.”

She also told the audience, “that just because a woman went out
and bought condoms, no one likes to feel like a whore. A woman
should tell her partner I’m not a virgin and neither are you.” A lit-


193

‘The information binders sent July 21, 1995 to Chairman Mica
contain all the surveys and evaluations we received from the
HIV/AIDS training coordinators in our regional and area offices.
For the most part the evaluations used throughout the regions
were shorter and focused on gathering employee comments and
information about the content and delivery of the course.

(Our training at the Department was successful for a few simple
reasons . The Department seriously listened to any employee
‘concerns and continually incorporated their suggestions into our
training. The questions asked of the employees attending the
HIV/AIDS training were intended to measure the effectiveness of
the training and gather concerns and comments. These
comments were often used to improve content and delivery of
the course. These comments provided the best guidance in

the HIV/AIDS ‘training.


ll

each person in the room by saying that our grandmothers probably
practiced birth control by participating in anal sex.”

Later she says, “I was highly offended. I have a very Godly
grandmother. I just broke down and cried. I guess they are tryin
to say that homosexuals do it that way and so did your grand-
mother.”

An employee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wrote to me,
Mr. Chairman, stating that, “the volunteer started talking about
how to protect yourself during sexual acts. This included oral and
anal sex. Not only did this volunteer describe these acts, but also
did it in a crude way, with terms like, ‘just put it down and go to
town.’ I found the entire episode offensive and upsetting. The ses-
sion ended with this volunteer distributing condoms to those who
wanted them.” Here is another quote from a Bureau of Reclamation
worker. He says he “found the graphic discussions of various sex
acts including oral sex to be disgusting and out of place, especially
in the mixed company of coworkers.”

Another worker complained that she was, “offended by the sexu-
ally explicit material. Boil call was taken; I felt like a kindergarten
child. Abstinence and self-control were not mentioned as the only
means of certain prevention. Instead, it was condoms, condoms,
condoms.”

Still another related that the instructor gave specific graphic in-
structions on the use of condoms, dental dams, rubber gloves and
Saran Wrap. He emphasized that you should only use
nonmicrowaveable Saran Wrap to cover body parts while engaging
in sexual activity. I guess that person also wrote to the committee,
or maybe someone else at that bizarre training session.

Mr. Chairman, I find nothing objectionable about educating Fed-
eral workers on how AIDS is and is not transmitted in the work-
place. I think it would be highly important for employees of the
Public Health Service or the National Institutes of Health up here
in Bethesda. I visited them many times.

Such information is relevant to their professional duties and
could well mean the difference between life and death for some of
their fellow citizens. Indeed, there is a plausible case to be made
for describing universal precautions for workers as they relate to
their particular duties and responsibilities as Federal employees.

However, the AIDS training in question goes far beyond this rea-
sonable objective. Based on this evidence that I have received,
there is no doubting that there is a hidden agenda behind these po-
litically correct, politically correct in the extreme, training semi-
nars.

Now, we’ve—it takes us about 7 minutes to go to vote. I can fin-
ish my statement in 3 minutes, if you want.

Mr. Mica. Please go ahead and conclude. And then if you’d re-
turn, if you'd like to be available for questions we'll do that after

e vote.

Mr. Dornan. I'd be more than happy to return.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the values survey that in-
structors must pass before they are entrusted with an assigned
group of Federal employees they are supposed to educate. This sur-
vey probes deep into the potential instructor's personal feelings
about sex and particularly homosexuality. Potential instructors are


97

In responding to the President’s initiative, we made an attempt
to reach all employees. Face-to-face training sessions were held
only in sites with large concentrations of employees, and attend-
ance was required. The Social Security Administration trained
65,000 of their employees, which was almost half of the Depart-
ment at that time, without using face-to-face training sessions but
through satellite and video presentations. Employees who did not
wish to attend the session, a self-study guide was made available.
All employees were clearly told, however, that they could not dis-
criminate against or harass employees or program beneficiaries af-
fected by HIV/AIDS or any other chronic or disabling illness.

As you requested, my prepared testimony provides the sub-
committee with cost information, with training coverage, with au-
thorities for the training, and a discussion of the process that we
went through to pick a contractor, High Tech International, to as-
sist us in the development of a model training program. The model
program included separate curricula for supervisors and employees,
and as I mentioned a self-study guide was made available to the
various agencies within the Department. All but two Public Health
Service agencies chose to use it for their training. A suggested list
of criteria to select in-house trainers was sent out when plans for
accomplishing the training were solicited.

The criteria, which was previously provided to the subcommittee,
included sensitivity to issues raised by the training, level of knowl-
edge about HIV/AIDS, and the ability to deliver the curriculum.

Two of our components in the Public Health Service have special
expertise and responsibilities in AIDS research and education, and
have a population that is at higher risk. They elected to provide
their own specialized HIV/AIDS training. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in Atlanta began HIV/AIDS training before
the Presidential initiative was announced. They selected the Red
Cross to deliver their training and continue to use them to fulfill
the Presidential mandate.

The National Institutes of Health contracted with a local firm,
the Whitman-Walker Clinic, well-known for its AIDS education
program. NIH pared in-house staff with health educators from
Whitman-Walker to deliver a program that added parts of the mod-
ule that we had developed to cover Federal workplace policy.

At present, there are no plans for followup initiative in the De-
partment. New employee orientations will contain information
about the Department’s AIDS policy, as they would other policies
relevant to working in HHS. Required occupational health and
safety programs will of course continue, as will optional health edu-
cation sessions run by our EAP and occupational health units.

The training, as it unfolded in HHS, did not generate adverse
publicity. In fact, there were only a handful of scattered individual
complaints brought to my attention. I can report that our response
was overwhelmingly positive from our employees.

I credit this response to the careful planning’ that went into the
design of the curriculum, the explicitness from which we stated our
objective of focusing on workplace issues, and the caliber of the
trainers from within and outside the Department that delivered the
curriculum.


187

QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESSMAN JOHN L. MICA

QUESTION #2:

ANSWER:

Do you think it is appropriate for a goverment agency to
‘attempt to change employees minds about AIDS or any other
topic, rather than just their behavior on the job?

‘The Department did not attempt to change employees minds
about HIV/AIDS. Any questions asked of our employees
attending the HIV/AIDS training were intended to measure the
offectiveness of the training and gather their concerns and
comments. These comments were always used to improve
content and delivery of the course. The Department used
materials and instruction techniques to educate our employees
about HIV/AIDS in order to reduce fear and to answer employee
concerns. The Department followed the recommended guidelines
from the Office of National AIDS Policy very closely and the
instructors were required to present the subject matter in &
professional and clinical manner. More importantly, the
HIV/AIDS training focused on those issues which were specific
workplace issues.

In conclusion, we followed the guidelines closely, followed
directions from the Office of National AIDS Policy, took our
employees concems seriously, and made improvements to the
course design, delivery, and the evaluation tool.

“4


102

National Institutes of Health)

Here again, occupational health
and safety requirements dictate a special level of education and
training.

At_minimal risk are our staff who are employed in office
environments. Still accidents can occur, and information about the
universal precautions to be taken in dealing with someone who is
bleeding was included in our BIV/AIDS education.

Beyond the obligation to assure a safe environment and reduce any
health threat that might occur the Department must prevent
discrimination and maintain an environment that fosters
organizational and individual performance. Although the medical
facts regarding HIV transmission are generally understood on an
intellectual level, that understanding does not always translate
into appropriate behavior. Discrimination and harassment of any
kind have a direct and negative impact on employee performance and
morale, Eliminating the ignorance that fosters such behavior

minimizes the potential for its occurrence.

Op a legal note, the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973

amended to include language from the Americans with Disabilities
Act prohibits discrimination against and harassment of individuals
who have or are perceived to have a disability. Arps in its final
stages is a disabling condition, but even before the disease takes

its toll HIV infected employees may be perceived by their


VARIABLE cOeT
TESTINATE

PRIVATIZATION
ESTIMATE.

201

IWCRENENTAL COST OF COMPLETE TERATWATTON

3.7

07/25/95

05:58 om


192

The Red Cross Final Evaluation from this training was
previously sent to Chairman Mica on June 14, 1995 in enclosure
Binder #1, Section #2. A similar survey was conducted at the
Nevada Operations Office and the results of this survey are
‘imcluded in enclosure Binder #6 which was sent to Chairman

‘Mica on July 21, 1995.

Another survey instrument, designed by the Center for Disease
Control! Business Responiis to AIDS evaluation staff, was used
in one pilot session at the Oakland Operations Office and these

evaluations are also included in Binder #6.

In early 1994, the Department selected another contractor,
NOVA Research Company, to provide the HIV/AIDS training at
Headquarters, and a new course was implemented which used a
new survey instrument. This survey, used in a significant
majority of the Headquarters courses, was brief and focused on
‘gathering concems from the employees, as well as information
about course content and delivery. These evaluations were
included in our previous submission to Chairman Mica on

June 14, 1995.


118

‘The Department of Energy followed the Federal guidelines issued by the Office of
National AIDS Policy very closely. Personnel representatives and Mr. Donaldson
‘monitored the classes for quality. During the training at Headquarters very few
‘employees asked to be excluded from the classes. Through their organizational
training coordinators and their managers, employees knew they had the right to refuse
the class and arrange for alternative education which included a self study manual and
watching the Red Cross Video, "AIDS in the Workplace."

‘Any employee who had concems about the training could call the Department's
contacts, Donald Donaldson or Paul Harris. Responses wete overwhelming in favor of
the training with few complaints. Instructors were informed immediately of both
positive and negative evaluations and changes to the training were made immediately.

Question #9 - What other agency-wide mandatory programs has your agency
conducted over the last five years, and bow dees the AIDS training program
compare in design and delivery with those other programs?

‘The Department provides annual mandatory ethics training to employees at the
GS/GM 13 level and above, as required by Part 2638 of 5 CFR Employees who
have security clearances are required to attend annual briefings. Personnel
Management training is required for newly appointed supervisors. In some
‘occupational series, job-related training is required to ensure technical competence
and compliance with safety and health laws and regulations

‘The design and delivery of the HIV/AIDS is very much like the other required
courses. For instance, the HIV/AIDS course had many case studies which reflected
the many different administrative and policy issues concerning HIV/AIDS in the
‘workplace. Many of these case studies were used for managers and all other
‘employees. The evaluation was very much like the evaluation instrument used for
other classes.

=i


65

Mr. Mica. I thank you for your testimony. Now we have two Fed-
eral employees I’d like to turn to.

Tm going to ask Lyn Mickley for her testimony first. Thank you
for appearing and you have 5 minutes to summarize.

Thank you.

Ms. MICKLEY. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and Mrs. Morella,
as a constituent of yours, it is a privilege to be here this morning
to present testimony on my view of the AIDS training program at
the National Institutes of Health.

I come here today not as a representative of the National Insti-
tutes of Health, but as a private citizen. I’ve been employed at the
NIH since 1982, as a medical technologist, and for the last 9 years
have been employed by the National Cancer Institute working in
cancer research.

I appreciate the opportunity today to share my personal experi-
ence as one who attended the mandatory AIDS {raining program
at NIH. In September 1994, I attended the mandatory “HIV/AIDS
in The Workplace Training Seminar’ developed by both the Office
of AIDS Research and the Training Center Division of Person-
nel Management. The seminar was put together in response to
President Clinton’s directive of September 1993, which required all
Federal departments and agencies to provide HIV/AIDS training to
its employees. According to literature sent to me by the Office of
AIDS Research, the intent of this mandate was to, “educate Fed-
eral employees about the challenges posed by the HIV/AIDS epi-
demic and about fairness and equity issues in the workplace.”

Key topics for each training session I have listed here in my tes-
timony and in light of the time, I will not list them all. But would
like to say that while all of these key topics were addressed in the
seminar, I believe a disproportionate amount of time was devoted
to how to protect oneself to avoid HIV infection.

As a health professional I a that educating the public to dis-
pel fears about contracting AIDS from a co-worker is a good thing.
However, I do question the 2¥2-hour timeframe required for the
training, the manner and presentation, the content of the training,
and the cost to taxpayers to send more than 17,000 NIH employees
to the sessions.

Let me share my personal experience. Upon arriving at the semi-
nar, I was surprised to learn that the primary instructor was a
psychosocial worker from the Whitman-Walker Clinic here in
Washington. Given the many qualified doctors, researchers and
HIV caretakers on the NIH campus, it certainly seemed odd to me
that an outside entity was brought in to conduct this seminar.

After introducing herself, the instructor opened the session by
telling us that she would be direct and forthright, and she was. In
fact, the manner of presentation throughout seemed to reflect a
casual indifference to the sensitivities of those present, and no
thought seemed to have been given to the audience makeup.

For example, during the discussion of HIV prevention, the in-
structor covered the risk factors of different sexual behaviors. She
mentioned that kissing, masturbating, hugging, and massagin;
presented low risks of infection. On the other hand, vaginal an
anal sex without a condom presented a high risk of infection.


val

HIV prevention, the instructor discussed the risk factors of different sexual behaviors. She
‘mentioned that kissing, masturbating, hugging, and massaging presented low risks of
infection. On the other hand, vaginal and anal sex without a condom presented a high risk
of infection. The instructor admitted she did not know where to place oral sex on the scale
of risk of infection. What she did suggest was that the only way to determine the risk factor
for that kind of sexual behavior would be to do a study of partners who only participate in
oral sex. Hoping to get a laugh from the audience, she suggested a sign-up sheet at the
back of the room for those who wanted to participate in such a study. In an offhand remark,
she stated that a person participating in oral sex would have to “brush their teeth in
reparation for the moment.”

AA second example of casual indifference was an apparent joking reference to “sex
toys.” The instructor advised the audience not to share these toys, as they could provide a
form of HIV transmission which “goes against what you mother always taught you to do”-—-
that is, “always share your toys.”

A third example was the instructor’s advice to "make your condom your friend”.
This was in reference to opening a condom. When you do so, she instructed the audience
not to use fingernails or teeth. I had difficulty finding any direct bearing of this instruction
to the stated purpose of the seminar, which was “to educate Federal employees about the
challenges posed by the HIV/AIDS epidemic and about fairness and equity issues in the
workplace.”

During the discussion of HIV transmission, the instructor, through the use of

‘overheads and a lecture format, told how HIV is transferred from person to person---


200

training which is agency unique or for which security
arrangements preclude the use of outside trainers. Nevertheless,
the downsizing of government, especially administrative

positions, will lead to more training being accomplished through
outside vendors.

Extent of Transfer

The value of the prior contractual obligations which the Graduate
School is fulfilling for OPM is about $8.6 million.

OPM has/or will surplus all unneeded space, facilities, equipment
and furniture in accordance with GSA regulations. GSA’ will
dispose of the space and equipment in accordance with their
procedures. OPM will not transfer any space, facilities,
furniture or equipment to the Graduate school.

The estimated value of the assets to be turned over to GSA cannot
be calculated until they are finally surplussed. We will provide
you with that estimate when it is available.


16

its own errors and incompleteness. . The
whole thrust of HIV testing and research
must be reconsidered,

MEMBERS OF THE AIDS-ACTIVIST ARMY

Battling for AIDS counseling, treatment,
‘education, and cures are activist organize-
tions in both the homosexual and straight
‘camps Some homosexual-led organiz:
tions, like the AIDS Coalition to Unleash
Power (ACT UP), take a loud, confronte-
tional approach. Others, like the Human
Rights Campaign Fund (HRCF), take a
methodical, highly sophisticated, politics-
‘oriented approach,

ACT UP members stage protests
‘against what they perceive to be foot-drag-
sing by the government and the drug
industry. They disrupt church services and
yell down the president and other officials
HRCF lobbies Congress for AIDS funding
and is a part of the thirty-member “Madi-
son Project,” which develops proposals to
speed the discovery of cure for AIDS, Both
lobbying methods have proved to be effec-
tive

These groups are supported by the
‘media and entertainment industnes Stars
such as Elizabeth Taylor give their names
to AIDS projects tike the new wing at
Washington's Whitman-Welker Clinic for
AIDS patients. Elizabeth Glaser, wife of «
well-known TV actor and an HIV victim
herself, founded the Pediatric AIDS Foun-
dation in Santa Monic nd
spoke about AIDS to the 1992 Democratic
National Convention. Hellywood sponsors
fund-raising concerts for AIDS. Show busi-
ness personalities like billionaire music and
film producer David Geffen sponsor fund-
raising events and donate large sums of

‘money to AIDS charities

Sports celebrities also promote AIDS
awareness. Magic Johnson, who retired
from the Nationa) Basketbel} Association
in 1991 after announcing he was HIV-pos-

care for AIDS victims, finance AIDS
research, and lobby government. The
‘American Foundation for AIDS Research,
for example, is the largest nongovernmen:
tal AIDS funding entity. The foundation
‘ves millions of dollars in grants each year
for AIDS research. Washington, D.C.'s
‘Whitman Walker Clinic runs a media cam-
paign promoting condoms as a preventive
measure. The clinic's simple message: “It
doesn't matter what you call it, Wear it.”
‘The clinic has even created its own condom
‘stamp meant to complement the govern-
ment’s new first-class “AIDS awareness”
stamp on Christmas cards.

Television does its part by promoting
“safe sex,” a euphemism for, among other
things, condom use, and by providing @
platform for AIDS lobbyists to skewer
‘Washington or to trumpet reports about the
latest AIDS research. Commentators and
hosts, however, seldom implicate the behav-
iors that contribute to the epidemic.

Now consider the AIDS lobby’s impact
on everyday America,

‘SHAKING THE COUNTRY TO ITS ROOTS

Few contemporary issues arouse more
fear and hostility in the average American
than AIDS, Mom and Pop America are sus-
picious that the government is hiding the
truth about the virus. They are frustrated
that while they fear their families may be
in grave danger, the government is ignoring,

sean sss 393


160

tried to do everything in what you perceive to be the correct way.
So that is important for you to conside

Now, as you are considering that, it is also important to consider
that you have a philosophy and policies and guidelines that are
consistent. Part of what I have been hearing is that there is not
a lot of consistency; and you may want to take a look at, how do
we Bet consistency so that you know what is happening across the

ard?

People have an enormous amount of flexibility. In the private
sector, it wouldn’t happen that way. I had responsibility for policy
that governed 31 countries and the United States. If I had different
policies for everybody, we would have huge problems. So that is
something that I would recommend you look at quickly.

The other thing is, communication is very important, and a part
of what I have heard here is that the communication has not been
terrific. There is preparation work that goes with implementing a
program as massive as the one you have tried to implement, and
part of what people want to know is, why are we doing this? What
are the philosophical underpinnings? What are the policies that
guide this? What are my rights? It keeps coming up.

In relationship to your values survey for determining whether
someone is qualified to train, in corporate America, we have char-
acteristics that we want in trainers. We have a knowledge base,
and, yes, we want to know what they value. And I want to say here
that what is important is that Jou put somebody in the room who
will respect the rights of individuals, whether they are homosexual
or fundamentalists; it doesn’t matter. They need to make space in
the room for each and every person to be able to express their point
of view without judging them, and that is the key issue here.

How do you get people to deliver the training who are not about
jude , but who are about delivering information that will save

ives, that will keep people working, having good relationships with

one another and producing a government that is working and is not
dysfunctional. That is the issue around any kind of a survey that
you would do to determine what kinds of trainers you have.

I would go further and say that the whole question of mandating
is an interesting question, and part of what I would suggest that
you look at is the whole question of mandates, because you are
mandating for what goal? What is the purpose of the mandate?
And if you understand that, it might give you some direction about
what it is you want to have happen.

In our company, we did not mandate, but what we did was we
decided that we had a lot of information to deliver, people had a
lot of flexibility around delivering training, but within the context
of certain guidelines. Does that light mean my time is almost up?
Oh, OK.

There is also information out there for you, because a lot of
learning has been done in the private sector about how to do this
and how not to do it; and I would suggest that you take a look at
a study that was done by the National Leadership Coalition on
AIDS where the private sector, in particular, they wanted to know
how much employees wanted AIDS education training in the work-
place.


Meret

Good Morning Mx. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee.

I am pleased to be here this morning to discuss the Department of
Wealth and Human Services work place policy and training related to

arDs.

When Arpa first emerged as a public health concern in the mid-
1980's, "the Department of Health and Husan
to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS by raising employ

vices moved quickly

avareness
about the disease and to assure a work environment that was both
safe and free from legally prohibited discrimination against
affected employees. On March 24, 1986, then Secretary otis R.
Bowen, M.D., issued @ memorandum to all employees reassuring then
that the contact people commonly have in the work place did not
place them at risk of HIV infection. He noted that HIV infected
employees vere to be offered the same consideration and benefits
available to any employee with a long-term or life-threatening
medical condition. His memorandum was followed by the issuance of

the Department's first AIDS policy in 1988.

As Dr. Bowen stated in his 1986 memorandum, “fear based upon
misinformation is both unfortunate and unnecessary." It is such
fear that leads to discrimination against employees with HIV/AIDS.
Bducation serves to alleviate fear, reduce the possibility for
@iscrimination or transmission, and assure that HHS employees are
informed about and comply with the Department's policies regarding


21

example, DOT hosted six events in the Washington headquarters. Those included: a panel of
DOT officials diseussing diversity, a presentation by Parents, Friends and Families of Lesbians and
Gays, and a program on the gay and lesbian Asian Pacific American community."

‘THE DIVERSITY AGENDA
“Diversity” is a vogue concept that is being used to advance the homosexual agenda.
‘The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has embraced diversity In a July 1994 memo entitled,
"Stepping Stones to Diversity: An Action Plan," the service proclaims, "Managing diversity needs

to be a top service priority... The service must also recognize that the differences among people
are important.”"*

DOT's Secretary Pena left no doubt about what he means by diversity. In a policy statement he
defines it as “inclusion -- hiring, developing, promoting and retaining employees of all races,
ethnic groups, sexual orientations, and cultural backgrounds...”

‘The Department of Agriculture joined the diversity movement in March 1994 by establishing a
GLOBE chapter."” A report in The Sacramento Valley Mirror shows just what the Department
of Agriculture and, more specifically, a subordinate organization, the Forest Service, means by
diversity."* According to that article, diversity means a redefinition of family, promoting gay pride
month, and encouraging the use of federal resources to promote homosexual causes
A letter from Region 5 Forester Ronald E. Stewart to his employees outlines Forest Service
recommendations concerning homosexuals. Stewart's memo to “All Region 5 Employees” says,
“We can not allow our personal beliefs to be transformed into behaviors that would discriminate
against another employee." The recommended policy’

Prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation,

Empowers homosexuals to serve as mentors and network coordinators.

Incorporates sexual orientation awareness training,

Establishes a computerized network for isolated homosexual employees.

Awards pro-gay work settings.

Encourages local “multicultural awareness celebrations” like gay pride month.

Directs supervisors to consider an employee's domestic partner when assigning schedules

Prohibits private permittees and concessionaires from discriminating against domestic partners.


50

One of the colleagues on your side of the aisle lately has taken
to saying “beam me up”, meaning what is this madness? So there
is training sessions that went askew, and nobody had to give back
the hundreds of thousands of dollars of outside consultant money
to teach this garbage, with fear and threat of firing or no pro-
motion if they didn’t sit there and listen to that idiocy.

And that’s in the same building down the street that this Re-
serve Marine major, an H-35C Stallion pilot, told me he’s not going
to take this diversity propaganda on his e-mail screen. So they cut-
off his e-mail. He’s still winning his battle, by the way, by comin;
to Co: ssmen and getting a little support so he wouldn’t be fired.

Mr. ‘ARA. So we really do not know?

Mr. Dornan. No. I repeat, I hope you’re going to get that infor-
mation. And if you don’t give it to me, Mr. Burton will. How much
is all this costing? Great question.

Mr. Mascara. I’ve heard all of these horror stories, and I’m fa-
miliar with them. But since I’ve been here since January 4, we're
all talking about how can we cut, how can we save, we’re wasting
money, and we're attempting to solve a problem, I understand that
and that’s important to me.

But in this day and age when we're talling about savings and
costs and cutting the size of government, I think we all need to
know and somebody in this government should be able to tell us
what it costs to do what we do that’s so offensive.

Mr. Dornan. I agree. And if it involves people dying, I know
we'll find the money to educate in the right way. But these people,
these are real people, suffering real offenses, they have real griev-
ances, and that’s one of the focuses.

Tm sure the chairman will also find out what it is costing us so
we can factor it into our shrinking budget.

Mr. Mascara. I have one other question, Mr. Chairman. What
kind of support do you have for your bill that would prohibit us
from spending money or banning us from spending money?

Mr. Dornan. Oh, I don’t have a bill yet. I am going to leave that
to you. i am taking care of it on my end in the defense authoriza-
tion bill.

And where I tried to save millions and millions of dollars because
they can’t do anything that they do in the military, is I've given
an honorable discharge and the prospect of the exact same medical
care being shifted from defense dollars to veterans affairs dollars,
staying in the fame hospital with ge same doctors, and I in no
way encouraged an: ly to look at discharging any Federal civilian
worker who has HIV, has tested HIV positive.

But in the military, they can’t fly, they can’t shoot, they can’t go
in an army fighting vehicle, they can’t go in a submarine, a heli-
copter, a plane, they can’t carry a side arm, they can’t be an in-
structor on the firing range, and we have to fire healthy people to
give them a safe job and in the Navy and Marine Corps they can
only serve in few States, California and Virginia.

With civilians in the Defense Department or anywhere else,
that’s not true, so I have taken a strict focus on what I did with
my bill and it passed subcommittee, the full committee and the
floor, and I understand that the chairman of Military Personnel,
our former colleague, Dan Coats, is putting it in over there. So that


95

We have our third panel with us: Mr. Thomas McFee, Assistant
Secretary for Personnel Administration, HHS; Corlis S. Moody, Di-
rector of the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity of the De-

artment of Energy; Wardell C. Townsend, Jr., Assistant Secretary
Rr Administration, Department of Agriculture; and Allan
Heuerman, Associate Director for Human Resources Systems in the
Office of Personnel Management.

Lady and gentlemen, if you will remain standing, raise your
right hands.

[Witnesses sworn].

Mr. Mica. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.

We'll lead off with Mr. Thomas McFee with HHS.

Mr. McFee, are you ready and can you provide us with your tes-
timony or with a condensation of it?

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS MCFEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, HHS; CORLIS S. MOODY,
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT AND DIVERSITY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; WARDELL C. TOWNSEND, JR., AS-
SISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE; AND ALLAN HEUERMAN, ASSOCIATE DI-
RECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES SYSTEMS, OFFICE OF PER-
SONNEL MANAGEMENT

Mr. McFEE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee. I am very Pleased to be here this morning to discuss
the Department of Health and Human Service’s workplace policy
and training related to AIDS. I'll present a summary and some
highlights from my prepared testimony.

When AIDS first emerged as a public health concern in the mid-
1980’s, the Department of Health and Human Services moved
quickly to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS by raising employee
awareness about the disease and to ensure that the work environ-
ment was both safe and free from legally prohibited discrimination
against affected employees.

On March 24, 1986, then Secretary Otis R. Bowen issued a
memorandum to all employees reassuring them that the contact
people commonly have in the workplace did not place them at risk
of HIV infection. He noted that HIV-infected employees were to be
offered the same consideration and benefits available to any em-
ployee with a long-term or life-threatening medical condition.

His memorandum was followed by the issuance of the Depart-
ment’s first AIDS policy in 1988. This AIDS policy was followed by
widespread employee education, which has Been ongoing in some
fashion since that time. Since 1986, changes in three areas have af-
fected the issue of dealing with AIDS in the workplace.

First, the number of reported AIDS cases in the country has in-
creased tenfold. To the extent that our employee population mirrors
the society as a whole, the number of employees affected by HIV/
AIDS has similarly risen.

Second, advances in detection and treatment have made it pos-
sible for HIV-infected individuals to maintain a productive work
life longer than during the early years of the epidemic. Whereas
once HIV/AIDS-infected employees were gone from the work force


33

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN CHARLES F. BASS
ON FEDERAL EMPLOYEE TRAINING PROGRAMS

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this important hearing today. I would also like to thank
‘our witnesses for appearing before us today.

At President Clinton's behest, the Executive Branch has implemented workplace AIDS training
programs. There have been many complaints about the subject matter contained in these
programs, as well as about the mandatory participation requirement, In light of the widespread
Laiatnlnarees ent sie that the
‘Subcommittee examine this issue in depth. Our goal should be to evaluate AIDS training
programs in the context of workplace appropriateness and value to the taxpayers. With this in
mind, [ook forward to today's testimony.

T thank the Chairrpan.


168

When asked about the information presented during the train-
ing, 29 percent said “extremely useful”; 63 percent said “very use-
ful”; and an additional 6 percent indicated “useful” for an overall
usefulness rating of 97 percent.

When asked their overall impression of the program, an aston-
ishing 31 percent circled the box which said, “one of the best pro-

ams I have seen.” The overall approval rating was 96.54 percent.
again, we will share this data with the committee or anyone else
upon request.

Mr. Chairman, I am here today with my family for a reason.
Years ago my father and I had a—kind of an odd conversation. We
were joking around, and in the course of this conversation I said
to him, “you know, dad, I am still waiting for the talk.” And he
froze and he said, “the what?” And I said, “you know, THE TALK,
the birds and the bees, this conversation fathers are supposed to
have with their children.”

“Oh,” he said, “that talk;” and then there was a very long pause,
and finally he said to me, “well, the truth is, I am still waiting for
mine.”

Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Mica. Mr. Goodman, we thank you for your testimony.

Mr. GoopMaN. I am almost done, sir, with your indulgence.

Mr. Mica. I think the balance will have to be submitted for the
record, unless you can summarize in about 1 minute.

Mr. GoopMaN. Thank you. I will do my best to do that.

In your invitation to testify, in the letter which you sent me, you
asked me if I thought that the Federal Government had a special
obligation to its employees and to their families with regards to
HIV/AIDS training. The answer to your question is self-evident.
Under our constitutional mandate to promote the general welfare,
we must. Every public health official in the Nation will tell you
that ignorance is one of the major risk factors associated with HIV
infection.

The Federal workplace cries out for education, Mr. Chairman.
Witness the unfortunate incident just last week at the White

louse.

If we turn back now, if we choose the path of ignorance over
knowledge, if we somehow begin to suggest that the government
does not have a vested, compe! ling interest in the public health or
in the well-being of its work force, how will we explain it to our
children if we fail them at this critical hour? Thank you.

{The prepared statement of Mr. Goodman follows:).


183

=3-

CONCUCTED THROUCUOUT THE GCVERNMENT, ANU UUR EXPERIENCE 4AS BEEN
THAT ONLY A VERY LIMZTED NUMBER OF QUESTIONABLE OCCURRENCES HAVE
BEEN UNEARTHED IN FEDERAL TRAINING PROGRAMS OVER MANY, MANY YEARS.

IT MUST ALSO BE UNDERSTOU! THAT OPM'S RESOURCES ARE EXTREMELY

LIMITED AND SHRINKZI

IN THIS ENV"RONMENT, WE MUST TARE AN
APPROACH TO GVEKS.GHT THAT APPLIES THE LIMITED RESOURCES WE CAN
BEVOTE TC IT MUSi' FRUGALLY AND EFFECTIVELY. THIS MEANS ESSENTIALLY
THAT Ws XYSPOND WHEN ALLEGED ABUSES OF AGENCIES' AUTHORITY ARE
BXOUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, WE TAKE OUR OVERSIGHT ROLE VERY
SERIOUSLY, BUT

TEMPTING TO MONITOR CLOSZLY--CN A ROUTINE BASIS--
EVERY ASPECT OF EVERY TRAINING PROGRAM AS IT I$ IMPLEMENTED IN EACH

AGENCY WOULD BZ NEITHER FEASIBLE NOR A WISE USE OF RESOURCES.

MR. CHAIRMAN, YOJ ALSO ASXED ME TO ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION'S
HIV/AIDS TRAINING PROGRAM. FOR ASQUT TEN YEARS NOW, IT EAS BEEN
WIDELY RECOGNIZED THAT HIV AND AIDS BOTH FROM A KEALTH STANDEOINT
AND AN EMPLOYMENT POLICY STANDPOINT ARE A CONCERN OF BOTH PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE EMPLOYERS. IN 1988; PRESIDEN? REAGAN DIRECTED EVERY
FEDERAL AGENCY, AND HE ASKED THE PRIVATE SECTOR, TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION SERVICES TO EMPLOYEES REGARDING HIV AND
AIDS (MEMORANDUM FOR HEALS OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, AUGUST 5,
1988). PRESIDENT REAGAN ALSO DIRECTED OPM TO QPFER FEDRRAT.
AGENCIES ASSISTANCE IN THIS ENDEAVOR. IN ADDITION, HE ASKFN THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REVIEW HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMFNT SHOULD
PROVIDE DIRECTION AND LEADERSHIP IN DISCOURAGING NTSCRIMINATION
AGAINST HIV-INFECTED INDIVIDUALS.


MW

them and listening only'to special interest
groups.

‘The average American has been told
‘he must respond to AIDS/HIV information
by grudgingly and explicitly warning his
preteen children about the danger of
AIDS, In his feas, the average American
thinks twice when choosing a dentist and
‘screens blood donors before having elec-
‘tive surgery. Mr. Average Citizen also wor-
‘Ties that his kids in public achoo! might be
infected by HIV-positive classmates. He
‘wonders whether the government really

‘More and more laws are being passed
to protect AIDS victims The federal gov
ernment has ordered hospitals to forfeit
federal financing unless health-care work
cers infected with AIDS are hired without
restrictions. This was part of s battle
fought in 1981 over a congressional pro-
posal to test all health-care workers for
HIV. A gay activist organization, the
Lambda Legal Defense and Education
und, allied iteelf with medical groups to
‘quash the testing initiative. The proposal
failed in part because hospitals wanted to
avoid higher liability insurance premiums

must spend so much on AIDS research
he

affects
‘only homosexuals and those who are
promiscuous or use drags. He resents pub-
‘school sex experts who indoctrinate
teens with graphic sexual imagery and
then tell them to bet their lives on con-

‘major role in Gighting the plague. It has
essumed responsibility for finding a cure,
‘counting the aficted, treating the victims,
‘educating the young, and enforcing spe-
cial civil rights protections for those in the
HIVIAIDS community:

President Chinon even has an AIDS
‘czar, Kristine Gebbie. She. too, promotes
condoms, rather than abstinence, even
‘though most public health officials agree
that abstinence is the only real solution to
the epidemic.

Despite their gains, AIDS activists
demand ever more aggressive action from
government. They insist on more money
for AIDS victims, the institution of needle-
‘exchange programs, and explicit talk
about how the virus spreads. Leaders like
‘Anne Donnelly of Project Inform say,
“We're losing & sense of urgency, losing
sight that this is a public health emer-
gency”

(or infected ‘and knew that the
AIDS stigma would severely limit a
health-care worker's ability tofind another
job. It mattered little that most Americans
favor mandatory AIDS testing for health-
care workers

‘The government controls most AIDS
research funds. This money is parcelled
out to private institutions with strict
uidelines or trickles down to virtually
‘every laboratory at the National Institutes
of Health. This largess subsidizes such
"AIDS" research as the National Cancer
Institute's “gay gene” study, which received
‘enormous publicity for its alleged proof
that homosexuality is genetic (In fact
from a strictly scientific perspective. the
study did little more than suggest that
there might be an inherited tendeney in
‘tome people to be homosexual, but many’

acceptable,

‘The government also leads in AIDS
‘education. Surgeon General Joycelyn
Elders has begun a massive campaign
against the spread of AIDS by distribut-
ing and advertising condoms. A similar
effort was rejected by the CDC only a few
years ago because the material was con-
sidered offensive to a majority of adults

394

THE WORLD £1


61

about working with someone infected with HIV could feasibly face a black mark on
their record which could haunt them for years to come.

Model for All Businesses?

The Clinton administration hopes this initiative will have a far-reaching impact
on society. The White House's official guidelines for the project read, "The Federal
Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Initiative will serve as a model for all businesses on
how to provide employees the information they need to prevent infection with HIV
"(See Appendix #7, p. 1.) Considering what's being taught to federal workers, this
a frightening thought.

Conclusion

In conclusion, after spending months researching the Federal Workplace AIDS
Education Initiative and how it has been implemented, I have a hard time seeing how
this program enhances the effectiveness or efficiency of the federal workplace. If the
administration is concerned about educating federal workers on AIDS, a one-page
handout or a brochure that told how AIDS is transmitted would have been sufficient.
But this training is about more than education. It is about changing attitudes, as the
White House guidelines so blatantly state.

Webster's Dictionary defines indoctrinate this way: "to imbue with a partisan
or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.” This program has been
implemented in such a way that it does just that. It forces discussions of bizarre
sexual activities on federal employees and expects them to accept the activities as if
they are normal and acceptable.

It is truly a sad state of affairs when grown men and women cannot discern
what is and is not appropriate to discuss in an employee training seminar.
‘Unfortunately, that is exactly the state in which we find ourselves as we review this
program today.

‘As a result, it is imperative that Congress take action to more narrowly define
what is appropriate for workplace training. And it is crucial that Congress establish
‘some sort of accountability system so that these programs are monitored and don’t
again become a bully pulpit for activists pushing anti-family policies.


130

place. OPM helped distribute this directive by sending it to person-
nel directors of Federal agencies.

OPM staff also informally reviewed and commented on the rec-
ommended guidelines for the Federal workplace HIV/AIDS initia-
tive produced by the Office of National AIDS Policy. The adminis-
tration’s policy with regard to HIV/AIDS training, as with previous
administrations, is based on the Premise that it is in the employer’s
interest to have an informed and educated work force with regard
to HIV/AIDS as a health and workplace issue.

The policy continues a requirement not to discriminate against
employees who are HIV-infected or who have other disabling medi-
cal conditions. We believe that by providing information instead of
misconceptions, HIV/AIDS training helps to prevent workplace dis-
putes and disruptions. For example, there have been instances of
employees refusing to work in the same office as a co-worker in-
fected with HIV.

By preventing such incidents, the training can help enhance ‘pre
ductivity and ensure that all employees are treated fairly. HIV/
AIDS training is not the first governmentwide training mandate.
Other witnesses have also alluded to the Computer Security Act,
training required in government ethics, and training for certifi-
cation with respect to contracting and project officers before they
can serve in those capacities.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I hope this informa-
tion has been helpful to you. I would be glad to answer any ques-
tions.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Heuerman follows:]


114

Workplace, also states that "Managers must balance the needs of HIV-infected
‘employees with the need to ensure a productive and safe workplace -- in compliance
with pertinent laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, and regulations of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration". Departmental administrative
procedures which included equal opportunity employment, employee assistance
Programs, leave administration, leave bank, insurance issues and disability retirement
were all included in the HIV/AIDS training.

A number of administrative and compliance policies have been enacted since 1990.
‘These policies must be communicated clearly to managers and employees.
Information about recent Congressional Acts, such as the FEGLI Living Benefits Act,
and the Federal Employees Family Friendly Leave Act, were included in the training
because both directly relate to HIV/AIDS issues in the workplace. The HIV/AIDS
training became a vehicle for managers to be updated about current important issues

The following compliance issues were an important part of the case studies in the
HIV/AIDS training,

(A) The Privacy Act protects medical documentation about a person's illnesses.

(B) The Rehabilitation Act was revised in 1992 to include language from the
‘Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The ADA covers people “perceived
or regarded as having HIV because of their status in a group perceived as beitig
at high risk (for example, gay men, people of color in urban areas). Also
covered are relatives and associates of people with HIV insofar as their
association with the infected individual is the reason they are discriminated
agtinst, This is an important inclusion, since Federal employees often are
caregivers for family members and loved ones.

(©) The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, resulted in changes to
administrative policy at the Department, and this information directly relates to
all employees who may be impacted by serious illnesses. In 1994, the
definition of “family” was expanded by the Federal Employees Family Friendly
‘Leave Act This information and its interpretation was conveyed through this

_ taining,

(D) The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Final Bloodbome
Pathogens Standard took effect in March 1992, This standard is designed 10
protect an estimated 5.6 million employees who work in occupational settings
where there is a risk of HIV or hepatitis B (HBV) infection because of
exposure to blood and other body fluids. The standard mandates engineering
‘controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment that, combined with
employee training, will reduce on-the-job exposure risks. Significantly the
standard also applies not only to health care workers but also to “downstream”


116

Cross used a training class to certify their instructors. Instructors of NOVA Research
were hired by NOVA, and a review was made of their qualifications as listed in their
capabilities statement, Donald Donaldson also monitored the classes and was
responsible for improvements, as well as contractor oversight. He also instructed
some of the classes This information was provided to you previously

Because the Department was a lead agency and attentive to the time frames stipulated
in President Clinton's memorandum, the Department acted quickly and followed the
lead of the White House Executive Offices and selected the National Chapter of the
‘American Red Cross to conduct pilot sessions,

‘The Department initiated several pilot sessions with both Red Cross and Nova
Research. Following the Federal guidelines for the initiative, the Department looked
for instructors with proven track records in HIV education, and a company that could
retain a staff of competent, consistent, reliable, instructors who could follow the
Department's specific directions for the training,

Much of the information which shaped the Department's HIV training was designed to
‘answer questions and gain experience from input by the members of the pilot groups
(which included almost every major DOE organization, and Operations Offices).

NOVA Research was chosen because they could conduct an HIV/AIDS class which
could evolve to meet the needs of our employees. Also they were chosen because of
the experience of their instructors, as well as the experience they had with other
organizations as listed in their capability statement. NOVA Research also was capable
of providing the production capabilities to help publish a definitive HIV/AIDS
workbook, later to become the Department's training manual,

Walkin’ The Talk.

Employee evaluations, both oral and written, were used to institute adjustments and
‘ensure that the training objectives were met. Approximately 3,600 evaluations were
submitted previously. As well, Mr. Donaldson coordinated with other agencies to
enlist their suggestions and “lessons leaned” He would then discuss this information
with the trainers.

‘Question #7 - Do you have plans

follow-up training?

‘Yes. Future training will provide information as its relates to other health and
personnel issues, not just HIV/AIDS Disease transmission information will be
included which covers TB, Hepatitis B, Legionnaire's Disease, Ebola, HIV/AIDS and
Bloodborne Pathogens. These classes will be provided on a voluntary basis end will
be instructed by agency personnel and training experts, as well as by medical or

-9-


4

oes, and both of who have collected a great deal of information on
ese DI

I'm especially pleased, too, that we'll have an opportunity to hear
from two Federal employees, Thomas J. Herron and Lyn Mickley,
about their experiences with the Agency’s AIDS training programs.
We appreciate your courage in coming forward to share your expe-
riences, and your testimony I feel will be a great help to this sub-
committee.

We'll also hear from representatives of the Departments of En-
ergy, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture. I have some
questions about some of their training methods after reading this
information yesterday. They will explain their agency’s AIDS train-
ing programs before the subcommittee. A witness from the Office
of Personnel Management will also explain OPM’s role in oversee-
ing and coordinating these Federal training programs.

Our final panel will be representatives of two private companies
who are familiar with AIDS training in the private sector and a
representative of the Whitman-Walker Training Institute, which
provides AIDS training. The Director of the Office of National
AIDS Policy was invited to testify, but declined.

At this time I’d like to yield to our ranking member, Mr. Moran,
the distinguished gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Moran. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

You must have had quite a time preparing that opening state-
ment last night. That’s one of the more interesting statements that
has been delivered, and I guess the staff must have had quite a
time doing all the necessary research to prepare the statement.

Mr. Mica. And I read every bit of the damn background. It is
about that thick.

Mr. Moran. Holy smokes. I don’t know, it is quite a way to
spend one’s time.

T have to confess I haven't read all of this stuff, but I have looked
at the manual that was specifically referred to, the Department of
Energy put it out. This is one of them. And that’s been distributed
to the subcommittee members.

I hope we can have a fair and instructive hearing on this issue.
Of course, it comes as a result of the Reagan Commission on the
Human Immunodeficiency Virus. They set up a commission to
study what we can do about people in the Federal work force par-
ticularly who contract AIDS.

And this seems to be a natural continuance of that policy, in-
structing Federal employees on how they can contract AIDS, the
extent to which someone who tests positive for AIDS for HIV, I
should say, represents a health threat to them and some of the real
facts which seem to be in short supply on this issue.

There seems to be a lot of fear and of course a whole lot of rumor
and unsubstantiated information. And so I think that it is impor-
tant for the Federal Government to educate its employees on the
real facts and the real threat that people who might contract HIV
virus represent. And not to do so would seem to be irresponsible
on the part of the executive branch and I would think the legisla-
tive branch as well. And that’s why we have mandatory training,
because it could possibly affect everyone.


93

Mr. HERRON. I wouldn’t say promote, I would say it was equated,
a heterosexual, mono; ious marriage and—— |

Mr. Moran. OK, Ms. Hutchens, you think it was promoting—

Ms. HUTCHENS. If you look at all the attachments and the appen-
dices I submitted along with my statement, you'll find all of the
cases in the training manuals where homosexuality is promoted. I
include the value survey that you questioned Congressman Dornan
about.

I’ve got a copy of that. That’s attached to my testimony. That
was used at the Department of Agriculture. And it asks—it probes
into people’s beliefs about how they feel about homosexuality for
other people, homosexuality for my child.

Mr. Moran. Well, is that promoting homosexuality? How is that
promoting homosexuality?

Ms. HUTCHENS. I don’t see how it is not promoting homosexual-
ity. It is actually probing into people, how they feel about these is-
sues, discussions about anal sex and telling people that we
shouldn’t call people who are high risk groups, such as homo-
sexuals and drug users, that we couldn’t call them high risk
groups. I mean we’re——

Mr. Moran. The value survey says that?

Ms. HUTCHENS. What?

Mr. MoraN. The value survey says that?

Ms. HUTCHENS. That’s in another one of the attachments from
both the Department of Energy and the-—

Mr. Moran. How does the value survey promote homosexuality?

Ms. HUTCHENS. It is probing into people’s views about homo-
sexuality. Why do they need to know how I feel about homosexual-
ity, how I feel about homosexuality for my child? And why do
they—as a taxpayer, as a taxpayer who lives in your district, why
do my taxpayers’ dollars have to go to support this?

Mr. MoraN. Ms. Hutchens, I am asking a question as to whether
these training sessions promoted homosexuality. You have referred
to a value survey. There may be deficiencies about that value sur-
vey. I haven’t heard anything that you have said that in my judg-
ment promotes——

Ms. HUTCHENS. in, if you look thoroughly through the appen-
dices that I included on my statement, I think it is very clear,
the areas from all the different manuals, participants manuals,
trainers manuals, that it is promoted.

Mr. Moran. OK. Well, I don’t—I’m less than convinced by your
reference to the values survey to asking—

Ms. HUTCHENS. Then I encourage you to read the testimony I
submitted.

Mr. Mica. We're running out of time. I don’t want to cut anybody
short, but we've gone a little bit over, Mr. Moran. If we could, I'd
like to yield qui ky to Mr. Bass.

Mr. Bass. Thai you, Mr. Chairman. I only have one question,
it won't take anywhere near 5 minutes. It is of Ms. Mickley.

As I understand from our schedule here, you’re a Federal em-
ployee.

Ms. MICKLEY. Yes.

Mr. Bass. If the allegations and observations made by Ms.
Hutchens and Mr. Herron occurred in your environment outside of


38

assure that programs in government have measurable
objectives and that those objectives are accomplished. Some
have jokingly called the Act Congress’s insurance policy if
Reinvention fails. This Act strengthens the framework for
aligning training programs with the strategic Planning
processes and missions of government agencies.

Like most members of this subcommittee, | believe that
most policies can be improved. These are no exceptions.
However, | believe these authorities provide a, sufficient
framework for effectively training government, employees.

The breakdown in government training is not so much
the policies, but. the implementation of policies. | am
appalled at the lip service federal agencies give to training
and strategic planning while doing nothing. In their Training
Needs Assessment Handbook, OPM writes, “The concept of

‘strategic’ human resources development (HRD) refers to the
systematic alignment of an agency’s HRD functions with the
agency’s overall mission and strategic goals. The traditional
HRD functions...are most effective when they are linked
directly with the broader human resources functions...and
also with the agency‘s mission, business, and performance
goals.”

Yet, you could count on your hands the agencies that
are even pursuing the alignment of the trai function with
their strategic planning processes. A recent report, which
included an evaluation of the training needs assessment
Practices of agencies, indicated that they varied, but they
were not very strategic in their approach. | find this hard to
comprehend when you look at the importance of training to
federal workers and agencies in this era of downsizing and
reinvention.

But, Mr. Chairman, | am not here to admonish Federal
agencies, but to merely suggest that they do a better job on
this and to put forth the recommendation that agency plans
be developed for aligning training with the agency stiateate
planning process.


158

Mr. Moran. OK. It appears that there is no policy to charge any
$10 fee. I would really like to find out whether anyone has ever
been charged a fee.

But here is someone who never even complained to the agency;
I just hope we don’t overblow this, and I think an important consid-
eration is the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have, in
fact, been instructed on the facts and the rumors and fallacious in-
formation that is out there so they can discern what is accurate
and what isn’t, and of those hundreds of thousands of people who
have been instructed, there seems to be a very, very small number
of people who have actually found it offensive.

But where information has been communicated in an offensive
way, or information that in its very nature is offensive, we ought
to go after that and we ought to see to it that that does not con-
tinue. But I think it would be bath unfair and irresponsible to
leave this hearing with the impression that the kind of instruction
that is being provided to Federal employees is best described by the
kind of wild, bizarre things that we heard, both from Mr. Dornan
and from some of the other people. It appears to me that it is not
reflective or indicative in any way of the vast majority of the in-
structors or of the instruction.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman and yield now to the gentlelady
from Maryland, Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. I simply wanted to state something we all know,
and that is, HIV/AIDS is a national crisis and indeed we have for-
gotten that the fastest growing group to get HIV/AIDS are women;
and we have issues before us that deal with voluntary counseling
of pregnant women with the problem of the neonatal situation, pe-
diatric AIDS.

So it touches all of us, and so my feeling, and I think many other
members of the committee, including the chairman, feel that we
need to do something with regard to proper training, but we need
the right vehicle for it, the right instructors for it so that our Fed-
eral work force can be the model for the Nation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady and I also thank the panel, and
if you have additional statements you would like to be part of the
record, we will make them part of the record.

And also there may be additional questions. I think we will have
some additional questions, particularly for OPM; and we will ask
that you respond and also make those part of the record.

The panel is excused. Thank you.

Our next panel—I think we have lost one of our witnesses due
to the time constraints, but our final panel is Erline Belton, presi-
dent and CEO of the Lyceum Group, and we also have Kenneth D.
Goodman with the Whitman-Walker Training Institute.

Mr. Mica. And if I could ask the two witness, if you would re-
main standing or stand, it is the custom of this subcommittee and
our full committee to swear our witnesses, so if you would please
raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]


125

employees. The purpose of this policy was to “increase their understanding of AIDS and to

facilitare the proper handling of personnel situations where AIDS is a factor”

Second, USDA, did require that all employees receive HIV/AIDS training in compliance with the

original guidelines issued by the National AIDS Policy Office At the same time, accommodations

were made available to those employees with strong religious or moral objections te attending this
training. Under the new White House guidelines, issued on April 21, 1995, separate HIV/AIDS
training is no longer mandatory. USDA therefore has included the HIV/AIDS education program
as an integral part ofits training on such subjects as health education, substance abuse, sexuat

‘harassment, and other health and safety related topics.

Third, USDA has spent approximately $200,000 on the delivery of HIV/AIDS training, Over
61,000 employees have received training lasting two and one half hours Our best estimate of the
cost of their time spent in training, including training and additional materials is $3.5 mi‘lion. As
I'm sure this subcommittee is aware, similar programs have been conducted by many private
sector companies, both to alleviate the concems and fears of their employees and to ensure that

their employees were aware of their legal obligations to those with HIV/AIDS

Fourth, che goal of the Federal Workplace HIV/AIDS Education Initiative is to provide all
Federal employees with HIV/AIDS prevention information and with information on workplace
policies and procedures related to persons living with HIV/AIDS and other chronic illnesses, This

initiative is expected to improve employee and organizational performance by:


100
treatment of workers affected by HIV/AIDS. Thus the Department's
first AIDS policy issuance was followed by widespread employee

education, which has been on-going in some fashion since that time.

Since 1996 changes in three areas

we affected the issue of

ling with AIDS in the work place.

© First, the number of reported AIDS cases in this country
has increased over tenfold from about 39,000 in 1986 to
441,526 by the end of 1994.’ To the extent that our employee

population mirrors society as a whol

the number of employe:

affected by HIV/AIDS has risen similarly.

© Second, advances in detection and treatment have made it
possible for HIV infected individuals to maintain a productive
vork life longer than during the early years of the epidemic.
Whereas once HIV/AIDS affected employees were gone from the
workplace before co-workers were avare of their colleagues!

lin

, they now are more likely to continue work for a

longer period of tim This increases the chances for

misunderstanding and discrimination vhich impact on morale,

productivity, and performance.

© Finally, work place policies, particularly in the areas of

', The CDC expanded the AIDS case definition in 1993.

2


41

the testimony that OPM played virtually no training policy
role in perhaps the most important governmentwide training
initiative of the last decade. |! was mystified at the lost
opportunity for a coordinated effort to educate federal
workers on AIDS prevention. | am, however, pleased that
anonymous information suggests that the AIDS awareness
training for the most part went, and is, going well. | know
we hear more about this today.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing.
And | appreciate you providing me the leeway to make this
statement early so that | can attend my full committee mark-
up. | hope to return to this hearing.