Testimony of Rep. Robert K. Dornan
Hearing before Subcommittee on Civil Service
“HIV/AIDS in the Workplace Training” for Federal Employees
Thursday, June 22,1995

August 1995 – Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening a hearing on the matter of mandatory HIV/AIDS education training for all federal employees. This training is an outrageous and fraudulent abuse of the taxpayers’ money and is also, I believe, a clear violation of the moral and religious rights of our nation’s federal employees. I am grateful, as are countless federal workers across the nation, for your willingness to investigate this abuse.

As you know, on September 30, 1993, President Clinton signed a directive instructing all federal departments and agencies to provide comprehensive HIV/AIDS In The Workplace training for its employees. Since being quoted in an article published by The Washington Times saying I would look into complaints about the training, my office has been flooded with calls and letters from employees who are outraged and upset about the content and delivery of their training, which apparently varies greatly among agencies and locations. Many people would not leave their name with my office for fear of strong reprisal from their superiors. And while this training was supposedly designed by former AIDS Czarina Kristine Gebbie to foster “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, a blatant pro-homosexual agenda

Calls and letters to my office indicate that much of the HIV/AIDS training has included graphic discussions about sexual activities that many federal employees view as lewd, objectionable, and humiliating. A Defense Department worker said her class included a slide show of “sex toys” and flavored condoms. I should remind you that this is at taxpayer expense. Other workers said they were lectured about the probable sexual practices of their grandparents and other relatives. In fact, according to an article in The Washington Times, a federal worker who underwent training recalled that she was, “...shocked and upset when the instructor personalized anal sex for each person in the room by saying that our grandmothers probably practiced birth control by participating in anal sex.” She went on to say, “I was highly offended. I have a very godly grandmother, and I just broke down and cried. I guess they are trying to say that homosexuals do it that way and so did your grandmother.”

An employee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wrote in a letter to me stating, “...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 session ended with this volunteer distributing condoms to those who wanted them.” A Bureau of Reclamation worker related that 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 sexually explicit material. Roll call was taken; I felt like a kindergarten child. Abstinence and self-control were not mentioned as the only means of prevention. Instead, it was condoms, condoms, condoms.” Still another employee related that his instructor, “gave specific graphic instructions on the use of condoms, dental dams, rubber gloves, and Saran Wrap. He emphasized that you should only use ‘non-microwavable Saran Wrap’ to cover body parts, while engaging in sexual activity.”

I find nothing objectionable about educating certain federal workers on how AIDS is and is not transmitted in the workplace, say, for example, for an employee of the Public Health Service or the National Institutes of Health. Such information is relevant to their professional duties and could very well mean the difference between life and death. 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 HIV/AIDS training in question goes far beyond this reasonable objective. Based alone on the evidence I have received, there is no doubting the hidden agenda behind these politically correct training seminars.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the “values survey” instructors must pass before being entrusted with an assigned group of employees to educate. This survey probes deep into the individual’s personal feelings about sex and homosexuality. Potential instructors are 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 as they relate to HIV/AIDS issues. Considering the system by which “undesirable” leaders are weeded out, it is obvious that those who hold traditional family values need not apply. And why would they, those who hold these values, knowing that they would have to lecture workers about the benefits of “non-insertive sexual activities” such as masturbation and massage, or encourage addicts to bleach their needles with Clorox before injecting themselves with dangerous, illegal narcotics, feeding a narco-chain of distribution that involves violence and murder at every level.

Mr. Chairman, it is not the responsibility of the federal government to subject federal workers to seminars that lecture them on how to live their sex lives or use illegal drugs in order to avoid contracting the HIV virus. The last time I checked, abusing drugs and having sex in the workplace were not specified job responsibilities for any federal worker. Why, then, are we instructing federal employees, many of them against their will, about such non-work related issues? If one of the goals of this training is to educate people about how not to contract the deadly virus that causes AIDS, then a case could easily be made for educating workers about the risks associated with heart disease and cancer, as these are the number one and two leading causes of deaths in the United States. 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?

Federal training programs are required to meet statutory objectives in assisting agencies to achieve their “mission and performance goals by improving employee and organizational performance.” Clearly, the HIV/AIDS 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 in his/her job.

Having said this, I find it outrageous that the federal government is coercing its employees – at taxpayer expense – to undergo hours of training which, in many cases, is not only highly offensive but promotes homosexuality and drug abuse as just another lifestyle choice. Because pro-homosexual policies have infiltrated the federal government at all levels since President Clinton took office, I have introduced legislation that would prohibit federal programs from promoting, condoning, accepting, or celebrating homosexuality. Congress has a responsibility to put an immediate end to such offensive nonsense. I am hopeful that with the help of this subcommittee, we can do so without further waste of precious time and taxpayer funds.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before you today on this critical matter.