Congress Misses the ‘Magic’ Show : Military: A bill ousting the HIV-positive has nothing to do with readiness; it’s simply discrimination.

Americans cheered last week as Earvin “Magic” Johnson triumphantly returned to the Los Angeles Lakers. In just 27 minutes, he scored 19 points and dispelled any remaining doubt about his ability to compete at the highest level.

To their credit, Magic’s fans, coaches, teammates and even his NBA opponents welcomed him back with open arms. Imagine how absurd it would be if Congress, just as Magic demonstrated his Hall of Fame talent, passed a law requiring the NBA to fire all basketball players who have the HIV virus.

This past week, Congress did something just that absurd.

A little-noticed provision of the annual military spending bill requires the Pentagon to fire all soldiers, sailors and Marines who test positive for the HIV virus, even if they perform their duties as skillfully as Magic Johnson makes a no-look pass. The military strongly objected to this provision, but Congress did not care. The president has called the new policy unfair, but because it is part of a larger bill that includes urgently needed funding for our troops in Bosnia, he will sign it into law.

Under current policy, military personnel with the HIV virus are permitted to remain in the services as long as they are able to perform their duties. If their health deteriorates, the military initiates separation procedures and provides disability benefits and continued health insurance coverage for them and their dependents. So they can remain near health care providers, military personnel with HIV are placed on “worldwide nondeployable status,” which means that they cannot be sent on overseas missions. Soldiers with other serious chronic illnesses, such as severe asthma, cancer and diabetes are also nondeployable. In fact, only about 20% of the more than 5,000 nondeployable personnel are infected with HIV.

The congressional authors of the new policy, led by Rep. Robert K. Dornan of Orange County, argue that nondeployable personnel degrade military readiness because they cannot be sent overseas. However, their true motive appears to be less lofty than protecting the readiness of our forces. The new policy irrationally singles out military personnel with HIV. If backers truly believe that nondeployable personnel harmed readiness, why wouldn’t they seek to oust soldiers with diabetes and asthma? The only conceivable answer is that readiness is not their real motivation. Their motivation is discrimination, pure and simple.

Can anyone seriously contend that 1,059 HIV-positive soldiers--less than 0.1% of the total force--can meaningfully affect readiness? The Pentagon doesn’t think so. Its top personnel policy expert, Assistant Defense Secretary Fred Pang, recently wrote that “as long as these members can perform their required duties, we see no prudent reason to separate and replace them . . . The proposed provision would not improve military readiness or the personnel policies of the department.”

If Magic Johnson can run and leap with the best of them, why can’t a military clerk file with the best of them, or a military driver drive with the best of them?

Perhaps the worst aspect of the new policy is its total rejection of the compassion and camaraderie for which the armed forces are rightfully praised. The United States of America does not kick its soldiers when they are down. We have a proud tradition of standing by those courageous enough to dedicate their careers to the defense of our nation. That tradition will end the day this new policy is enacted.

Military personnel discharged under the new policy will lose their jobs even if they exhibit no signs of illness. They will lose their right to disability benefits and their spouses and children will lose their health care coverage. This policy is worse than wrong, it is un-American.

The same day that President Clinton signs the bill that includes this new policy, a bipartisan group of senators will introduce legislation to repeal it. The president and our senior military leaders support repeal. Despite their strong support, the odds are unclear. But I am certain about one thing: Those who vote “no” should take a good look in the mirror.