On Monday, however, President Bush beat back the rumors by naming Scott Evertz, a 38-year-old AIDS policy activist from Wisconsin, as the new director of the agency. Evertz is the Wisconsin president of the Log Cabin Republicans, a national gay Republican fund-raising and lobbying group. He is said to be the first openly gay man ever appointed in a Republican administration.
Evertz’s nod coincides with a number of new initiatives intended to demonstrate Bush’s commitment to HIV/AIDS issues. Although his recent budget proposal featured substantial cuts in many federal health assistance programs, he did include $1.8 billion for AIDS programs. That money maintains funding for most federal HIV/AIDS programs at current levels. Bush has also announced a new task force on international AIDS issues to be headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson.
Evertz’s background in HIV/AIDS advocacy work includes raising money for a Wisconsin Catholic AIDS ministry and fund-raising for a mission hospital in Kenya. He also worked with Thompson, the former governor of Wisconsin, to pass state legislation that won hospital visitation rights for the partners of AIDS patients. Despite his activism on AIDS issues, Evertz shares many of Bush’s conservative political views, including a strong position against abortion.
Although some of Bush’s more conservative supporters have decried Evertz appointment as an assault on family values, some national HIV/AIDS service groups are commending Bush’s choice. NEWSWEEK discussed the nomination and the future of AIDS policy under the Bush administration with Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lobbying group for gay rights and HIV/AIDS services .
NEWSWEEK: What is your response to Scott Evertz’s appointment? Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign.
Stachelberg: It was a great signal. Scott brings a background in HIV and AIDS, he brings a close relationship to Secretary [of Health and Human Services Tommy] Thompson. In a world where there are 40,000 new HIV cases in this country alone, where one in three young gay men of color are living with HIV, where the global epidemic is tearing apart entire countries, there’s a lot to be done. All of the bits of Scott’s background and the connections that he has will help him and this administration address the epidemic.
The other thing that is important is not just Scott’s appointment, but some of the language and some of the statements that Secretary Thompson and Secretary of State Colin Powell have made about the epidemic in leading this new task force on international HIV issues, and hopefully they will help us begin some of the very, very hard work that needs to be done.
Are you surprised to see a Republican administration taking an active role in addressing this issue?
No, I think the magnitude of this epidemic and this disease could not be lost sight of by anyone, and I don’t think that this administration is any different.
What does the White House Office of National AIDS Policy do? How powerful is the agency?
No office, in and of itself, is necessarily powerful or necessarily weak. It’s the function of the people who are brought to staff the agency, their commitment, their leadership, the political pressure, the public-health need. All of those are factors that go into determining whether the agency is going to be effective. AIDS is, unfortunately, a powerful issue, and I think that Scott Evertz has passion, and the backup he brings will help to make the national AIDS policy an integral part of this administration.
What was your response to Bush’s budget proposal and the funding for HIV/AIDS programs it outlined?
It was mixed. We were very pleased to see that the NIH [National Institutes of Health] research budget was increased significantly. On the prevention side, however, the modest increase of 2 percent is not enough to address the epidemic. Right now, our only cure for this disease is prevention. I think that we need to devote more resources, more dollars to domestic prevention issues, as well as global prevention issues. Forty thousand new cases every year in this country is unacceptable. We know prevention works.
I also am concerned about the lack of an increase in funding for the Ryan White Care Act. We would like to work with this administration and our allies in Congress to ensure that during the appropriations process that additional monies are added to that appropriation. Given the fact that sickness costs so much, and those costs are increasing, the current money going to cities is inadequate.
Why is HIV/AIDS prevention regarded as a more politically sensitive issue than AIDS treatment?
Unfortunately, politics plays a much bigger role in HIV prevention that it does in the care and treatment of people who have the disease. They Ryan White Care Act was reauthorized in 2000 and breezed through on a voice vote. No amendments were added to it, no negative amendments, no anti-gay or anti-AIDS attacks were part of the discussion. There were hundreds of conservative and liberal Representatives who were cosponsors of it.
When it comes to prevention, it’s much more difficult because you have to talk about the way the disease is contracted-you have to talk about contraception and needle-exchange programs. And unfortunately, it becomes politicized. If we could take the politics out of prevention, we could do a much better job, and I hope that this administration will look hard at that.
What’s your assessment of the Bush administration’s overall approach to HIV/AIDS issues so far?
After an early stumble [in contemplating the elimination of the White House AIDS office], I think they’re doing a much better job. We’ve heard Secretary of State Powell say the global AIDS epidemic is a national security threat, which it is. The NIH budget increase and the appointment of Scott Evertz are steps in the right direction, not only symbolically, but in real substantive ways. We now have someone we can go to work for us with the administration on the AIDS epidemic. I think it’s been an overall positive.
What about Congress? How has the Republican Congress responded to HIV/AIDS issues in recent years?
Over the last several years, Congress has increased the appropriations for AIDS spending above what Clinton proposed in his budget-and that’s both Republicans and Democrats. The fact that the Bush budget is lower than we would like to see is not any different than how Clinton’s budgets usually came to us initially. There’s been a group of leaders on the Hill who have taken a real key leadership role in taking the politics out of this issue.
There’s some concern over the fact that Evertz is pro-life, since many AIDS activists see issues of reproductive choice as linked to HIV prevention strategies. What’s your take?
We are a pro-choice organization. I believe that Scott’s background on HIV and AIDS issues is paramount. I hope that whatever his individual views on choice are, he won’t let them obstruct what we believe is the strength he brings to this job. I think that it’s hard to extract individual health concerns from each other-many of these issues are tied together. So often when AIDS research is attacked, all we have to do is point to the incredible benefits that AIDS research has on other diseases. I’m less concerned than some others, but it’s something we should be mindful of and deal with it.
How do you regard the Clinton administration’s treatment of HIV/AIDS issues?
President Clinton played a tremendous role. I think it was terribly important that Clinton and Vice President Gore talked about AIDS, talked about people living with the disease, went to see the AIDS Quilt when it was in Washington. People could say that those are purely symbolic gestures, but they send out a message about what it means to be a person living with this disease and that’s terribly important, and I hope that this administration will be as open and forthcoming. I believe that Scott’s appointment signals that this administration is ready to do that.
What are the major issues Evertz will face? What kind of AIDS issues will your organization be pushing him to confront?
The first and most immediate is the appropriations process, which we’re now in the midst of. I also think that Medicaid and issues of whether Medicaid funding covers treatment for people living with AIDS is of major concern. And of course, one of fundamental things we’ll focus on with this administration is prevention. While we’re looking for a cure, we have to do everything in our power to stop the spread.
