Anna Eshoo: “I rise in opposition to Mr. Barton's amendment. I believe that it will perpetuate a system of winners and losers in the…”

“I rise in opposition to Mr. Barton's amendment. I believe that it will perpetuate a system of winners and losers in the allocation of Federal resources for AIDS. When Congress reauthorized the Ryan White AIDS program last year, we included language to allow the historic epicenters of the disease to continue providing care to those in need. The language was specifically intended to protect against drastic cuts that would destabilize the existing infrastructure for HIV/AIDS care. Now, my friend from Texas has been absolutely consistent, and so have I. He's always been opposed to what I've just described, and I have supported it. So it's gone back and forth. But we've both been consistent in terms of our positions. I obviously respectfully disagree with his amendment, because I think it's important to understand, number one, A, that you have to protect the infrastructure. This isn't simply, when we say the care of people, you have to have infrastructure for it. And I think, underlying the gentleman's amendment is the notion that dead people are being funded, and that simply is not the case. We are both on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We've debated it there, and that's why I'm bringing some of the flavor of what we've debated there. Over 20,000 people have died from AIDS in San Francisco's EMA.”