[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 73 (Friday, June 9, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DISCOVERY OF AIDS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                          Friday, June 9, 2006

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of HIV/
AIDS which remains a matter of global concern, even twenty-five years 
after the first case was diagnosed. June 5, 2006, as the world 
recognized the anniversary of AIDS, I am reminded that our duty as a 
world power is to ensure that this epidemic does not continue to 
devastate lives.
  Present day AIDS education is lacking the appropriate resources to 
spread the message that this disease is preventable. Without these 
resources and advocates to stand for the cause, HIV/AIDS will continue 
to infect millions of people worldwide. It is critical that this 
country and its leaders begin to increase awareness nationwide so that 
our constituents will understand the causes as well as effects of AIDS 
while we continue to be outspoken in the fight to find a cure.
  Furthermore, AIDS continues to ravage our communities due to the fact 
that there is not enough federal or state money placed into health 
initiatives to treat current patients or to find a cure. With the 
desperately needed funding for medical programs and treatment centers, 
many new cases can be prevented and persons who have the virus will 
receive affordable quality medication.
  We all have a calling to service our communities by making policies 
that increase awareness and target funding towards HIV/AIDS. I will 
maintain my stance that HIV/AIDS affects us all regardless of class, 
race or sex. Therefore, we must present a united front in the effort to 
prevent this disease from spreading and remain committed to increasing 
appropriations for HIV/AIDS, education and treatment.

                [From the Washington Post, June 2, 2006]

                          Another $10 Billion

       The Generals in the global battle against HIV-AIDS are 
     meeting at the United Nations this week, five years after 
     another U.N. summit promised an intensified push against the 
     crisis. The target of mobilizing $7 billion to $10 billion 
     per year has been met: Last year low- and middle-income 
     countries spent $2.5 billion of their own money and an 
     additional $5.8 billion from donors on AIDS treatment and 
     prevention and the care of orphans. But that money has bought 
     less than expected. Rather than hitting the ``three by five'' 
     target of getting medicines to 3 million people by 2005, the 
     world has put only about 1.4 million people on treatment--a 
     big improvement on the 240,000 who were receiving drugs in 
     2001 but still well less than half of the number who need 
     medicines immediately. Equally, better-financed prevention 
     efforts have succeeded in driving down infection rates among 
     young adults, notably in Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Haiti. 
     But last year there were 4.1 million new infections 
     worldwide. The plague is still advancing.
       The summiteers in New York therefore confront a daunting 
     problem. The latest U.N. estimate, which may prove as 
     optimistic as the last one, is that fighting the disease will 
     soon require $20 billion to $23 billion a year, more than 
     twice the current spending. What's more, this is not a 
     temporary commitment: Once people go on antiretroviral 
     treatment, they need medicines for years; caring for orphans 
     is also a long-term proposition. Assuming that some of the 
     extra resources will be provided by middle-income countries, 
     the rich world may need to reach into its taxpayers' pockets 
     for an extra $10 billion a year. Official development 
     assistance, which has already jumped by more than two-thirds 
     in real terms between 2000 and 2005, would have to grow by a 
     tenth or so.
       Moreover, the effect of that money will be limited unless 
     the world expands its commitment to other development 
     efforts. Donor-financed AIDS programs can suck nurses and 
     doctors out of the rest of the health system, so an increase 
     in AIDS spending requires a parallel increase in general 
     health investment. AIDS flourishes in poor societies because 
     illiteracy and penury make people vulnerable; success against 
     the virus depends partly on broader progress. As President 
     Paul Kagame of Rwanda told The Post on Wednesday, there's no 
     use in giving someone antiretroviral drugs if he has no food.
       The imperative to raise extra money for AIDS and other 
     development objectives raises an institutional issue. To 
     carry out its commitments of five years ago, the world 
     created the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and 
     Malaria, which has raised and spent an impressive $5 billion; 
     the question is whether this venture should be the vehicle 
     for the next step-up in AIDS funding. The fund's critics, 
     notably the Bush administration, rightly say that it has 
     suffered from poor management, that it has occasionally given 
     money on the basis of poor grant proposals and that it has 
     indulged grantees whose performance should have led to a 
     suspension of disbursements. But rather than snipe at the 
     fund, the critics should work to improve it. The fund's 
     structure provides a way of sharing the financial burden 
     globally. The quality of its grants has recently gone up. And 
     centralizing AIDS finance simplifies the administrative 
     burden on stressed officials from poor countries. The fund's 
     entrepreneurial leader, Richard Feachem, has announced that 
     he will leave when his term expires this year. The priority 
     should be to find a replacement who is pushy enough to raise 
     extra money and sawy enough to solidify the institution's 
     management.

                          ____________________