Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague from California spoke about what our committee would do. I would urge him to understand that Congress is doing it for them with this measure. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, the day before yesterday, Frances Beinecke, the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the following: ``GOP lawmakers would have us believe that the public health and environmental safeguards stemming from the Clean Air Act--a 40-year-old law signed by President Nixon--are thwarting economic growth. It's not the unregulated market in mortgage debt, the U.S. trade deficit with China, or the shaky state of European banks that is freezing growth. It's the EPA's effort to reduce toxins from old power plants.'' Madam Speaker, millions of Americans are hurting and are in desperate need of our help. Instead of working to create jobs, my colleagues on the other side would rather consider ``do nothing'' bills. We've been doing nothing around here for a very long time now and have been considering ``do nothing'' to get our economy back on track. This ``do nothing'' bill does not create jobs, and it does nothing to help the struggle of middle class and working poor Americans. Let me just give some examples of the time line on the Environmental Protection Agency's laws and list them, in part, by administration. I spoke earlier about the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act that President Nixon vetoed. His veto was overridden, and then he signed it on October 18, 1972. Under President Ford, we got the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the cancer-causing pesticides were banned. There was the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976 under President Ford. Under Jimmy Carter, we got the Clean Water Act of 1977. Then the EPA set a new national air pollution standard for lead, and I'm sure families with children understand that dynamic. The phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons took place in 1978. Under President Reagan, in 1982, we got the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the asbestos testing in schools, which was critically important throughout this Nation. We got the Chesapeake Bay pollution cleanup and a 90 percent reduction of lead in gasoline. During that same period of time, although it was not his discovery, the ozone layer problem was discovered. Then in 1986, President Reagan signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, the wetlands protection measure, and the Right- to-Know Laws for chemical safety. The Montreal Protocol was signed by the President in 1987 and standards for underground storage tanks in 1988. The sewage Ocean Dumping Ban also came about in 1988. The Alar pesticide ban for use on foods came under President Bush. Toxic waste control came under President Bush as well as the Pollution Prevention Act. Acid rain controls were enacted as well as the Energy Star program. Those are just a few, and I won't go into the many under President Clinton and the few that have taken place under President Obama. With that said, there seems to be this act against the Environmental Protection Agency that suggests that they have been harmful in some way--that's another word for ``demonize''--that they've been harmful, the EPA, in all of these things that have been done throughout all of this time that have helped our environment. I just, for the life of me, don't understand why it is now we want to slow down this process and allow for an analysis, that is already being done, to be delayed. We want to protect and conserve the land on which we live--our countryside, our rivers, our mountains, our plains, and meadows and forests. That's what Ronald Reagan said. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children, and our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it. Does the bill that we're considering today leave the land better than we found it? I think you know the answer. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2401. I do thank my colleague, Mr. Bishop, for granting the time for the opposition. This bill is really another attempt by the Republican leadership to demonize the Environmental Protection Agency and dismantle any government regulation intended to protect our Nation's public health and the environment. H.R. 2401 is a waste of time and an absolute insult to the millions of Americans without jobs. Instead of crafting legislation to increase consumer confidence, instead of helping Americans hold on to their homes, instead of creating jobs for the millions of people who are unemployed, instead of relieving the burden of the middle class by making the Tax Code more fair, my friends on the other side are asking us to vote on a bill that effectively bars the EPA from finalizing and implementing two of the most significant air quality regulations in decades. Coal plants--and let me lay my bona fides out here: I do believe in clean coal--the biggest source of unregulated mercury emissions in the United States, pump out 48 tons of emissions every year. Mercury contaminates more than 6 million acres of freshwater lakes, and I want to just take the prerogative of talking about one. I was born in Altamonte Springs, Florida, and the nearest lake to where I was born is called Mobile. At one point, my grandfather could pass by and say to my grandmother, I'm going down to the lake and catch some fish--and be guaranteed that that was going to be the case--and bring it back home in short time. Now that lake is dead, and it's because of mercury contamination that that lake is dead; 46,000 miles of streams, and the stream that led into Lake Mobile is dead. And 225,000 acres of wetlands across the United States in all 50 States have some type of fish consumption advisory. Let me repeat that: all 50 States have some type of fish consumption advisory. What's more, there are substantial economic benefits to these clean air rules that my friends are trying to block. The EPA estimates that the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards alone could generate more than 30,000 construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs, benefiting steelmakers, pipefitters, boilermakers, and others. The economic value of air quality improvements totals $59 billion to $140 billion annually. That's 25,300 lives lost to toxic air pollution; over 11,000 heart attacks; more than 12,000 asthma attacks, and a significant portion of them being children; over 12,200 additional visits to the emergency rooms of our country; and hundreds of thousands of missed work days. Overall, the EPA predicts that the monetary value of protecting Americans' health through implementing the Clean Air Act is projected to reach $2 trillion in 2020 alone. Yet this bill ignores those benefits. Madam Speaker, all of us know that times are tough, but this great Nation has been through tough economic times before. Environmental regulations are not the problem. The economy was really tough--and we are reminded of it often by my colleagues--under President Carter; yet the EPA at the time managed to set new national air pollution standards for airborne lead and began the phaseout of ozone-layer-destroying gases from aerosol spray products. Nor has protecting the environment always been a partisan issue. The EPA has also had great successes under Republican Presidents. Upon founding the EPA in 1970, President Richard Nixon said the following: ``We can no longer afford to consider air and water common property, free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences. Instead, we should begin now to treat them as scarce resources which we are no more free to contaminate than we are free to throw garbage into our neighbor's yard.'' That was in 1970. One of the first tasks assigned to the EPA was to enforce the Clean Air Act, also signed by President Nixon. Since its adoption, these regulations have prevented an estimated 200,000 premature deaths. During President Reagan's administration, the EPA tested elementary and secondary schools for asbestos for the first time and named protecting endangered wetlands a top priority, while subsequently opening the new Office of Wetlands Protection. And contrary to what many of my friends across the aisle believe, history did not end with President Reagan. President George H.W. Bush implemented the new cap-and-trade policies that successfully addressed the growing problem of acid rain. President Bush's EPA also started the wildly successful Energy Star program, helping Americans save money through adopting energy-efficient products and practices. Since then, Energy Star has saved Americans $17 billion on utility bills. And on a more personal level, I grew up at times with asthma, as did a cousin of mine who still suffers the effects of it. Several of the employees that work with me now and some before have had asthma, and I genuinely believe that if we did not have the clean air standards that we have today, some of us may not be here. In light of all these accomplishments, it's clear that H.R. 2041 is nothing more than an effort, at the behest of a big, big set of businesses, to delay and block necessary and important regulations that will keep our country safe and clean. Republicans claim that this bill assists agencies with their economic analyses of EPA regulations. This is nothing more than a convenient, ad hoc justification. Firstly, all major regulations already receive years of extensive cost-benefit analysis before implementation. At the same time, this bill fails to take into account any of the health and environmental benefits of the regulations in question, rendering the one-sided ``cost-only'' analysis set forth by this bill unnecessary. Second, the version of the Energy and Commerce bill that was reported out suspends two major regulations that have been the subject of analysis, litigation, re-examination and rewriting for over two decades. Both the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive order 12866 signed by President Clinton require Federal agencies to perform the type of analysis required in the bill, including a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. By requiring unnecessary and duplicative studies, my friends on the other side could not make their desire to indefinitely block these regulations any more clear. I've introduced an amendment that carves out an exception for rules and regulations drafted in adherence to the rules already on the books, freeing these important regulations to proceed along as scheduled. Madam Speaker, based on what I've seen by this Republican-led Congress, it's clear to me that they obviously have no intention of using their real power to create jobs. Instead, they prefer to waste time on measures such as this bill that are designed to do one simple thing, and that is to further delay both past and future regulations. Now, let me make it clear. I've quarreled, as have some of my colleagues, with the Environmental Protection Agency, as rightly we should when the circumstances permit, and that is, in my case, with the numeric nutrient standards that are proposed in Florida. A court has made a decision regarding the enforcement of those nutrient standards, and I believe that the communities involved are prepared to undertake to do what's necessary. And I do not believe that EPA has to involve itself at this point in time. But when I quarrel with EPA, as I do, I don't do it in a way that demonizes the agency. I do it in a way that's looking for a solution. One thing that I've learned in the years that I've been in this institution is that whether you have a right or left or center ideological perspective, to begin demonizing certain people suggests to me that those people probably have been successful. I don't know Lisa Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency Cabinet official, but I do know that the way people are screaming about the work that she has done suggests that she must be having some success. It's time to call my friends out on the other side for their shenanigans, and show the American people that they are more interested in helping big business and the wealthy than the middle class and working poor Americans who continue to struggle all across this Nation every single day. If we start cutting the regulations that protect the environment when we are down, where will we be when we recover? I've seen firsthand what happens in places that disregard environmental protections for the sake of business. I remember being in Seong, China with a departed colleague, Gerald Sullivan, who was chair of the Rules Committee, and holding my hand in front of my face and not being able to see it. I also had that same experience in Los Angeles, California, in the late 1950s. This certainly is not the kind of home that we want to leave for our grandchildren. The air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the soil on which we produce our crops is the earth that we call home. And, in my view, we must keep it clean. Let me tell you what Ronald Reagan said. If we've learned any lessons during the past few decades, perhaps the most important is that preservation of our environment is not a partisan challenge. It's common sense. Our physical health, our social happiness, and our economic well-being will be sustained only by all of us working in partnership as thoughtful, effective stewards of our natural resources. President Reagan made those remarks on signing an annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality. Additionally, he said, in a radio address, that I'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that States and the Federal Government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development. And more importantly, what he said is, what is conservative after all, but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live? And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live, our countrysides, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children, and our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it. He made those remarks at the dedication of the National Geographic Society's new headquarters building in 1984. President George W. Bush said, our country, the United States, is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's manmade greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, in a joint address to Congress he said, I also call on Congress to work with my administration to achieve the significant emission reductions made possible by implementing the clean energy technologies proposed in our energy plan. Our working group study has made it clear that we need to do a lot more. Those words from two Presidents that are revered, rightly, by many of us in this institution, and certainly by my colleagues that are Republican that share the same ideological perspectives, should be sufficient to put to rest this polluting bill that we could rename the Toxic Polluting America measure. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I'll try to do better about that as we progress. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, a former member of the Rules Committee, a distinguished Member of this body from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 1366, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2011. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), whose father I had the privilege of serving with as well.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Frederica Wilson for organizing the ``We Love Our Carrie Meek'' 1-minutes. Carrie, I want to make sure that you understand that this is not funereal, and they've kind of made it sound that way. This is a tribute to you. And since you and I came here together, along with Jim Clyburn, Corrine Brown, Sanford Bishop and Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Bennie Thompson halfway, since he came a little bit later, I speak for them as well. Eddie Bernice could not be here but asked that I recite a portion of her remarks, and that is that your career in the House was distinguished as well as that on the State level. Almost immediately, the Congresswoman established herself as a champion of expanding federal programs to create jobs and provide initiatives for African American business owners. In a battle that is still being fought today, Congresswoman Meek passionately opposed cuts to social welfare programs in the 1990s to prevent the financial burden from being carried on the backs of the middle class and the disadvantaged. I have the distinction of offering Eddie Bernice's full remarks and the compliments and congratulations from all of our class that came here in 1992, and an even greater distinction of speaking with Carrie perhaps as much or more than most of the Members with regularity and sharing with her the number of jokes and a number of anecdotes that we have together. I, as well as all of us, are proud of you, Carrie, and the enormous work that you have done and that you will continue to do through the foundation. And thanks again for sending Kendrick to us as well. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee and my good friend for yielding. I echo all of the sentiments that he has made previously. Firstly, I'd like to point to the fact that the National Association of Manufacturers, in its last sentence in a letter directed to Senator Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell, says, ``During this time of economic recovery, we urge you to preserve this successful program''--meaning the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program--``that is helping preserve auto sector jobs and promote energy security.'' Bruce Josten, from the Chamber of Commerce, while citing to all Members of the House of Representatives that the chamber ``understands the importance of reducing America's unacceptable debt and believes that all programs must be on the table, the chamber urges you to bear in mind the facts about the ATVM loan program, which promotes manufacturing in the United States and is an important component of America's energy security.'' I only cited that for the reason that there could be no better person to know what martial law is than the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, who is my good friend. He and I, he and Mr. McGovern and I, Ms. Slaughter and he and I have been back and forth on martial law when Democrats were in charge and when Republicans were in charge. One thing you need to understand is this is martial law that you are bringing this rule under, and we don't even know what's in the bill. Yesterday afternoon, the Republican leadership brought up a bill that failed American workers, failed our Nation's economy, and failed those struggling to recover from natural disasters. It is no surprise that their rank and file then failed them. Rather than take up language that has already passed the Senate with bipartisan support, Republicans instead chose to pit unemployed factory workers against hurricane victims. This is not the kind of behavior that will bring our Nation out of this recession. While Republicans continue their partisan squabbles, countless Americans are fighting for their livelihoods. Six years after Hurricane Katrina, roofs are still being replaced, homes are being repaired and paperwork is still pending for funds that have yet to be allocated. And if you've been to New Orleans, you'll see a whole section of that city that is not in repair. In my home State of Florida, FEMA has already delayed $1.68 million for work resulting from 2004 and 2005 Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne and Dennis. Given my colleague's distorted priorities, I can't help but wonder how long will the people of New England have to wait since we've been waiting in Florida since 2004 and 2005.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. And some have been waiting for drought relief and flood relief for an equal number of years. But this appears to be of no consequence to my Republican colleagues as they fail to recognize that their ideological posturing has very real repercussions. Once again, their irresponsible behavior and unwillingness to compromise has put us on the brink of yet another shutdown. H. Res. 409 unnecessarily will provide for same-day consideration of another Republican continuing resolution, violating the House Republicans' rules package passed in January which provided that all bills will be available to the public 3 days before coming to a vote. Not only did we not get the required 72 hours, we didn't get 24 hours. The Speaker made it very clear. He said that we will dispense with the conventional wisdom that bigger bills are always better; that fast legislating is good legislating; and that allowing additional amendments and open debate makes the legislative process less efficient than our forefathers intended. Legislators and the public will have 3 days to read bills before they come to a vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. We were told we would have 3 days to read bills before they come to a vote. We were told that they would be on the Internet and that technology is available so that all of America could see what we're doing. And as the Speaker said--and I thoroughly agree--fast legislating is not good legislating, especially when there is no need to require a rushed, closed process. As far as we know, we're voting on a same-day rule for a bill we don't even know exists. Before we even ask to spend billions of dollars, we should have some idea of what's going on. And it's not enough for me to hear that we're going to hear about it in the Rules Committee later on. I want to know what's going on right now.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I just wanted to respond to your statement that you don't know where we--

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. No, that you don't know where we got the 72 hours from. Well, if you go on the Speaker's Web site, you will see in the very first paragraph what he says in that regard with reference to 72 hours. Perhaps that's where we got it from.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Just one thing, Mr. Chairman: Does the Speaker's word matter or not?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, one thing I really would like to make clear and take out some of the hyperbole and the passion from my side or yours, we know, and you have said--and I echo your expressions with reference to the need for us to address--

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The only thing I am trying to get across is I don't want the American public to believe that whenever we get through--whether it's 72 hours, or whenever it is--that that means that the desperately needed money in Vermont and in New England and other places is going to be forthcoming most immediately because I'm telling you that from '04 and '05, from six hurricanes we are not being paid in the State of Florida.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Well, not only Floridians.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Exactly. That's the point. From tornadoes, from hurricanes, from fires, all over the place.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Libya's frozen assets be used to pay for humanitarian relief and military operations associated with the current conflict in that country. Since Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi responded to peaceful demonstrations by attacking Libya's own citizens, the United States has been actively engaged with our international allies in thwarting the ability of the Qaddafi regime to visit violence, murder, and destruction on the people of Libya. This past February, the United States imposed economic sanctions on Libya and froze the assets of its leadership, promising to hold Qaddafi, his family, and the government of Libya accountable for its human rights abuses. It is estimated that the value of these assets exceed $30 billion. On March 19, with the authority of the United Nations, the United States Armed Forces and our coalition partners launched Operation Odyssey Dawn in an effort to enforce the Security Council resolution. That mission has since come under NATO command and is now called Operation Unified Protector. Our Armed Forces have assisted in combat operations including providing intelligence, aerial refueling, targeting, and other aspects of NATO's daily bombardment of Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi. We have already spent over one billion taxpayer dollars on this effort, with operations costing millions more every day. When the United States recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate governing authority of Libya on July 15, it paved the way for the Council to access some of the frozen assets to be used for humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts. With the Qaddafi regime at an end and the dictator himself on the run and in hiding, the United States will be moving into a posture that puts less emphasis on military operations and more focus on supporting the Transitional National Council's efforts to establish a working government. The United States should pursue with the Council the viability of using some of those assets to reimburse NATO members for the cost of their military operations in support of the Libyan people. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Libya's frozen assets be used to pay for humanitarian relief and military operations associated with the current conflict in that country. Since Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi responded to peaceful demonstrations by attacking Libya's own citizens, the United States has been actively engaged with our international allies in thwarting the ability of the Qaddafi regime to visit violence, murder, and destruction on the people of Libya. This past February, the United States imposed economic sanctions on Libya and froze the assets of its leadership, promising to hold Qaddafi, his family, and the government of Libya accountable for its human rights abuses. It is estimated that the value of these assets exceed thirty billion dollars. On March 19, with the authority of the United Nations, the United States Armed Forces and our coalition partners launched Operation Odyssey Dawn in an effort to enforce Security Council Resolution 1973. That mission has since come under NATO command and is now called Operation Unified Protector. Our Armed Forces have assisted in combat operations including providing intelligence, aerial refueling, targeting, and other aspects of NATO's daily bombardment of Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi. We have already spent over one billion taxpayer dollars on this effort, with operations costing millions more every day. When the United States recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate governing authority of Libya on July 15, it paved the way for the Council to access some of the frozen assets to use for humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts. With the Qaddafi regime at an end and the dictator himself on the run and in hiding, the United States will be moving into a posture that puts less emphasis on military operations and more focus on supporting the Transitional National Council's efforts to establish a working government. The United States should pursue with the Council the viability of using some of those assets to reimburse NATO members for the cost of their military operations in support of the Libyan people. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Dr. Garland E. ``Gary'' Morey, Jr., a pioneer in South Florida's HIV/AIDS community. Dr. Morey passed away after a lengthy battle with cancer on August 1, 2011, at the age of 57. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends at this most difficult time. He is survived by his life partner, William Silver; father, Garland Morey, Sr.; brother, Donald Morey; sister, Linda Thomas; and four nephews, Tim and Bryan Thomas, and Trevor and Kevin Morey. Dr. Morey was born in Syracuse, NY, to Garland ``Gene'' Morey and Theresa ``Terry'' Morey. He graduated from Cicero High School, attended Cornell University for his undergraduate studies, and received his medical degree from Upstate Medical Center. Dr. Morey was determined to go wherever his service was needed. During his studies and residency, he completed externships at the University of Cape Town in South Africa and Alaska Native Medical Center in Barrow. Furthermore, Dr. Morey practiced in Syracuse before joining the Public Health Service and setting up a rural medical practice in Onley, VA. Later, his work would take him to Florida, where he went into practice in Marathon and Big Pine Key. In 1987, Dr. Morey answered the call to help treat patients infected with a newly emerging immune system disease now known as HIV/AIDS. He moved to Fort Lauderdale and joined the Broward County Health Department's Northwest AIDS Center as its first HIV/AIDS specialist. Furthermore, he co-founded Care Resources, Inc., South Florida's oldest and largest HIV/AIDS service organization. In September 1994, after caring for over 1,200 HIV-positive patients, Dr. Morey was forced to retire as a physician, but his work did not end there. He wrote grants, established new programs, and served on the committees and boards of numerous community-based organizations, including the University of Miami AIDS treatment center, Community Research Initiative, People With AIDS Coalition, International Foundation for Alternate Research in AIDS, Broward Community Foundation, Shadowood II, South Florida AIDS Network, Broward County HIV Health Services Planning Council, and chairman of the board for Center One. When Dr. Morey lost his larynx to esophagus cancer in 2000, he joined the New Voice Club of South Florida. He became a speech therapist to help individuals like himself learn to talk and live with throat cancer. Dr. Morey also established a training program for nursing students at Florida Atlantic University and invited students to club meetings to work with members. In addition, he traveled to schools throughout Broward County teaching young children the hazards of smoking. Mr. Speaker, for over 16 years, Dr. Gary Morey volunteered his time and expertise whenever and wherever he could to help those individuals most in need. He was a wonderful human being whose generosity and selflessness are a true inspiration to us all, and he will be dearly missed. Dr. Morey's legacy of care and compassion is now in our hands to continue. Let us honor his memory by working to ensure that people living with HIV/AIDS have access to quality health care and are treated with dignity and respect.