[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 141 (Wednesday, September 11, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5173-H5181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    NO WHO PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS TREATY WITHOUT SENATE APPROVAL ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 1425.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1430 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1425.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1317


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1425) to require any convention, agreement, or other 
international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and 
response reached by the World Health Assembly to be subject to Senate 
ratification, with Mr. Van Drew in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1425, Congressman Tom 
Tiffany's No World Health Organization Pandemic Preparedness Treaty 
Without Senate Approval Act.
  This bill ensures that the Biden-Harris administration does not 
circumvent Congress, and it requires that any international instrument 
on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response as agreed to by the 
World Health Assembly must be considered by the Senate as a treaty.
  When it comes to imposing binding international obligations on 
Americans, the executive branch cannot go it alone. In our 
Constitution, in our republican system of government, the people's 
elected Representatives in Congress must give their approval.
  An international treaty that cannot command the support of two-thirds 
of the Senate is not actually a treaty. While one administration may 
submit to it, it certainly does not bind our Nation or future 
administrations.
  This proposed World Health Organization Pandemic Agreement is no 
exception. In fact, that potentially expansive agreement especially 
needs proper review and debate by the American people's elected 
Representatives.
  Article 19 of the WHO Constitution states that such agreements must 
be submitted to each member state for review ``in accordance with its 
constitutional processes.'' Our constitutional process requires 
ratification by the Senate for something to be considered a treaty 
before it may come into force.
  Likewise, during the World Health Assembly in May, the World Health 
Organization Director-General promised that any agreement ``will go to 
parliaments for consideration and ratification.'' We don't have a 
parliament. In our body, it would go to the Senate.
  It isn't being sent there by the Biden-Harris administration. Why 
does the administration not want this to go to the Senate? That is an 
important question to ask. They certainly have not kept the drafting 
and negotiations transparent or accountable to the American people.
  Now that negotiations are supposed to conclude by early 2025, there 
remains a distinct possibility that the World Health Assembly will try 
to call an emergency vote on a final draft treaty before a new U.S. 
administration takes office.
  Far too little attention has been paid to what this treaty would mean 
for health policy in the United States and elsewhere. The latest draft 
is limitless in scope and contains overly broad language that can be 
read to support abortion and radical left ideology. It claims to impose 
undefined financial obligations. It grants more authority to the WHO, 
potentially infringing on our sovereignty. It threatens both 
intellectual property and free speech rights. It provides zero 
accountability for China.
  The pandemic treaty would give more U.S. taxpayer dollars to the WHO 
bureaucrats to manage, even though the U.S. has already spent billions 
on pandemic preparedness. In total, the U.S. has spent around $2.2 
billion toward global health security which, along with the Pandemic 
Fund donations, goes toward strengthening global health systems, supply 
chains, healthcare workforces, and international laboratories.
  In addition, the International Health Regulations have been in place 
since 2005 as a mechanism to address infectious disease outbreaks 
around the world. They were just updated this past May to include a new 
financial mechanism. Why do we need yet another

[[Page H5174]]

funding stream of U.S. dollars for pandemics?
  What is also concerning is how the treaty is being used as a vehicle 
to promote and implement a radical left ideology. If this treaty were 
truly a model for promoting global health security, then the World 
Health Organization would keep it clean of divisive and controversial 
items, not just for Americans' interests but for interests around the 
world in keeping with the humanitarian principle of neutrality.
  Americans remember and are still recovering from the devastations of 
COVID-19. Many lives and livelihoods were lost, and we can certainly 
and should prepare for future pandemics. However, Americans also 
remember the WHO's egregious mishandling of COVID-19. World Health 
Organization Director-General Tedros enabled the Chinese Communist 
Party's grand COVID-19 coverup in the winter of 2020 by parroting the 
Chinese Communist Party's lies such as that the virus did not spread 
via human-to-human transmission that contributed directly to death and 
disruption around the world.
  Despite that colossal failure, the World Health Organization still 
has not addressed China's involvement in the pandemic's creation or 
spread and have not conducted internal reforms necessary to address its 
own role in the mismanagement of that pandemic. Instead, WHO is asking 
for more money, more authority, more legitimacy, and less 
accountability. The Biden-Harris administration is supporting their 
efforts to do so.
  Thankfully, H.R. 1425 ensures that the American people, through their 
elected Senators, will have the opportunity to review any pandemic 
treaty, especially the sweeping grant of power and money to the World 
Health Organization.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I stand in opposition to H.R. 1425. We can't forget the 
dark times that COVID-19 brought to our communities across the United 
States and around the entire world. The pandemic resulted in a tragic 
loss of lives. More than 1.2 million Americans and more than 7 million 
people around the world died. The next pandemic is not a matter of if, 
it is a matter of when.
  During the response to COVID-19, we saw inequities, inequalities, and 
unfairness across the international system--vaccine manufacturing 
capabilities benefiting wealthy nations and vaccine access being denied 
to less wealthy nations who were forced to wait in line and, in some 
cases, punished for sharing COVID samples with CDC labs and other 
global health institutions that helped improve the efficacy of U.S.-
produced vaccines.
  The American people understand that the United States' leadership is 
critical to addressing the world's most pressing challenges. A key way 
to do this is through multilateral institutions, including the World 
Health Organization. Working multilaterally is critical to 
strengthening our national security and to securing our public health 
systems.
  Don't just take my word for it. In a nationwide poll conducted at the 
height of the pandemic, it was found that 82 percent of American voters 
supported the United Nations' role in helping to stop the spread of 
COVID-19 overseas. That included 98 percent of Democrats and 69 percent 
of Republicans.
  The pandemic accord aims to strengthen global pandemic prevention, 
preparedness, and response. The United States is a linchpin in ensuring 
a pandemic accord not only serves our global health security interests 
but also helps coordinate a global response to public health threats 
that don't see our borders.
  H.R. 1425 is a sadly, nakedly partisan attempt to subvert U.S. 
diplomatic efforts to reach a pandemic accord agreement alongside 194 
World Health Organization member states. The draft pandemic agreement 
strengthens the global workforce, improves distribution of medical 
countermeasures, and provides funding for WHO members to improve their 
response capacity. We must not miss this opportunity to improve global 
health systems response capacity, including to prevent the tragic loss 
of life in the United States of America and globally.
  Only by learning from our mistakes made during the global response to 
the COVID-19 pandemic, this agreement could be a watershed moment in 
advancing global health security. We must support the ongoing pandemic 
agreement negotiations, as it could prove essential to saving American 
lives. Unfortunately, this bill only serves to undermine diplomatic 
efforts seeking to strengthen global health security.
  House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats unanimously opposed this 
measure at markup, and we made clear when this bill was marked up by 
our committee in July, the President has the authority of acceding to 
an agreement through executive action.

                              {time}  1330

  Executive action does not require the advice and consent of the 
Senate. The vast majority, 90 percent, of all U.S. international legal 
agreements are approved via executive action rather than formal 
approval by the Senate.
  The draft pandemic agreement under negotiation is not a treaty. If it 
were, I would be standing in support of H.R. 1425.
  While framed as an effort to increase congressional oversight, this 
bill really is a part of Republicans' politicization of COVID response 
and antiscience-based policy. It puts the safety and national security 
of Americans in jeopardy, simply because they don't like the WHO, or 
any multilateral institutions for that matter, under their 
isolationist--they like to isolate themselves from everything and 
everyone. It is the MAGA platform.
  If the U.S. is not allowed to sit at the table or our negotiating 
leverage is weakened by this bill, our adversaries and those who do not 
have our best interests in mind, guess what, they will be the ones to 
fill the void.
  The Biden-Harris administration has made a good-faith effort to 
notify Congress of its planned actions regarding U.S. negotiations, and 
these efforts have been met with unanimous opposition from Senate and 
House Republicans who have voiced their opposition to any agreement no 
matter what its contents are.
  One of the misleading claims made by critics of the draft pandemic 
agreement includes the idea that it would subvert U.S. sovereignty. 
Yet, in fact, the draft pandemic agreement explicitly states that it 
does not give the WHO any power to dictate specific policy to member 
nations and that member states may implement policies according to 
their sovereign laws. Simply put, the draft pandemic agreement 
expressly affirms the sovereignty of nations to address public health 
matters.
  False claims that the agreement would undermine our sovereignty have 
been thoroughly debunked by multiple reputable sources. The Biden-
Harris administration has made it clear that they will not support any 
agreement harmful to U.S. interests, including our sovereignty.
  Securing the pandemic agreement would be essential to saving not just 
American lives but many lives around the world. This bill undermines 
diplomatic efforts seeking to strengthen global health security, and I, 
alongside all House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats, unanimously 
oppose this measure.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), the author of this very important bill.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Chair, who do you want in charge of a pandemic policy in the 
United States? Do you want the corrupt globalists at the World Health 
Organization in charge of it, or do you want the United States of 
America to be at the wheel of our pandemic policy?
  The answer is simple.
  The World Health Organization has proven time and time again that 
they cannot be trusted to carry out an effective pandemic response.
  In 2019, they ignored Taiwan's early warning about the COVID-19 
outbreak, then they parroted the lies of the Chinese Communist Party 
that there was no human-to-human transmission.
  Now, the Biden-Harris administration is seeking to reward them with 
our pandemic management.

[[Page H5175]]

  The pandemic treaty draft includes no accountability or improved 
transparency measures for the CCP in its role in covering up the 
origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  It focuses on mandated resource and technology transfers and shreds 
intellectual property rights. It also contains certain provisions that 
may police our First Amendment rights.
  Lastly, it does not protect the sovereignty of the United States of 
America. This legislation is a no-brainer for anyone who stands for 
transparency and America's sovereignty.
  It would require any convention or agreement resulting from the work 
of the World Health Organization's intergovernmental negotiating body 
to be deemed a treaty, thus requiring the advice and consent of two-
thirds of the Senate.
  Given the vast reach of this so-called pandemic treaty, don't we want 
Congress to have oversight of it?
  I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill, but more 
importantly, I urge all my colleagues to choose American sovereignty 
because that is really what is at stake today.
  I would also say, Mr. Chair, I am hearing from the other side, from 
the gentleman from New York, it sounds like he has a draft of the 
treaty. If he does, we would like to see it because we have not 
received a final draft of the treaty, and that is part of the impetus 
for this bill.
  If we are going to have transparency and accountability for the 
American people, which we should certainly have, then we need to see 
the document. Produce the document, allow us to be able to review it, 
and have the United States Senate, a body of the people of the United 
States of America, be able to ratify this very important agreement that 
may have far-reaching impacts on the American people.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, the ranking member highlights that the World 
Health Organization somehow gives a head nod to sovereignty. It is true 
that in their most recent public draft they mention sovereignty, but 
only to the extent that they agree that it is in their interest. So 
somehow they take a position where they are going to judge whether it 
really conforms or not. That should be alarming, and it should persuade 
my colleagues to not vote on party lines, but instead, to unite in 
support of this good bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Self), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and a 
cosponsor of this bill.

  Mr. SELF. Mr. Chair, my constituents in Texas did not elect a single 
member of the World Health Organization to represent them.
  This globalist cabal known as the WHO capitalized on the CCP 
bioweapon which we now call COVID-19 and pushed its tyrannical policies 
across the world.
  As my colleague across the aisle said, these were dark days under 
tyranny.
  Leftwing globalists surrendered American sovereignty and gave control 
to the WHO during the public health emergency. These power-hungry 
bureaucrats shut down our entire country and infringed upon the 
constitutional rights of Americans.
  The Biden-Harris administration cannot circumvent the treaty process 
defined by the Constitution. Any agreement with the WHO on 
international pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response must be 
considered by the Senate as a treaty.
  There are definite criteria that determine what constitutes a treaty. 
I recommend my colleagues across the aisle read those criteria.
  Our lawless President and his lawless administration should execute 
the law. Our Founders of the Constitution wisely included a requirement 
for the United States to agree to any international treaty a Senate 
supermajority would be required.
  Americans don't support empowering unelected bureaucrats at the WHO 
who don't hold American values.
  H.R. 1425 reaffirms Americans' voices through their elected Senators. 
There can be no WHO pandemic treaty without Senate approval.
  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in 
personalities toward the President of the United States.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman indicated that he had not seen or known of the draft. I 
would refer him to the WHO's website. There is plenty of information. 
Just go to the website.
  On the website, Article 24, Paragraph 3 of the draft agreement--I am 
reading from it now--goes on to say that: ``Nothing in the WHO pandemic 
agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, 
including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, 
alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any 
party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that parties 
take specific actions, such as ban or accept travelers, impose 
vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or 
implement lockdowns.''
  It is clear, concise, and available.
  Furthermore, I understand that the Biden administration has issued a 
statement of policy on this bill strongly opposing it.
  I include in the Record that statement of administration policy.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


H.R. 1425--No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval 
               Act--Rep. Tiffany, R-WI, and 59 cosponsors

       Pandemic preparedness was a day one priority for the Biden-
     Harris Administration. Under this Administration's 
     leadership, the United States has coordinated global efforts 
     to end the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensure 
     the international community is better prepared to respond to 
     the next pandemic.
       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1425, which 
     provides that any international instrument on pandemic 
     prevention, preparedness, and response reached by World 
     Health Organization (WHO) member states pursuant to the 
     recommendations, report, or work of the International 
     Negotiating Body (INB) established by the second special 
     session of the World Health Assembly ``is deemed to be a 
     treaty'' and require the advice and consent of the Senate. 
     Presidents have historically taken a variety of approaches to 
     making and carrying out international agreements, and this 
     bill would improperly purport to constrain the President's 
     authority to do so in furthering the important work of 
     achieving advancements, with the international community, to 
     prevent, prepare for, and respond to pandemics. If enacted, 
     this bill would undermine efforts by this Administration and 
     future Administrations to better protect the United States by 
     preventing international public emergencies like COVID-19 
     from happening again. The Administration will continue to 
     engage with the Congress and adhere to well-established 
     principles in assessing the outcome of the work of the INB as 
     these negotiations continue.

  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, Mr. Meeks talks like there is a 
final draft of the treaty. We, again, have not seen it. How else would 
he seem to know or claim to know that it is an executive agreement? We 
thought it was still in negotiations.
  Mr. Chair, I am in strong support of H.R. 1425 requiring any 
agreement reached by the World Health Organization to be deemed as a 
treaty, and thus, requiring the approval of the Senate by a two-thirds 
vote.
  The WHO corruptly handled the China virus due, in no small part, to 
WHO Director-General Tedros being heavily influenced by Chinese 
President Xi.
  In 2020, Tedros praised China for their handling of the pandemic, 
even though it was clear that they were withholding critical 
information about the true origin and nature of the virus.
  This year, member states of WHO have been working to come to an 
agreement on what is called the pandemic prevention, preparedness, and 
response accord. Thankfully, this agreement, which would absolutely be 
an unconstitutional surrender of sovereignty of the United States, has 
not been finalized.
  However, the World Health Assembly, the body deliberating language in 
the agreement, has already agreed to several amendments committing to 
solidarity and equity, establishing a new body to facilitate effective 
implementation, and creating an international human rights authority to 
improve coordination between countries.
  This is nothing more than an international power grab by leftist 
elitists

[[Page H5176]]

who hate America, want to infringe on individual privacy, and seek to 
attack the fundamental principles of American self-governance and self-
determination.
  The WHO symbolizes and represents what the left wants for the world 
and for the United States, where national sovereignty and individual 
freedom mean nothing.
  The Democrats don't believe in American exceptionalism, American 
sovereignty, our founding Judeo-Christian principles, or the 
preservation of that which makes us unique and the hope for the world.
  That is why they believe that everybody in the world has the inherent 
right to come to America, whether legally or illegally.
  Just 4 short years ago, the Biden administration--or the Biden-Harris 
administration as it used to be called--was shutting down our economy 
and forcing us to stay in our homes due to the China virus. They think 
that went great, and they would gladly do it again if it was beneficial 
to their own interests.
  The United States should end all taxpayer funding of the WHO, 
formally withdraw as a member, and ignore any and all edicts put out by 
that body.
  Until we do that, at a minimum, we should ensure the Senate holds 
them accountable for their infringement on our sovereignty and require 
a two-thirds approval of any agreement or treaty, which is what it 
really is.
  I thank my friend Mr. Tiffany for his leadership, and I thank Mr. 
Davidson for leading this debate on this important issue. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve 
the right to close.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say, Mr. Chair, that I believe that one of the things that my 
Republican friends are trying to do here is to divert the actions, the 
inactions, and the failure of the prior administration during the 
pandemic. I think that is what the real issue is here and that is what 
the problem is. That is why they are putting this bill forward. It is 
because they know about the former President, and they know what he 
said during the time of the pandemic. It is still there for all the 
world to see about what he said at that particular time. It is this 
debate, and this bill is why they are debating this and are against the 
bill vigorously.
  So what happened?
  What did Donald Trump say?
  Let's go back, because sometimes it seems as though our memories fail 
of what took place during the pandemic. One way we can do that is let's 
look at what the President said because he loves to tweet, or now 
whatever else he puts it on, but he said:
  ``We are in very close communication with China concerning the virus. 
Very few cases reported in USA, but strongly on watch. We have offered 
China and President Xi any help that is necessary. Our experts are 
extraordinary!''
  That is what he said. Then he came right back after that:
  ``I think our relationship has never been better. We're very much 
involved with them, right now, on the virus that's going around. We're 
working very closely. I spoke to President Xi. We're working very 
closely with China. And, honestly, I think, as tough as this 
negotiation was, I think our relationship with China now might be the 
best it's been in a long, long time.''
  He goes on, and on January 29 he said:
  ``Just received a briefing on the Coronavirus in China from all of 
our great agencies, who are also working closely with China. We will 
continue to monitor the ongoing developments. We have the best experts 
anywhere in the world, and they are on top of it 24/7!''
  That is the former President of the United States.
  What I think has to happen is that we must apply some of the very 
painful lessons from COVID-19. One of those lessons that we learned is 
we must strengthen our global health systems.
  The pandemic agreement, if secured, could do just that. We learn from 
the past. It would help us, but if we do H.R. 1425, we would be 
effectively sending and torpedoing the United States' membership in the 
WHO's pandemic agreement.
  Now, I know as, I said before, my Republican colleagues don't like to 
be a part of multilateral organizations. However, when we have a 
worldwide pandemic, it is multilateral organizations working 
collectively together that can save lives because it doesn't stay in 
one part of the world. It travels all over the world, and it means that 
we have to conversate, negotiate, and work with others.
  The world is much smaller today. You can't isolate it. We have got to 
work with people. Multilateral organizations are for that purpose. 
Oftentimes our experts' voices lead. If you take our voices away, then 
it hurts the American public, the American people, and our friends and 
allies and others all around the world.
  We have got to strengthen our multilateral relationships, especially 
when we are talking about WHO's pandemic agreement. That is because 
what that agreement aims to do is strengthen global pandemic prevention 
and strengthen preparedness and response. We can't let this noise and 
we can't allow Republicans to politicize the response of COVID pandemic 
and utilize antiscience-based policies to derail our diplomatic 
efforts. This is something that we really should be working together on 
to get done.
  Doesn't it just make sense that we are part of the process of 
improving and moving forward for the next pandemic because we know it 
is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when the world will have it?
  Don't you want to learn so the lives that we lost previously are no 
longer lost?
  Preventing them should be our goal in a bipartisan way, not coming up 
with something that virtually takes away our negotiating power with the 
WHO and move forward.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems that the ranking member feels confident that 
if this were exposed to the legislature of our own country that it 
would torpedo the agreement. That is what he said.
  He also said, maybe in a different context, that if our voices are 
not heard, then America is weaker. Well, he joins a long line of 
members of his party who say things like: To protect our democracy, we 
have to avoid democratic processes. We can't allow the people's voice 
to be heard. We have to use the elite to protect everyone, people who 
know best. Frankly, if we can't just do it within the Biden-Harris 
administration, we should do it as partisan globalist institutions and 
not let it be subject to scrutiny.
  In fact, maybe he is on to something. Secretary Blinken, when he 
testified before our committee last, said that he has remaining 
concerns.
  We don't know that this is a final draft because the Secretary of 
State says that he has lingering concerns, and he is not sure before 
his term ends as Secretary of State that they can reach a final 
agreement.
  He is not sure that he can.
  Why?
  It is because he has concerns about intellectual property 
infringements and things that would hurt the sovereignty of our own 
country. This subjects the agreement, frankly, to what article 19 of 
the WHO constitution says. It states that such agreements be submitted 
to each member state for review ``in accordance with its constitutional 
process.''
  The World Health Assembly in May, the World Health Organization 
Director-General promised that any agreement ``will go to the 
parliaments for consideration and ratification.''
  This administration wants to avoid that, and their proxies here in 
the House want to make sure they can get away with it. That is what 
this bill is about.
  I, again, thank Mr. Tom Tiffany from Wisconsin for introducing this 
bill and Chairman McCaul for moving it through committee and to the 
floor.
  What the other side is claiming is that Congress should not have any 
role in addressing a sweeping international health treaty that will 
affect the health, finances, and freedoms of American citizens, and I 
think it is dead wrong. This bill is the minimum due diligence that we 
owe the American people.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support for H.R. 1425, and I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.

[[Page H5177]]

  

  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the esteemed gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee). My colleague is the ranking member on the 
Committee on Appropriations' State, Foreign Operations, and Related 
Agencies Subcommittee.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member, Mr. 
Meeks, for his tremendous leadership on so many fronts especially as it 
relates to global peace and security. I thank him for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1425. Now, we have all 
seen and felt how global health threats don't respect borders. Any 
serious global health response requires cooperation, not finger-
pointing. This partisan bill doesn't provide any pathway to protecting 
Americans and the world from the next pandemic.
  The good news is that we have an alternative, a positive example of 
how to build a global health partnership. I am talking about the effort 
to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
  Mr. Chair, 20 years ago, AIDS was a death sentence for millions. 
Entire countries and communities were literally facing oblivion.
  I, along with the Congressional Black Caucus, worked with President 
George W. Bush and top Republicans like Senate Republican leader Bill 
Frist and House Foreign Affairs Chair Henry Hyde to create PEPFAR, the 
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
  I believe now probably only about 20 to 25 percent of Members who are 
presently serving were here when we passed this first major global 
health initiative.
  Today, PEPFAR is the most successful assistance program in history. 
PEPFAR investments have helped save 25 million lives. That is what we 
did. Seven million orphans and vulnerable children have received 
support, and 5\1/2\ million babies have been born HIV-free.
  This success has led Congress to extend PEPFAR three times. Last 
year, for the first time, Congress failed to do this despite bipartisan 
support. I have spoken at length with many Members on both sides of the 
aisle, and both sides of the aisle, the Members, continue supporting 
PEPFAR's work. However, Republican leadership seems to prefer divisive 
bills like H.R. 1425 instead of bipartisan bills like PEPFAR. They are 
choosing divisiveness over cooperation and results.
  This is just a 5-year extension with no changes. That is all we are 
asking for.
  Mr. Chair, PEPFAR also, you have to understand, is a key national 
security priority. The world is watching. We are trying to show people 
in other countries that the United States should be their preferred 
partner, of course, instead of China, for example.
  What message does it send when we walk away from our commitments 
before the job is done?
  Yes, we all are committed to an AIDS-free generation by 2030, and 
that is why a 5-year extension is extremely important.
  For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to 
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I 
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. 
My amendment would reauthorize PEPFAR for another 5 years, just as we 
have in the past three times, to ensure that the United States keeps 
its commitment to finally defeat HIV and AIDS for everyone everywhere.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of the amendment.

       Ms. Lee of California moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     1425, to the Committee on Foreign Affairs with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``PEPFAR Extension Act of 
     2024''.

     SEC. 2. INSPECTORS GENERAL AND ANNUAL STUDY.

       Section 101 of the United States Leadership Against HIV/
     AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7611) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``March 25 of fiscal 
     year 2025'' and inserting ``2030''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C)(iv)--
       (i) by striking ``nine'' and inserting ``14''; and
       (ii) by striking ``2025'' and inserting ``2030''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2024'' and inserting 
     ``2031''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``2024'' and inserting 
     ``2031''; and
       (ii) by striking ``September 30, 2024'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2031''.

     SEC. 3. PARTICIPATION IN THE GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT AIDS, 
                   TUBERCULOSIS, AND MALARIA.

       Section 202(d) of the United States Leadership Against HIV/
     AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 
     7622(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
     ``2030''; and
       (ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
     ``2030''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ``2023'' and 
     inserting ``2030''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
     ``2030''.

     SEC. 4. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

       Section 403 of the United States Leadership Against HIV/
     AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7673) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
     ``2030''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``2023'' and inserting ``2030''.

  Ms. LEE of California. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First, I thank my colleague, the indomitable Congresswoman from 
California, Barbara Lee, for her remarks on the bill and on PEPFAR, the 
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. She is a true leader and a 
tremendous advocate on many issues, but especially on PEPFAR.
  I support her bill that reauthorizes PEPFAR. As she stated, it is one 
of the most successful U.S.-led global health interventions ever. She 
did it in a bipartisan way with a Republican President and Republican 
Senate. That is the way we used to do business around here.
  PEPFAR, as she said, has saved over 25 million lives in more than 50 
countries. I was pleased by the statements made by my Foreign Affairs 
Committee chair, my friend who I have talked to about this bill over 
and over again,  Mike McCaul, during a hearing we had where we 
recognized the importance of PEPFAR's programming in Africa.
  Chairman McCaul emphasized the need to ensure the extension of 
PEPFAR, ``a 20-year success story.'' He highlighted the President of 
Botswana's gratitude toward PEPFAR, who noted its public health impacts 
have saved a generation.
  I was pleased by Africa Subcommittee Chair  John James, who today 
praised PEPFAR as the most successful foreign policy tool since the 
Marshall Plan and declared we have to have a long-term reauthorization 
plan--bipartisanship at its best--and recognition of the value of 
PEPFAR.
  The unprecedented 1-year reauthorization has done little to reassure 
our African partners, our diplomatic corps, and PEPFAR implementers 
that Congress is committed to ending the scourge of HIV/AIDS once and 
for all.
  We must have a clean 5-year reauthorization of PEPFAR, and I am 
willing to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
stop playing politics with people's lives and get a clean 5-year 
reauthorization done.
  I work with  Mike McCaul. I work with  John James. I work with my 
colleagues on the other side, especially on this committee, in a 
bipartisan way. We work with Republicans in the Senate. We worked with 
a Republican President. This should not be something that is difficult 
to get done.
  I, again, thank Congresswoman Lee for her leadership, for her vision, 
and for saving millions of lives. I agree with her that H.R. 1425 is a 
distraction from responsible global health legislation.
  Let's keep PEPFAR in bills that target malaria, tuberculosis, and 
other neglected tropical diseases. Let's get rid of them collectively 
together for all time.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5178]]

  

  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time for 
closing.
  Just a reminder to all of our colleagues following this vigorous 
debate that this bill is not about PEPFAR. This bill is about the 
administration's desire to enter into a treaty with the World Health 
Organization to surrender our sovereignty without following our 
constitutional process.
  This bill would require the Senate to ratify a treaty. If it is going 
to have the binding force of law on future administrations, that is 
what our process requires in our Constitution, and frankly, it is what 
is acknowledged by the World Health Organization itself. It is what 
they are expecting of other countries, but somehow the Biden-Harris 
administration doesn't expect it of us and, sadly, their proxies don't 
either.
  The other side mentioned in their debate that viruses don't recognize 
boundaries, that pandemics don't recognize borders, but the reality is 
the response does. We saw very different responses around the world, 
some pretty alarming and downright dystopian. If the World Health 
Organization chose to do that, America should sovereignly make its 
choice for our country, for how we react to it.
  Of course, that is what is going to happen. Admittedly, some future 
administration might move in lockstep with the World Health 
Organization, but without the effect of a treaty, the United States 
certainly isn't obligated to, and perhaps that is a good thing.
  Maybe it is a good thing that they are going to skip this. Maybe the 
administration will avoid it coming up in the Senate. Maybe the 
administration would veto it if we did get it over the finish line, but 
certainly, we should never surrender our sovereignty to the World 
Health Organization, in particular.
  I thank Mr. Tiffany for introducing this bill and Chairman McCaul for 
moving it through our committee and to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage all of our colleagues to support H.R. 1425, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I am a proud cosponsor of Rep. 
Tiffany's H.R. 1425, No WHO pandemic Treaty Without Senate Approval 
Act. H.R. 1425 would ensure that any international instrument on 
pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response agreed to by the World 
Health Assembly is deemed a treaty and thereby sent to the Senate for 
``Advice and Consent''.
  In my 45 years in Congress, I have seen time and time again efforts 
by the World Health Organization (WHO) to expand authorities and 
ideologically colonize vulnerable countries using foreign assistance--
the majority of it funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars.
  Once again, but now in a manner that is most concerning to me--
through a treaty--they plan to exploit people's fears of the next 
pandemic in order to execute and bind Leftist ideological pursuits, 
disguised as supporting ``equity'', ``essential health services'', and 
the like, all the while trampling on U.S. sovereignty, threatening 
intellectual property rights and free speech, and promoting or funding 
abortion.
  The approach to drafting this treaty has also been disturbing--the 
lack of transparency, the backroom negotiations, support for the WHO 
power grab, placing unknown financial obligations for U.S. taxpayers--
while benefitting China at the expense of the United States.
  Can Americans even trust the World Health Organization? Has WHO 
earned back our trust after the devastating blow we experienced from 
their horrific mismanagement and coverup of PRC involvement of the 
COVID-19 pandemic?
  No, they haven't.
  We weren't even going to be given a chance to see the final 
negotiated text before the treaty's presentation at the World Health 
Assemby this past May. Luckily, the negotiators could not reach an 
agreement in time (but may do so before the end of this year).
  From day one, we have been pressing the Biden Administration for 
transparency, to protect U.S. sovereignty from unelected WHO 
bureaucrats, and to commit to sending the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty 
to the Senate for a real review before the U.S. government makes any 
agreement. This agreement is far too important to not receive a proper 
Congressional review and debate. Millions of taxpayer dollars are at 
stake.
  Will President Biden, make the treaty's final draft public so that 
taxpayers can review this treaty? So that civil society and the private 
sector can review it? So that U.S. Congress can review and debate it?
  So far, our demands have not been heeded.
  It is an absolute affront to our sovereignty to hand over critical 
health authorities to these unelected bureaucrats--with no 
accountability whatsoever--and empower them to dictate policies to U.S. 
medical professionals and U.S. taxpayers when it comes to vaccines, 
therapeutics, and the like.
  Using potential pandemics as a pretext to violate the principles of 
good governance erodes trust and undermines international cooperation 
when it is most needed.
  And we most certainly won't be signing a blank check. The American 
taxpayer should not be fleeced like this.
  Binding international covenants, treaties, or agreements--and the 
legal obligations imposed on nations--requires serious and 
comprehensive analysis and must be sent to the Senate for ``Advice and 
Consent''.
  I urge all members of Congress to do their duty and vote in favor of 
H.R. 1425.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. McClintock). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of 
Rules Committee Print 118-44 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 
as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of 
further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as 
read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1425

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``No WHO Pandemic Preparedness 
     Treaty Without Senate Approval Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On May 18, 2020, President Donald Trump sent a letter 
     to World Health Organization (referred to in this Act as 
     ``WHO'') Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Director-General''), 
     announcing that--
       (A) United States contributions to WHO would be halted due 
     its mismanagement of the COVID-19 outbreak and its lack of 
     independence from the People's Republic of China; and
       (B) the United States would withdraw from WHO if it did not 
     commit to substantive improvements within 30 days.
       (2) President Trump's May 18 letter cited numerous 
     instances of WHO mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic, 
     including--
       (A) unjustified delays informing member states about a 
     potentially serious disease outbreak in Wuhan, China; and
       (B) repeated grossly inaccurate or misleading claims about 
     the transmissibility of the virus and about the Government of 
     China's handling of the outbreak.
       (3) On June 30, 2020, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 
     formally notified the United Nations of the United States 
     decision to withdraw from WHO, which would have taken effect 
     on July 6, 2021, under the terms of a joint resolution 
     adopted by Congress on June 14, 1948 (Public Law 80-643; 62 
     Stat. 441).
       (4) A Pew Research Center survey conducted in April and May 
     2020 indicated that 51 percent of Americans felt that WHO had 
     done a poor or fair job in managing the COVID-19 pandemic.
       (5) On January 20, 2021, President Joseph Biden sent United 
     Nations Director-General Antonio Guterres a letter retracting 
     the United States notice of withdrawal from WHO.
       (6) On December 1, 2021, at the second special session of 
     the World Health Assembly (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``WHA'') decided--
       (A) to establish an intergovernmental negotiating body 
     (referred to in this section as the ``INB'') to draft and 
     negotiate a WHO convention (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Convention''), agreement, or other international 
     instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and 
     response, with a view to adoption under Article 19 or any 
     other provision of the WHO Constitution; and
       (B) that the INB shall submit a progress report to the 
     Seventy-sixth WHA and a working draft of the convention for 
     consideration by the Seventy-seventh WHA, which is scheduled 
     to take place beginning on March 18, 2024.
       (7) On February 24, March 14 and 15, and June 6 through 8 
     and 15 through 17, 2022, the INB held its inaugural meeting 
     at which the Director-General proposed the following 5 themes 
     to guide the INB's work in drafting the Convention:
       (A) Building national, regional, and global capacities 
     based on a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach.
       (B) Establishing global access and benefit sharing for all 
     pathogens, and determining a global policy for the equitable 
     production and distribution of countermeasures.
       (C) Establishing robust systems and tools for pandemic 
     preparedness and response.
       (D) Establishing a long-term plan for sustainable financing 
     to ensure support for global health threat management and 
     response systems.
       (E) Empowering WHO to fulfill its mandate as the directing 
     and coordinating authority on international health work, 
     including for pandemic preparedness and response.
       (8) On July 18 through 22, 2022, the INB held its second 
     meeting at which it agreed that the Convention would be 
     adopted under Article 19

[[Page H5179]]

     of the WHO Constitution and legally binding on the parties.
       (9) On December 5 through 7, 2022, the INB held its third 
     meeting at which it accepted a conceptual zero draft of the 
     Convention and agreed to prepare a zero draft for 
     consideration at the INB's next meeting.
       (10) In early January 2023, an initial draft of the 
     Convention was sent to WHO member states in advance of its 
     formal introduction at the fourth meeting of the INB, which 
     is scheduled for February 27 through March 3, 2023. The draft 
     includes broad and binding provisions, including rules 
     governing parties' access to pathogen genomic sequences and 
     how the products or benefits of such access are to be 
     distributed.
       (11) Section 723.3 of title 11 of the Department of State's 
     Foreign Affairs Manual states that when ``determining whether 
     any international agreement should be brought into force as a 
     treaty or as an international agreement other than a treaty, 
     the utmost care is to be exercised to avoid any invasion or 
     compromise of the constitutional powers of the President, the 
     Senate, and the Congress as a whole'' and includes the 
     following criteria to be considered when determining whether 
     an international agreement should take the form of a treaty 
     or an executive agreement:
       (A) ``The extent to which the agreement involves 
     commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole''.
       (B) ``Whether the agreement is intended to affect state 
     laws''.
       (C) ``Whether the agreement can be given effect without the 
     enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress''.
       (D) ``Past U.S. practice as to similar agreements''.
       (E) ``The preference of the Congress as to a particular 
     type of agreement''.
       (F) ``The degree of formality desired for an agreement''.
       (G) ``The proposed duration of the agreement, the need for 
     prompt conclusion of an agreement, and the desirability of 
     concluding a routine or short-term agreement''.
       (H) ``The general international practice as to similar 
     agreements''.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) a significant segment of the American public is deeply 
     skeptical of the World Health Organization, its leadership, 
     and its independence from the pernicious political influence 
     of certain member states, including the People's Republic of 
     China;
       (2) Congress strongly prefers that any agreement related to 
     pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response adopted by 
     the World Health Assembly pursuant to the work of the INB be 
     considered a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, with two-thirds of Senators concurring;
       (3) the scope of the agreement which the INB has been 
     tasked with drafting, as outlined by the Director-General, is 
     so broad that any application of the factors referred to in 
     section 2(11) will weigh strongly in favor of it being 
     considered a treaty; and
       (4) given the level of public distrust, any relevant new 
     agreement by the World Health Assembly which cannot garner 
     the two-thirds vote needed for Senate ratification should not 
     be agreed to or implemented by the United States.

     SEC. 4. ANY WORLD HEALTH AGENCY CONVENTION OR AGREEMENT OR 
                   OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT RESULTING FROM 
                   THE INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATING BODY'S FINAL 
                   REPORT DEEMED TO BE A TREATY SUBJECT TO ADVICE 
                   AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any convention, 
     agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic 
     prevention, preparedness, and response reached by the World 
     Health Assembly pursuant to the recommendations, report, or 
     work of the International Negotiating Body established by the 
     second special session of the World Health Assembly is deemed 
     to be a treaty that is subject to the requirements of article 
     II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United 
     States, which requires the advice and consent of the Senate, 
     with two-thirds of Senators concurring.

  The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
be in order except those printed in part B of House Report 118-656. 
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 118-656.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Redesignate section 4 as section 5 and insert after section 
     3 the following:

     SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States to unequivocally 
     support Taiwan's full participation in the World Health 
     Organization.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1430, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, this amendment would make it the policy of our 
Nation to advocate for Taiwan's full participation in the World Health 
Organization.
  For far too long, we have allowed Communist China to dictate the 
course of U.S. foreign policy as well as the agenda and membership of 
every major international organization, including the United Nations. 
This decades-long policy of global appeasement to the CCP came home to 
roost 4 years ago.
  Decades upon decades of giving in to China has left Taiwan with fewer 
and fewer allies. In the late 1990s, over 30 countries recognized 
Taiwan. Now, the number is down to 12. Much of the world has placed 
Taiwan in the company of pariah states like North Korea and Iran.
  Because the world allowed the PRC's pressure campaign against Taiwan 
to succeed, no one listened when Taiwan tried to warn the World Health 
Organization of possible human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus 
on December 31, 2019. No one listened to them when Taiwanese health 
experts visited Wuhan and found indications of human-to-human 
transmission in mid-January 2020. In fact, at the same time, the WHO 
released a statement declaring no clear evidence of human-to-human 
transmission of the coronavirus.
  Mr. Chair, we lost weeks. We lost weeks of preparation against the 
ravaging effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our Nation all because 
Communist China told the world that under no circumstance could Taiwan 
be given a seat at the table at the World Health Organization.
  We can only guess how many untold thousands of American lives were 
lost as a result. We do know, however, that decade after decade of U.S. 
foreign policymaking has prioritized appeasing the PRC over the 
security of the American people, and it needs to stop.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment as we need 
to expand Taiwan's international space and enable its participation in 
international forums.
  Taiwan is a friend, a democracy, and a critical part of the 
international community. As such, Taiwan should be contributing its 
expertise and participating as an observer in the World Health 
Assembly.
  This is why last Congress, when I was chairman of the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, I helped get S. 812 signed into law to direct the 
State Department to support Taiwan's participation at the World Health 
Organization and obtain observer status for Taiwan at the World Health 
Assembly.
  As a result, the Biden-Harris administration has consistently pushed 
for greater participation by Taiwan at the WHO. This amendment sends 
another signal to the WHO as to where the U.S. Congress stands.
  I agree with Mr. Ogles' amendment, but I do think that we should be 
precise and careful in how we talk about important policy matters.
  I want to emphasize that I read this amendment as being consistent 
with the spirit of current U.S. policy, which supports Taiwan's 
meaningful participation in the WHO's World Health Assembly.
  Supporting Taiwan's full membership in the WHO, however, is 
inconsistent with U.S. policy and would undermine our longstanding One 
China policy, given Taiwan is not a U.N. member state.
  Taiwan should, as I believe this amendment properly states, have full 
observer status in the WHO, so I urge all of my colleagues to support 
Mr. Ogles' amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
because

[[Page H5180]]

we should show our support and allegiance to Taiwan, nor should we 
placate the People's Republic of China regarding Taiwan. We are, in 
fact, making war more likely, not less, if we allow the Chinese 
Communist Party to have influence over our policy on such things as 
Taiwan's participation in the WHO.
  We cannot and should not surrender our national sovereignty out of 
fear. This is the definition of weakness, and weakness invites 
aggression. If the Communists in Beijing don't think we have 
established a credible deterrence, they will attack Taiwan. They will 
consider attacking Taiwan.
  I know my colleagues and I agree that Taiwan is an ally to the people 
and nations of good around the world. They want to work with the United 
States. They want to help, as they did in April 2020 when Taiwan 
provided free personal protective equipment to our Nation at a time 
when it was scarce.
  Communist China, on the other hand, would rather cover up a deadly 
virus, wasting weeks and resulting in the deaths of untold hundreds of 
thousands if not millions. They are more worried about their 
reputation. That is an atrocity. It is appalling, and we need to 
recognize the fact that the existential threat to the United States of 
America is China. At every turn, they work to undermine us, and I, for 
one, have had enough.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman McCaul for his support, and I urge 
adoption of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 118-656.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 5. NO FORCE OR EFFECT TO TREATY PRIOR TO RATIFICATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any convention, 
     agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic 
     prevention, preparedness, and response deemed to be a treaty 
     by section 4--
       (1) shall have no force or effect under the laws of the 
     United States before the date on which such treaty is 
     ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate; and
       (2) may not be used, prior to such date, to establish or 
     demonstrate the existence of a violation of United States law 
     or an offense against the law of nations in United States 
     courts, including--
       (A) to establish standing, a cause of action, or damages as 
     a matter of law; or
       (B) to demonstrate whether an action by a Federal agency is 
     arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 
     not in accordance with law.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1430, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States must never relinquish its 
sovereignty. Without question, we must work to ensure that, in the 
eloquent words of President Lincoln during the ``Gettysburg Address'': 
``This government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall 
not perish from the Earth.''
  The power bestowed upon our government is derived from the will of 
the American people, not by foreign governments or organizations that 
syphon away our money as if we were a cash cow.
  Foreign entities, such as the World Health Organization, or WHO, 
should never be allowed to corrode America's sovereignty and hand down 
edicts to the American people. We chart our own course, and we will not 
be deterred from doing so.
  We should be even more skeptical of foreign entities, like the WHO, 
that are bedfellows with Communist China. China and its international 
cabal of bureaucrats would love nothing more than to have the United 
States follow their direction and the direction of their puppets like 
mindless lemmings.
  They are hell-bent on controlling our God-given freedoms at the 
expense of our livelihoods. This cannot and will not be allowed to 
stand.
  My amendment strengthens the underlying bill to ensure that H.R. 1425 
will slam the door on any attempt to allow international bureaucrats at 
the WHO to undermine U.S. sovereignty and the will of the people.
  My amendment clarifies that no WHO convention, agreement, or other 
international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, or 
response can have any force or effect in U.S. law before or unless the 
Senate ratifies such a treaty.
  This includes the clarification that no WHO agreement may be used to 
establish standing to sue under U.S. law or to challenge U.S. agency 
actions. Only if the American people's Representatives have spoken, 
with two-thirds of the Senate ratifying any WHO agreement, should it be 
allowed to have any impact on U.S. law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The draft pandemic 
agreement advances global health security without impacting the United 
States' international sovereignty. The draft agreement explicitly 
states that it does not give the WHO any power to dictate specific 
policy to member nations and that member states may implement the 
policies according to their own sovereign laws.
  Many of the issues the United States delegation in Geneva is 
currently negotiating in the draft pandemic agreement are to ensure a 
final agreement is in compliance with U.S. laws rather than subverting 
them.
  Mr. Chair, for these reasons and others, I strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misleading amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I am, frankly, surprised at my colleague for 
opposing an amendment that does nothing more than strengthen this piece 
of legislation. This amendment ensures that we do not violate our 
national sovereignty. I think it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, it is explicit in the agreement that our 
sovereignty is not threatened, so this is duplicative, and that is why 
I oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I reiterate what I said a few minutes ago. I 
respect my colleague from New York (Mr. Meeks), but what harm does it 
do to put belts and suspenders on a bill?
  The gentleman says it is not needed. It takes up a few words more. It 
is not going to have any negative effect on the national debt, but it 
makes it abundantly clear that no organization, particularly the WHO, 
can order this country to do anything under any kind of an agreement 
without a vote of the United States Senate, as we would do with any 
kind of treaty or other agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, 
strengthen the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Massie

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 118-656.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H5181]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, after line 17, insert the following:
       (12) Article II, Section 2 of the United States 
     Constitution provides that the President ``shall have Power, 
     by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make 
     Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present 
     concur''.
       (13) Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist Paper #75 
     regarding the Treaty Making Powers of the Executive that 
     ``Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have 
     the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good 
     faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the 
     subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The 
     power in question seems therefore to form a distinct 
     department, and to belong, properly, neither to the 
     legislative nor to the Executive. The qualities elsewhere 
     detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign 
     negotiations, point out the Executive as the most fit agent 
     in those transactions; while the vast importance of the 
     trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly 
     for the participation of the whole or a portion of the 
     legislative body in the office of making them''.
       (14) If any provisions of a treaty are to have legal 
     bearing on United States citizens those provisions must pass 
     both the United States House of Representatives and the 
     Senate and be presented to the President, as all Federal laws 
     must.
       (15) The United States Constitution establishes a clear 
     framework for making treaties by the Executive and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate. This process is 
     indispensable for the Founders' vision of constitutional 
     government.
       (16) The United States House of Representatives does not 
     vote for, ratify, affirm, or consent to treaties.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1430, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which 
simply recognizes that the United States Constitution is the supreme 
law of the land. Our Constitution establishes a very clear framework 
for making treaties by the executive and with the advice and consent of 
the Senate.
  Our Constitution also establishes a clear framework for making laws 
that affect our domestic affairs. If any provisions of a treaty are to 
have legal bearing on United States citizens, those provisions must 
pass both the United States House of Representatives and the Senate and 
be presented to the President, as all Federal laws must.
  Treaties don't override our constitutional process for making law. 
Presidents can't make U.S. law by agreeing to new terms in an 
international treaty. Every law that American citizens live under must 
pass the House and the Senate.
  My colleagues have eloquently made the point that a President can't 
enter into a treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate, and, 
in doing so, they are standing up for the sovereignty of American 
citizens. They are requiring the Senate to be that portion of the 
legislative branch that decides what laws will bear on citizens, 
depending on what the treaty is.
  My amendment here is very simple. It says that, if a treaty has a law 
in it that has a bearing on United States citizens, on our domestic 
activities, then it has to follow the lawmaking process of the 
Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
because it is within the President's authority to negotiate treaties 
and agreements without Senate ratification. While inserting findings 
clarifying the role of Congress and ratifying treaties would be 
entirely appropriate for a treaty under recognition, the draft pandemic 
agreement is not a treaty.
  As I have previously stated, the United States President has the 
option of acceding to a treaty or agreement through executive action 
alone without the advice or consent of the Senate.
  Over 90 percent of all U.S. international legal agreements have been 
approved via executive action rather than normal or formal Senate 
approval. These findings insinuate that the Biden-Harris administration 
is attempting to sidestep the Senate in these pandemic agreement 
negotiations. This is absolutely, 100 percent wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, it is for these reasons that I urge all of my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the bulk of my speech in support of my 
amendment actually doesn't come from me. It is going to come from 
Alexander Hamilton, who describes in Federalist 75 the treaty-making 
powers of the executive. He states: ``Its objects are contracts with 
foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the 
obligations of good faith.''
  This is the most important part: ``They are not rules prescribed by 
the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and 
sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct 
department, and to belong, properly, neither to the legislative nor to 
the executive. The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the 
management of foreign negotiations, point out the executive as the most 
fit agent in those transactions; while the vast importance of the 
trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the 
participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the 
office of making them.''
  What is he saying here? He is saying domestic laws can't be made 
using a treaty. Treaties can't bind the United States to declare war. 
Treaties can't raise taxes. Treaties can't create new laws for us. The 
United States should not take part in international institutions that 
erode our sovereignty. Congress should not legitimize blatantly 
unconstitutional notions that agreements that come out of these 
institutions supersede the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying this: Do we believe that the 
Senate itself and the President, without consulting the House, could 
implement a vaccine mandate by merely calling it a treaty and finding 
another sovereign party to enter into it with? I do not.
  Do we believe that they could implement or impose social distancing 
on U.S. citizens by calling it a treaty and finding another sovereign 
to enter into an agreement with? I do not. They have to come to the 
House.
  Let's take the example of gun control. By the way, this is not a 
hypothetical. Do we think they could impose gun control on U.S. 
citizens in a treaty with the United Nations and some other sovereign 
countries merely with the advice and consent of the Senate? That would 
take two-thirds or 67 votes in the Senate, but it could completely 
leave out the House of Representatives. No, they cannot do that. That 
is outside of our Constitution. We are guaranteed a Republican form of 
government with a legislature that makes the laws that bear on 
citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I will close with this most important part of my 
amendment, which says: ``If any provisions of a treaty are to have 
legal bearing on United States citizens those provisions must pass both 
the House of Representatives and the Senate and be presented to the 
President, as all Federal laws must.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I support the 
underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaMalfa) having assumed the chair, Mr. McClintock, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1425) to 
require any convention, agreement, or other international instrument on 
pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached by the World 
Health Assembly to be subject to Senate ratification, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________