[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.
____________________