No Who Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source