Legislation first introduced by Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wisconsin) more than a year and a half ago that would protect American sovereignty will now head to the Senate after it received bipartisan support – albeit minimal. The House voted 219-199 Wednesday to pass the “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act” (H.R.1425).
Efforts by the World Health Organization to consolidate power among its almost 200 nations through its proposed “Pandemic Preparedness Agreement” have been ongoing for three years. Because of its participation in the International Health Regulations, the U.S. would be legally bound – in the case of a health emergency that the WHO would have power to declare – to submit to WHO authority.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) has warned that authority could be abused for any number of left-leaning priorities, such as abortion, in the name of healthcare. Travis Weber with Family Research Council agrees.
“This is a step in the wrong direction, and I do think it’s fair to say it’s a precursor to more aggressive action at the global level, binding the U.S. and other countries to arrangements that they have no control over,” Weber, FRC's vice president of policy, said on Washington Watch Thursday.
Governments who sign the agreement, he argued, will have “given over control to the World Health Organization, whether it concerns health, a pandemic or some other claim of interest by the global body.”
Who would define emergency? The WHO
The WHO, the health arm of the United Nations, in early June left its annual meeting in Geneva without finalizing, as it hoped, the pandemic agreement but was successful in amending the legally binding International Health Regulations (IHR). The amendments include a definition of “pandemic emergency” and the addition of an administrative layer of WHO members – called the National IHR Authorities – who would determine when emergency conditions exist.
The Pandemic Preparedness Agreement, however, remains a key. Without it, there’s nothing to enforce.
The WHO said the 194-member assembly agreed to a "package of critical amendments" related to the IHR and also made "concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year, at the latest."
Tiffany’s bill aims to ensure that any agreement resulting from the WHO on pandemic preparedness or response would be considered a treaty, therefore requiring approval by two-thirds of the Senate. H.R.1425 would also prevent any president from unilaterally approving such an agreement without consent of the Senate.
This kind of approval has happened in the past with the Paris Climate Accord and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) concerning U.S. relations with Iran.
“The fact is the current arrangement between the U.S., other national governments and the WHO leaves a lot in the dark. The fact of the matter is we need to know what’s in it, and it’s still being drafted, things are being hashed out,” Weber told show host Tony Perkins.
“So, this piece of legislation moving into the Senate is an opportunity for the American people and their leaders to say we need to know what the United States government is being signed up for. This should be a no-brainer.”
But will it play out that way in the Senate? Or will it even receive a vote from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer?
It passed the House with bipartisan support but only four Democratic votes.*
“The prospects right now? It will probably be pretty close because we can expect reactive posture from Democrats because there are a lot of Republicans on this bill,” Weber offered.
A move toward global governance?
The WHO has held that the premise of the agreement is to figure out how to better share resources, distribute vaccines, and respond to future outbreaks. But there’s a history at the U.N. that many find concerning – including Weber.
“We see a lot of developments in the direction of global concentration of power. We’ve seen this at the U.N. for decades,” the FRC spokesman said. "This agreement takes things a step further in specificity integrating, linking, requiring and kind of locking in national governments to what they’re calling a pandemic treaty but locking in governments to a requirement globally to deal with health.”
* Donald Davis (D-North Carolina), Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Perez (D-Washington), and David Scott (D-Georgia).
