At its core, this legislation underscores Congressional oversight on matters of global health, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill draws heavily from historical grievances and contemporary concerns to justify the need for Senate involvement.
Firstly, the bill outlines specific findings that reflect a turbulent history with the World Health Organization (WHO). It recalls May 18, 2020, when then-President Donald Trump halted U.S. contributions to WHO and announced a potential withdrawal due to the organization’s alleged mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis and its perceived susceptibility to political pressure from the People’s Republic of China. Following this announcement, the then-Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, issued a formal withdrawal notification to the United Nations, which would have taken full effect in July 2021. However, President Joseph Biden reversed this decision on January 20, 2021, thereby reinstating U.S. participation in WHO.
The bill notes that considerable skepticism exists regarding the WHO’s effectiveness and impartiality, a sentiment amplified by the events surrounding the pandemic. A Pew Research Center survey from April-May 2020 revealed that a significant portion of Americans rated WHO’s performance during the pandemic as either poor or fair, highlighting public distrust.
A key element of H.R. 1425 is its reference to the operational mechanics within WHO, particularly the establishment of an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) tasked with drafting an international convention on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The WHO’s intent is to create binding agreements under Article 19 of its constitution that would oblige member states to adhere to the stipulated guidelines. The INB’s work, as described in the findings, encompasses themes such as building global capacities, equitable distribution of countermeasures, and sustained financing for health threats.
This legislative push is fundamentally about maintaining national sovereignty over international commitments. Highlighting excerpts from the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual, the bill emphasizes the need for a treaty format, which requires Senate advice and consent, instead of executive agreements that might bypass this scrutiny. The considerations for deciding whether an international agreement should be a treaty or not include the nation-wide impact of commitments, the influence on state laws, and the historical practice regarding similar agreements.
In a declarative “Sense of Congress” section, the bill elucidates the strong preference within Congress for treating such international health agreements as treaties, especially those touching on broad and binding commitments that could significantly influence the nation’s public health policies. The reasoning is that such treaties should secure a two-thirds Senate majority to reflect broad national consensus and trust.
By pushing for Senate ratification, the bill aims to ensure that any international treaty on health emergencies undergoes thorough vetting. This step might help address public skepticism and ensure the legitimacy and accountability of U.S. commitments in the global health arena. Consequently, the bill mandates that any resulting convention or agreement from the WHA be considered a treaty, placing it firmly within the constitutional requirement of Senate approval.
The legislative journey of H.R. 1425 doesn’t end here. It now awaits deliberation in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, where it will be up for further examination, debate, and potentially, amendments. If it passes the House, the next critical milestone would be consideration by the Senate, and ultimately, it requires the President’s signature to become law.
In essence, H.R. 1425 seeks to reshape how the United States engages in global health treaties, ensuring that broad-reaching health policies are democratically vetted and widely accepted. It’s a call for checks and balances in the backdrop of a health crisis that has reshaped the world, urging for not just swift, but also consensual, comprehensive policy actions.
