No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this entire Republican majority has been one gigantic, complete, total failure, a complete mess from day one with the majority in charge. It is an embarrassment.

We have 8 weeks left in the 118th Congress to do our legislative work, and instead of doing something to make life better for anyone or, hell, even the bare minimum, by stopping a government shutdown, we are considering a no-good stopgap resolution that extends funding into 2025.

My colleagues have to love this: The gentleman from New York is on the floor today trying to convince everyone to vote for the bill when Republicans cannot even convince their own Members to vote for it. Seriously, every minute I look at my phone, I see another Republican defecting.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican manager is wasting his time debating me. He needs to be debating his Republican friends who are coming out against the bill in droves. Clearly, the majority doesn't have the votes for this awful plan, so why are we wasting time here in this House on a bill that has no chance whatsoever of ever becoming law?

Mr. Speaker, this is embarrassing for the Republican side of the aisle. It is mid-September. Republicans said the majority would get all 12 separate appropriation bills done before we left for the August break. That is yet another broken promise, among a long list from Speaker Johnson, to add onto all the broken promises from Speaker McCarthy before him.

House Republicans are once again showing their deep disrespect for the veteran community by proposing a 6-month CR that shortchanges the VA Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund by $12 billion. That is morally reprehensible and just plain cruel. These are our veterans who we are talking about. How the hell can Republicans turn their backs on our veterans?

To be clear, this is the Republican playbook: a big promise, and it gets broken. Republicans promised we will have a robust, effective appropriations process, and it gets broken. Republicans promised to continue supporting our veterans, and it gets broken.

Now we are headed into another potential shutdown, all because Members on the other side of the aisle want to play political games. To make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, Republicans have jammed the SAVE Act onto the CR because why not mix up government funding with more ridiculous conspiracy theories about voter fraud?

I know why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to bring this bill to the floor. Republicans are worried the majority won't win in November without pushing conspiracy theories.

Mr. Speaker, let's set something straight: Noncitizens cannot vote in Federal elections. Let me repeat that: Noncitizens cannot vote in Federal elections. If they vote, it is illegal. It is a crime.

Guess what? They have done studies. Even conservative institutes say there is no evidence that noncitizens voted illegally in large enough numbers to shift the outcome of any election.

We all know what this is about. It is not about voter fraud. This is part of their Project 2025 plan to undermine the vote count and take total control of the government.

Mr. Speaker, the majority wants power whether Republicans win or lose at the ballot box, and so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim voter fraud, whatever happens, the facts be damned.

Do Republicans really want to talk about the threat of voter fraud?

Let me remind the American people: The only ones committing voter fraud in an attempt to overthrow an election are Republicans. We have seen this movie before. Following Trump's loss in the 2020 election, he and his cronies allegedly conspired to overturn the will of the American people by submitting fake electors to falsely certify that Trump won the election. He didn't win the election. He lost the election.

What did those efforts get them: Dozens of people across four States have been indicted over this election fraud scheme.

Republicans want to talk about the threat of voter fraud. Give me a break. Republicans are the threat.

This horrible CR will never become law the way it is structured. We are really just here wasting more time after House Republicans failed to do what they should have done months ago.

This rule before us today would also bring to the floor five bills that Republicans claim will target China, five bills that are actually weak on China, five ineffective bills that don't get the job done and don't represent a real attempt to actually address some of the very serious concerns we have about the PRC.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a critic of China's human rights record for decades, longer than some of my colleagues have been in Congress. Hell, I was sanctioned by the Chinese Government in July. I can't travel to China. My wife can't travel to China. My son can't travel to China. My daughter can't travel to China. I can't even converse with any Chinese officials.

I have written strong, effective bills that would hold the PRC accountable, and so they don't like me. They sanction me, and I wear that sanction as a badge of honor.

Let me be clear: These bills that the gentleman referred to are not about taking a strong stance against China. They are poorly written, weak bills that don't get the job done. It is like they are written for a press release. I am sorry. That is because they are meant for a press release and not about serious legislating.

Believe it or not, we can strengthen our national security. We can stand up to China on human rights, and we can support our veterans and make sure they get the care that they need.

We can fund the government. We can do all of that and more if we work together. That is what people want. They want us to behave like adults. Sadly, Republican leadership is more interested in sound bites and FOX News headlines heading into November than they are about governing.

I say they would rather put politics ahead of progress but, Mr. Speaker, Project 2025 isn't just politics. It is weird. It is shameful. It is deeply dystopian. It is dangerous stuff.

Americans are tired of this garbage, and I think they are about to make some very different choices starting November.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is unbelievable. All we heard last night and all we are hearing now on the House floor from the other side is that it is the Senate's fault. That is the reason why House Republicans aren't doing their job and that is why they are pushing this misguided CR is because of Senate Democrats. We heard that again today.

Guess what: Even Republican Senators hate this CR plan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include a link to an article in the Record from NewsNation titled, ``House GOP government funding plan gets chilly reception from Senate Republicans.''

The link is: https://www.newsnationnow.com/the-hill/ house-gop-government-funding-plan-gets-chilly-reception-from-senate- republicans/ Mr. Speaker, their own Republican colleagues are worried that this ``measure requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote could complicate the stopgap funding bill's path,'' and that this ``comes dangerously close to risking a shutdown.''

Here is an idea: If Republicans are so serious about the CR, maybe they should have done some work to shore up support within their own party.

However, let me just talk about how Republicans feel about this CR.

Tom Massie on the Rules Committee tweeted: ``I am voting Hell No on the `continuing resolution and the other matter act' this week. I don't care which bright shiny object is attached to it, or which fake fight we start and won't finish.''

The gentleman from New York decided to talk about national security. Here is another news flash for the gentleman: The top Republican national security expert in the House, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mike Rogers, says he is a ``no'' on the CR. He says it is bad for the Pentagon. He hopes other HASC members will vote ``no'' too.

That is your top guy on national security. He is voting ``no.''

It is reported from Melanie Zanona that ``Representative Cory Mills says he has informed the whip team that he is a no on the 6-month CR plus SAVE Act. Also says there are `quite a few' other Republicans who are against it who haven't said so publicly yet.''

Matt Rosendale tweets: ``1 year later, the same old theatrics by the D.C. cartel. I have never voted for a CR, and I never intend to.''

John Bresnahan reports that Representative Jim Banks is a ``no'' on the CR.

Jordain Carney reports that Representative Burchett says he is currently a ``no'' on the CR plus SAVE plan. He says there are many, many others that want to vote no.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a no on everything, so she is no on this, as well.

I have to be honest with the gentleman, your problem isn't House Democrats or Senate Democrats; your problem is House Republicans. You can't even get consensus amongst your own Members of your own party.

This is ridiculous that we are here debating this rule to bring up a CR that is going nowhere fast.

Last night in the Rules Committee, Representative Massie said: ``This SAVE Act isn't going to save anything.''

Representative Massie, as everybody knows, is a prominent leader in the Republican caucus. He says, and particularly because ``it ain't never going to become law. It's a false promise to get all the Republicans half pregnant. Then you're going to get fully pregnant by the end of September when you vote for this CR. . . . '' That is not going to have--``I hate to break it to you, and I'm not telling you anything special. I hate to break it to the Republicans, you ain't getting the SAVE Act.''

Then he concludes by saying: But ``This is political theater,'' folks. I have to tell you, it is bad political theater, and it is pathetic.

Here we are at this late day approaching a government shutdown and we get this garbage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My God, the Republicans must be really afraid of losing the November election if the conspiracy theories are already starting up this early.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Cato Institute titled: ``Noncitizens Don't Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers.''

Mr. Speaker, at a press conference on the SAVE Act, the Speaker of the House said: ``We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in Federal elections, but it has not been something that is easily provable. We don't have that number.''

Mr. Speaker, this body legislates based on facts, not on intuition or conspiracy theories. Maybe it is time for House Republicans to get serious about their jobs and stop making laws based off their absurd conspiracy theories.

Again, I say to the gentleman after that little rant that maybe he needs to be talking to his Republican Members, who all have basically said that the inclusion of the SAVE Act on this horrific CR is basically a gimmick. It is a gimmick to get people to look someplace else and not look at the fact that Republicans are not doing their job.

If we want to talk about an insult to our men and women in uniform, then I hope that they will join with me in defeating the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to include $12 billion that our Nation's veterans need for their healthcare, $12 billion that the House Republicans decided, intentionally, to leave out of their partisan continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, with this unserious and unacceptable continuing resolution, Republicans are not only risking disaster assistance and domestic investments, but they are also shortchanging veterans and jeopardizing their care.

An additional $12 billion is needed before the new year to maintain medical care for veterans. That is just a fact.

The House Republican bill does not include a single dollar of the $12 billion needed, shortchanging veterans and jeopardizing the medical services they need and have earned.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans deserve our support. It is our responsibility to provide the care that they have earned. This inadequate continuing resolution does not meet the moment, which is why I am giving my Republican colleagues the chance now to do the right thing and include the funding for our veterans in this continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, there were lots of things that were left out of this CR, and the Republicans came up with a manager's amendment to try to address that, but they left out the $12 billion for our veterans.

They left out $12 billion for our veterans. I don't understand that. There is no explanation for that. It is so wrong.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Oh, my God. I don't even know where to begin, to be honest with you. There is just so much there.

First of all, let me read from a letter that the Secretary of Defense sent to all of us here in Congress. He said: ``A 6-month CR would set us significantly behind in meeting our pacing challenge highlighted in our National Defense Strategy, the People's Republic of China. The PRC is the only global competitor with both the intent and capability to change the international order. The PRC does not operate under CRs. Our ability to execute our strategy is contingent upon our ability to innovate and modernize to meet this challenge, which cannot happen under a CR. Asking the Department to compete with the PRC, let alone manage conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, while under a lengthy CR, ties our hands behind our back while expecting us to be agile and to accelerate progress.'' That is what the Secretary of Defense sent to Congress.

Republicans are here with a bunch of fake anti-China bills that will never become law, but what they are actually doing is hurting our national security.

This approach, their CR, is hurting our national security. It is not just the Secretary of Defense saying that. As I said earlier, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has said it, and that is why he is opposing the Republican CR, so let's get that straight.

The other thing is, on the SAVE Act, it is true that a military ID alone is not sufficient to meet the criteria of the SAVE Act. Is that how we thank the men and women who serve our country?

In fact, many Americans don't have the kind of identification required to be able to comply with the SAVE Act, but that is even beside the point because, as Republican after Republican has said, this is a gimmick. This is going nowhere. This is just a sound bite during an election. This is not real. This is all theater. That is not me saying it. It is Republican after Republican saying that.

In terms of helping our veterans, let me tell you, Republicans keep talking about the $112 billion in the bill for VA care, but guess what? These dollars were already provided in last year's bill.

Both VA and OMB say that these dollars are insufficient and that they need an additional $12 billion or our veterans' care will be affected. That is what has been said to Republicans and Democrats over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides zero additional dedicated funding for vets with toxic exposures. Zero. I don't understand why, when you are trying to fix some of the omissions in the manager's amendment that was put in in the Rules Committee, this could not have been added. These are our veterans. These are people who have served our country. These are people who have been exposed to toxic chemicals who are battling with all kinds of illnesses and diseases.

The least we can do is make sure the funding is there so they can get adequate healthcare. This bill provides none of that $12 billion. I don't understand what my Republican friends are thinking.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, we have 3 weeks left to ensure that our government doesn't shut down. Instead of working with Democrats to keep the government open, what we have here is an awful, cynical, partisan continuing resolution that has exactly zero chance of becoming law. Hell, as I said earlier, it may not even pass the Republican-controlled Congress.

It is like Republicans won't even try to get the job done. They have passed 4 appropriations bills out of 12. That is it, and they want a trophy for that. I mean, it is pathetic how little work has been done in this House.

Again, they have sent a grand total of four appropriations bills to the Senate, although listening to them last night at the Rules Committee, you would think they had completed all their work and everything is wonderful. Imagine thinking 30 percent was a passing grade. It is pathetic.

At the end of the day, the Republican majority has failed the American people, and the Republican majority has failed the American people miserably. They want to condition keeping our government open on a Project 2025 pipe dream to disenfranchise millions of Americans at the ballot box. Let me be clear, the SAVE Act is not about targeting undocumented immigrants. It is about suppressing the vote of millions of American citizens.

Again, I point out what happened in the last election. The person who shall not be named by name lost but didn't want to accept the loss and instructed people to go out there and to submit fraudulent electors to try to stoke all these conspiracy theories.

Multiple people are now under indictment for trying to overturn the legitimate results of the last election. The threat to our democracy, the threat to our election integrity, is the Republicans.

My friends are willing to rip $12 billion away from our sick veterans all to play political games. What is wrong with them, Mr. Speaker? They are pursuing poorly written, bad bills that are soft on China when we could be doing the real work, teaming up across the aisle to strengthen our national security. It is a joke. It is a joke. It is embarrassing. All they bring to the table is destruction, disruption, dysfunction, and the dystopian Project 2025. Every measure before us today is a bad deal.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can help our veterans. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, we have to do better. If the government shuts down because of their dysfunction, real people in this country get hurt. We need to come together and get our work done. Enough of this partisan garbage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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. 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.

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

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

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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1430 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1430 provides for consideration of six measures: H.R. 1398, H.R. 1425, H.R. 1516, H.R. 7980, H.R. 9456, and

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In case my colleague on the other side of the aisle has a case of amnesia, earlier this year, 195 Democrats proudly voted ``no'' on the passage of H.R. 8580, the fiscal year 2025 Military Construction- Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.

This legislation includes $337.4 billion for the VA, $75.5 million above President Biden's own budget requests and $30.2 billion more than the fiscal year 2024 levels. It allocates $112.6 billion for medical care for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, 195 House Democrats, including my colleague from Massachusetts, voted ``no'' on this bill, with Senate Democrats refusing to even bring up the bill on the floor.

Every day they delay is a day that veterans across America are left wondering if their healthcare, their benefits, and their essential services will be there next year. This is simply unacceptable.

Senator Chuck Schumer could bring this bill forward tomorrow. We could get this done for our veterans tomorrow, but, instead, Senate Democrats have decided to play politics with the lives of our Nation's heroes, labeling this vital funding as dead on arrival and offering no alternative while the clock ticks down.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that my Democratic colleagues across the aisle stop playing politics in this Chamber and in the upper Chamber prioritize what really matters. Veterans across this Nation depend on the services provided by the VA. Let's stop the hysteria and the political games.

Let's pass this continuing resolution, avoid a shutdown, and continue our work to fully fund the VA. Our veterans have given everything for us, and I am asking my colleagues to give them the support that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of fiction there. We have heard false and frankly ridiculous claims that the SAVE Act makes it harder for certain Americans, including our servicemembers, to vote.

If my Democratic colleagues took the time to actually read the bill, they would see that under the SAVE Act, servicemembers can show their passport, birth certificate, military ID, record of service, or any combination of these other options as proof of citizenship.

There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that restricts or complicates voting for our servicemen and -women. To suggest otherwise is just patently false, but it is also insulting. It implies that those who serve our country, those who risk their lives to defend our freedoms, are somehow less capable of meeting these simple and straightforward requirements.

Mr. Speaker, our servicemen and -women deserve better. They sacrifice for our Nation, and we owe it to them and to all Americans to uphold the integrity of our elections by enforcing the laws of our land. Instead, Democrats across the country are unwilling to do so.

Take my own State, New York. A noncitizen can register to vote without a Social Security number, without an ID. Before coming to Congress, I fought against New York City's outrageous attempts to allow noncitizens, including illegal aliens, to vote in local elections.

In the face of what States like New York are doing, what the District of Columbia has tried to do, and with millions of illegal aliens flooding into our country under the Biden-Harris administration, we need these safeguards in place today.

Just last month, the State of Texas announced it had removed 6,500 noncitizens from their voter rolls, with nearly 2,000 of those noncitizens recorded to have a voter history. Virginia also removed 6,000 noncitizens from their voter rolls.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot take the issue of voter fraud lightly. We cannot rely on the honor system, as much as the other side of the aisle thinks it is A-OK to not require a photo ID in this country to vote.

We can't take the honor system for our Federal elections, especially when we have millions and millions of illegal immigrants residing in this country and thousands of noncitizens registered to vote across this country.

Make no mistake, the flood at our southern border, the 10 million encounters at our southern border, isn't by accident. It was at the stroke of 94 separate executive actions with Joe Biden's pen, with Kamala Harris cackling in the background, that this has happened.

Bet your bottom dollar that if somehow, by some miraculous effort, they have the White House, the Senate, and the House next year, they are going to get to work lickety-split on the biggest amnesty plan this country has ever had. They will all be voters, mark my words.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reiterate the fact. It is very simple. House Republicans have passed their Veterans appropriations bill. We passed it above the request of President Biden or whoever is drafting the President's requests at this hour.

The people who have had a lot to say in this Chamber today, they all decided to vote ``no.'' They voted ``no'' for our veterans' healthcare. They voted ``no'' for opportunities to expand veteran benefits.

They did it for politics. They did it because it wasn't their idea. This House Republican majority has funded the VA above and beyond President Biden's request for the last 2 fiscal years, and we are very proud of that fact, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle have expressed outrage over the inclusion of the SAVE Act in today's continuing resolution, but let's be clear: The American people overwhelmingly disagree with their position.

According to a 2022 YouGov poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans support requiring proof of citizenship to vote in elections, and even more telling, 48 percent of Democrats--yes, Democrats--agree that proof of U.S. citizenship should be required.

In 2022, a Gallup poll further underscored that 79 percent of Americans favor photo identification requirements to vote, and that includes 53 percent of Democratic voters.

Just this year, the Pew Research Center found that 81 percent of Americans want all voters to show government-issued photo identification to cast a vote, and 69 percent of Democrats back this commonsense safeguard. Why won't they? That is the question. What are they afraid of to require someone to prove who they say that they are?

These aren't poison pills. This isn't partisanship. They are overwhelmingly bipartisan views shared by a vast majority of commonsense Americans.

Yet, my colleagues would rather cater to a fringe element in this country within their party than listen to the clear will of the American people. Instead of supporting reasonable safeguards to protect our elections and prevent foreign interference, they continue to block widely supported measures. They claim to be defenders against foreign interference in our election, yet today, they turn their back on protecting the sanctity of the vote.

The numbers don't lie, though. Under the Biden-Harris administration, at least 4.6 million illegal aliens have been released into our country, with 1.8 million got-aways. We don't know where they are. We don't know who they are. We don't know why they are here. Those are just the ones that we are aware of.

With millions of illegal immigrants, including violent criminals, now residing in the United States, we cannot afford to ignore the critical need to ensure that only American citizens decide the future of our Nation.

This isn't just about policy. It is a moral imperative to protect the foundational rights of American citizens.

It is time for our Democratic colleagues to put aside their partisanship and listen to 81 percent of the American people who support this and stop

threatening a shutdown over commonsense election safeguards.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

These accusations, Mr. Speaker, are not just dishonest, they are a pathetic act of desperation. In their scramble to smear Republicans, they have dug up some obscure policy document that was never endorsed by President Trump, or any House Republican for that matter.

Now they have thrown everything they can against the wall, hoping to scare the American people with their usual tactics of lies, deception, and paranoia. This, Mr. Speaker, is the Democratic playbook for 2024. When you are failing, manufacture some more fear.

The reality is stark. Democrats are in complete disarray. They are heading into November on a runaway train. Mr. Speaker, it would be laughable if their policies didn't have such dire impact on the American people.

Now, in a desperate, flailing attempt to distract from their catastrophic record of the last 3\1/2\ years, they are trying to shift the focus away from the wreckage they have left in their wake. Their policies have bankrupted this country, emboldened our enemies, thrown our borders wide open, and crushed the American people under the weight of skyrocketing costs and economic insecurity.

Here is the thing, Mr. Speaker: Americans are just smarter than that. No matter how much they try to spread their undiagnosed cases of Trump derangement syndrome, no matter how many obscure documents they try to pin on House Republicans, they can't run from their abject record of failure. The American people see it. They feel it every day at the gas pump, at the grocery store, when they are

paying their insurance bill, when they are trying to buy a new car, when a young family is trying to get into their first home. In their wallets, in their communities, in the safety of their communities, they feel it. Democrats can't hide from the disaster they have created, and no amount of finger-pointing is going to change that.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it clear that they would rather play political games as we work to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. They would rather hoot and holler about spending levels in one department than vote for a commonsense appropriations bill or to create a stopgap so that we can continue our work and make sure that we don't have a shutdown. They would rather stand in full-blown opposition to straightforward provisions that would deter voter fraud and ensure our elections are fair, free, and protected as a fundamental right of real American citizens.

My colleagues would also like to stand before us today and oppose commonsense legislation that ensures that we put America first in our dealings with our greatest adversary, China, and any entity or international organization that is connected or subservient to the Chinese Communist Party.

We must do what the Biden-Harris administration has time and time again refused to do in its policies toward China--put the interests and the needs and the security of the American people absolutely first.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule before us today.

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.

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

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. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), the author of this very important bill.

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. 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. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Chair, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the right to close.

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.

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a slate of Republican bills offered this week that will do more harm than good in defending the United States' interests from the Chinese Communist Party.

Immediately upon their return from the August district work period, House Republicans have picked right back up with their prioritization of political talking points over responsible legislation. The Republican Majority is pushing forward a package of bills that revive failed programs, forgo due process, and undermine our academic institutions and domestic supply chains. Under the guise of deterring the influence of the Chinese Communist Party, the bills on the flow this week actually make it harder for us to protect national security interests and serve the interests of the American people.

H.R. 8333, the BIOSECURE Act, lists specific biopharmaceutical companies that are subject to federal contracting bans with no clear indication of why those companies were chosen. The bill lacks any due process to add or remove a company as a ``biotechnology company of concern.'' This sets a dangerous precedent going forward for companies that find themselves listed in this bill--or any other similar legislation.

H.R. 1516, To establish Department of Homeland Security funding restrictions on institutions of higher education that have a relationship with Confucius Institutes, and for other purposes, defines any connection to a Chinese public school or university as a relationship that is a threat to U.S. security. It would bar Universities with any of these connections from receiving any funds from the Department of Homeland Security, whether that funding is for securing college campuses against possible school shootings or receiving financial assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after an emergency.

The Protect America's Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act of 2024, H.R. 1398, is equally responsible. The Republican Majority would revive a defunct program at the Department of Justice that failed to address any of the actual threats posed by the Chinese Government and only succeeded in ruining the careers of academics and scientists of Chinese descent. Discriminatory impacts aside, the bill is plainly redundant, as the Department of Justice already prosecutes cases of economic espionage and trade secret theft.

H.R. 1425, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval

Act hampers the United States' ability to respond to emerging pandemics and undermines the Biden-Harris administration's foreign policy agenda. House Republicans have introduced this bill under the pretense that any international agreement negotiated by the World Health Organization (WHO) is an international treaty, however, this is patently untrue. This legislation would only create more barriers, red tape, and headaches for our country as we respond to developing health threats around the world.

H.R. 7980, the End Chinese Dominance of Electric Vehicles in America Act, would threaten the viability of the EV tax credit for consumers created in the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169). Congress has already set requirements for collecting the full $7,500 tax credit that strengthen the long-term EV domestic supply chain while also lowering our reliance on China. This bill would add additional requirements that are frankly unachievable and would virtually eliminate access to the EV tax credits that have helped thousands of people afford to purchase new EVs, saving Minnesotans money on gas and making the air in our communities cleaner.

Finally, the Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024, H.R. 9456, undermines bipartisan-negotiated provisions from the Fiscal Year 2024. Consolidated Appropriations package that are helping to investigate national security threats from foreign investments into agricultural land, biotechnology, and other aspect of the agricultural industry. The Republican bill threatens to overwhelm the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and undermine its ability to investigate and stop real threats. We should not be undermining established law voted for by House Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, the interference of the Chinese Communist Party, Russia, and other foreign adversaries poses real threats to our economy, our national security, and our democratic institutions. We need serious, deliberative, nonpartisan solutions to deal with these threats. Instead, the Republican Majority has brought bills to the floor this week that are ineffective at best and outright harmful at worst. I oppose all of these bills and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.