Bonuses for Cost-Cutters Act of 2023

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, 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. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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. 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.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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. Chair, I appreciate the comments of my colleague because

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.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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:

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.