TRANSCRIPT: Joint Press Conference on Growing Concerns Over the W.H.O. 'Pandemic Treaty'
VIDEO and FULL TRANSCRIPT
Broadcast Monday, February 5, 2024
Rayburn House Office Building RM 2200
FULL Press Conference
Summary
Amid the World Health Organization’s (WHO) mad dash to finalize the text of a so-called “pandemic treaty” for a vote during May’s World Health Assembly, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) hosts a press conference with key experts highlighting major concerns surrounding the proposed treaty—including the lack of transparency, the backroom negotiations, WHO overreach and infringement on US sovereignty, unknown financial obligations for US taxpayers, threats to intellectual property rights and free speech, funding for abortion, how the treaty will benefit China at the expense of the US, and other significant issues.
Presenters
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights & International Organizations
Rep. Dr. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH-2), Chairman, U.S. Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic
Ambassador Andrew Bremberg, former US ambassador to the UN in Geneva, President, Victims of Communism
Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst, former Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Bureau for Global Health at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Brett Schaefer, Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at Heritage's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom
Reggie Littlejohn, Co-Founder, Sovereignty Coalition
Reggie Littlejohn, Co-Founder, Sovereignty Coalition, and President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers
Megan Meador, Communications Director, Alliance Defending Freedom International
Frank J. Gaffney, FCo-Founder of Sovereignty Coalition, Founder and Executive Chairman, Center for Security Policy, and Vice Chair of the Committee on the Present Danger: China
TRANSCRIPT
This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may contain grammatical and spelling errors incurred during translation. Please refer to the referenced media to confirm.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:00:39] Good afternoon. My name is Chris Smith. I'm a congressman, a chairman of the Subcommittee on Global health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations. I'm in my 44th year as a member of Congress, and I come from new Jersey, the fourth district. We do have a tremendous panel to speak to you today, and I do hope you all, um, take what they have and look at it and understand that this is a very, very serious issue, uh, that we're raising today, binding international covenants, treaties or agreements, and the legal obligations imposed on nations require serious and comprehensive analysis. The proposed W.H.O. pandemic treaty or agreement, however, which UN news explicitly states will be a binding, will be binding on any country that agrees to it binding. They say, quote unquote, such agreements may between countries have legal standing and are binding, is under consideration by the intergovernmental negotiating body or the INB in Geneva, who likely will present a final text on May 27th for the World Health Assembly vote outside the INB. However, far too little scrutiny has been given. Far too few questions have been asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy and the United States and elsewhere. If approved, it remains unclear whether the Biden administration intends to submit this treaty agreement to the Senate for its constitutionally required advice and consent is a prerequisite for ratification. An executive agreement, however, bypassing Senate ratification would be an egregious mistake.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:02:15] It's unclear in the extreme as to how many billions of dollars US taxpayers will be required to give pursuant to article 20 of the agreement in, quote, annual monetary contributions to the W.H.O. Pandemic Agreement. Close quote. We will know that amount until, quote, a sustainable funding mechanism is established after the fact by the conference of the parties no later than the 31st of December in 2026. Article 12 stipulates that in the event of a pandemic, real time access by W.H.O. at a minimum of 20%, 10% is a donation, 10% at affordable prices, two W.H.O. for products for distribution, 20% of what and from where? Whether it's Ebola, HIV Aids, cholera or Covid 19 or any other pandemic we've had to face, Americans have been extremely generous, relied on US agencies which are accountable to the American people to make recommendations and decisions concerning allocation of funds, not unelected bureaucrats. At W.H.O., article six of the agreement calls for the continued provision of essential health services, which includes abortion on demand. There is absolutely no ambiguity ambiguity here. Abortion is included in the list of essential health services published by W.H.O. in 2020, and we have that in your packet if you want to read it. In the wake of Covid 19, despite the fact that the majority of countries restrict and regulate abortion, paragraph 13 of the agreement affirms the need to prioritize equity and respect for human rights.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:03:51] Yet on November 25th, 2021, the Who made clear that it construes the killing of unborn children by abortion, including dismemberment, child beheadings and starvation. And that is how the abortion pill works to be a human right. Article 25 empowers the agreement leadership to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements on issues relevant or additional to the W.H.O. pandemic agreement. Close quote. That's what W is already doing. And under the pandemic agreement, it will get worse. Last February, the W.H.O. granted abortion provider and promoter Ippf International Planned Parenthood officials relations status at W.H.O.. In August, Who's director general Tedros signed an MoU, a memorandum of understanding with the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights to advance laws and policy according to the W.H.O. guidelines. And again, that's in your packet as well. I do hope you'll take a look. And what is that? Those guidelines, W.H.O. law and policy guidelines on abortion. Uh, and this are a supplement to the W.H.O. abortion care guideline. And it proposes creating an enabling environment for abortion and seeks the overturning of laws and regulations restricting abortion, including get this waiting periods, parental notification statutes, conscientious objection. In other words, any doctor like Doctor Wenstrup, any other doctor would not be allowed if the Who had its way to say no, I don't want to participate. And then they have no gestational limits. Nine months, all nine months. The baby is vulnerable to death by abortion.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:05:30] As we meet here today, the Who Executive Board is expected to vote in May to give another abortion promoting organization, the center for Reproductive Rights. Official relations with W.H.O. status. This is an organization that, like the Who itself, lobbies for changes in law and uses case law to promote abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy on January 22nd. 33 pro-life organizations, including the National Right to Life Committee, Susan B Anthony, Pro-Life America, All Family Research Council, Heritage Life News, and others signed a letter that was authored by C-fam to Wahoo's executive board, urging them to stop the W.H.O. from entering into an official relationship with the center for Reproductive Rights. There are many other concerns that my friends and colleagues here these experts will be getting into in a minute, but let me just bring some attention to article 18, which seeks to combat false, misleading and misinformation or disinformation. With regard to Covid 19, does that apply retroactively to the World Health Organization itself and director Tedros concerning the origins of Covid 19, misleading guidance, and the malign influence of XI Jinping's Chinese Communist Party on all matters related to the virus? Article. Article 18 also begs the question Will there be any room for dissent on vaccines, therapeutics, virus transmission modalities and the like, especially among scientists and health professionals? Or will groupthink again crowd out all other viewpoints? We have reason for concern.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:07:03] Past could likely be prologue. This past Saturday, the Washington Examiner broke a story that the white House refused to allow depositions of a Biden Covid 19 adviser and the director of digital strategy, Andrew Slavitt, a long time health official who worked on President Biden's coronavirus response team, was scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on January 31st. He didn't. Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan indicated that the administration also objected to the committee's forthcoming deposition with Robert Flaherty, Biden's former director of digital strategy. Quote, the committee is seeking to speak with Slavitt and flattery about the well documented pressure they put on social media companies to censor content, particularly about Covid 19, beginning in 2021. Flattery, quote, would actually would routinely demand that companies report to him on their practices for removing content, such as posts that showed vaccine hesitancy and borderline content. In one instance, flattery became angry. This is according to the report with Meta in July 2021, indicating he was displeased that the platform's efforts to censor a group that had become known as the Disinformation Dozen, which includes Robert F Kennedy. This is a quote. Are you guys effing serious? I want an answer on what happened here. Flattery wrote to meta. Nations, including United States, are precluded. Let me finally say, before turning to my colleagues and friends, are precluded by draft pandemic agreement from taking out reservations, which is a staple when our Senate looks at a an administration, a treaty, they often take out reservations.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:08:45] Paragraph five, section this, uh, we do not agree with it. Well, this agreement absolutely prevents that. Article 26. No reservation may be made to the W.H.O. pandemic. It's a one sentence paragraph, uh, in the proposal.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:09:03] So I'd like to now introduce our very, very distinguished panel, um, at today's press conference, beginning first with, uh, Doctor Brad Wenstrup, who is chairman of the Oversight and Accountability Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. He has done tremendous work to examine Who's response to Covid 19 and the development of the pandemic treaty, including holding a December hearing entitled Reforming the W.H.O. Ensuring Global Health, Security and Accountability. I would note parenthetically that that Doctor Wenstrup, uh, served in the US Army Reserve from 98 to 2022, retiring with the rank of colonel in 2005. He served two tours in Iraq as a combat surgeon, was awarded the Bronze Star and the Combat Action Badge for his service, and in 2018, Colonel Wenstrup was awarded the Soldier's Medal for heroism. I would also just point out briefly that when a terrorist took to the took to the baseball field and tried to murder Republican members at practice, uh, and unfortunately, our majority leader was very, very severely wounded. The man who saved his life at great risk to his own was Doctor Brad Wenstrup. So I'd like to introduce him as well.
Rep. Dr. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH-2): [00:10:17] Thank you, Chairman Smith. And I appreciate those kind words. Look, you know, the Covid 19 pandemic showed the world that the W.H.O., the World Health Organization, is not the preeminent global health institution that perhaps it once was. To me, the W.H.O. should be there to benefit all of humankind and should not be influenced outside. It should be agnostic of all politics, and those that participate should be agnostic of all politics when it comes to decisions being made by the W.H.O.. But we witnessed firsthand that the W.H.O. didn't equally serve all of its members, or even all of mankind. Rather, it became beholden to and caved to political-to-political pressure. And politics should never have a place in science, known science or unknown science. And honesty and transparency do have a place in science. It's where it belongs. And when the W.H.O. needed to step up and help the world navigate this unprecedented event of a novel coronavirus and a global pandemic, they instead ignored facts. They parroted back some of the narrative the Chinese Communist Party told them. And that's what we got. So instead of conducting their own independent investigation into the origins of Covid and helping everyone keep safe as best we can, they listen to Chinese propaganda and produced a Pandemic Origins report with the CCP. So as was said, I chair the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus pandemic, and I got a letter from the Chinese embassy saying it was a grave mistake for this committee to be searching for the origins of Covid. Well, all these actions, these are not actions of a properly functioning, transparent, non-partisan organization like the World Health Organization should be.
Rep. Dr. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH-2): [00:12:22] You know, we need a system where global public health and local public health entities do not mislead the American public in any way, shape or or form. For example, the W.H.O. denied that Covid 19 was spread via human-to-human transmission based entirely upon the word of the Chinese government, the CCP. I think maybe most appalling is the W.H.O. even delayed naming the pandemic a public health emergency of international concern, because the CCP confirmed that the spread of the virus was, quote, under control. And that was repeated here. And not denied by the W.H.O. So, as chairman of the subcommittee, I've been investigating many of the pitfalls or failures of the W.H.O. and our own public health system as you can imagine, looking for ways to fix these flaws going forward and establish a proper framework. And during our W.H.O. hearing for the select subcommittee last year, even the State Department and the HHS representatives testified that the W.H.O. needs urgent repair. Well, let me remind you, the United States is a sovereign nation, and we must ensure that the final draft does not violate international sovereignty or infringe upon the rights of the American people or the intellectual property of the United States or the American people. That's not negotiable and has to be protected. The draft states that equity is one of the foundational pillars. Yet cost and accountability doesn't seem to be equitable with the W.H.O.. And finally, as was mentioned, without its being presented to Congress for approval, any pandemic treaty is completely insufficient.
Rep. Dr. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH-2): [00:14:15] The American people need to have a say. Look, our main focus in my mind right now is to develop a trustable public health system, void of all politics, that is prepared for and responsive to a pandemic, possibly coming to the United States, and to the point where our own government is not misled, nor does our own government mislead the American people. Even if the honest truth may offend a negligent party or a negligent government, that is where we need to be. The United States should be setting the gold standard for approval. Gold standard, incentivizing best practices, and doing everything we can to ensure that an organization like the W.H.O. listens to American interests as well. If a future pandemic arises. I think it's critically important that there's a system in place not only to trust, but to verify these global institutions. Something I feel that we all find is lacking at this time. But our top priority should be health. That comes with honesty, transparency without politics. Ideally, the who is to be a trusted, ancillary voice in whatever fight we may have when it comes to a pandemic or epidemic for that matter. We need to control our own as best we can where it's most trusted. Nothing is more important than in my mind than global health. And if the W.H.O. is properly reformed and used as an ancillary tool for any nation in the world, it would be the first step to a healthier and safer world. Thank you.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:16:17] Thank you, Doctor Wenstrup. I'd like to now introduce Ambassador Andrew Bremberg, who's currently president of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, previously served in Geneva at the permanent as the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the European Office of the UN under the Trump administration. Doctor.
Ambassador Andrew Bremberg : [00:16:41] Thank you. And thank you for holding this important press conference today. The discussion of the W.H.O. Pandemic Treaty is vitally important to Americans and everyone around the world. As Representative Smith mentioned, I had the honor to serve as the US ambassador to the UN in Geneva, uh, during, before and during the first year of the pandemic. In that role, I had the opportunity to meet and or speak on a near daily basis with the W.H.O. leadership, including Doctor Tedros and other members of the leadership at the W.H.O., along with other ambassadors, um, from the international community stationed in Geneva about the at the time new and ongoing pandemic outbreak. What we saw was the failure of the W.H.O. system to meet the needs that it had been designed for during the 2020 pandemic. The United States publicly and strongly advocated for a stronger role for the W.H.O. and for the W.H.O. to have more independence, as in protection from political influence, so it could do its core public health message. What we also saw was that countries would not respond and live up to their commitments that they had voluntarily entered under, entered into, under the International Health Regulations or the IHRs. As we know, this pandemic spawned because of a novel coronavirus coming from China. But just 20 years prior, another novel coronavirus, arose in China, in SARS, and that had led the international community to strengthen the international health regulations. To ensure that the type of hiding and nontransparent behavior done by China back in 2003 would no longer repeat itself in the future.
Ambassador Andrew Bremberg : [00:18:24] But sadly, that is not what we saw took place in 2019 and 2020. And that brings us to this pandemic treaty today. As Congressman Smith outlined and others will outline, there are many problematic provisions of this treaty, but I would like to focus my opening my remarks on one. What is not in the treaty. There is no provision in this treaty that any supporter can point to that you can say if this provision had been in effect in 2019, it would have in any way made a substantive difference in preventing or ameliorating the spread of the Covid 19 pandemic. Just think about that. We're going through a multiyear, actually rushed treaty process to have the world adopt a new pandemic treaty. And there is not one provision in there that would have actually dealt with the most important issue, the lack of accountability and transparency by the People's Republic of China in disclosing vitally important epidemiological information. At the time, it was known that could have helped the world, both the United States, other countries on a bilateral basis and the W.H.O. as a multilateral entity better prepare and deal with the epidemic that was spreading in China to prevent it from becoming a global catastrophe, ones that cost trillions of dollars, hundreds of millions of cases and millions of deaths.
Ambassador Andrew Bremberg : [00:19:57] So while I'll let my other panelists speak about some of the other issues, I just want to briefly focus on the lack of intellectual property protection that we see in this. This is something that, if you haven't followed issues in the W.H.O. for years, is not at all new. This is an issue that goes back actually 20 years as well, where there have been attempts by other countries to weaken intellectual property protections that exist in international law. This is an issue that is regularly debated and discussed, and that the United States has a very balanced view on. This is typically addressed in the World Trade Organization, which makes sense in the context for how these issues should be dealt with, not in a health treaty where we're trying to deal with what health resources we need to have ready, what commitments we need by member States to provide both resources and information. Um, so I just want to focus on that point as I close and remind everyone that as it was already said, this treaty, if entered into it, would have the force of law, could have huge impacts on the United States and of course, would build a larger W.H.O. bureaucracy, which unfortunately, as we saw after 2020, failed the last time. So with no new accountability for either member states or for W.H.O., it's vitally important that the United States not adopt this new pandemic treaty. Thank you.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:21:23] Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. Our next speaker is Dr. Monique Wubbenhorst, who is an ob gyn and global health expert who served as senior deputy assistant administrator in the Bureau for Global Health at the US agency for International Development. She is currently a senior research associate at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture.
Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst: [00:21:49] Thank you very much, Representative Smith. It's a real honor to be here. And so, I'd like to discuss the W.H.O. pandemic accord from the standpoint of public health and clinical issues. The. W.H.O. accord is a legally binding document that has a goal, quote, a world where pandemics are effectively controlled. However, the accord does not accomplish this and other goals, and it has specific liabilities. Now, as Ambassador Bremberg already brought up. And if we've learned anything from previous outbreaks, and I was in West Africa during Ebola 2014, we learned that W.H.O. 's response was hampered by poor communication, a lack of realization of the seriousness of the outbreak and inadequate action. And as the Ebola outbreak eventually became completely out of control, member states and particularly the United States had to step in. We also should have learned that siloed vertical pandemic programs can achieve outbreak control, but at significant short and long tum cost in lives and resources. In Liberia, for example, following the intensive efforts to control Ebola, the health system collapsed once international organizations pulled out. And that's a collapse in which the country has not yet recovered from the Covid 19 pandemic. And we were very much involved with that. As the USAID Global Health Bureau was leading the United States response to Covid 19, we learned painfully and at great price, the fragility of health systems in both developing and developed countries.
Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst: [00:23:17] And that W.H.O., as has been stated already, was not able to adequately manage the pandemic response, provide timely and accurate information, or hold Member States accountable for their lack of data sharing. And we also learned that pandemic prevention, surveillance, response and recovery efforts were hampered not only by weak health systems, but also by a lack of effective civil society ownership and empowerment. W.H.O. is promoting this accord when it has not yet demonstrated that it has addressed the institutional problems underlying the above failures. Other issues are that, as stated already, there are inadequate measures in this accord to prevent future pandemics. There's a delegation of authorities and resources to W.H.O., including control over, quote, the collection of patient specimens and material and data, including genomic data. Under the proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System, and as Representative Smith mentioned, W.H.O. is supposed to get 20% of all pandemic related products. There's a lack of accountability. There is no independent monitoring or audit body that is identified. There's a clear politicization of public health and health care, as has already been stated, a focus on fairness and equity rather than accountability and governance. There are differentiated responsibilities rather than each country having skin in the game. And as I alluded to a moment ago, a siloed vertical approach to pandemic response and control seems to be the focus here, including a focus on a global public health workforce that is deployable to support parties rather than supporting front line workers, who are often the first to be exposed to and die from pandemic pathogens.
Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst: [00:24:53] As we are all aware, it's not if there's going to be another pandemic, it's a question of when there will be. There is repeated promotion of equity and essential health services, the latter as noted, being code for abortion access in UN documents and instruments. The accord disempowers civil societies and scientists, clinicians and public health practitioners and member states who should, could and should, take the lead in pandemic response. And then it also proposes the creation of a complex, challenging and expensive global health supply chain. At USAID, one of our principal challenges is supply chain \ for health commodities, working with one agency, with one government, the job is massive. And to say that W.H.O. has the ability, has the resources and the capabilities to supplant other existing supply chains simply doesn't make sense. So, there are other key problems. Poor governance, including corruption and mismanagement, are leading causes of underdevelopment and weak health systems. The accord mentions the development of a mechanism, as we've heard, to, to quote, ensure the fair and equitable allocation of pandemic-based products based on public health risks and needs, without stating what the criteria are to determine this allocation.
Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst: [00:26:10] And so W.H.O.’s mandate that states with more resources should pay for pandemic responses in others is inappropriate? W.H.O. does not define the criteria by which a country is deemed to be a developing country, and in fact considers China to be a developing country when it has the second largest economy in the world. Each country, as I said, has to have some skin in the game and take responsibility for its own development journey. So what? What are the possibilities? Rather than simply ratifying the W.H.O. accord as it currently stands, there are two possibilities. One, of course, is to push for amendments and revisions, and the other is to consider additional steps that we can take to try to safeguard pandemic response among the IHRs the International Health regulations, which have already been mentioned. There are numerous opportunities to amend them to provide guidance on the tools needed to prevent or respond to pandemics, and how member States should collaborate for pandemic control. This has been outlined in a document by the Congressional Research Service, a research service. In addition, language can be added to the IHRs, encouraging member states to share data and resources on pandemic response. As I noted, there is no independent monitoring body, which is critical for an endeavor of this size. I mentioned in the accord, and another point is that the IHRs do have the weakness of not having an enforcement mechanism.
Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst: [00:27:41] However, they also should be amended to consider the social, economic and cultural implications and risks of pandemic response in their present form, the IHRs do not offer a carrot. Conversely, they also don't offer a stick, and so that those that language could be added through amendments. Another is to optimize One Health approaches. One Health has gotten a bit of a bad name, but public health veterinarians and others view one health positively because it focuses in a unique way on the intersection of human, plant and animal health. For example, biosecurity veterinarians might be the first to notice an outbreak of anthrax, which could be a threat to human health. And in addition, there are other pathogens of interest, such as African swine flu and H1n1, which are not necessarily zoonotic but have an important impact on human health. And so, One Health is useful, but it's a two edged sword. Its politicization has overshadowed its potential benefits. And so, using a One Health approach, which has been refined and depoliticized, could additionally build into our pandemic response capabilities. Another important question is that to avoid the siloed vertical approach to pandemic response and outbreak control, pandemic response should be layered onto efforts to build existing health systems resilience.
Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst: [00:29:04] Again, using the example of Liberia, where once the international organizations pulled out, the health system collapsed, providing the opportunity to build resilience into health systems and then layering the pandemic response. On top of that serves two purposes. Number one, it continues our commitment to other countries and shows the generosity of the American people, but it also protects them and the rest of the world from pandemics. And as has already been stated, politicization of the pandemic approaches and building of political agendas is a prominent feature, and this is one of the greatest barriers to effective pandemic response. My last point. The last point that I want to make is that corruption, favoritism, inappropriate use of funds, collusion with terrorists, and sexual misconduct have been documented at UN agencies. For example, UN ops, WIPO, W.H.O. itself, UNAids, UNDp. Such incidents show that, sadly, the UN appears to lack effective mechanisms for oversight and accountability. This would apply to any efforts to increase its authority over pandemic prevention, surveillance, response and recovery. So, in conclusion, rather than ratifying the W.H.O. accord as written, the United States should consider amendments to the IHRs to provide guidance, continue to refine the approach that is needed to help to optimize our response to pandemics, and in doing so, we will achieve our goals of pandemic prevention, surveillance, response and recovery. Thank you.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:30:48] Dr. Wubbenhorst, thank you very much for that very, very expansive and insightful, uh, testimony. Let me just say our next speaker is Tony Perkins, who's the president of the Family Research Council. But when Doctor Wilmshurst a moment ago talked about having an independent body for accountability, uh, we have a Religious Freedom Act in 1998 that established at the State Department an office on religious freedom. But we weren't happy with just doing that. We made sure there was an accountability board independent of the government, uh, called the US Commission on Religious Freedom. Well, Tony Perkins served as chair and vice chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom and did an extraordinary job, Tony.
Tony Perkins: [00:31:33] Thank you. Congressman Smith, I want to thank you for holding this and Congressman Wenstrup, for your outstanding work on following through on this. You know, few Americans, save those who desire to exercise control over the lives of others, would want to see another pandemic like Covid 19 and the government response that followed that pandemic. You know, fundamental freedoms were violated. As Congressman Smith mentioned, during the pandemic, I served as chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom and saw how Western governments used that to violate fundamental human rights. Freedom of speech, the censoring of voices on social media platforms. Government officials intentionally took down credible scientific voices that challenged the global misdiagnosis and subsequent global protocols. Families were separated. Churches and other support groups were closed like schools, which led to a second concern that the harmful mental physical outcomes are yet to be fully understood and recognized, which resulted from this global government overreach. Now, at the tip of the spear of these failed approaches was the World Health Organization and many of their lemmings in the US Food and Drug Administration, the US center for Disease Control and the US National Institutes of Health. Instead of reviewing and acknowledging its failures, the W.H.O. seeks to submit to submit its disastrous approach to the entire world as the way forward in a binding agreement which by its nature, not its name, but it is a treaty and it should be submitted to the US Senate and not advanced as it is currently being advanced.
Tony Perkins: [00:33:35] Now, it must be recognized at the outset that the draft agreement is first and foremost a global political, economic and social manifesto. Now, I will admit that I may get a couple of the points wrong, because it's like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. This continues to change with every meeting, every approach. And so we're doing our best to analyze what the W.H.O. is putting forward. But I will just mention three very quickly overarching concerns among the many that have been mentioned here today. This is a global power grab. Using any future emergency as justification to take that power at risk is national sovereignty. That's been mentioned here. But article three two, section two defines or rather comments on sovereignty. And I quote, sovereignty States have, in accordance with the charter of the United Nations and general principles, international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies. But you continue to read the draft agreement informs us that states can legislate and implement legislation, quote, in pursuance of their health policies, but only insomuch as they act in, quote, in accordance with the charter of the United Nations and general principles of international law.
Tony Perkins: [00:35:00] Now we also notice, if you read it, the terms shell appears over 175 times in the document. Now, in legal parlance, shell is mandatory. It is a command. This is anything but a voluntary agreement. The draft agreement also dives into the subject of censorship. The draft agreement presents the reader with this Orwellian concept of. Infodemic. Their terms. Article one, subsection three Infodemic means too much information, false or misleading information in digital or physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk taking behaviors that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines public health and social measures. Well, I would tell W.H.O. to take two aspirin and call me in the morning. We don't need their insight and their direction on this. Censorship is at the very heart of this entire document. I don't know about you, but I have a greater trust in the American public collectively than I do the experts. Censorship is is more directly addressed in article 18, section one of the draft agreement communications and awareness. Quote. The parties shall strengthen science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population, as well as access to information on pandemics and their effects and drivers and combat.
Tony Perkins: [00:36:40] False misleading. Information or disinformation. Combat not counter, but combat. That is a very clear terms with connotations. In other words, shut down those who challenge the approved experts. We have a Supreme Court case right now in this country, based on how the Biden administration did just that during Covid 19, coming out of the state of Missouri. Number three. And finally the draft advances. Building on what the doctor said, a vague one health paradigm which, quote, places us in an interconnected and interdependent relationship with non-human animals in the environment. End quote. A one health approach according to article one, section D. Recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants and the wider environment, including ecosystems, is closely linked in interdependent. What this has to do with stopping future pandemics is unclear, but it could come in handy to declare a climate crisis if the planet is a patient on the same moral plane as the people who inhabit it. Now. I'll close with this. It's unlikely that archaeologist will ever uncover the planning and zoning agreement from the Tower of Babel. But if they do, I would imagine that it does not differ much in the scope of this attempt at global governance.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:38:22] Thank you very much, Tony. Our next speaker is Brett Schaefer, who joins us from the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for freedom, where he holds the post of Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs and has written extensively on the W.H.O. and the current pandemic treaty negotiations.
Brett Schaefer: [00:38:47] Thank you very much, Congressman Smith, for the invitation to speak here today on the draft W.H.O. pandemic agreement. We're all familiar with the failure of the international health system to respond to Covid 19. China failed to inform the international community of the outbreak in a timely manner. China mischaracterized Covid 19, saying that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission, which the W.H.O. parroted unquestioningly. China did not expeditiously share genomic data about the disease and did not allow prompt, unconditional access to an international team of health experts. China shut down internal travel while allowing international travel, contributing to the spread of the disease. All of this resulted in millions of deaths and trillions in economic harm. At a minimum, you would expect a new pandemic treaty to address these fundamental flaws and failures that were revealed during Covid 19. The current draft does no such thing. Instead, the draft agreement focuses on curtailing speech, as some people have noted here mandating resource transfers, weakening intellectual property rights, mandating technology sharing, pushing redistribution of manufacturing and production, and empowering the W.H.O. specifically. Despite the recent failings as revealed under Covid 19, the draft places the W.H.O. at the center of a future pandemic response system through its proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit sharing system, and empowers it to claim and redistribute a minimum of 20% of pandemic related products for equitable distribution through a proposed global supply chain logistics network.
Brett Schaefer: [00:40:33] These new authorities must be funded. So the draft obligates parties to provide financial resources, both mandatory and voluntary. While the draft provides no specific cost estimates for these expenses, they could easily cost US taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars annually. The draft would require parties to support time bound waivers to intellectual property, and use W.H.O. trips provisions to override intellectual property rights, which will curtail future investment in health research, which is exactly the opposite you would want to respond effectively to a future pandemic. Much of the draft focuses on providing special treatment for developing countries, including financial support and policies designed to promote research collaboration. While there are reasons to support these types of activities to help developing countries bolster their health systems, these efforts should be voluntary, not obligatory through a treaty. In addition, because the UN considers China to be a developing country, they will benefit from special treatment, uh, treatment and access to proprietary technology and know-how. Under the terms of the treaty. These are intended to help low-income countries, not the second largest economy in the world. Leaving aside also China's history as the world's most, uh, preeminent, uh, thief of intellectual property. So, to put a cherry on top. The treaty also prohibits reservations which are the primary way for the Senate to express how it interprets specific elements of the agreements that come under it for advice and consent, and where it's reservations and declarations are applied.
Brett Schaefer: [00:42:10] Which parts of the treaty does the US consider binding and which ones doesn't it consider binding? So, presenting a document to the Senate and prohibiting reservations, understandings and declarations is an affront to the constitutional process for the US system here. Quite simply, the draft pandemic agreement falls short in nearly every regard. As mentioned by Ambassador Bremberg, if this treaty were in place, there is nothing, no provision inside of it that would have prevented or addressed the failings that were talked about at the beginning. China's failures to share information, China's failures to be forthright and transparent and honest, China's failure to curtail travel externally as well as internally. All of these things were not going to be addressed in this pandemic agreement. Instead, we have an agreement that focuses on other priorities that would not have addressed those flaws. Uh, I have a paper here that was published this morning by a colleague of mine and Steve Groves at the Heritage Foundation and myself. Uh, there are some copies here. It's also available@heritage.org. And it goes into much greater detail about the issues that I've raised here. So thank you very much and I look forward to questions.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:43:18] Thank you so very much. Pratt. Uh, our next speaker is Reggie Littlejohn, who's the founder of and president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers. She has confounded the sovereignty co-founder that she'd say the Sovereignty Coalition and serves as founder and president of the Anti-globalist Alliance. And I just would note parenthetically, that Reggie has led the effort for years in combating gendercide in China, uh, the killing of baby girls simply because they're baby girls. Uh, and when Chen, when we were fighting to get him out of prison and then out of, um, uh, out of China to freedom, uh, she played a major role. And I want to thank her for that.
Reggie Littlejohn: [00:43:59] Thank you, Congressman Smith. Um, and thanks also to Congressman Brad Wenstrup for hosting this crucial and timely press conference to alert the world about the growing concerns over the W.H.O. pandemic treaty. Having demonstrated in the last pandemic its corruption and incompetence. The W.H.O. now seeks the world's approval to greatly expand its power and budget through its proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations. It asks us to trust it to hold China accountable. Through these expanded powers, why should we trust the organization that kowtowed to China and the last pandemic to turn around and hold China accountable in the next pandemic? The W.H.O. refuses to call the pandemic treaty a treaty. It calls it an agreement and accord, a framework. Anything else? Likely because it does not want it to be submitted to the treaty process in the United States and worldwide. Regardless, the pandemic treaty is a treaty. The Oxford Reference Dictionary defines a treaty as an international agreement in writing between two states or a number of states. Clearly, the pandemic treaty is a treaty, and as a treaty, it can only take effect in the United States with the advice and the consent of the Senate. Moreover, the pandemic treaty references the International Health Regulations four times, and it says that everything in the pandemic treaty has to be consistent with the International Health Regulations.
Reggie Littlejohn: [00:45:42] The International Health Regulation amendments are late. They were supposed to have submitted them on January 27th. They didn't do that. They are continuing to negotiate them, probably all the way up until the May meeting of the World Health Assembly and then spring it on everybody, uh, for a vote that is against article 55 in the in the International Health Regulations. They are violating their own rules. And I believe that the, um, vote on the international health regulations needs to be delayed till the next international, um, the World Health Assembly and that the pandemic treaty needs to wait for the international health regulations to pass because they incorporate them by reference. Otherwise, if we pass the pandemic treaty, it's like a blank check for the international health regulations. We have no idea what they're going to come up with, what is going to be agreed to. Now with respect to the pandemic treaty itself, there are many, many intractable problems. First of all, surveillance. There's a section that's called pandemic prevention and public health surveillance. And it would require nations, including the United States, and implement national pandemic prevention and public health surveillance plans that are consistent with and supportive of the international health regulations. Well, how what is that going to look like? What's consistent with the international health regulations or with the Who's plans? I submit to you that it's going to be done through vaccine passports, although they're not going to call them vaccine passports, they're going to call them digital IDs.
Reggie Littlejohn: [00:47:17] And right now, the World Health Organization is in the process of rolling out international interoperable digital IDs. And the pretext for this is, oh, we need to be able to monitor everybody in case of a pandemic. We need to see if people are sick. We need to see if people are vaccinated. But these but if you look on the World Economic Forum website, there's a chart about what you're going to have to have a digital ID to do, which is access health care, uh, travel, have a bank account, shop online, pay your taxes, vote. Basically, these digital IDs, once installed, are going to control every aspect of everybody's life. And if you do things that are counter narrative to the who, like if you don't get vaccinated, don't get boosted, whatever, they can shut you off from your digital ID and you will be paralyzed. Censorship. The pandemic treaty would require nations to censor their citizens in the form of infodemic management, and an infodemic is defined in part as simply too much information. So this is information that could be true, but the W.H.O. thinks it's too much information and they would censor it if it leads to mistrust in the health authorities.
Reggie Littlejohn: [00:48:33] In other words, if your true information leads you to not want to follow what the W.H.O. is doing or saying, that's misinformation or an infodemic and they will censor it. Article 18 would obligate nations to combat misleading misinformation or disinformation. And on the W.H.O. website, you can find many articles on new infodemic management tools, such as social listening. What social listening? Seems to me like they're going to be watching our social media posts and deciding whether to shut us down or not. Now, with respect to One health, I agree that in the right hands, one health is something that's indisputably true. There is a connection between human health, animal health, plant health, and the environment. However, in the wrong hands, in the hands of people who are making a global power grab, what one the One Health approach could do is give them a foothold to surveil every aspect of life on earth human health, plant health, animal health, the environment, total surveillance of everything. Then there's lastly the conference of the parties. This would set up an entirely new organization which would have the power to implement the pandemic treaty. But significantly, could that the conference of the party has the power to adopt amendments to the treaty.
Reggie Littlejohn: [00:49:58] So what that means is that once people finally agree on a treaty and on the conference of the party which is part of the treaty, the conference of the party can by itself amend the treaty. And it doesn't say whether that has to go back to the nations for any kind of ratification. So, it's essentially a blank check that could establish totalitarian control in the hands of the conference of the parties. Together with the International Health Regulations, the pandemic treaty presents the greatest threat to freedom that the world has ever faced. Public health is being used as a tool for total control. This is not a public health issue, but an instrument to introduce Chinese style totalitarianism to the United States and worldwide. In my opinion, the world has gotten along just fine without a pandemic treaty. I don't think we really need a pandemic treaty. We can count on people to respond, especially the generosity of the United States to help where it's needed. But we certainly do not need a pandemic treaty that gives so much power and control to the World Health Organization. Who will keep the W.H.O. accountable? Who can stop them from abusing their power? Once we have ceded our sovereignty, it will be difficult, if not impossible, ever to get it back. Thank you, thank you.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:51:19] Thank you very much, Reggie. Our next speaker is Megan Meader. Meador, who joins us to present the views of the Alliance Defending Freedom International, where she serves as the communications officer.
Megan Meador: [00:51:32] Thank you, Congressman. Good afternoon. ADF International welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the critical discussion on the World Health Organization Pandemic Agreement. In line with the charter of the United Nations. We highlight that the international community's efforts to prevent, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics must remain rooted in the fundamental principle of state sovereignty, including in addressing public health matters in line with national contexts and priorities. Additionally, we emphasize the need for the text to place greater emphasis on the critical importance of ensuring respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms at all times, including during emergencies. We underscore that the pandemic agreement must not undermine existing international legal obligations concerning the protection of the human rights of freedom of expression, whose restrictions, including on the grounds of public health, must always be implemented with the utmost restraint and in the least restrictive manner possible. Cognizant that there can be no free society without freedom of expression, we must not allow ever mounting challenges to determining the veracity of information in a globalized, tech centric world to unduly restrict free speech. Accordingly, it is imperative that the pandemic agreement does in no way lead to a lowering of existing standards by promoting incursions into free expression in the name of public health, when it is possible for both to be held in careful balance. In this context, we are deeply concerned that references in the draft text currently under negotiation to combating disinformation, misinformation and misleading information, as well as to the phenomenon of an infodemic causing confusion and mistrust, lend themselves to undue restrictions on this fundamental freedom.
Megan Meador: [00:53:13] While every person has a clearly protected freedom of speech, there is no inverse right to be protected from information that could be subjectively deemed false or misleading, or simply too much by authorities. On the contrary, the right to seek and receive information is established in international law as an integral part of freedom of expression. As such, it should be valued and safeguarded as the bedrock for enhanced security, scrutiny and accountability over public health decisions as past experiences during the Covid 19 pandemic have demonstrated. Furthermore, we urge that the treaty reflect language from previously agreed intergovernmental documents where available and appropriate. This holds particular significance in safeguarding the sovereign prerogative of states to determine which health services should be considered essential within their national framework. As negotiations advance, though not without obstacles, it is also essential to acknowledge the impracticability of meeting the May 2024 deadline for finalizing the pandemic agreement, especially considering the numerous contentious issues that remain unsolved. If the US and other governments are genuinely committed to the landmark goal of preparing the world for future pandemics, they must prioritize the development of a carefully crafted text that not only garners consensus, but also effectively addresses the legitimate concerns of their citizens. Thank you. Thank you.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [00:54:34] Thank you for going to our final speaker. And again, I thank the press and all of you for your patience. But this is such an important issue. Uh, we do have a broad variety and a diverse group of people, uh, speaking to this with a lot of information. Uh, before going there, I would like to recognize and thank Rebecca OS from director of research and Emmanuelle DuPont, uh, government relations for their work there with Kfum. And they're the ones who put together that wonderful letter that went to the executive board, which I hope the executive board will take seriously, signed by 33 pro-life organizations about the center for Reproductive Rights and not inviting them into the work that who does. So thank you so much, Frank Gaffney. Frank, very briefly, is the executive chairman, uh, of the center for Security Policy, a nonprofit whose mission is to secure America's founding principles and freedom through forthright national security analysis and policy solutions.
Frank J. Gaffney: [00:55:30] Thank you, Congressman. Thank you to all of you and especially to you, Congressman Wenstrup. These gentlemen are responsible for two of the three events I'm aware of that have looked at this set of negotiations at all. And if you take nothing else away from what my colleagues have shared with you, it is there's a lot to be concerned about. And it's not just this treaty or framework agreement or whatever they're going to call it. It's also these underlying international health regulations. And then there's the point that Ambassador Bremberg made, which is arguably the most important single provision isn't in any of them, and it's not in them, not because they forgot, or they left it out. It's because. The people who are controlling this process. And there are a number. Let's be clear. But I think at top of the food chain is the Chinese Communist Party. And the Chinese Communist Party wants no part of any kind of arrangements that even technically, legally, would impose upon them some obligations to be transparent, to be accountable, to prevent doing in the future what they did in the past, to avoid imposing on the rest of us through their handmaidens at the World Health Organization the “China model” which has brought us such horrific consequences. This is a rigged game, folks. Rigged by the very people who made a weapon of mass destruction and deliberately unleashed it on us and the rest of the world. And that would be, again, the Chinese Communist Party. And the tell on that. You know, people argue, well did it come out of a lab? It came out of the lab.
Frank J. Gaffney: [00:57:35] How did it come out of the lab? Well, we're not entirely sure, but what we are sure about, as several of my colleagues have said, is it came out of China deliberately. When they weren't allowing people from Wuhan to go anywhere else, they were sending them here and Italy and in other parts of the world. Why? To spread the biological weapon that had been created in the Wuhan lab. And I think this is the evidence that Congressman Wenstrup’s Committee has been developing so powerfully. So let me just make a couple of key points, some of which are just reinforcing what's been said. Another very important tell on what is going on here. Is that the Chinese Communist Party calls this agenda global governance. By that they mean an instrument that is going to create an arrangement that is absolutely antithetical to our sovereignty, to our constitutional republic, to our freedoms. Again, not by accident or because people hadn't thought about, because that's the whole point of the exercise. I consider this as my friend, Reggie Littlejohn said. Not simply to be the greatest threat to freedom in human history. This package of agreements. Amendments. New text. Treaty, whatever you want to call it, is the greatest single threat to the sovereignty. Of our Constitutional Republic in its history. And whatever one thinks about or cares about freedom as an abstraction worldwide. I hope everyone in this room, everyone in this body. Everyone in this town, everyone in this country will concern themselves with the idea that down this road leads a global governance arrangement that is designed to crush.
Frank J. Gaffney: [00:59:44] Not restrict, not suppress, crush the sovereignty of the United States. It's made more outrageous. Still, I think Congressman Wenstrup alluded to this by the fact that Tony Perkins did. We're still not entirely clear what documents we're working from here. What terms are actually being provided. And the Nancy Pelosi rule seems to be governing. You'll know what's in it after it's finalized and you've signed up to it. And why is it we're going to sign up to it? Because the Biden administration is determined to do all of this. Which brings me back to a point that several of our colleagues have talked about. This isn't, by the way, folks, just about pandemics. This is about anything that Tedros Ghebreyesus, the Chinese communist proxy. Who runs the World Health Organization, decides is a, quote, public health emergency of international concern. Congressman Smith, who I admire tremendously, talked passionately about. Abortion. Being a public health emergency of international concern, according to the World Health Organization. What is so worrying about this, wherever you come down on abortion, is that they're not only able to declare it, that they're able to dictate what must be done about it. Ditto. Whatever you think about transgenderism. Is transgenderism a public health emergency of international concern? Well, Tedros Ghebreyesus thinks so. Is climate change? Yes, he thinks so. And it was all about it at Davos, as you may have seen. And then there's another idea that I think most Americans would find. Not all. Not the Biden administration, but an awful lot of Americans would find abhorrent.
Frank J. Gaffney: [01:01:45] And that is the idea that gun violence, as it's called, is a public health emergency of international concern. And Tedros Ghebreyesus will. Take it to the bank. Come up with a directive. If he is given the powers that this document or the two documents would afford him. To confiscate the weapons held by private American citizens. Now again. That's, I think, a pretty direct affront to the Constitution of the United States as well as, I would argue, the safety and well-being of our people. We've heard about censorship. I won't repeat that. I think that's an obvious, outrageous idea. Free speech is imperiled by this arrangement. And again, the Biden administration has tried to do this on its own. As we've seen. I think you were mentioning that, Congressman, but how convenient to have some international body that there's no appealing, there's no accountability, there's no control over dictating. That we will be silenced. And when I say we, I mean you. I mean, you going to your doctor or your doctor, for that matter, who may want to prescribe something that I'm sure. Brad Wenstrup would. Back in the day, which is a cheap, effective, safe, readily available therapeutic that could be given early to people and prevent mass destruction. But that wasn't part of the World Health Organization plan, partly because it wasn't part of the China model, partly because Big Pharma and Bill gates put most of the money or most of the influence into what the World Health Organization does.
Frank J. Gaffney: [01:03:39] This is a scandal. But do you want it to happen again? Perhaps under even worse circumstances. Maybe the the Disease X is 20 times more virulent than Covid. How about that? And your doctor won't have a say. In your medical treatment. If it doesn't align with Tedros Ghebreyesus. Finally, and I know we've gone along, but I did want to just emphasize. The federal government actually has no constitutional responsibility for public health. Now that may sound incredible, given all the agencies we have and bureaucracy that's been created, but it's not in the Constitution. Who has that right? Who has that power? The States. So here you have a probe, a program in which the federal government is about to give away powers it doesn't actually exercise under our Constitution at the expense of states who do and who, as things stand now, have no say in this at all. Well, we have some model legislation that we're hoping that legislatures across this country are going to adopt that is going to tell the federal government, on the one hand, and the World Health Organization, you're not taking away our rights to protect our people and their public health. Lastly. Congressman. What makes this of tremendous importance is that this body, the United States House of Representatives, has done the right thing. In one of the few annual authorized appropriations bills that has been adopted for foreign operations. It has zeroed out the funding for the World Health Organization. And it is said you're not going to get any more funding if you do not send whatever negotiations produce to the United States Senate for its advice and consent. I pray. That with all this thrashing that's going on about continuing resolutions and omnibuses and so on, that that provision will in fact prevail, because I think it's the only way we're going to spare you. As my colleagues have said, what is hurtling down the tracks at us right now? Thank you. Appreciate your congressman.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [01:06:04] Any questions from the press? Uh, yes. Please identify yourself.
Carmen Paun, Politico: [01:06:11] Carmen Paun, with Politico. (Question is inaudible.)
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [01:07:24] Well to that question, as you've indicated, if they're also concerned, uh, I think they need to make it very clear that it will be submitted, not as an executive agreement, the way the Paris, uh, Global Climate change accord was, or the the accord with the countries of Europe and Iran on the nuclear issue. That means that it could be undone by any future, uh, president, which makes it very, very unpredictable, uh, to say the least. But the magnitude and the language and I've read the language, I've read every iteration that's come out so far. Uh, and, you know, we don't have all the amendments, but again, it is largely a closed process. And then they present something, and I know how the UN works. I was a delegate to the UN four times in my career. Uh, when, when they do, uh, large gatherings and they come up with a, a action plan, it is negotiated. And then they spring things on people by consensus at all, and everybody goes out and that's the end of it. That's just the way they do it. So that's what I'm very concerned about here. Uh, and then to Frank Gaffney's point about China, uh, I chaired my 99th congressional hearing on human rights abuse by the People's Republic of China. On Thursday, we looked at the Universal Periodic Review, uh, of China has just gone through that at the UN Human Rights Commission.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [01:08:46] Uh, and and you know, how they game the system. Every country got 45 seconds to raise their concerns about China's egregious violation of human rights. Uh, and it's appalling right now, XI Jinping, as we all know, is committing genocide against the Uyghurs. He's continued his suppression of the Falun Gong. The Tibetan Buddhists and the Christians sign initiation is just crushing every person of faith. And yet, how did Tedros get his job? He was the hand-picked of the Chinese Communist Party. He got re-elected. The US sadly went along with that. But he was the hand-picked. And that's why when Covid 19, uh, burst onto the scene, uh, he was more than obliging to the Chinese Communist Party and to XI Jinping in particular, to say and to be the mouthpiece. And that has led to countless numbers of people dying. So we're very concerned. That's why we're raising very substantive concerns here about the treaty. I mentioned essential health, uh, and what that means, you know, who has lost its way? I used to ask them, I've been here 44 years, a year in and year out. Where do you stand on abortion? They'd say agnostic. We don't do anything on it. And now they have become the most aggressive promoters of abortion in the world. They have a and is embedded in this treaty. Uh, if it passes, uh, they here's their here's their model legislation.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [01:10:11] I commend it to everyone model legislation uh, abortion till birth. It's right there. No gestational limits. As I said in my opening comment, they go through even a doctor like Doctor Wenstrup who had to just leave, uh, he would be unable to deny, uh, the performance of an abortion or lose his license or worse. That's that's who. Why did they lose their way when they were formed? In fact, unless you construe a baby to be an infectious disease, a tumor, or a wart to be excised, it's a baby. It needs to be protected. So thank you for your point. And, uh, hopefully that answers some of it. Yes, sir. Well, I think part of it is it is the process. I mean, treaties, all treaties tend to be more closed while they're being negotiated. Uh, there's usually an assumption of goodwill, if not great will, as to why they're doing the particular treaty, like the Genocide Convention. I mean, you know, I've read that top to bottom, talked about it, you know, called on China to to live up to its obligations, but they don't. Same way with the Refugee Convention and others. But very often there is a great deal of buy in to what is trying to be accomplished. And maybe some of my colleagues here would like to take a stab at that, but especially our ambassador. Did you want to?
Speaker12: [01:11:37]
Ambassador Andrew Bremberg : [01:11:38] Most simple part of the answer is because the United States has a more difficult treaty ratification process than most under other member states. So there's been a recent history over the last several decades to develop new international treaties, but not call them treaties so as to avoid the ratification process here in the United States and in the Senate, whereas other member states can adopt or even ratify treaties without a two thirds majority vote in in the Senate because they may not even have one. Um, so that that's the biggest reason why this has been done this way. We've seen this for, uh, six successive international agreements. Um, going back to, you know, for the last 20 years. So this is not a new phenomenon.
Frank J. Gaffney: [01:12:23] Just one second, please. The reason that nobody is being told what's going on here is because it can't withstand the light of day. I mean, if you actually went to the American people and proposed that we turn over their personal medical health. Freedom to this body that screwed it up. Recently, they wouldn't want any part of it to say nothing of all of the other stuff that we're talking about here. But to this lady's question or comment. The Biden administration wants these provisions. If they didn't want this deal, it wouldn't be happening. I don't know how else to describe it. And if you think you know what is in this document, my dear, I, with the greatest of respect will tell you. You probably have the most recent document that is available for your scrutiny, but I don't think that's the same thing as what they're working on at the moment. And you certainly don't have the international health regulations, and those are important, too. We've spent most of our time talking about this treaty, but you need to look at both and you need to look most, especially at an administration that, as I said earlier, I believe, wants to have somebody else telling it to do what it wants to do. At the extreme peril of our freedoms and constitution and republics.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [01:13:53] Reggie alluded to this, and it's very important that after 2026, um, the parties can change the contents of the treaty. They could do it with by consensus. It's right there in the draft. It's pending right now or by a three fourths vote. Well, there could be something really serious. Really wrong. Uh, if we've ratified a treaty and then after the fact, this process allows that kind of. It's not even tinkering changes. Uh, maybe wholesale changes in what the body of it is. It doesn't say it comes back to every country for re ratification or as a protocol or some other modality where, you know, everyone discusses it, debates it, and then the US Senate votes yes or no. And we've done that with treaties in the past where there was an addition to it. No, they'll just do it. I don't know if maybe there's a precedent for that. And on the reservations, I ask Congressional Research Service how often that happens. And they said, you know, 120, 25 times, I should say that they know of. And they're checking it further. Uh, it's important that the US Senate and the executive branch be allowed to say, wait a minute, time out. You've done it all. Thank you very much. Now we have the obligation both both legally and morally, to vet this in a way that if there we need to put reservations on it. We do it. So thank you. Well, I do think we have to reevaluate our commitment.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [01:15:35] The foreign ops appropriations bill. Mario Diaz-Balart bill that passed the House totally defunds the World Health Organization with conditionality because of concerns about how seriously they have lost their way. What we are assessed something on the order of $115 million by the Who, but under this administration, they've quadrupled. They've given like 500 million more. I could get the exact numbers more in voluntary contributions to the world health organizations. There are others that we could work with and hopefully get reforms there. If if the Covid 19 hasn't taught us anything, it is the need for serious systemic reform on how they do business. I have a bill in pending right now, the hold China to account and to do what we did with Jasta. Uh, hasn't passed yet, but hopefully it will so we can sue China, uh, waive the sovereignty that they have and sue them to try to get a full accounting of how they misled, maybe with full complicity, uh, the World Health Organization and all of the deleterious information they gave us that led to so many deaths, um, in those early months could have been different, and they weren't. And then throughout it all, we've had, I think, a great deal of disinformation as well. So, you know, there needs to be reform. The accountability piece is very important. Yes. We're going to keep raising questions. Hopefully we'll get answers. Uh, but I do think the other countries and their representatives, uh, to the W.H.O.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [01:17:34] health Assembly and, and the executive board, they all need to do a gut check to themselves about all of this language. I've read this to my friends. Uh, uh, point. I've read this cover to cover ten times, yellow highlighted markings all over it, as well as the other iterations of it previously. Uh, yeah, there's been some changes made, but when you put just language that says we want trans to be transparent, what does that mean? So so to get to your point, I think we're going to keep raising the issues. Where did it come from. That's maybe ambassador any of our friends have a sense of where it came from. It may have come from W.H.O. itself. Um, you know, in terms of a, you know, an idea, uh, maybe from the United States, maybe a lot of groups, you know, on the surface appeal argument is that, you know, why not until you look into the details and say it is a serious erosion of our ability to make decisions. I saw with so many doctors when we were going through the pandemic, I it's all I did for for a number of months in my own district. And I would talk to emergency room physicians and others who did not like the even the guidance they were getting from the CDC. Uh, during those very, very difficult times, uh, they said this isn't really true, but if you go against it, you know, we are at risk of the board of medical examiners might take our licenses.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [01:18:56] There are all kinds of counter. And, you know, as I said in my opening comments, there is a groupthink here that if the group is wrong and you just absolutely silence this dissident voices, uh, you get very bad outcomes. And that's what I think. What we got? Yes. No, except that they reconvene, of course, soon. They're reconvening now, the health assembly. But it's the it's the they got to know that there is there are serious issues being raised by responsible individuals. You know, doctor, the ambassador, the, uh, others. And we're not the only ones. And they need to take that into account. And the administration, uh, if they pull a fast one and say executive agreement again, I mean, that is the worst way of of shutting down debate and discussion. And who knows who gets elected next time around? Uh, then it's gone. And, you know, that's not good either. You know, they'll have to do it if it stays the way it is now, uh, put it through the Senate for ratification. Go through a process that's completely of above board and transparent. Let the senators have a look at this. You know, the hearings be held. What does it mean? Uh, and then put it to a vote over on the Senate side.
Reggie Littlejohn: [01:20:14] They had a deadline. The one deadline they had was January 27th to submit the the negotiating draft of the International Health Regulations, and they missed it. And so what they're doing now is they're continuing to meet to negotiate them and negotiate them. And they haven't said they're going to delay the vote. I mean, the point of that deadline is, is, is to be able to for everyone to be able to look at it and analyze it and, and, uh, for countries to be able to, to see whether they think that it's a good idea or not, and the fact that it was missed and that it appears that they're just going to spring it on everybody at the meeting itself, uh, means that it's going to be completely not analyzed. And I think that, that, that, that, that the vote should be delayed. I think the United States should take the position that the vote, in fact, not just the United States, the world should that this vote on the international health regulations should be delayed until the next World Health Assembly, so that people can analyze what's in here and what the implications are going to be. And as I said, I think that the pandemic treaty, which incorporates the International Health Regulations by, um, by reference, needs to be delayed for a further year after that, because we can't be voting on a pandemic treaty that incorporates by reference something that we have no idea what it's going to contain.
Frank J. Gaffney: [01:21:39] There's one other milestone here, and that is whatever's going to happen on this appropriations bill. And I don't know what the timing is going to be on that. I don't know if there will even be an open process. The Senate does not do appropriations bills, as you all know. So how this is going to sort out is an open question. But it's it's important that there be some kind of public debate about this particular funding. But if I could just make one other point and, and Ambassador Bremberg said something really important. He said that there is an impetus to do this the way they're doing it, this secretive negotiation. Because we have a particularly exacting. Treaty ratification process. And I would simply ask you, why do we have that? We have it because our brilliant founders recognized that precisely this kind of thing could happen. If you didn't have an exacting process. And by the way, with due respect to our friend from Politico, it is actually 67 votes that are required. Two thirds of the Senate has to approve a treaty, because if you don't have that kind of rigorous process, you can have your sovereignty, your freedom, your constitutional republic snuffed. Admittedly with the consent and connivance of its own executive branch, which is kind of a problem.
Frank J. Gaffney: [01:23:20] But it can happen. And that's why Congressman Smith and Congressman Braedstrup, and I hope the majority of this House will, in fact, insist that the Senate take this up. And there's another data point that you need to know. I'm not sure you're aware of it. Senator Ron Johnson actually went to the floor of the United States Senate, I think, back in February of last year, if I'm not mistaken, and put an amendment. That would have simply required explicitly that whatever these guys come up with be considered by the Senate as a treaty. How many of you know what happened there? 49 members of the United States Senate, not quite a majority, but a plurality, voted not to do their job. 47, said. We need to. So if you want to know whether there is a problem here, ladies and gentlemen, when you have the United States Senate saying we're not going to protect the people of this country from having exactly the kind of problem the founders envisioned. Here it is. We are at that moment. And again, Congressman, I want to thank you for 99 hearings. And I know that's just on China. I think the record is something like 600 on other subjects. You are a national treasure. And thank you for putting us.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-4): [01:24:44] Thank you. Frank. Uh, if anyone else has any questions, we'll do it individually, if you don't mind at this point, because you've been very, very patient. I deeply we deeply appreciated all of us, uh, for any of our distinguished, uh, experts. If they could stay as long as they can possibly stay as well. So thank you so very much. And, uh, the press conference is adjourned.
