S.1983 - No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act (119th Congress)
Summary
S.1983, the "No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act," mandates that any international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached by the World Health Assembly (WHA) be treated as a treaty, requiring Senate ratification. This bill is driven by concerns about the WHO's past performance and potential influence from other nations. It seeks to ensure that the US approach to international health agreements aligns with constitutional requirements for treaty ratification.
The bill expresses the Senate's preference for Senate approval of any pandemic-related agreement adopted by the WHA. It cites instances of WHO mismanagement during the COVID-19 pandemic and highlights public skepticism towards the organization.
The bill aims to ensure that the US does not enter into international agreements on pandemic preparedness without the explicit consent of the Senate, as required by the Constitution for treaties.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to require any WHO pandemic treaty to be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate before the US can be bound by it. This would increase Congressional oversight of international agreements related to pandemic response.
It would also likely slow down the process of entering into such agreements. This could potentially delay the implementation of international health measures during future pandemics.
Furthermore, the bill could impact the US's relationship with the WHO and other member states, depending on how the Senate views and acts upon any proposed pandemic agreements.
Potential Benefits
- Ensures greater Congressional oversight and public input into international agreements on pandemic preparedness.
- Protects US sovereignty by requiring Senate approval for treaties.
- Addresses concerns about the WHO's past performance and potential influence from other nations.
- Could lead to a more carefully considered and potentially more effective US approach to international health cooperation.
- Reinforces the constitutional role of the Senate in treaty-making.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Could delay or prevent the US from participating in important international efforts to prepare for and respond to pandemics.
- May strain relationships with the WHO and other member states, potentially undermining global health cooperation.
- Could be seen as a sign of US isolationism or unwillingness to engage in multilateral solutions to global health challenges.
- The requirement for Senate ratification could make it more difficult for the US to adapt quickly to emerging health threats.
- May create uncertainty and instability in international health governance.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill directly invokes Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, which grants the President the power to make treaties "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." By requiring Senate ratification for any WHO pandemic agreement, the bill seeks to ensure compliance with this constitutional provision.
The bill also references Section 723.3 of the Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual, which outlines criteria for determining whether an international agreement should be treated as a treaty or an executive agreement. This demonstrates an awareness of the constitutional balance of power between the President and the Senate in foreign affairs.
Overall, the bill aligns with the Constitution by emphasizing the Senate's role in treaty-making and seeking to prevent the executive branch from circumventing the treaty ratification process.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).