May 22, 2024

The Honorable Antony J. Blinken

Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Blinken,

We are deeply concerned with the upcoming World Health Assembly and the World Health
Organization’s (WHO) thinly veiled power grab using a global pandemic agreement. As you are
aware, later this month, there will be a vote on the final text of a new pandemic treaty that vastly
expands the authority and resources of WHO. The proposed reforms pursued by the treaty will
not prevent another pandemic but instead cede more authority to WHO.
Currently, the proposed changes would grant WHO the power to declare and impose extensive
lockdowns, collude with Big Tech to censor and control information, and regulate international
travel. However, just as worrisome is the “suspension” of intellectual property rights. Given the
unprecedented lack of transparency prevalent across this administration’s dealings, it is
unsurprising yet equally concerning how policy measures having such a widespread political and
economic impact are supposedly sought to be implemented without involving Congress at any
stage.
The treaty colorfully expresses some of WHO’s lofty aspirations (arrived at without fulfilling
even a basic standard of due diligence) while disregarding fundamental concerns over its own
administration and conduct in international geopolitics. While WHO receives public funding, it
also receives substantial funds from private sources whose contributions allow them to influence
and profit from the organization’s health decisions.
Our primary sources of information on this issue have been third-party sources. Due to the lack
of available information on actual negotiations, we rally the same concerns voiced by the public
and ask you to address them promptly.
Regarding the administration’s assessment of the treaty’s implications on intellectual property
rights and the current state of negotiations, we have the following questions and concerns about
the WHO Pandemic Agreement (the treaty):
1. Due to the pandemic treaty, will there be any out-of-pocket expenses for businesses or
patent holders without providing any compensation for the use of IPs?

2. If compensation is to be provided to patent holders, will they be paid fair market value, or
the price demanded by the patent holders?
 a. If the compensation is based on a “fair market value,” who will determine this
value?
b. If the compensation is based on the price set by the patent holder, is there an
upper limit or market cap that will be imposed on such a price?

3. If compensation is to be provided, who will ultimately bear the cost? Additionally:

a. Has the administration consulted any agency or made a financial assessment of
such a decision?
b. Has the administration consulted the Congressional Budgeting Office (CBO) to
assess the prospective costs of imposing such a policy?
c. If any assessment has been made, what will be the financial burden of this
decision on the taxpayers?

4. Will the implementation of any of the policies, goals, or objectives sought by the
pandemic treaty impose any financial costs, burdens, or obligations on the treasury, either
directly or indirectly?

5. How does the administration construe the scope and effect of Articles 10 and 11 of the
pandemic treaty? Specifically:
a. How is the term “reasonable royalties” construed within the scope of this treaty
and within the context of the laws of the United States pertaining to intellectual
property rights?
b. Who holds the ultimate authority in deciding whether “royalties” are “reasonable”
under the treaty?

6. What is the geopolitical impact of allowing suspension of intellectual property rights

within the United States. Particularly, how does it affect China’s ability to displace the
United States as a major, viable IP market?

7. How does the administration construe or interpret Article 12 of the proposed treaty,
specifically regarding its scope and impact on the following areas:
a. Is participation in the PABS System voluntary?
b. What is the nature and scope of the role that the U.S. and U.S. businesses will
play in the PABS system?
c. What is the impact on the U.S. and its businesses arising from the prohibition of
intellectual property rights under Paragraph 2(f)?
d. Under paragraph 3:
i. What is the potential economic impact of the 20% real-time access to the
WHO via mandatory “donations” and access at “affordable prices”.
ii. Will businesses be compensated for these donations or “affordable prices”
or will they come out of pocket?
iii. If businesses are compensated, how will they be compensated?
 e. Will participation under the timetables and export of any pandemic-related health
products under paragraph 5 be voluntary or mandatory in practice?
However benevolently these goals might be represented, we’ve witnessed how WHO has
remained in a constant state of conflict with the people it claims to represent. This treaty and its
stated objectives raise significant concerns given the organization’s track record of flip-flopping
on public health guidance and its history of favoritism towards the oppressive communist
Chinese government. The biggest concern is the existing abuse of power, which will only
intensify with the advent of the “pandemic treaty.”
At this time, we oppose granting any additional authority or resources to the WHO that would
compromise the sovereignty of the United States. Additionally, we are opposed to granting WHO
any additional authority until there is a full and complete investigation into the origin of the
COVID-19 pandemic and WHO’s role in covering up the Chinese government’s likely role in its
origin. Given the timely nature of this request, we respectfully request your reply prior to the
upcoming World Health Assembly. We look forward to your prompt reply.
Sincerely,

Lance Gooden Tim Burchett Tom Tiffany

Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

Ralph Norman Glenn Grothman Pete Stauber

Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

Diana Harshbarger John Moolenaar Jeff Duncan

Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

Andy Biggs
Member of Congress

CC: The Honorable Xavier Becerra

Secretary
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201