Congressional Votes

Representative Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1263, the “Strengthening the Quad Act,” which would, in part, direct the U.S. secretary of state to “enter into negotiations with the Governments of Australia, India, and Japan (collectively, with the United States, known as the ‘Quad’) with the goal of reaching a written agreement to establish a Quad Inter-Parliamentary Working Group to facilitate closer cooperation on shared interests and values.”

The House agreed to Huizenga’s motion on May 19, 2025 by a vote of 334 to 51 (Roll Call 132). We have assigned pluses to the nays because establishing a Quad Inter-Parliamentary Working Group risks creating a permanent framework that deepens U.S. political and military entanglements in the Indo-Pacific, similar to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This would contravene the Founders’ original intent of avoiding entangling alliances and risk undermining Congress’ constitutional powers by gradually committing the nation to collective-security obligations without proper debate or a declaration of war. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress — not the executive branch or a regional international body — the power to declare war and regulate foreign affairs.

During consideration of the fiscal 2025 State Department and foreign operations appropriations bill (H.R. 8771), Representative Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) offered an amendment to prohibit funds in the bill from being “used to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.” This would have eliminated all U.S. contributions to the UN and its affiliate agencies.

The House rejected Tiffany’s amendment on June 27, 2024 by a vote of 149 to 259 (Roll Call 320). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Constitution does not authorize Congress or the president to enter the United States into global-governance bodies such as the United Nations, which undermines U.S. independence. Short of terminating U.S. membership in the UN — which Congress ought to do — Congress should not send a single penny to the nascent world-government body.

President Joe Biden nominated Courtney Diesel O'Donnell to serve as the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), with the rank of ambassador.

The Senate confirmed O'Donnell's nomination on May 15, 2024 by a vote of 49 to 45 (Roll Call 164). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this vote marked the return of the United States to the Paris-based organization, reversing its formal exit by the Trump administration in 2018. Yet rather than merely leaving UNESCO, the United States should fully withdraw from the entire United Nations system. The UN poses one of the greatest threats to U.S. sovereignty and the God-given rights of the American people, as its charter is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution. Congress must pursue a sound, traditional foreign policy of noninterventionism, based on U.S. interests and the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

During consideration of the fiscal 2024 state-foreign operations appropriations bill (H.R. 4665), Representative Greg Steube (R-Fla.) offered an amendment to prohibit funding in the bill from aiding the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The House rejected Steube’s amendment on September 28, 2023 by a vote of 198 to 232 (Roll Call 494). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to allocate federal funding to international organizations such as UNESCO. Such organizations threaten U.S. sovereignty and constitutionally protected freedoms, and the United States has no business being involved in them.

During consideration of the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 2226), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment “to express the sense of Congress that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before the United States engages in war.” Under Article 5, member nations of NATO “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked.”

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on July 19, 2023 by a vote of 16 to 83 (Roll Call 191). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because according to the U.S. Constitution only Congress has the authority to declare war. U.S. membership in NATO increases the likelihood of the United States being dragged into a war that neither the American people nor Congress wants. Rather than allowing NATO and its UN parent to determine when we go to war, we should get out of both organizations.

During consideration of the bill to repeal the authorizations for the use of military force against Iraq (S. 316), Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) introduced an amendment that would require any convention or agreement about pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached by either the World Health Assembly or the International Negotiating Body of the World Health Organization (WHO) to be deemed as “a treaty that is subject to the requirements of article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States,” according to the text of the amendment.

The Senate rejected Johnson’s amendment on March 28, 2023 by a vote of 47 to 49 (Roll Call 71). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because in recent decades both the Executive Branch and Congress have regularly skirted the constitutional requirement in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution that treaties have to be made with the “Advice and Consent of the Senate … provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Instead of recognizing agreements as treaties, they unconstitutionally designate them as “executive agreements,” thereby enabling the president and Congress to avoid seeking the advice and consent of the Senate and pass them by a simple majority of the House and Senate, rather than the more rigorous threshold of two-thirds of the senators present.

H.R. 406 would extend provisions of the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). If enacted, the United States would formally recognize ASEAN as an international organization, providing for a permanent ASEAN mission to the United States with the same diplomatic immunities and privileges enjoyed by other foreign embassies.

The House passed H.R. 406 on March 23, 2023 by a vote of 388 to 33 (Roll Call 148). We have assigned pluses to the nays because ASEAN is a political and economic union, as opposed to an individual sovereign nation. Providing a permanent ASEAN mission in the United States with the same privileges and immunities as embassies further accelerates globalist designs of collectivizing nations into regional unions rather than dealing with them as individual sovereign states. Furthermore, two of the 10 member-states that comprise ASEAN officially have Marxist-Leninist governments: the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. This resolution expands U.S. relations with the communist regimes that oppress those two nations and that heavily influence the policies of the ASEAN union.

This resolution of ratification (Treaty Document 117-1) would ratify the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. Under this treaty, the United States would be required to reduce hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions 85 percent (compared to 2012 levels) by 2036, and create a licensing system to regulate HFC imports and exports.

The Senate confirmed the treaty on September 21, 2022 by a vote of 69 to 27 (Roll Call 343). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Kigali Amendment infringes on U.S. sovereignty and allows the United Nations to dictate HFC environmental regulations in the United States. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize federal or international regulation of HFCs.

The Senate voted on protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty that created the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 that would expand the military alliance to include Finland and Sweden. For the protocols to become effective, all 30 current NATO members must approve them.

The Senate overwhelmingly approved the protocols on August 3, 2022 by a vote of 95 to 1 (Roll Call 282), far in excess of the two-thirds majority vote needed to ratify treaties. We have assigned pluses to the nay because NATO is based on the principle of collective security, as opposed to each country acting in its own best interests. Under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked.” The expansion of this entangling military alliance, which was comprised of just 12 members at the time of its founding, increases the likelihood of the United States being drawn into a military conflict.

During consideration of protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty to expand NATO to include Sweden and Finland, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment to add a reservation to the protocols stating that “Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before the United States engages in war.” Article 5 of the treaty, which created NATO in 1949, states, “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked.”

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on August 3, 2022 by a vote of 10 to 87 (Roll Call 281). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because, under the U.S. Constitution, only the Congress may declare war.

This resolution (House Resolution 831) would reaffirm “unequivocal support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as an alliance founded on democratic principles.” The House passed H. Res. 831 on April 5, 2022 by a vote of 362 to 63 (Roll Call 115). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because NATO obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked. Specifically, under the North Atlantic Treaty that established NATO in 1949, member nations “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all.” This agreement undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. There are now 30 countries in NATO, and an attack on any one of them could pull the United States into a war that neither Congress nor the American people want.

During consideration of the so-called America COMPETES Act of 2022 (H.R. 4521), Representative Scott Perry (R-Pa.) introduced an amendment to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a multilateral environmental treaty. The House rejected Perry’s amendment on February 3, 2022 by a vote of 196 to 235 (Roll Call 27). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the UNFCCC infringes on U.S. sovereignty and places an undue burden on American industry, workers, and taxpayers. Meeting the emission goals of the UNFCCC would significantly reduce U.S. economic output. Furthermore, the treaty requires the United States and other industrialized nations to provide economic assistance to fund climate-change action in “developing nations,” such as China.

H.R. 391 would require the president to develop and implement a strategy for advancing the Global Health Security Agenda, an international partnership to address global health threats posed by infectious diseases, which was launched by the United States and nearly 30 other nations in February 2014. One year later, the United Nations adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which include specific reference to the importance of global health security. H.R. 391 would also require the president to: (1) create a new position within the U.S. government of “global health security strategy coordinator”; and (2) in cooperation with “relevant United Nations agencies, including the World Health Organization,” create a new “Fund for Global Health Security and Pandemic Preparedness.” U.S. contributions to the fund would be authorized by H.R. 391.

The House passed H.R. 391 on June 28, 2021 by a vote of 307 to 112 (Roll Call 188). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize any spending for domestic healthcare, let alone international healthcare.

During consideration of the Defense authorization bill (H.R. 5515), Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) moved that Senate members in the House-Senate conference committee insist that the final version of the bill reaffirm the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance. Under the North Atlantic Treaty establishing NATO, member nations “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all.”

The Senate agreed to Reed’s motion on July 10, 2018 by a vote of 97 to 2 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war.

During consideration of the immigration bill (H.R. 2579), Senator Christopher Coons (D-Del.) introduced an amendment to provide “conditional permanent residence” (i.e., amnesty) to the unaccompanied minors who illegally entered the United States before turning 18 years old and have been recipients of President Obama’s unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The Senate did not vote directly on Coons’ amendment, but on a motion to invoke cloture (and thus limit debate) so the amendment could come up for a vote. The motion to invoke cloture was rejected on February 15, 2018 by a vote of 52 to 47 (Roll Call 33; a three-fifths majority of the entire Senate is required to invoke cloture). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Obama’s executive action creating DACA was an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power belonging to Congress, and because granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will, as has been the case with past amnesties, encourage even more border jumping.

During consideration of the immigration bill (H.R. 2579), Senator Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the disbursement of federal development grants to cities, states, or other political subdivisions that harbor or provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

The Senate did not vote directly on Toomey’s amendment, but on a motion to invoke cloture (and thus limit debate) so the amendment could come up for a vote. The motion to invoke cloture was rejected on February 15, 2018 by a vote of 54 to 45 (Roll Call 34; a three-fifths majority of the entire Senate is required to invoke cloture). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the flood of illegal immigrants into the United States has risen to the level of an invasion swamping our Republic, and political entities that provide sanctuary to illegal aliens in contravention of federal immigration laws should not expect to do so while receiving federal aid.

The World Bank Accountability Act (H.R. 3326) would authorize $3.29 billion in U.S. contributions to the World Bank’s International Development Association, which discharges concessional loans known as “credits” and economic grants to the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped countries.

The House passed H.R. 3326 on January 17, 2018 by a vote of 237 to 184 (Roll Call 24). We have assigned pluses to the nays because authorizing such funds to the WTO’s IDA is foreign aid, which is a form of international welfare and completely unconstitutional, and most World Bank “aid” further enriches plutocrats in Third World countries, at the expense of the poor.

During consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 3354), Representative Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for making contributions to various United Nations human rights agencies, including the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. 

The House rejected Yoho’s amendment on September 7, 2017 by a vote of 199 to 212 (Roll Call 470). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because taxpayer money should not go to fund any agencies of the United Nations, especially those led by communist, Marxist, or radical Islamic regimes, which are some of the world’s biggest offenders of human rights.

This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.”

The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

During consideration of the Iranian and Russian sanctions bill (S. 722), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced an amendment to “affirm that the United States remains fully committed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and will honor its obligations enshrined in Article 5.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.”

The Senate adopted Graham’s amendment on June 15, 2017 by a unanimous vote of 100 to 0 (Roll Call 146). That not a single senator voted nay is appalling, since that is the constitutionally sound position. The reason: Not only should the United States stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

This resolution of ratification (Treaty Document 114-12) would allow the Balkan country of Montenegro to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The NATO military alliance was created in 1949 for the stated purpose of countering the threat posed by the Soviet bloc. Under the North Atlantic Treaty establishing NATO, member nations "agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all." At first there were 12 countries in the alliance, but the number of member nations has more than doubled over the years to 28 - 29 with Montenegro's entry into NATO.

The Senate approved the treaty of ratification for admitting Montenegro into NATO by the very lopsided vote of 97 to 2 on March 28, 2017 (Roll Call 98; a two-thirds majority of those present and voting in the Senate is required to ratify a treaty). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Montenegro, which was part of communist Yugoslavia during the Cold War era, is now one of 28 countries the United States is obligated to defend under NATO.

This amendment to H.R. 1950 (Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005) by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stated that "none of the funds authorized ... by this Act may be obligated or expended to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations."

The House rejected this amendment to H.R. 1950 on July 15, 2003 by a vote of 74 to 350 (Roll Call 364). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because blocking the funding for the United Nations in this bill would be a first step toward getting our nation out of the UN and fully restoring our national sovereignty.

This treaty, known as the "Moscow Treaty," would require both the United States and Russia to reduce their respective nuclear stockpiles to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012. This treaty is a continuation of the decades-old U.S. program for "general and complete disarmament" originally proposed in the 1961 State Department document Freedom From War. Under that plan, the goal is to disarm all countries, including the U.S., to "a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force."

The Senate ratified the Moscow Treaty on March 6, 2003 by a vote of 95 to 0 (Roll Call 43). We have assigned minuses to the yeas because the Moscow Treaty is just one more step in a UN disarmament process that would culminate in the complete loss of our national sovereignty.

This joint resolution (House Joint Resolution 114) authorizes the president "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." However, since the Constitution gives Congress the sole responsibility for declaring war, this resolution represents congressional abdication of its responsibility.

Furthermore, the main thrust of the joint resolution is that the president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to "strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." That is, the purpose of the resolution is to enforce UN Security Council dictates.

The Senate passed the resolution on October 11, 2002 by a vote of 77 to 23 (Roll Call 237). Because the Senate adopted the identical measure the House had passed the previous day, the Senate vote completed congressional action. We have assigned pluses to the nays.

This joint resolution (House Joint Resolution 114) authorizes the president "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to -- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." However, since the Constitution gives Congress the sole responsibility for declaring war, this resolution represents congressional abdication of its responsibility.

Furthermore, the main thrust of the joint resolution is that the president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to "strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." That is, the purpose of the resolution is to enforce UN Security Council dictates. The House passed H. J. Res. 114 on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296 to 133 (Roll Call 455). We have assigned pluses to the nays.

This vote is on ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which would ban the testing of nuclear weapons by the United States. "The CTBT is a dangerous treaty which, if ratified, would do enormous harm to our national security," explained Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC). "It will not and cannot accomplish its highly exaggerated goal of halting the spread of nuclear weapons, because the CIA has repeatedly made clear that the CTBT cannot be verified. Moreover, at the same time, it would undermine America's security by undermining confidence in the safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal."

The Senate rejected the treaty on October 13, 1999 by a vote of 48-51 (Roll Call 325). We have assigned pluses to the nays.