Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States remains committed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 30, 2009
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is to be commended for its role in preserving trans-atlantic peace; (2) the NATO allies at the April 2009 Summit meeting should articulate an Alliance vision for the 21st century; (3) NATO must act upon the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism by intensifying consultations among political and military leaders and deploying comprehensive counter-threat capabilities; and (4) the Alliance should pace the process of NATO enlargement while deepening cooperation within the Alliance to forge links with associate and observer nations.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Res.152 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Res.152 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Res.152 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Res.152 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.