A new authorization for use of military force against the Islamic State: comparison of current proposals in brief.
Contents The IS Crisis and the U.S. Response Presidential Authority to Use Military Force Against the Islamic State 2001 Post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Presidential Authority Under Article II of the Constitution Calls for a New AUMF Targeting the Islamic State Current IS AUMF Proposals Scope of Force and Military Activities Authorized Targeted Entities Purpose of Authorization Conditions on Use of Military Force Limitations on Use of Military Force Repeal of Previous AUMFs Reporting and Certification Requirements War Powers Resolution and Expedited Consideration Provisions Tables Table 1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State Table 2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State Contacts Author Contact Information
The IS Crisis and the U.S. Response
The armed offensive of the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL or ISIS) in northern and western Iraq and northeastern Syria has raised significant concerns for the United States. After first ordering multiple deployments of U.S. troops to Iraq to provide security to diplomatic personnel and facilities, advise Iraqi security forces, and conduct intelligence gathering and reconnaissance, President Obama began ordering U.S. military airstrikes on IS forces in Iraq in August 2014. Later in September, after laying out plans for expanded use of military force against the Islamic State in a televised speech to the American people, the President ordered U.S. military airstrikes in Syria against both IS forces and forces of the "Khorasan Group," identified by the President as part of Al Qaeda.
Presidential Authority to Use Military Force Against the Islamic State (1)
The President in his August 2014 notifications to Congress of deployments and airstrikes in Iraq indicated his powers as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive under Article II of the Constitution gave him authority to undertake such action. Obama Administration officials and the President's September 2014 notifications (2) to Congress for airstrikes and other actions in Iraq and Syria, however, stated that two enacted authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs), the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 AUMF; P.L. 107-40), and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (2002 AUMF; P.L. 107-243), provide authorization for certain U.S. military strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as well as the Khorasan Group of Al Qaeda in Syria. Most recently, the President on November 5, 2014, indicated that he intends to enter into discussions with congressional leaders to develop a new AUMF specifically targeting the Islamic State, in order to "right-size and update whatever authorization Congress provides to suit the current fight, rather than previous fights" authorized by the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs. (3)
2001 Post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force
In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress enacted the AUMF authorizing the President to use military force against "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons...." Although the Islamic State does not appear to fall within that language, it is possible that the executive branch regards it as one of the "associated forces" fighting alongside Al Qaeda and the Taliban that it asserts are also targetable under the 2001 AUMF. (4) The Obama Administration had stated previous to the latest action against the Islamic State and the Khorasan Group that it will use force against such associated forces under the 2001 AUMF only when they are lawful military targets that "pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons...." Due to Al Qaeda's February 2014 disavowal of any remaining ties with the Islamic State, some question whether the Islamic State can be considered an associated force under the 2001 AUMF. The Obama Administration has stated that the Islamic State can be targeted under the 2001 AUMF because its predecessor organization, Al Qaeda in Iraq, communicated and coordinated with Al Qaeda; the Islamic State currently has ties with Al Qaeda fighter and operatives; the Islamic State employs tactics similar to Al Qaeda; and the Islamic State, with its intentions of creating a new Islamic caliphate, is the "true inheritor of Osama bin Laden's legacy." (5)
2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Congress enacted the 2002 AUMF prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq that toppled the government of Saddam Hussein, with U.S. military deployments to and operations in Iraq continuing until December 2011. The 2002 AUMF authorizes the President to use U.S. Armed Forces to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...." Although the 2002 AUMF has no sunset provision and Congress has not repealed it, one view is that after the establishment of a new Iraqi government, the restoration of full Iraqi sovereignty, and the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, the 2002 AUMF no longer has force. Obama Administration officials have recently voiced support for repealing the 2002 AUMF, reflecting the Administration's belief that it is no longer needed. Conversely, another view asserts that, although its preamble focuses on the Saddam Hussein regime and its WMD programs, the 2002 AUMF's authorization language is broad, referring only to a "continuing threat" from Iraq, and that the 2002 AUMF could provide authority to defend against threats to Iraq as well as threats posed by Iraq. Indeed, 2002 AUMF authority was the basis for the U.S. military presence in Iraq from the fall of Saddam Hussein and completion of the WMD search to its 2011 withdrawal, a span of over eight years, a period that could be characterized as dealing with threats to Iraq rather than threats from Iraq. The IS threat in Iraq could therefore be seen as breathing new life into 2002 AUMF authority. In addition, former supporters of Saddam Hussein reportedly provide support to the Islamic State, possibly forming a link between the original aims of the 2002 AUMF and any future actions taken against the Islamic State.
Presidential Authority Under Article II of the Constitution
Article II of the Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, and gives the President certain foreign affairs powers. It is debated to what extent Article II authorizes the President to unilaterally use military force, especially given Congress's Article I war powers, including the power to declare war. The President's authority to use force to defend the United States, its personnel, and citizens against ongoing or imminent attack has been generally accepted, while employing such force simply to further foreign policy or general national security goals is more controversial. In Iraq, the President would seem to have substantial authority to use force to defend U.S. personnel, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and any other U.S. facilities and property. His August 2014 notifications of airstrikes in Iraq, however, have also cited as justification furthering U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, and have described uses of force to provide humanitarian assistance, and to aid Iraqi security forces in their fight against the Islamic State. In addition, the President's stated strategy for degrading and destroying the Islamic State, as well as his September 2014 notifications to Congress of airstrikes and other actions in Iraq and Syria, are not based primarily on immediate protection of the United States, its personnel, or citizens. Thus, it can be argued that Article II alone might not provide sufficient authorization for the use of military force against IS and Khorasan Group forces in Iraq and Syria.
Calls for a New AUMF Targeting the Islamic State
Although the Obama Administration has claimed 2001 AUMF and 2002 AUMF authority for its recent and future actions against the Islamic State, it might be argued that these authorizations do not apply, and that these actions also fall outside the President's Article II powers. Concerned with Congress's constitutional role in the exercise of the war power, perceived presidential overreach in that area of constitutional powers, and the President's expansion of the use of military force in Iraq and Syria, several Members of Congress have expressed the view that continued use of military force against the Islamic State requires congressional authorization. Members differ on whether such authorization is needed, given existing authorities, or whether such a measure should be enacted. As mentioned above, President Obama has stated that he would seek to come to agreement with congressional leaders on a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State, bolstering calls from Congress for such new authorization.
Language in a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State and other groups (IS AUMF) could either broaden the purpose of military force to include unspecified U.S. national security interests, or narrow the scope of authorization to specific objectives related to the Administration's stated goal of "degrading and ultimately destroying" the Islamic State. Congress could limit the IS AUMF's geographic scope, authorizing force only in Iraq and/or Syria. With continued uncertainty surrounding the Iraqi government, Congress might include authorization to use U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq in furtherance of political stability objectives. Provisions in any IS AUMF targeting the Islamic State might address the possible effect that targeting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq could have on the ongoing conflict in Syria. Congress might also include a prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for the use of military force outside the scope of the specified authorization.
Current IS AUMF Proposals (6)
In September 2014, a number of Members proposed several new authorizations to use military force against the Islamic State:
Table 1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State Bill or Title Resolution H.R. 5415 Authorization for Use of Military Force against International Terrorism Act H.J.Res. 123 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) S.J.Res. 42 Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant S.J.Res. 43 Authorization for Use of Force Against the Organization Called the Islamic State S.J.Res. 44 Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant H.J.Res. 125 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIL Resolution H.J.Res. 128 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIL Resolution Bill or Sponsor Date Introduced Resolution H.R. 5415 Representative Frank Wolf September 8, 2014 H.J.Res. 123 Representative Darrell Issa September 8, 2014 S.J.Res. 42 Senator Bill Nelson September 8, 2014 S.J.Res. 43 Senator James Inhofe September 8, 2014 S.J.Res. 44 Senator Tim Kaine September 8, 2014 H.J.Res. 125 Representative Adam Schiff September 16, 2014 H.J.Res. 128 Representative John Larson September 19, 2014 Note: As of the date of this report, each proposal has been referred to either the House Foreign Affairs Committee or Senate Foreign Relations Committee, except H.J.Res. 128, which is before both the House Foreign Affairs and House Rules Committees.
None of these proposals have received any formal action from their assigned committees. Each of these proposals, therefore, could be subjected to amendment in committee or on the floor. In addition, each of these proposals or similar provisions to authorize use of military force might be included as amendments to other pending bills, including the Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (H.R. 4435), which is currently pending in the Senate.
The President's recent statement that he would enter into discussions with congressional leaders on enacting a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State might affect future congressional action on any of these proposals. Although one of the current IS AUMF proposals might be adopted as the vehicle for any congressional-executive agreement on authorization, it is not clear what authorization language might be proposed by the executive branch in its discussions with congressional leaders, possibly requiring significant changes to existing proposals or the introduction of a new IS AUMF. In addition, a number of the current proposals contain provisions to limit presidential authority to use military force against the Islamic State as to scope and duration, and in some cases to sunset or repeal the existing authority in the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs. The Administration might seek to roll back such restrictions to ensure the maximum authority for the President to carry out the military campaign against the Islamic State "not just ... over the next two or three months, but our strategy going forward." (7) Although the President indicated that discussions with congressional leaders on this issue would begin in November 2014, he stated that the process involved with a new IS AUMF may carry over into the 114th Congress. (8)
Scope of Force and Military Activities Authorized
All but one of the currently proposed IS AUMFs are substantially similar in their description of the scope of authorized force, stating that the President is authorized to use "necessary and appropriate force." Two of the proposals grant the President the authority to determine what type and degree of force is necessary and appropriate, while four others state that "necessary and appropriate force" is authorized, without stating who is authorized to make such a determination. H.J.Res. 125 does not limit the scope of the use of force in this way, however, stating that the President is authorized to "use the Armed Forces of the United States," without requiring such use of force to be "necessary and appropriate" as determined by the President or otherwise. While it might be expected that the President, as Commander in Chief, will make the "necessary and appropriate" determination in all cases regardless, explicitly granting the President that role in the authorization might preclude congressional challenges to presidential decision making after an authorization is enacted.
S.J.Res. 44 also specifies the scope of military activities authorized and the objective of those activities. Under this proposed IS AUMF, the President is authorized "to participate in a campaign of airstrikes ... to degrade and defeat ISIL...." Coupled with a general prohibition against the President's use of ground troops against the Islamic State, this provision might be effective in preventing expansion of the military activities that the President might utilize against IS forces.
Each of the proposed IS AUMFs identifies the Islamic State (using that moniker or one of the ISIS/ISIL aliases) as the target of authorized U.S. military force. S.J.Res. 43 specifies "ISIL" but also "any successor organization" to the Islamic State. S.J.Res. 44 extends the authorization to IS-associated forces, subject to the President's identification of such groups to Congress through a certification process set out in the resolution. While these provisions seem straightforwardly effective in ensuring they authorize force against the Islamic State, they might be considered less than sufficient in their coverage of the overall situation in Iraq and Syria. In late September, President Obama notified Congress of strikes against IS forces in Syria, but also made a separate notification of airstrikes in that country against the "Khorasan Group," identified by the President as part of Al Qaeda. If Congress intends to enact an AUMF to direct the President to conduct military activities in Iraq and Syria, it might craft authorization language that can encompass nonIS associated groups, of which the Khorasan group might be an example. On the other hand, Congress might choose to deliberately exclude such groups from a new authorization. H.R. 5415 includes the Islamic State as a target, but also covers a number of other named terrorist groups and expansive categories of terrorist threats. The lawful targets of the bill include
those countries, organizations, or persons associated with or supporting terrorist groups, including al Qaeda and its regional affiliates, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, al Shabaab, Boko Haram, and any other emerging regional terrorist groups that share a common violent extremist ideology with such terrorist groups, regional affiliates, or emerging terrorist groups....
This broad language would significantly expand the authorized use of military force not only with regard to the current crisis with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but also in terms of U.S. counterterrorism activities worldwide. The authorization seems to include every state, other entity, or person that is part of or supporting a terrorist group, authorizing use of U.S. Armed Forces against each. In this regard, H.R. 5415 would seem to essentially serve as an expansive replacement for the authorities in the 2001 AUMF, delinking U.S. military action from the September 11, 2001, attacks that serve as some limitation on the use of military force in that earlier authorization.
Purpose of Authorization
Most of the proposed IS AUMFs state that their purpose, at least in part, is to "defend the national security of the United States" against the Islamic State. Some of these proposals include additional elements, however, that expand the purpose past U.S. national security. S.J.Res. 44, for example, states that the authorization is also intended to protect the United States and "other countries" from terrorist attacks. Should the Islamic State expand its operations or shift its tactics toward an expansive transnational terrorist agenda, such authorization could prove to be far reaching. S.J.Res. 44 also authorizes the use of force to "protect individuals from acts of violence in clear contravention of international law and basic human rights...." Read as an additional purpose to authorize the use of military force against IS forces, this language might be read to allow the President to use U.S. Armed Forces to fight the Islamic State even in cases where the United States is not facing a threat to its security. If the additional language were interpreted to be a second purpose, the authorization could be read to include military action against actors other than the Islamic State in order to stop human rights violations, greatly increasing the scope of the authorization.
Another proposal, S.J.Res. 42, does not include the "defend the national security" language, instead stating the authorization's purpose is "to prevent terrorist attacks on the people and interests of the United States and our allies." While the focus on the prevention of terrorist attacks is arguably more limited than a general protection of undefined national security interests, the inclusion of protecting of U.S. "interests" and allies generally from such attacks could be seen as broadening the authorization beyond the "U.S. national security" language of other proposals. Limiting the purpose to preventing terrorist attacks also might narrow the authorization insofar as it would not necessarily include a broader purpose to "defeat" the Islamic State completely or stop the Islamic State's ability to operate in a non-ally state such as Syria. H.R. 5415 has similar purpose language to that of S.J.Res. 42, but also states it is also the authorization's purpose "to eliminate" a wide range of terrorist groups (explained in the "Targeted Entities" section, above). This purpose language, therefore, might not require a known threat to the United States or its allies prior to the President using military force against a terrorist group. Criteria for assessing the "defeat" or "elimination" of targeted entities are not included.
Conditions on Use of Military Force
Three of the proposals include authorization language that states the President has authority to use military force when the United States is part of an effort by the broader international community, or part thereof, to meet the threat posed by the Islamic State. H.R. 5415 states that the President may use military force "with the close consultation, coordination, and cooperation with NATO and regional allies...." S.J.Res. 44 authorizes the President to use military force "as part of a multinational coalition...." H.J.Res. 128 includes two authorizing provisions, one of which seems to be intended to operate when the U.N. Security Council has passed a resolution authorizing its membership to use force against the Islamic State. Although each of these proposals seems to indicate an intent to ensure the United States does not use military force without international support, it is difficult to say whether the language might strictly require such multilateral action, or to what extent cooperation and coordinated action with other nations might be required.
Limitations on Use of Military Force
The proposed IS AUMFs contain a number of provisions intended to limit the authority to use military force. Some of the proposals include language excluding the deployment of U.S. ground troops from the President's authority, except for certain types of military units or to carry out certain activities. These proposals include language excluding authority for "deployment of ground forces in a combat role," "Armed Forces in direct combat operations," "rotational ground forces," or "United States ground combat forces." Each of these descriptions might be interpreted to affect the President's authority differently. Excluding deployment of ground forces "in a combat role" might be more restrictive than excluding forces that engage in "direct combat operations," as there might be combat roles for U.S. Armed Forces that do not fall within the interpretation of the term "direct." A number of types of ground combat forces might also fall outside the definition of "rotational" ground forces. These differences in language might result in authorizations with limitations on presidential authority of varied effectiveness. In addition, two of the proposed IS AUMFs provide exceptions to the limitation on ground troops. H.J.Res. 125 would allow deployment of ground troops that are "special operations forces" or forces "deployed in a training, advisory, or intelligence capacity." While these exceptions might still exclude most U.S. Armed Forces units from deployment under the proposed AUMF, the overall number of troops that could be deployed under the exceptions could be sizeable, and their roles could place them in harm's way in many cases. S.J.Res. 44 also includes exceptions to the ban on ground troops, allowing deployments for military assistance and training, protection or rescue of U.S. Armed Forces or citizens, and "limited operations against high value targets."
H.J.Res. 125 and S.J.Res. 44 also include geographic limitations to their respective overall authority to use military force. Both limit that authority to Iraq and Syria. (9) In light of the Islamic State's expansive ambitions and operations close to the borders of Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and potentially other countries, such language could prove more restrictive in an evolving conflict than might be initially assumed. In the context of implementation of recent AUMFs, especially the 2001 AUMF, such limitations seem to be important, as successive Presidents have interpreted the 2001 AUMF to allow for use of military force in multiple countries that might not have been contemplated when Congress enacted the original authorization. S.J.Res. 44 also limits any use of force against IS associated forces, stating that there is no authority to use force against those forces unless the President identifies such forces in periodic reports to Congress. Again, this seems to be a response to the executive branch's implementation of the 2001 AUMF; both President Bush and Obama have independently interpreted that authority to extend to associated forces that are "co-belligerents" with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, including forces in multiple countries outside the original target of U.S. military action, Afghanistan.
Five of the proposed IS AUMFs include a provision that automatically terminates their respective authorizations after a certain period of time, with sunset provisions of 120 days, one year, 18 months, two years, and three years.
S.J.Res. 44 also includes an interpretive provision, stating that its authorization should not be construed as "authorizing support for force in support of, or in cooperation with, the national government of Syria ... or its security services.... "
Repeal of Previous AUMFs
Four of the proposals would repeal the 2002 AUMF authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Two of these four, H.J.Res. 125 and H.J.Res. 128, would also repeal the 2001 AUMF with a delay, with repeal taking effect 18 months and two years after enactment, respectively. The Obama Administration had recently adopted the position both that the 2002 AUMF could be repealed without detriment to U.S. Armed Forces or U.S. interests, and that the 2001 AUMF could be amended or repealed once the planned U.S. Armed Forces withdrawal from Afghanistan was completed and a bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan is finalized. (10) These repeal provisions seem to generally correspond with these recent Administration positions. Recent statements by the Obama Administration and the President's September 23, 2014, notification to Congress of strikes against IS forces, however, indicate that the President considers the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs as authority to conduct a military campaign against the Islamic State as well as other Al Qaeda-related groups. Given this presidential application of existing AUMFs, the repeal provisions might take on the role of repudiating the President's positions on his existing authority to use military force against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Repeal of these AUMFs could be seen as an indication that Congress disagrees with the President's interpretation of his existing authorities to use force and that it intends to replace his existing authority with a possibly narrower authority in an IS AUMF.
Reporting and Certification Requirements
Five of the proposed IS AUMFs require presidential reporting to Congress to include various information, including
* the Administration's strategy for military action against the Islamic State and in Iraq and Syria generally, and implementation of or changes to the strategy;
* the status of military actions taken under a given authorization;
* descriptions of plans for further military action, as well as redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces after military action is completed;
* expenditures made pursuant to the authorization, or the budgetary effects of military action taken; and
* the status and actions of any multinational coalition cooperating with the United States to engage the Islamic State and other groups militarily.
S.J.Res. 44 requires the President to report to Congress every 90 days on his identification of IS associated forces in order to gain the authority to use military force against such associated forces. In order for the President to have authority to use military force without a relevant U.N. Security Council resolution, H.J.Res. 128 requires the President to certify that the United States sought approval of such a resolution, that the Security Council is unlikely to approve such a resolution, and that the President has instead sought to build a broad coalition of nations to counter the IS threat.
War Powers Resolution and Expedited Consideration Provisions
Each of the proposals states that its respective provision authorizing the use of military force is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (WPR; PL. 93-148; 50 U.S.C. [section][section]1541-1548). Section 5(b) of the WPR states that the President shall withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from active or imminent hostilities within 60 days after a presidential notification of the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces into such hostilities is made or is required to be made under Section 4(a)(1) of the WPR, unless Congress has enacted a declaration of war or authorization to use military force, among other exceptions. The statement that these proposals are intended to act as authorization under the WPR might indicate Congress's desire to approve the President's current military actions, within the scope and limitations explained above. Although the President ordered the first airstrikes against IS forces in early August, there does not seem to be clear consensus among experts or Members of Congress on when the 60-day period began running, and whether it is running currently. The President's reliance on the existing AUMFs to conduct military operations against the Islamic State and other groups in Iraq and Syria, if accepted by Congress, would have stopped any running of the 60-day clock, whether or not a new IS AUMF is enacted, as there would be existing congressional authorization for his actions.
Section 6 of the WPR provides for expedited consideration of legislative proposals introduced in accordance with Section 5(b); it is not apparent that any of the current IS AUMF proposals are currently being subjected to these expedited procedures. Although the WPR sets out these procedures in legislation, such procedural provisions do not take precedence over the rulemaking and procedural prerogatives of either house of Congress, and each house maintains the authority to enforce its own rules at its discretion. (11) H.J.Res. 128 sets out its own procedures for expedited consideration of a further resolution authorizing military force against the Islamic State, if such resolution meets H.J.Res. 128's definition of a "qualified resolution." The process is described in Table 2 below, in the "Expedited Consideration" section.
(1) For more information and analysis of the IS crisis, the U.S. response, presidential authority to use military force, and the operation of the War Powers Resolution in this situation, see CRS Report RL33487, Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response, coordinated by Christopher M. Blanchard; CRS Insight IN10147, Considerations for Possible Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State, by Matthew C. Weed; and CRS Report R43720, U.S. Military Action Against the Islamic State: Answers to Frequently Asked Legal Questions, by Michael John Garcia and Jennifer K. Elsea.
Another proposal, H.J.Res. 127, introduced September 8, 2014, would recognize a state of war exists between the United States and the Islamic State, and authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State and associated forces.
(2) Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/letter-president-war-powers-resolutionregarding-iraq; http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/letter-president-war-powers-resolutionregarding-syria.
(3) President Barack Obama, remarks at a press conference, November 5, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2014/11/05/remarks-president-press-conference.
(4) Testimony of Stephen W. Preston, General Counsel, Department of Defense, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, hearing on the Authorization for Use of Military Force, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., May 21, 2014, http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Preston_Testimony.pdf.
(5) White House, "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest," press release, September 11,2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/11/press-briefmg-press-secretary-josh-earnest-9112014.
(6) This section does not include proposals introduced earlier in the 113th Congress that would, for example, repeal existing AUMFs or express a sense-of-Congress about military action in Iraq and/or Syria.
(7) President Barack Obama, remarks at a press conference, November 5, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2014/11/05/remarks-president-press-conference.
(9) H.J.Res. 125 states that the limitation does not apply to foreign military training, although this type of activity would not be expected to raise questions concerning the authority to use military force.
(10) See testimony of Mary McLeod and Stephen Preston, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, hearing on Authorization for Use of Military Force, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., May 21, 2014.
(11) For more information, see CRS Report 98-888, "Fast-Track" or Expedited Procedures: Their Purposes, Elements, and Implications, by Christopher M. Davis; CRS Report RS20234, Expedited or "Fast-Track" Legislative Procedures, by Christopher M. Davis; CRS Report RL30599, Expedited Procedures in the House: Variations Enacted Into Law, by Christopher M. Davis.
Author Contact Information
Matthew C. Weed
Analyst in Foreign Policy Legislation
Table 2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State Comparison of Similar Provisions (as of October 20, 2014) Provision H.R. 5415 H.J.Res. 123 H.J.Res. 125 Scope of "The President "The President "The President authorized is is authorized is authorized force authorized ... to use the to use the To use all Armed Forces of Armed Forces of necessary and the United the United appropriate States as the States" force" President determines to be necessary and appropriate" International "with the close none specified none specified conditions consultation, for use of coordination, force and cooperation with NATO and regional allies" Types of none specified none specified none specified military action authorized Target of use "those "Islamic State "Islamic State of military countries, of Iraq and the of Iraq and the force organizations, Levant (ISIL)" Levant (ISIL)" or persons associated with or supporting terrorist groups, including al Qaeda and its regional affiliates, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, al Shabaab, Boko Haram, and any other emerging regional terrorist groups that share a common violent extremist ideology with such terrorist groups, regional affiliates, or emerging terrorist groups" Purpose "to eliminate "to defend the none specified all such national terrorist security of the groups and United States prevent any against the future acts of continuing international threat posed terrorism by the Islamic against the State of Iraq United States and the Levant or its allies (ISIL)" by such terrorist groups, countries, organization, or persons" Geographic none specified none specified "authority ... limitation shall be confined to the territory of the Republic of Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic" Limitation does not apply to foreign military training activities Military unit none specified none specified "does not limitation include the authority for the deployment of ground forces in a combat role" Limitation does not apply to "special operations forces or other forces that may be deployed in a training, advisory, or intelligence capacity" Targeting none specified none specified none specified associated forces limitation Government of none none none Syria limitation Sunset none 120 days after 18 months after date of date of enactment enactment AUMF Repeal none Resolution Resolution would repeal would repeal 2002 AUMF 2002 AUMF immediately, and repeal the 2001 AUMF 18 months after date of enactment Reporting/ none Not later than "The President Certification 60 days after shall, at least enactment, once every President is 60 days" after required to enactment, report on report on "status of all relevant actions taken"; matters "description of including all proposed actions taken actions"; and planned "status of actions under engagement of the allies of the authorization United States and international coalitions in combating" ISIL; and "estimated budgetary effects of actions proposed" Consultation none specified none specified none specified War Powers Bill states Resolution Resolution Resolution authorization states states section is authorization authorization "intended to section is section is constitute "intended to "intended to specific constitute constitute statutory specific specific authorization statutory statutory within the authorization authorization meaning of within the within the section 5(b) meaning of meaning of of the War section 5(b) section 5(b) Powers of the War of the War Resolution" Powers Powers Resolution" Resolution" Expedited none none none Consideration H.J.Res. 128 (a) H.J.Res. 128 (a) without U.N. with U.N. Security Security Council Provision Council Resolution Resolution Scope of "The President is Same, except subject authorized authorized to use to conditions (see force the United States Reporting/ Armed Forces as the Certification row, President determines below) and enactment to be necessary and of a second joint appropriate" resolution under expedited procedures International U.N. Security No U.N. Security conditions Council resolution Council resolution for use of authorizing use of authorizing use of force force against ISIL force against ISIL Types of none specified military action authorized Target of use "Islamic State of "Islamic State of of military Iraq and the Levant Iraq and the Levant force ('ISIL')" ('ISIL')" Purpose "to ... defend the "to defend the national security of national security of the United States the United States against the Islamic against the Islamic State of Iraq and State of Iraq and the Levant ('ISIL'); the Levant ('ISIL')" and enforce a United Nations Security Council resolution" that authorizes a multilateral coalition to take several types of action against ISIL Geographic none specified limitation Military unit none specified use of U.S. Armed limitation Forces authorized "other than the use of such Armed Forces in direct ground combat operations" Targeting none specified associated forces limitation Government of none Syria limitation Sunset 2 years AUMF Repeal Resolution would repeal 2002 AUMF immediately, and repeal the 2001 AUMF 18 months after date of enactment Reporting/ none specified President must Certification certify that the United States has sought, but the United Nations Security Council has not approved, a resolution authorizing the use of force, and is unlikely to; and that the President has sought to build a broad international coalition to counter ISIL President must present a strategy for use of military force against ISIL In both cases, every 60 days the President must report on uses of lethal force and their circumstances, civilian casualties resulting from such use of force, estimate of expenditures resulting from the use of force, and planning for redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces after military action against ISIL is completed Consultation "The President shall consult on a regular basis with the congressional committees of jurisdiction to provide updated information on actions being taken pursuant to this joint resolution in either public or closed sessions" War Powers (in both cases) Resolution states that Resolution authorization sections are "intended to constitute specific authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution" Expedited none Provides expedited Consideration consideration for a second resolution, if such resolution is introduced by the majority or minority leader in the House or Senate within the next legislative day after a required Presidential certification is submitted In both houses, second resolution is to be placed on the calendar, considered within one legislative day, debated for a maximum of 20 hours, and voted upon immediately following debate; passage of resolution in one chamber requires immediate action by the second chamber on the resolution received Provision S.J.Res. 42 S.J.Res. 43 Scope of "The President is "the President is authorized authorized to use authorized to use force appropriate force" all necessary and International none specified none specified conditions for use of force Types of none specified none specified military action authorized Target of use "Islamic State of "Islamic State of military Iraq and the Levant (or "IS"), formally force (ISIL)" known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as well as any successor organization" Purpose "to prevent terrorist "to defend the attacks on the people national security of and interests of the the United States United States and our against the threat allies" posed by the organization called the Islamic State (or 'IS'), formally known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as well as any successor organization" Geographic none specified none specified limitation Military unit "does not include none specified limitation authorization for the use of rotational ground forces" Targeting none specified none specified associated forces limitation Government of none none Syria limitation Sunset 3 years after date none of enactment AUMF Repeal none none Reporting/ none Not later than 15 Certification days after enactment, President is required to submit comprehensive strategy to defeat the Islamic State; not later than 90 days after the first report is required, President must report on implementation of the strategy; any substantive change to strategy requires an immediate additional report Consultation none specified none specified War Powers Resolution states Resolution states Resolution authorization authorization section is "intended section is "intended to constitute to constitute specific statutory specific statutory authorization within authorization within the meaning of the meaning of section 5(b) of the section 5(b) of the War Powers War Powers Resolution" Resolution" Expedited none none Consideration Provision S.J.Res. 44 Scope of "the President is authorized authorized ... To force use all necessary and appropriate force" International "as part of a conditions multinational for use of coalition" force Types of "to participate in a military campaign of action airstrikes in Iraq, authorized and if the President deems necessary, in Syria, to degrade and defeat ISIL" The resolution would also authorize the President to "provide military equipment and training to forces fighting ISIL in Iraq or Syria" Target of use "Islamic State in of military Iraq and the Levant force (ISIL)", as well as ISIL-associated forces, subject to requirements in Section 4 (see below) Purpose "to protect the United States and other countries from terrorist attacks by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and in order to protect individuals from acts of violence in clear contravention of international law and basic human rights" Geographic Authorization limitation applies to Iraq and Syria Military unit "does not include ... limitation use of United States ground combat forces, except for [military assistance and training] or as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens..., or for limited operations against high value targets" Targeting "does not include ... associated authorization for the forces use of force against limitation forces associated with ISIL, unless such forces are identified in a report submitted under section 4" of the resolution. Government of "Nothing in this Syria resolution shall be limitation construed as ... authorizing support for force in support of, or in cooperation with, the national government of Syria ... or its security services" Sunset 1 year from date of enactment AUMF Repeal Resolution would repeal 2002 AUMF Reporting/ Section 4 requires Certification the President to identify ISIL- associated forces targetable under the resolution in a report every 90 days Consultation none specified War Powers Resolution states Resolution authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution" Expedited none Consideration Source: Congress.gov. (a.) H.J.Res. 128 contains two separate authorization provisions. Section 3 of the resolution operates when the U.N. Security Council has adopted a resolution authorizing the use of military force against the Islamic State; Section 4 operates when no such resolution has been adopted. Section 4 does not in fact authorize the use of military force, but instead creates a process of presidential reporting and certification and expedited consideration procedures for a separate resolution to be introduced after such reporting and certification has been made to Congress. The table therefore sets out the operative provisions and language in H.J.Res. 128 in two columns to separate the operative language of the two authorization sections. For provisions that apply no matter which authorization section is operative, or where the resolution does not contain the type of provision being explained, the two columns are combined.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Weed, Matthew C.|
|Publication:||Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports and Issue Briefs|
|Date:||Nov 1, 2014|
|Previous Article:||Congressional action on FY2015 appropriations measures.|
|Next Article:||The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and issues for Congress.|