War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance







Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



Two separate but closely related issues confront Congress each time the President introduces
armed forces into a situation abroad that conceivably could lead to their involvement in
hostilities. One issue concerns the division of war powers between the President and Congress,
whether the use of armed forces falls within the purview of the congressional power to declare
war and the War Powers Resolution (WPR). The other issue is whether or not Congress concurs
in the wisdom of the action. This report does not deal with the substantive merits of using armed
forces in specific cases, but rather with congressional authorization for military action, and the
application and effectiveness of the WPR. The purpose of the WPR (P.L. 93-148, passed over
President Nixon’s veto on November 7, 1973) is to ensure that Congress and the President share
in making decisions that may get the United States involved in hostilities. Compliance becomes
an issue whenever the President introduces U.S. forces abroad in situations that might be
construed as hostilities or imminent hostilities. Criteria for compliance include prior consultation
with Congress, fulfillment of the reporting requirements, and congressional authorization. If the
President has not complied fully, the issue becomes what action Congress should take to bring
about compliance or to influence U.S. policy. A related issue has been congressional authorization
of U.N. peacekeeping or other U.N.-sponsored actions.
For over three decades, war powers and the War Powers Resolution have been an issue in U.S.
military actions in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Central America, and Europe. Presidents have
submitted 123 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one
(the Mayaguez situation) cited Section 4(a)(1) or specifically stated that forces had been
introduced into hostilities or imminent hostilities. Congress invoked the WPR in the
Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119), which authorized the Marines to
remain in Lebanon for 18 months. In addition, P.L. 102-1, enacted in January 1991, authorizing
the use of U.S. armed forces in response to Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, stated that it
constituted specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the WPR. On November 9,
1993, the House used a section of the WPR to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from
Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation.
War powers have been at issue in former Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Kosovo, Iraq, and Haiti. Authorizing
military actions in response to the terrorist attacks against the United States of September 11,
2001, through P.L. 107-40 directly involved war powers. The continued use of force to obtain
Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions remained a war powers issue from the end of the Gulf war
on February 28, 1991, until the enactment of P.L. 107-243, in October 2002, which explicitly
authorized the President to use force against Iraq, an authority he exercised in March 2003, and
continues to exercise for military operations in Iraq.
Debate continues on whether using the War Powers Resolution is effective as a means of assuring
congressional participation in decisions that might get the United States involved in a significant
military conflict. Proposals have been made to modify or repeal the resolution. None have been
enacted to date. This report will be updated as events warrant.






Most Recent Developments.............................................................................................................1
Background and Analysis................................................................................................................1
United Nations Actions...................................................................................................................2
Former Yugoslavia/Bosnia..............................................................................................................3
K osovo......................................................................................................................... .................... 4
Iraq: Post 1991.................................................................................................................................5
Haiti ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Soma lia ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Instances Formally Reported Under the War Powers Resolution..................................................10
Consultation with Congress...........................................................................................................13
Issues for Congress........................................................................................................................14
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................16






On December 14, 2007, the President sent to Congress “consistent with the War Powers
Resolution,” a consolidated report giving details of ongoing United States military deployments
and operations “in support of the war on terror,” and in support of the NATO-led Kosovo Force
(KFOR). The President reported that various U.S. “combat-equipped and combat-support forces”
were deployed to “a number of locations in the Central, Pacific, European, and Southern
Command areas of operation” and were engaged in combat operations against al-Qaida terrorists
and their supporters. The United States is currently “pursuing and engaging remnant al-Qaida and
Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.” U.S. forces in Afghanistan currently total approximately 25,900.
Of this total, “approximately 15,180 are assigned to the International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF) in Afghanistan.” The U.S. military continues to support peacekeeping operations in
Kosovo, specifically, the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). Currently, the U.S. contribution to
KFOR in Kosovo is approximately 1,498 military personnel.

Under the Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war and raise
and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the President is Commander in Chief
(Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President
power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed
forces. During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many
years in undeclared wars. Many Members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of
congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the
use of armed forces that might lead to war. On November 7, 1973, Congress passed the War
Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) over the veto of President Nixon.
The War Powers Resolution (WPR) states that the President’s powers as Commander in Chief to
introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a
declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an
attack on the United States or its forces. It requires the President in every possible instance to
consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities or imminent
hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization.
It also requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of forces into hostilities or
imminent hostilities, Section 4(a)(1); into foreign territory while equipped for combat, Section
4(a)(2); or in numbers which substantially enlarge U.S. forces equipped for combat already in a
foreign nation, Section 4(a)(3). Once a report is submitted “or required to be submitted” under
Section 4(a)(1), Congress must authorize the use of forces within 60 to 90 days or the forces must
be withdrawn. (For detailed background, see CRS Report RL32267, The War Powers Resolution:
After Thirty-Four Years, by Richard F. Grimmett, and CRS Report RL31133, Declarations of War
and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications,
by Jennifer K. Elsea and Richard F. Grimmett.) It is important to note that since the War Powers
Resolution’s enactment, over President Nixon’s veto in 1973, every President has taken the
position that it is an unconstitutional infringement by the Congress on the President’s authority as
Commander in Chief. The courts have not directly addressed this question.






U.N. Security Council resolutions provide authority for U.S. action under international law.
Whether congressional authorization is required under domestic law depends on the types of U.N.
action and is governed by the Constitution, the U.N. Participation Act (P.L. 79-264, as amended),
as well as by the War Powers Resolution. Section 8(b) of the War Powers Resolution exempts
only participation in headquarters operations of joint military commands established prior to

1973.


For armed actions under Articles 42 and 43 of the U.N. Charter, Section 6 of the U.N.
Participation Act authorizes the President to negotiate special agreements with the Security
Council, subject to the approval of Congress, providing for the numbers and types of armed
forces and facilities to be made available to the Security Council. Once the agreements have been
concluded, further congressional authorization is not necessary, but no such agreements have
been concluded. Some Members have sought to encourage negotiation of military agreements
under Article 43 of the U.N. Charter. Questions include whether congressional approval is
required only for an initial agreement on providing peacekeeping forces in general, or for each
agreement to provide forces in specific situations, and how such approvals would relate to the
War Powers Resolution.
Section 7 of the U.N. Participation Act authorizes the detail of up to 1,000 personnel to serve in
any noncombatant capacity for certain U.N. peaceful settlement activities. The United States has
provided personnel to several U.N. peacekeeping missions, such as observers to the U.N. Truce
Supervision Organization in Palestine. In these instances, controversy over the need for
congressional authorization has not occurred because the action appeared to fall within the
authorization in Section 7 of the Participation Act. Controversy has arisen when forces have been
deployed in larger numbers or as possible combatants.
In the 103rd Congress, Members used several vehicles in seeking some control over future
peacekeeping actions wherever they might occur. Both the Defense Appropriations Act for
FY1994, P.L. 103-139 (Section 8153), and for FY1995, P.L. 103- 335 (Section 8103), stated the
sense of Congress that funds should not be used for U.N. peacekeeping or peace enforcement
operations unless the President consulted with Congress at least 15 days in advance whenever
possible. Section 1502 of the Defense Authorization for FY1994, P.L. 103-60, required the
President to submit by April 1, 1994, a report on multinational peacekeeping including the
requirement of congressional approval for participation and the applicability of the War Powers
Resolution and the U.N. Participation Act.
Along similar lines, the conference report accompanying the Department of State Appropriations
Act for FY1994, H.R. 2519 (P.L. 103-121, signed October 27, 1993), called for the Secretary of
State to notify both Appropriations Committees 15 days in advance, where practicable, of a vote
by the U.N. Security Council to establish any new or expanded peacekeeping mission. The
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, P.L. 103-236, signed April 30, 1994, established new
requirements for consultation with Congress on U.S. Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping
Operations. Section 407 required monthly consultations on the status of peacekeeping operations
and advance reports on resolutions that would authorize a new U.N. peacekeeping operation. It
also required 15 days’ advance notice of any U.S. assistance to support U.N. peacekeeping
operations and a quarterly report on all assistance that had been provided to the U.N. for
peacekeeping operations. To permit presidential flexibility, conferees explained, the quarterly





report need not include temporary duty assignments of U.S. personnel in support of peacekeeping
operations of less than 20 personnel in any one case.
The following discussion provides background on major cases of U.S. military involvement in
overseas operations in recent years that have raised War Powers questions.

The issue of war powers and whether congressional authorization is necessary for U.S.
participation in U.N. action was also raised by efforts to halt fighting in the former territory of
Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia. The United States participated without congressional
authorization in airlifts into Sarajevo, naval monitoring of sanctions, aerial enforcement of a “no-
fly zone,” and aerial enforcement of safe havens.
Because some of the U.S. action has been taken within a NATO framework, action in Bosnia has
raised the broader issue of whether action under NATO is exempt from the requirements of the
War Powers Resolution or its standard for the exercise of war powers under the Constitution.
Article 11 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that its provisions are to be carried out by the parties
“in accordance with their respective constitutional processes,” implying some role for Congress
in the event of war. Section 8(a) of the War Powers Resolution states that authority to introduce
U.S. forces into hostilities is not to be inferred from any treaty, ratified before or after 1973,
unless implementing legislation specifically authorizes such introduction and says it is intended to
constitute an authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution. Section 8(b) states
that nothing in the Resolution should be construed to require further authorization for U.S.
participation in the headquarters operations of military commands established before 1973, such
as NATO headquarters operations.
On August 13, 1992, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 770 calling on all nations to
take “all measures necessary” to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Sarajevo. On
August 11, 1992, the Senate passed S.Res. 330 urging the President to work for such a resolution
and pledging funds for participation, but saying that no U.S. military personnel should be
introduced into hostilities without clearly defined objectives. On the same day, the House passed
H.Res. 554 urging the Security Council to authorize measures, including the use of force, to
ensure humanitarian relief. Thus, both chambers of Congress supported action but not by
legislation authorizing the use of U.S. forces. For details of congressional actions relating to
Bosnia from 1993 through 1995, see CRS Report RL32267, The War Powers Resolution: After
Thirty-Four Years, by Richard F. Grimmett.
In late 1995, the issue of war powers and Bosnia was raised again as President Clinton sent more
than 20,000 American combat troops to Bosnia as part of a NATO-led peacekeeping force. In
December 1995, Congress considered and voted on a number of bills and resolutions, but the
House and Senate could not come to consensus on any single measure. Subsequently, President
Clinton in December 1996, agreed to provide up to 8,500 ground troops to participate in a NATO-
led follow-on force in Bosnia termed the Stabilization Force (SFOR). On March 18, 1998, the
House defeated by a vote of 193-225, H.Con.Res. 227, a resolution directing the President,
pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces
from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (H.Rept. 105-442). (For additional information, see
CRS Report RL32392, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Issues for U.S. Policy, by Steven Woehrel, CRS





Report RL32282, Bosnia and Kosovo: U.S. Military Operations, by Steve Bowman, and CRS
Report RL32267, The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty-Four Years, by Richard F. Grimmett.)

The issue of presidential authority to deploy forces in the absence of congressional authorization,
under the War Powers Resolution, or otherwise, became an issue of significant controversy in late
March 1999 when President Clinton ordered U.S. military forces to participate in a NATO-led
military operation in Kosovo. This action has become the focus of an ongoing policy debate over
the purpose and scope of U.S. military involvement in Kosovo. The President’s action to commit
forces to the NATO Kosovo operation also led to a suit in Federal District Court for the District of
Columbia by some Members of Congress seeking a judicial finding that the President was
violating the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution by using military forces in Yugoslavia
in the absence of authorization from the Congress.
The Kosovo controversy began in earnest when on March 26, 1999, President Clinton notified the
Congress “consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” that on March 24, 1999, U.S. military
forces, at his direction and in coalition with NATO allies, had commenced air strikes against
Yugoslavia in response to the Yugoslav government’s campaign of violence and repression
against the ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo. Prior to the President’s action, the Senate, on
March 23, 1999, had passed, by a vote of 58-41, S.Con.Res. 21, a nonbinding resolution
expressing the sense of the Congress that the President was authorized to conduct “military air
operations and missile strikes in cooperation with our NATO allies against the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).”
Subsequently, the House voted on a number of measures relating to U.S. participation in the
NATO operation in Kosovo. On April 28, 1999, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1569,
by a vote of 249-180. This bill would prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Defense
Department from being used for the deployment of “ground elements” of the U.S. Armed Forces
in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia unless that deployment is specifically authorized by law.
On that same day the House defeated H.Con.Res. 82, by a vote of 139-290. This resolution would
have directed the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove
U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On April 28, 1999, the House also defeated H.J.Res. 44, by a
vote of 2-427. This joint resolution would have declared a state of war between the United States
and the “Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” The House on that same day also
defeated, on a 213-213 tie vote, S.Con.Res. 21, the Senate resolution passed on March 23, 1999,
that supported military air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. On April 30, 1999,
Representative Tom Campbell and 17 other members of the House filed suit in Federal District
Court for the District of Columbia seeking a ruling requiring the President to obtain authorization
from Congress before continuing the air war, or taking other military action against Yugoslavia.
The Senate, on May 4, 1999, by a vote of 78-22, tabled S.J.Res. 20, a joint resolution, sponsored
by Senator John McCain, that would authorize the President “to use all necessary force and other
means, in concert with United States allies, to accomplish United States and North Atlantic Treaty
Organization objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).” The
House, meanwhile, on May 6, 1999, by a vote of 117-301, defeated an amendment by
Representative Istook to H.R. 1664, the FY1999 defense supplemental appropriations bill, that
would have prohibited the expenditure of funds in the bill to implement any plan to use U.S.





ground forces to invade Yugoslavia, except in time of war. Congress, meanwhile, on May 20,
1999, cleared for the President’s signature, H.R. 1141, an emergency supplemental appropriations
bill for FY1999, that provided billions in funding for the existing U.S. Kosovo operation.
On May 25, 1999, the 60th day had passed since the President notified Congress of his actions
regarding U.S. participation in military operations in Kosovo. Representative Campbell, and
those who joined his suit, noted to the Federal Court that this was a clear violation of the
language of the War Powers Resolution stipulating a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the area of
hostilities occur after 60 days in the absence of congressional authorization to continue, or a
presidential request to Congress for an extra 30 day period to safely withdraw. The President did
not seek such a 30-day extension, noting instead that the War Powers Resolution is
constitutionally defective. On June 8, 1999, Federal District Judge Paul L. Friedman dismissed
the suit of Representative Campbell and others that sought to have the court rule that President
Clinton was in violation of the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution by conducting
military activities in Yugoslavia without having received prior authorization from Congress. The
judge ruled that Representative Campbell and others lacked legal standing to bring the suit
(Campbell v. Clinton, 52 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 1999)). Representative Campbell appealed the
ruling on June 24, 1999, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The appeals
court agreed to hear the case. On February 18, 2000, the appeals court affirmed the opinion of the
District Court that Representative Campbell and his co-plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the
President. (Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). On May 18, 2000, Representative
Campbell and 30 other Members of Congress appealed this decision to the United States Supreme
Court. On October 2, 2000, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, refused to hear
the appeal of Representative Campbell thereby letting stand the holding of the U.S. Court of
Appeals. (Campbell v. Clinton, cert. denied, 531U.S. 815 October 2, 2000). On May 18, 2000, the
Senate defeated by, a vote of 47-53, an amendment to S. 2521, the Senate’s version of the
Military Construction Appropriations Act, FY2001, that would have, among other things,
terminated funding for the continued deployment of U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo after
July 1, 2001 unless the President sought and received Congressional authorization to keep U.S.
troops in Kosovo. (For detailed discussion of major issues see CRS Report RL31053, Kosovo and
U.S. Policy: Background to Independence, by Julie Kim and Steven Woehrel; CRS Report
RL30352, War Powers Litigation Initiated by Members of Congress Since the Enactment of the
War Powers Resolution, by David M. Ackerman.)

During the week of October 3, 1994, Iraq began sending two additional divisions to join regular
forces in southern Iraq, close to the border of Kuwait. On October 8, President Clinton responded
by sending about 30,000 additional U.S. forces and additional combat planes to join the forces
already in the Gulf area. He said the United States would honor its commitment to defend Kuwait
and enforce U.N. resolutions on Iraq. Congress recessed on October 8 until November 29, 1994,
so it did not discuss the issue of congressional authorization. On October 28, President Clinton
reported to Congress that by October 15 there were clear indications that Iraq had redeployed its
forces to their original location. On November 7, the Defense Department announced 7,000 of the
U.S. forces would be withdrawn before Christmas.
Earlier, three continuing situations in Iraq since the end of Desert Storm brought about the use of
U.S. forces and thus raised war powers issues. The first situation resulted from the Iraqi
government’s repression of Kurdish and Shiite groups. U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 of





April 5, 1991, condemned the repression of the Iraqi civilian population and appealed for
contributions to humanitarian relief efforts. The second situation stemmed from the U.N. cease-
fire resolution of April 3, 1991, Security Council Resolution 687, which called for Iraq to accept
the destruction or removal of chemical and biological weapons, and international control of its
nuclear materials.
The third situation was related to both of the earlier ones. On August 26, 1992, the United States,
Britain, and France began a “no-fly” zone, banning Iraqi fixed wing and helicopter flights south nd
of the 32 parallel and creating a limited security zone in the south, where Shiite groups are
concentrated. After violations of the no-fly zones and various other actions by Iraq, on January
13, 1993, the outgoing Bush Administration announced that aircraft from the United States and
coalition partners had attacked missile bases in southern Iraq and that the United States was
deploying a battalion task force to Kuwait to underline the U.S. continuing commitment to
Kuwait’s independence. On January 6, 1993, the United States gave Iraq an ultimatum to remove
newly deployed missiles in the no-fly zone. On January 19, 1993, President George H.W. Bush
reported to Congress that U.S. aircraft on December 27, 1992, had shot down an Iraqi aircraft that
had entered the no-fly zone and had undertaken further military actions on January 13, 17, and

18.


President Clinton said on January 21, 1993, that the United States would adhere to the policy
toward Iraq set by the former Bush Administration, and on January 22, 23, April 9 and 18, June
19, and August 19, 1993, U.S. aircraft fired at targets in Iraq after pilots detected Iraqi radar or
anti-aircraft fire directed at them. A number of such incidents occurred while planes patrolled the
no-fly zone. On June 6, 1994, President Clinton reported that over the previous two years, the
northern no-fly zone had deterred Iraq from a military offensive in the northern zone. Iraqi forces
had responded to the no-fly zone in the south, he reported, by continuing to use land-based
artillery to shell marsh villages. In addition, Iraq was conducting a large search and destroy
operation and razing and burning marsh villages, in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution

688. Until Iraq fully complied with all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, he reported,


the United States would maintain sanctions and other measures designed to achieve compliance.
A war powers issue for years was whether the use of U.S. force in Iraq in the period after the
early 1991 Desert Storm conflict had been authorized by Congress. P.L. 102-1 authorized the
President to use U.S. armed forces pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 678 to achieve
implementation of previous Security Council Resolutions; Security Council Resolution 687 was
adopted after this. On August 2, 1991, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Defense
Authorization bill for FY1992 supporting the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
Resolution 687. Senator Dole said the amendment was not intended to authorize the use of force
by the President, and that in his view in the current circumstances the President required no
specific authorization from Congress. As enacted, Section 1095 of P.L. 102-190 states the sense
of Congress that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Security
Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution. The bill (Section 1096) also included an amendment by Senator Pell
supporting the use of all necessary means to protect Iraq’s Kurdish minority, consistent with
relevant U.N. resolutions and authorities contained in P.L. 102-1.
In addition to these continuing situations, on June 28, 1993, President Clinton reported to
Congress that on June 26, U.S. naval forces had launched a Tomahawk cruise missile strike on the
Iraqi Intelligence Service’s main command and control complex in Baghdad and that the military
action was completed. He said the Iraqi Intelligence Service had planned the failed attempt to





assassinate former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait in April 1993. On September 5,
1996, President Clinton reported to Congress on U.S. military actions in Iraq to obtain
compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions, especially in light of attacks by Iraqi
military forces against the Kurdish-controlled city of Irbil. U.S. actions ordered by the President
included extending the no-fly zone in southern Iraq from 32 to 33 degrees north latitude, and
cruise missile attacks from B-52H bombers and ships in the USS Carl Vinson Battle Group
against fixed, surface-to-air missile sites, command and control centers, and air defense control rd
facilities south of the 33 parallel in Iraq. Except for the report of June 28, 1993, Presidents Bush
and Clinton did not cite the War Powers Resolution in their reports related to military activities in
Iraq in the period after the 1991 Gulf War. Rather, they submitted them “consistent with” P.L.
102-1, which required the President to submit a report to the Congress at least once every 60 days
on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the U.N. Security Council resolution
adopted in response to the Iraq aggression.
Starting in 1998 and through the end of the Clinton Administration, Iraq’s refusal to permit U.N.
weapons inspection teams access to various Iraqi sites, and Iraqi threats to U.S. aircraft policing
the “no-fly zones” resulted in U.S. military action on numerous occasions against Iraqi military
forces and targets in the “no-fly zones.” President Clinton chose to report these actions under the
requirements of P.L. 102-1, rather than the War Powers Resolution. In early February 2001,
President George W. Bush authorized U.S. aircraft to attack Iraqi radar installations in Southern
Iraq believed to threaten allied forces enforcing the “no-fly zone.” Additional bombings of Iraqi
sites were authorized and took place from the summer of 2001 into March 2003. Such actions, in
the past, were reported under P.L. 102-1. Congress provided authorization for future military
action, under specified conditions, through passage of P.L. 107-243 signed into law on October
16, 2002. In a report to Congress on January 20, 2003, pursuant to P.L. 107-243, President Bush
stated that information required to be reported regarding actions taken against Iraq required by
section 3 of P.L. 102-1 would in the future be included in the reports required by P.L. 107-243.
On March 19, 2003, President Bush directed U.S. Armed Forces to commence combat operations
against Iraq to enforce its disarmament. Since he announced the end of major combat operations
against Iraq on May 1, 2003, the President has made periodic reports on the current situation in
Iraq “consistent with” P.L. 107-243, which have become the equivalent of reports to Congress
envisioned by the War Powers Resolution. For a recent example of these reports to Congress see thnd
House Document 108-231, 108 Congress, 2 session, submitted November 4, 2004. (For related
information, see CRS Report RL31701, Iraq: U.S. Military Operations, by Steve Bowman, and
CRS Report RL31339, Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security, by Kenneth Katzman.)

On July 3, 1993, Haitian military leader Raoul Cedras and deposed President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide signed an agreement at Governors Island providing for the restoration of President
Aristide on October 30. The United Nations and Organization of American States took
responsibility for verifying compliance. Because the Haitian authorities did not comply with the
agreement, on October 13, 1993, the U.N. Security Council voted to restore sanctions against
Haiti. On October 20, President Clinton submitted a report “consistent with the War Powers
Resolution” that U.S. ships had begun to enforce a U.N. embargo. Some Members of Congress
complained that Congress had not been consulted about nor authorized the action. On October 18,
1993, Senator Dole said he would offer an amendment to the FY1994 Defense Appropriations bill
(H.R. 3116) which would require congressional authorization for all deployments into Haitian
waters and airspace unless the President made specified certifications. Congressional leaders and





Administration officials negotiated the terms of the amendment. As enacted, Section 8147 of P.L.
103-139 stated the sense that funds should not be obligated or expended for U.S. military
operations in Haiti unless the operations were (1) authorized in advance by Congress, (2)
necessary to protect or evacuate U.S. citizens, (3) vital to the national security and there was not
sufficient time to receive congressional authorization, or (4) the President submitted a report in
advance that the intended deployment met certain criteria.
On May 6, 1994, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 917 calling for measures to
tighten the embargo. On June 10, 1994, President Clinton announced steps being taken to
intensify the pressure on Haiti’s military leaders that included assisting the Dominican Republic
to seal its border with Haiti, using U.S. naval patrol boats to detain ships suspected of violating
the sanctions, a ban on commercial air traffic, and sanctions on financial transactions. As
conditions in Haiti worsened, President Clinton stated he would not rule out the use of force, and
gradually the use of force appeared certain. Many Members continued to contend congressional
authorization was necessary for any invasion of Haiti. On July 31, the U.N. Security Council
authorized a multinational force to use “all necessary means to facilitate the departure from Haiti
of the military leadership ... on the understanding that the cost of implementing this temporary
operation will be borne by the participating Member States” (Resolution 940, 1994).
On August 3, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Department of Veterans Affairs
appropriation, H.R. 4624, by a vote of 100-0 expressing its sense that the Security Council
Resolution did not constitute authorization for the deployment of U.S. forces in Haiti under the
Constitution or the War Powers Resolution, but the amendment was not agreed to in conference.
President Clinton said the same day that he would welcome the support of Congress but did not
agree that he was constitutionally mandated to obtain it. On September 15, 1994, in an address to
the Nation, President Clinton said he had called up the military reserve and ordered two aircraft
carriers into the region. His message to the military dictators was to leave now or the United
States would force them from power. The first phase of military action would remove the
dictators from power and restore Haiti’s democratically elected government. The second phase
would involve a much smaller force joining with forces from other U.N. members which would
leave Haiti after 1995 elections were held and a new government installed.
While the Defense Department continued to prepare for an invasion within days, on September
16 President Clinton sent to Haiti a negotiating team of former President Jimmy Carter, former
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell, and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
Sam Nunn. Again addressing the Nation on September 18, President Clinton announced that the
military leaders had agreed to step down by October 15, and agreed to the immediate introduction
of troops from the 15,000 member international coalition beginning September 19. He said the
agreement was only possible because of the credible and imminent threat of multinational force.
He emphasized the mission still had risks and there remained possibilities of violence directed at
U.S. troops, but the agreement minimized those risks. He also said that under U.N. Security
Council resolution 940, a 25-nation international coalition would soon go to Haiti to begin the
task of restoring democratic government. Also on September 18, President Clinton reported to
Congress on the objectives in accordance with the sense expressed in Section 8147 (c) of P.L.

103-139, the FY1994 Defense Appropriations Act.


U.S. forces entered Haiti on September 19, 1994. On September 21, President Clinton reported
“consistent with the War Powers Resolution” the deployment of 1,500 troops, to be increased by
several thousand. (At the peak in September there were about 21,000 U.S. forces in Haiti.) He
said the U.S. presence would not be open-ended but would be replaced after a period of months





by a U.N. peacekeeping force, although some U.S. forces would participate in and be present for
the duration of the U.N. mission. The forces were involved in the first hostilities on September 24
when U.S. Marines killed 10 armed Haitian resisters in a fire-fight.
On October 3, 1994, the House Foreign Affairs Committee reported H.J.Res. 416 authorizing the
forces in Haiti until March 1, 1995, and providing procedures for a joint resolution to withdraw
the forces. On October 6, the House adopted an amended text introduced by Representative Ron
Dellums. As passed, H.J.Res. 416 stated the sense of the Congress that the President should have
sought congressional approval before deploying U.S. forces to Haiti, supported a prompt and
orderly withdrawal as soon as possible, and required a monthly report on Haiti as well as other
reports. This same language was also adopted by the Senate on October 6 as S. J. Res. 229, and
on October 7 the House passed S.J.Res. 229. President Clinton signed it on October 25, 1994
(P.L. 103-423).
After the U.S. forces began to disarm Haitian forces and President Aristide returned on October

15, 1994, the United States began to withdraw some forces. On March 31, 1995, U.N.


peacekeeping forces assumed responsibility for missions previously conducted by U.S. military
forces. By September 21, 1995, President Clinton reported the United States had 2,400 military
personnel in Haiti as participants in the U.N. Mission in Haiti (UNMIH), and 260 U.S. military
personnel assigned to the U.S. Support Group Haiti. On December 5, 1997, President Clinton
stated that he intended to keep some military personnel in Haiti, even though United Nations
peacekeeping forces were withdrawing. The Pentagon stated that U.S. military personnel in Haiti
would be about 500, consisting mainly of engineering and medical units, with a combat element
responsible for protecting the U.S. contingent. On March 2, 2004, the President reported to
Congress “consistent with the War Powers Resolution” that, on February 29, he had sent about
“200 additional U.S. combat-equipped, military personnel from the U.S. Joint Forces Command”
to Port-au-Prince, Haiti, for a variety of purposes, including preparing the way for a U.N.
Multinational Interim Force, and otherwise supporting U.N. Security Council Resolution 1529
(2004). For further information on Haiti, see CRS Report RL32294, Haiti: Developments and
U.S. Policy Since 1991 and Current Congressional Concerns, by Maureen Taft-Morales and
Clare Ribando Seelke.

In Somalia, the participation of U.S. military forces in a U.N. operation to protect humanitarian
assistance, which began in December 1992, became increasingly controversial as fighting and
casualties increased and objectives appeared to be expanding. On October 7, 1993, President
Clinton announced that all U.S. forces would be withdrawn by March 31, 1994, and most forces
left by that date. The remaining 58 Marines, who had remained to protect U.S. diplomats, were
withdrawn September 15, 1994.
A major issue for Congress was whether to authorize U.S. action in Somalia. On February 4,
1993, the Senate passed S.J.Res. 45 to authorize the President to use U.S. armed forces pursuant
to U.N. Security Council Resolution 794. S.J.Res. 45 stated it was intended to constitute the
specific statutory authorization under Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. On May 25,
1993, the House amended and passed S.J.Res. 45. The amendment authorized U.S. forces to
remain for one year. S.J.Res. 45 was then sent to the Senate for its concurrence, but the measure
did not reach the floor.





As sporadic fighting resulted in the deaths of Somali and U.N. forces, including Americans,
controversy over the operation intensified. On September 9, 1993, the Senate adopted an
amendment to S. 1298, the Defense Authorization Bill, expressing the sense of Congress that the
President by November 15, 1993, should seek and receive congressional authorization for the
continued deployment of U.S. forces to Somalia. It asked that the President consult with Congress
and report the goals, objectives, and anticipated jurisdiction of the U.S. mission in Somalia by
October 15, 1993. On September 29, the House adopted a similar amendment to its bill, H.R.
2401. On October 7, the President consulted with congressional leaders from both parties for over
two hours on Somalia policy and also announced that U.S. forces would be withdrawn by March

31, 1994.


On October 15, 1993, the Senate adopted an amendment by Senator Byrd to H.R. 3116, the
Defense Department Appropriations Act for FY1994, cutting off funds for U.S. military
operations in Somalia after March 31, 1994, unless the President obtained further spending
authority from Congress. The Senate approved the use of military operations only for the
protection of American military personnel and bases and for helping maintain the flow of relief
aid by giving the U.N. forces security and logistical support. The amendment, which became
Section 8151 of P.L. 103-139, required U.S. forces in Somalia to remain under the command and
control of U.S. commanders. In addition, on November 9, 1993, the House adopted H.Con.Res.
170, using Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to direct the President to remove forces
from Somalia by March 31, 1994; sponsors stated it was a non-binding measure, and the Senate
did not act on the measure. The Defense Appropriations Act for FY1995 (P.L. 103-335, signed
September 30, 1994) prohibited the use of funds for the continuous presence of U.S. forces in
Somalia, except for the protection of U.S. personnel, after September 30, 1994.
On November 4, the U.N. Security Council decided to end the U.N. mission in Somalia by March
31, 1995. On March 3, 1995, U.S. forces completed their assistance to United Nations forces
evacuating Somalia.


Presidents have submitted 123 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution. Of
these, President Ford submitted 4, President Carter 1, President Reagan 14, President George
H.W. Bush 7, President Clinton 60, and President George W. Bush 37. For a summary of the 111
reports submitted by the Presidents from 1975-2003, see CRS Report RL32267, The War Powers
Resolution: After Thirty-Four Years, by Richard F. Grimmett. The following is a brief summary of
reports submitted by President Bush George W. Bush since January 2004. The reports are
submitted to the Speaker of the House as executive communications, and subsequently published
on the U.S. government printing office website under House Documents. The full texts of these
Presidential reports may be found at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/index.html.
(112) On January 22, 2004, the President reported to Congress “consistent with the War Powers
Resolution” that the United States was continuing to deploy combat equipped military personnel
in Bosnia and Herzegovina in support of NATO’s Stabilization Force (SFOR) and its
peacekeeping efforts in this country. About 1,800 U.S. personnel are participating.





(113) On February 25, 2004, the President reported to Congress “consistent with the War Powers
Resolution” that, on February 23, he had sent a combat-equipped “security force” of about “55
U.S. military personnel from the U.S. Joint Forces Command” to Port-au-Prince, Haiti to
augment the U.S. Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in
light of the instability created by the armed rebellion in Haiti.
(114) On March 2, 2004, the President reported to Congress “consistent with the War Powers
Resolution” that on February 29 he had sent about “200 additional U.S. combat-equipped,
military personnel from the U.S. Joint Forces Command” to Port-au-Prince, Haiti for a variety of
purposes, including preparing the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force, and otherwise
supporting UN Security Council Resolution 1529 (2004).
(115) On March 20, 2004, the President sent to Congress “consistent with the War Powers
Resolution,” a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing United States military
deployments and operations “in support of the global war on terrorism (including in
Afghanistan),” as well as operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Haiti. In this
report, the President noted that U.S. anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia,
Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea. He further noted that U.S. combat-equipped
military personnel continued to be deployed in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led KFOR (1,900
personnel); in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the NATO-led SFOR (about 1,100 personnel);
and approximately 1,800 military personnel were deployed in Haiti as part of the U.N.
Multinational Interim Force.
(116) On November 4, 2004, the President sent to Congress, “consistent with the War Powers
Resolution,” a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing United States military
deployments and operations “in support of the global war on terrorism.” These deployments,
support or military operations include activities in Afghanistan, Djibouti, as well as Kenya,
Ethiopia, Eritrea, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo. In this report, the President noted that
U.S. anti-terror related activities were underway in Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and
Eritrea. He further noted that U.S. combat-equipped military personnel continued to be deployed
in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led KFOR (1,800 personnel); and in Bosnia and Herzegovina as
part of the NATO-led SFOR (about 1,000 personnel). Meanwhile, he stated that the United States
continues to deploy more than 135,000 military personnel in Iraq.
(117) On May 20, 2005, the President sent to Congress “consistent with the War Powers
Resolution,” a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing United States military
deployments and operations “in support of the global war on terrorism,” as well as operations in
Iraq, where currently about 139,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed. U.S. forces are also
deployed in Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, Eritrea, and Djibouti assisting in “enhancing counter-
terrorism capabilities” of these nations. The President further noted that U.S. combat-equipped
military personnel continued to be deployed in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led KFOR (1,700
personnel). Approximately 235 U.S. personnel are also deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina as
part of the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo who assist in defense reform and perform operational
tasks, such as counter-terrorism and supporting the International Criminal Court for the Former
Yugoslavia.
(118) On December 7, 2005, the President sent to Congress “consistent” with the War Powers
Resolution, a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing United States military
deployments and operations “in support of the global war on terrorism,” and in support of the
Multinational Force in Iraq, where about 160,000 U.S. military personnel are deployed. U.S.





forces are also deployed in the Horn of Africa region—Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Djibouti—
assisting in “enhancing counter-terrorism capabilities” of these nations. The President further
noted that U.S. combat-equipped military personnel continued to be deployed in Kosovo as part
of the NATO-led KFOR (1,700 personnel). Approximately 220 U.S. personnel are also deployed
in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo who assist in defense
reform and perform operational tasks, such as “counter-terrorism and supporting the International
Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia.”
(119) On June 15, 2006, the President sent to Congress “consistent” with the War Powers
Resolution, a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing United States military
deployments and operations “in support of the war on terror,” and in Kosovo, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and as part of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq. Presently, about 131,000
military personnel were deployed in Iraq. U.S. forces were also deployed in the Horn of Africa
region, and in Djibouti to support necessary operations against al-Qaida and other international
terrorists operating in the region. U.S. military personnel continue to support the NATO-led
Kosovo Force (KFOR). The current U.S. contribution to KFOR is about 1,700 military personnel.
The NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo was established in November 22, 2004 as a successor to its
stabilization operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina to continue to assist in implementing the peace
agreement. Approximately 250 U.S. personnel are assigned to the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo
who assist in defense reform and perform operational tasks, such as “counter-terrorism and
supporting the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia.”
(120) On July 18, 2006, the President reported to Congress “consistent” with the War Powers
Resolution, that in response to the security threat posed in Lebanon to U.S. Embassy personnel
and citizens and designated third country personnel,” he had deployed combat-equipped military
helicopters and military personnel to Beirut to assist in the departure of the persons under threat
from Lebanon. The President noted that additional combat-equipped U.S. military forces may be
deployed “to Lebanon, Cyprus and other locations, as necessary.” to assist further departures of
persons from Lebanon and to provide security. He further stated that once the threat to U.S.
citizens and property has ended, the U.S. military forces would redeploy.
(121) On December 15, 2006, the President sent to Congress “consistent” with the War Powers
Resolution, a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing United States military
deployments and operations “in support of the war on terror,” in Kosovo, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and as part of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq. Presently, about 134, 000
military personnel are deployed in Iraq. U.S. forces were also deployed in the Horn of Africa
region, and in Djibouti to support necessary operations against al-Qaida and other international
terrorists operating in the region, including Yemen. U.S. military personnel continue to support
the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). The current U.S. contribution to KFOR is about 1,700
military personnel. The NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo was established in November 22, 2004 as a
successor to its stabilization operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina to continue to assist in
implementing the peace agreement. Approximately 100 U.S. personnel are assigned to the NATO
Headquarters-Sarajevo who assist in defense reform and perform operational tasks, such as
“counter-terrorism and supporting the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia.”
(122) On June 15, 2007, the President sent to Congress “consistent” with the War Powers
Resolution, a consolidated report giving details of ongoing United States military deployments
and operations “in support of the war on terror,” and in support of the NATO-led Kosovo Force
(KFOR). The President reported that various U.S. “combat-equipped and combat-support forces”
were deployed to “a number of locations in the Central, Pacific, European (KFOR), and Southern





Command areas of operation” and were engaged in combat operations against al-Qaida terrorists
and their supporters. The U.S. is currently “pursuing and engaging remnant al-Qaida and Taliban
fighters in Afghanistan.” U.S. forces in Afghanistan currently total approximately 25,945. Of this
total, “approximately 14,340 are assigned to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Afghanistan.” The U.S. military continues to support peacekeeping operations in Kosovo,
specifically the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). Currently, the U.S. contribution to KFOR in
Kosovo is approximately 1,584 military personnel.
(123) On December 14, 2007, the President sent to Congress “consistent with the War Powers
Resolution,” a consolidated report giving details of ongoing United States military deployments
and operations “in support of the war on terror,” and in support of the NATO-led Kosovo Force
(KFOR). The President reported that various U.S. “combat-equipped and combat-support forces”
were deployed to “a number of locations in the Central, Pacific, European, and Southern
Command areas of operation” and were engaged in combat operations against al-Qaida terrorists
and their supporters. The United States. is currently “pursuing and engaging remnant al-Qaida
and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.” U.S. forces in Afghanistan currently total approximately
25,900. Of this total, “approximately 15,180 are assigned to the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.” The U.S. military continues to support peacekeeping operations in
Kosovo, specifically the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). Currently, the U.S. contribution to
KFOR in Kosovo is approximately 1,498 military personnel.

Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution requires the President “in every possible instance” to
consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into situations of hostilities and
imminent hostilities, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces remain. A review
of instances involving the use of armed forces since passage of the Resolution, noted in this
report, indicates there has been very little consultation with Congress under the Resolution when
consultation is defined to mean seeking advice prior to a decision to introduce troops. Presidents
have met with congressional leaders after the decision to deploy was made but before
commencement of operations.
One problem is the interpretation of when consultation is required. The War Powers Resolution
established different criteria for consultation than for reporting. Consultation is required only
before introducing armed forces into “hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,” the circumstances triggering the time limit.
A second problem is the meaning of the term consultation. The executive branch has often taken
the view that the consultation requirement has been fulfilled when from the viewpoint of some
Members of Congress it has not. The House report on the War Powers Resolution said, “...
consultation in this provision means that a decision is pending on a problem and that Members of
Congress are being asked by the President for their advice and opinions and, in appropriate
circumstances, their approval of action contemplated.” A third problem is who represents
Congress for consultation purposes. The House version specifically called for consultation
between the President and the leadership and appropriate committees. This was changed to less
specific wording in final House-Senate conference committee version, to provide some flexibility.
Some critics of the existing statute have introduced proposals to specify a consultation group. But
Congress has yet to act on such a proposal.






An immediate issue for Congress when the President introduces troops into situations of potential
hostilities is whether to invoke Section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution and trigger a
durational limit for the action unless Congress authorizes the forces to remain. If Congress
concurs in a President’s action, application of the Resolution may be desirable either to legitimize
the action and strengthen it by making clear congressional support for the measure or to establish
the precedent that the Resolution does apply in such a situation. On the other hand, some may
believe it is preferable to leave the President more flexibility of action than is possible under the
Resolution. Or some may not wish to have a formal vote on either the issue of applying the
Resolution or the merits of utilizing armed forces in that case. If Congress does not concur in an
action taken by a president, the Resolution offers a way to terminate it.
A longer-term issue is whether the War Powers Resolution is working or should be amended.
Some contend that it has been effective in moderating the President’s response to crisis situations
because of his awareness that certain actions would trigger its reporting and legislative veto
provisions. Or they suggest that it could be effective if the President would comply fully or
Congress would invoke its provisions. Others believe it is not accomplishing its objectives and
suggest various changes. Some have proposed that the Resolution return to the original Senate-
passed version, which would enumerate circumstances in which the President needed no
congressional authorization for use of armed forces (namely to respond to or forestall an armed
attack against the United States or its forces or to protect U.S. citizens while evacuating them) but
prohibit any other use or any permissible use for more than 30 days unless authorized by
Congress. Others would replace the automatic requirement for withdrawal of troops after 60 days
with expedited procedures for a joint resolution authorizing the action or requiring
disengagement. Still others would repeal the Resolution on grounds that it restricts the President’s
effectiveness in foreign policy or is unconstitutional.
Several Members have suggested establishing a consultative group to meet with the President
when military action is being considered. Senators Byrd, Nunn, Warner, and Mitchell introduced
S.J.Res. 323 in 1988 and S. 2 in 1989 to establish a permanent consultation group of 18 Members
consisting of the leadership and the ranking and minority members of the Committees on Foreign
Relations, Armed Services, and Intelligence. The bill would permit an initial consultative process
to be limited to a core group of six Members—the majority and minority leaders of both
chambers plus the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate. On October 28,
1993, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Lee Hamilton introduced H.R. 3405 to establish a
congressional consultative group equivalent to the National Security Council. No action was
taken on this proposal.
Thus far, however, executive branch officials and congressional leaders, who themselves have
varying opinions, have been unable to find mutually acceptable changes in the War Powers
Resolution. President Clinton, in Presidential Decision Directive 25 signed May 3, 1994,
supported legislation to amend the Resolution along the lines of the Mitchell, Nunn, Byrd, and
Warner proposal of 1989, to establish a consultative mechanism and also eliminate the 60-day
withdrawal provisions. Although many agreed on the consultation group, supporters of the
legislation contended the time limit had been the main flaw in the War Powers Resolution,
whereas opponents contended the time limit provided the teeth of the Resolution. The difficulty th
of reaching consensus in Congress on what action to take is reflected in the fact that in the 104
Congress, only one measure, S. 5, introduced January 4, 1995, by then Majority Leader Dole was





the subject of a hearing. S. 5, if enacted, would have repealed most of the existing War Powers
Resolution. An effort to repeal most of the War Powers Resolution in the House on June 7, 1995,
through an amendment to the Foreign Assistance and State Department Authorization Act for
FY1996-97 (H.R. 1561) by Representative Hyde, failed (201-217). Other than these instances, no th
other War Powers related legislation was even considered during the 104 Congress.
On March 18, 1998, the House defeated H.Con.Res. 227, a resolution that would have directed
the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States
Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (H.Rept. 105-442). It was the hope
of Representative Tom Campbell, its sponsor, that passage of the resolution could lead to a court
case that would address the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On March 31, 1998,
the House passed a Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 3579) that would ban use of funds for
conduct of offensive operations against Iraq, unless such operations were specifically authorized
by law. This provision was dropped in the conference with the Senate. On June 24, 1998, the
House passed H.R. 4103, the Defense Department Appropriations bill for FY1999, with a
provision by Representative Skaggs that banned the use of funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this act “to initiate or conduct offensive military operations by United States Armed
Forces except in accordance with the war powers clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8),
which vests in Congress the power to declare and authorize war and to take certain specified,
related actions.” The Skaggs provision was stricken by the House-Senate conference committee
on H.R. 4103. No further War Powers-related actions were taken by Congress by the adjournment th
of the 105 Congress.
During the 106th Congress, efforts were made to force the President to seek congressional
authority for military operations in Kosovo, leading to votes in the House and Senate on that
issue. Subsequently, Representative Tom Campbell and others sued the President in Federal Court
in an effort to clarify congressional-Executive authority in this area. A Federal District Court and
an Appeals Court refused to decide the case on the merits, instead holding that the plaintiffs
lacked standing to sue. On October 2, 2000, the United States Supreme Court, let stand the 1
holding of the U.S. Appeals Court.
During the first session of the 107th Congress, the Congress passed S.J.Res. 23, on September 14,
2001, in the wake of the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center in New York City, and
the Pentagon building in Arlington, Virginia. This legislation, titled the “Authorization for Use of
Military Force,” passed the Senate by a vote of 98-0; the House of Representatives passed it by a
vote of 420-1. This joint resolution authorizes the President “to use all necessary and appropriate
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, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the
United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Congress further declared in the joint
resolution that “Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers resolution,” the above
language is “intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section
5(b) the War Powers Resolution.” S.J.Res. 23 further stated that “Nothing in this resolution
supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.” President George W. Bush signed 2
S.J.Res. 23 into law on September 18, 2001 (P.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224).

1 Campbell v. Clinton, 52 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 1999), aff’d, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 815
(2000).
2 For details relating to enactment of this authority, see CRS Report RS22357, Authorization For Use Of Military Force
(continued...)





During the second session of the 107th Congress, the Congress passed H.J.Res. 114, the
Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (P.L. 107-243). On October
16, 2002, President Bush signed this legislation into law. This statute 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.
Prior to using force under this statute the President is required to communicate to Congress his
determination that the use of diplomatic and other peaceful means will not “adequately protect the
United States ... or ... lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions” and that the use of force is “consistent” with the battle against terrorism. The statute
also stipulates that it is “intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning
of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.” It further requires the President to make periodic
reports to Congress “on matters relevant to this joint resolution.” Finally, the statute expresses
Congress’s “support” for the efforts of the President to obtain “prompt and decisive action by the
Security Council” to enforce Iraq’s compliance with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
P.L. 107-243 clearly confers broad authority on the President to use force. The authority granted
is not limited to the implementation of previously adopted Security Council resolutions
concerning Iraq but includes “all relevant ... resolutions.” Thus, it appears to incorporate
resolutions concerning Iraq that may be adopted by the Security Council in the future as well as
those already adopted. The authority also appears to extend beyond compelling Iraq’s
disarmament to implementing the full range of concerns expressed in those resolutions. The
President’s exercise of the authority granted is not dependent upon a finding that Iraq was
complicit in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Moreover, the authority conferred can be used for
the purpose of defending “the national security of the United States against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq.” On March 19, 2003, President Bush used the authority granted in P.L. 107-243 by
launching a military attack against Iraq. The President continues to use that authority for ongoing
military operations in Iraq.
Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in International Security
rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov, 7-7675



(...continued)
in Response to the 9/11 Attacks (P.L. 107-40): Legislative History, by Richard F. Grimmett.