A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State: Issues and Current Proposals

Changes from January 15, 2016 to January 27, 2016

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
    A New Authorization for Use of Military Force
 Against the Islamic State: Issues and Current
Proposals
Matthew C. Weed
Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation
January 15, 2016

Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43760

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Summary
In 2014, the armed offensive of the Islamic State (also known as ISIL, ISIS, or Daesh) in northern
and western Iraq and northeastern Syria 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. In 2015, the President ordered new deployments to Iraq, and the
Administration announced deployment of a small number of special operations forces to Syria to
conduct military operations that involve advising regional partner armed forces but also can
include “unilateral” U.S. operations.
As military action against the Islamic State has evolved and increased, many observers, including
a number of Members of Congress, have raised numerous questions and concerns about the
President’s authority to use military force against the Islamic State. Some efforts began near the
end of the 113th Congress to consider enactment of a new authorization for use of military force
targeting the Islamic State, and have continued into the 114th Congress; the issue, however,
remains contentious. The President provided Congress a new authorization proposal in February
2015, and recently has again called on Congress to enact a new authorization for use of military
force (AUMF) targeting the Islamic State. The Obama Administration’s official position on
presidential authority to use force against the Islamic State, however, has remained constant,
relying on the previous 2001 and 2002 AUMFs against those who perpetrated the September 11,
2001, terror attacks, and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, respectively.
This report focuses on the several proposals for a new AUMF specifically targeting the Islamic
State made during the 113th and 114th Congresses. It includes a brief review of existing authorities
and AUMFs, as well as a discussion of issues related to various provisions included in existing
and proposed AUMFs that both authorize and limit presidential use of military force. Appendices
provide a comparative analysis of similar provisions in new AUMFs proposed in the 113th and
114th Congresses. This report will be updated to reflect congressional activity.

Congressional Research Service

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Contents
The IS Crisis and the U.S. Response ............................................................................................... 1
Presidential Authority to Use Military Force Against the Islamic State .......................................... 1
2001 Post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force .......................................................... 2
2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq ...................................................... 2
Presidential Authority Under Article II of the Constitution ...................................................... 3
Calls for a New AUMF and Congressional Action in the 113th Congress ....................................... 3
IS AUMF-Related Proposals in the 114th Congress ........................................................................ 4
IS AUMF Proposals .................................................................................................................. 4
Repeal or Limitations on Use of Existing AUMFs ................................................................... 6
Disapproval Measure Pursuant to War Powers Resolution ....................................................... 6
The President’s February 2015 IS AUMF Proposal ........................................................................ 7
Selected Types of Proposed IS AUMF Provisions and Related Issues............................................ 9
Authorization Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................. 9
Identifying Targeted Entities ................................................................................................... 10
Limitations and Conditions ...................................................................................................... 11
Repealing Previous AUMFs and Sunset Provisions................................................................. 11
Reporting and Certification ...................................................................................................... 11

Tables
Table A-1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State in the 114th
Congress ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Table A-2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in
the 114th Congress ...................................................................................................................... 14
Table B-1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State in the 113th
Congress ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Table B-2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in
the 113th Congress ...................................................................................................................... 23

Appendixes
Appendix A. Comparison of IS AUMF Proposals from the 114th Congress ................................. 13
Appendix B. Comparison of IS AUMF Proposals from the 113th Congress ................................. 22

Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 31

Congressional Research Service

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Congressional Research Service

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

The IS Crisis and the U.S. Response
In 2014, the armed offensive of the Islamic State (also known as ISIL, ISIS, or Daesh) in northern
and western Iraq and northeastern Syria 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. In 2015, the President ordered new deployments to Iraq, and the
Administration announced deployment of a small number of special operations forces to Syria to
conduct military operations that involve advising regional partner armed forces but also can
include “unilateral” U.S. operations.1 The intensified U.S. military engagement has raised
numerous questions in Congress and beyond about the President’s authority to use military force
against the Islamic State.2 Some efforts began near the end of the 113th Congress to consider
enactment of a new authorization for use of military force targeting the Islamic State, and have
continued into the 114th Congress; the issue, however, remains contentious. In addition, the
President provided Congress a new authorization proposal in February 2015, and recently has
again called on Congress to enact a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State.3

Presidential Authority to Use Military Force Against
the Islamic State
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 notifications4 to Congress for airstrikes and other actions in Iraq and
Syria, however, stated that two enacted authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs), the
 Proposals
    January 27, 2016
            (R43760)
          Jump to Main Text of ReportContentsThe 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 and Congressional Action in the 113th Congress
IS AUMF-Related Proposals in the 114th Congress
IS AUMF Proposals
Repeal or Limitations on Use of Existing AUMFs
Disapproval Measure Pursuant to War Powers Resolution
The President's February 2015 IS AUMF Proposal
Selected Types of Proposed IS AUMF Provisions and Related Issues
Authorization Purpose and Scope
Identifying Targeted Entities
Limitations and Conditions
Repealing Previous AUMFs and Sunset Provisions
Reporting and Certification

      Tables
      Table A-1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State in the 114th Congress
Table A-2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in the 114th Congress
Table B-1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State in the 113th Congress
Table B-2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in the 113th Congress

    

      Appendixes
      Appendix A. Comparison of IS AUMF Proposals from the 114th Congress
Appendix B. Comparison of IS AUMF Proposals from the 113th Congress

    
SummaryIn 2014, the armed offensive of the Islamic State (also known as ISIL, ISIS, or Daesh) in northern and western Iraq and northeastern Syria 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. In 2015, the President ordered new deployments to Iraq, and the Administration announced deployment of a small number of special operations forces to Syria to conduct military operations that involve advising regional partner armed forces but also can include "unilateral" U.S. operations.
As military action against the Islamic State has evolved and increased, many observers, including a number of Members of Congress, have raised numerous questions and concerns about the President's authority to use military force against the Islamic State. Some efforts began near the end of the 113th Congress to consider enactment of a new authorization for use of military force targeting the Islamic State, and have continued into the 114th Congress; the issue, however, remains contentious. The President provided Congress a new authorization proposal in February 2015, and in his 2016 State of the Union address again called on Congress to enact a new authorization for use of military force (AUMF) targeting the Islamic State. The Obama Administration's official position on presidential authority to use force against the Islamic State, however, has remained constant, relying on the previous 2001 and 2002 AUMFs against those who perpetrated the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, respectively. 
As the second session of the 114th Congress has begun, both houses of Congress have taken some steps to revisit the possibility of considering a new AUMF. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has reportedly organized "listening sessions" with House Republican membership discussing what a new AUMF might comprise; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on January 20, 2016, introduced a new AUMF that bypassed committee consideration and proceeded directly to placement on the Senate legislative calendar.
This report focuses on the several proposals for a new AUMF specifically targeting the Islamic State made during the 113th and 114th Congresses. It includes a brief review of existing authorities and AUMFs, as well as a discussion of issues related to various provisions included in existing and proposed AUMFs that both authorize and limit presidential use of military force. Appendices provide a comparative analysis of similar provisions in new AUMFs proposed in the 113th and 114th Congresses. This report will be updated to reflect congressional activity.
A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State: Issues and Current Proposals
The IS Crisis and the U.S. ResponseIn 2014, the armed offensive of the Islamic State (also known as ISIL, ISIS, or Daesh) in northern and western Iraq and northeastern Syria 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. In 2015, the President ordered new deployments to Iraq, and the Administration announced deployment of a small number of special operations forces to Syria to conduct military operations that involve advising regional partner armed forces but also can include "unilateral" U.S. operations.1 The intensified U.S. military engagement has raised numerous questions in Congress and beyond about the President's authority to use military force against the Islamic State.2 Some efforts began near the end of the 113th Congress to consider enactment of a new authorization for use of military force targeting the Islamic State, and have continued into the 114th Congress; the issue, however, remains contentious. In addition, the President provided Congress a new authorization proposal in February 2015, and recently in his 2016 State of the Union address again called on Congress to enact a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State.3 

    Presidential Authority to Use Military Force Against the Islamic State
    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 notifications4 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. After these notifications, however, the President
indicated on November 5, 2014, that he intended to enter into discussions with congressional
1

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, hearing on regional implications of U.S. strategy in Syria and
Iraq, 114th Cong., 1st sess., December 1, 2015 (testimony of Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter).
2
For more information and analysis of the IS crisis, the U.S. response, and related issues, see CRS Report R43612, The
Islamic State and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard and Carla E. Humud; 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.
3
President Barack Obama, Address to the Nation concerning the attack in San Bernardino, December 6, 2015,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/06/address-nation-president; President Barack Obama, State of
the Union Address, January 12, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/12/remarks-presidentbarack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-state-union-address.
4
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.

Congressional Research Service

1

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

 indicated on November 5, 2014, that he intended 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.55 The President called on Congress to
 enact a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State in his January 2015 State of the Union address,
 and transmitted a draft AUMF to Congress on February 11, 2015. Both houses are expected to
 take up consideration of a new AUMF in the near term.


    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”"associated forces" fighting alongside Al Qaeda and the Taliban that it asserts are also targetable under the
 2001 AUMF.66 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’ Laden's legacy.”7

"7
    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
5

President Barack Obama, remarks at a press conference, November 5, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2014/11/05/remarks-president-press-conference.
6
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.
7
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-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-9112014.

Congressional Research Service

2

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

 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 
    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.

8
    Calls for a New AUMF and Congressional Action in
the 113th Congress
 the 113th Congress
    Although the Obama Administration has claimed 2001 AUMF and 2002 AUMF authority for its
 recent and future actions against the Islamic State, these claims have been subject to debate.
 Some contend that the Administration’'s actions against the IS also fall outside the President’s
'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
'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 have differed on whether such authorization is needed,
 given existing authorities, or whether such a measure should be enacted.
 
    Near the end of the 113th113th Congress, a number of Members proposed new authorization proposals
 (several of these are examined in greater detail in Appendix B). In December 2014, the Senate
 Foreign Relations Committee conducted a hearing and considered an IS AUMF proposed by
 Committee Chairman Robert Menendez. Prior to the committee’'s markup of the proposal on
 December 11, the committee held a hearing on December 9 with Secretary of State John Kerry to
 discuss the Obama Administration’'s views on enactment of a new IS AUMF. Senator Menendez’s
's IS AUMF proposal, as amended and reported favorably out of committee on December 13
( (S.J.Res. 47), would have authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces against the Islamic State and

Congressional Research Service

3

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

“ "associated persons or forces,”" prohibited “"ground combat operations”" with limited exceptions,
 repealed the 2002 AUMF, and sunset the authorization in the 2001 AUMF and the IS AUMF
 itself three years after enactment.

    At the hearing, Secretary Kerry reiterated President Obama’'s earlier-stated position that the
 Administration supported enactment of a new AUMF targeting the Islamic State. The Secretary
 stated that the Administration agreed with the three-year sunset of the authorization contained in
 Senator Menendez’'s proposal, “"subject to provisions for extension”" of that authorization. He
 stated the Administration’'s view, however, that such authority “"should give the President the clear
 mandate and flexibility he needs to successfully prosecute the armed conflict against [the Islamic
 State],”" and thus the Administration opposed limitation on the use of ground combat forces, and
 geographic restriction limiting operations to Iraq and Syria.8
The 113th9
    The 113th Congress did not ultimately enact a new IS authorization bill, and many Members
 called upon the President to submit his own proposal. For a comparison of multiple IS AUMFs
 proposed in the 113th113th Congress and issues raised by their provisions, see Appendix B.

.
    IS AUMF-Related Proposals in the 114th Congress
114th Congress
    Since the start of the 114th114th Congress, several new proposals for a new IS AUMF or repeal of
 existing AUMFs have been introduced and others are reportedly being drafted. On December 21,
 2015, it was reported that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan had been meeting with House
 membership on crafting a new IS AUMF proposal that could successfully pass the House.
Appendix A 
    Appendix A provides a comparison of IS AUMF proposals introduced or announced during the
114th 114th Congress, including President Obama’'s February 15, 2015, proposal. The below section
 discusses key elements and related issues concerning these proposals, as well as other proposals
 that aim to alter existing legislation or presidential action regarding military action against the
 Islamic State.


    IS AUMF Proposals

    On February 2, 2015, Representative Adam Schiff introduced the Authorization for Use of
 Military Force Against ISIL Resolution (H.J.Res. 27). Pursuant to this proposal, the President
 would be authorized to use U.S. Armed Forces against the Islamic State, but limited solely to
 operations in Iraq and Syria, except for U.S. Armed Forces “"engaged in training of indigenous
 Syrian or regional military forces for the purpose of combating”" the Islamic State. The resolution
 states that the authorization does not include “"deployment of ground forces in a combat role,”
" except “"special operations forces or other forces that may be deployed in a training, advisory, or
 intelligence capacity.”" The resolution would terminate the new authority provided by the
 resolution, as well as repeal the 2001 AUMF, three years after the resolution’'s enactment. The
 proposed resolution would repeal the 2002 AUMF immediately upon enactment.
 
    Representative Adam Kinzinger introduced the Authorization for Use of Military Force against
 the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (H.J.Res. 33) on February 13, 2015. The proposal would
 authorize the President “"to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines
 to be necessary and appropriate against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (‘ISIL’) or
'ISIL') or associated persons or forces.... ”" The proposal defines the term “"associated persons or forces” as
8

Testimony of Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Authorization
For The Use of Military Force Against ISIL, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., December 11, 2014.

Congressional Research Service

4

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

“" as "individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related
 successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”9"10 It requires the
 President to report on activities undertaken pursuant to the authorization every three months, and
 it would repeal the 2002 AUMF.

    Senators Tim Kaine and Jeff Flake introduced another proposed IS AUMF (S. 1587) on June 16,
 2015. The bill contains a similar authorization provision to that of H.J.Res. 33, authorizing the
 President to use military force as he deems “"necessary and appropriate”" against the Islamic State
 and associated persons or forces. S. 1587 defines “"associated persons or forces,”" however, as not
 only those “"fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside”" the Islamic State, but also any “"individual or
 organization that presents a direct threat to members of the United States Armed Forces, coalition
 partner forces, or forces trained by the coalition, in their fight against ISIL.”" The proposal states
 the authorization’'s purpose is to protect U.S. citizens and provide military support to the
 campaign of “"regional partners”" to defeat the Islamic State, and that the use of “"significant United
 States ground troops”" is “"not consistent with such purpose,”" except to protect U.S. citizens. The
 bill provides that the authorization terminates three years after enactment, repeals the 2002
 AUMF, and states that the new authorization constitutes “"the sole statutory authority for United
 States military action against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and associated persons or
 forces, and supersedes”" other authorizations. On December 11, 2015, Representatives Scott Rigell
 and Peter Welch introduced an identical proposal (H.R. 4208) in the House.

    On December 3, 2015, Senator Lindsey Graham introduced S.J.Res. 26, which would authorize
 the President to “"to use all necessary and appropriate force in order to defend the national security
 of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the
 Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations.”" No
 other operative, interpretive, or limiting provisions are included.

    Representative Schiff announced on December 10, 2015, that he is circulating another draft IS
 AUMF, the Consolidated Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution of 2015.1011 The
 proposal would repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, replacing their authorizations with a new one
 authorizing the President to “"use all necessary and appropriate force against ... Al Qaeda, the
 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and the Afghan Taliban,”" as well as groups associated
 with these entities that are “"co-belligerent ... in hostilities against the United States.”" This
 authority would terminate three years after enactment. Instead of including definitions,
 limitations, and prohibitions circumscribing the scope of the authority granted, the proposal
 requires the President to notify, and report certain information to, the “"appropriate congressional
committees”11 committees"12 when the authority is exercised, namely



the entities targeted under the authorization (also to be published in the Federal
Register);
Federal Register);
    the reasons for concluding that a listed targeted entity other than those named is
associated and co-belligerent with a named entity; and

9

This definition is the exact language included in the President’s IS AUMF proposal. See “The President’s February
2015 IS AUMF Proposal,” below.
10
Text of the draft joint resolution is available at https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SCHIFF_
023_xml.pdf.
11
These are the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee.

Congressional Research Service

5

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State



details of deployments of “ground forces in a combat role” under the
authorization, with limited exceptions.12

If a notification of the deployment of ground forces is made, the proposal states that any joint
resolution to modify or repeal the authority contained in the proposed IS AUMF shall be
considered under the expedited procedure provisions in the War Powers Resolution.13

Repeal or Limitations on Use of Existing AUMFs
A number of proposals have been made that would repeal existing authorizations without
enacting a new authorization targeting the Islamic State. On February 10, 2015, Representative
 associated and co-belligerent with a named entity; and
    details of deployments of "ground forces in a combat role" under the authorization, with limited exceptions.13
If a notification of the deployment of ground forces is made, the proposal states that any joint resolution to modify or repeal the authority contained in the proposed IS AUMF shall be considered under the expedited procedure provisions in the War Powers Resolution.14
On January 20, 2016, Senator Mitch McConnell introduced S.J.Res. 29, which contains provisions that are nearly identical to S.J.Res. 26, discussed above, including authorizing the President to "to use all necessary and appropriate force in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations." Unlike other IS AUMF proposals introduced during the 114th Congress, however, S.J.Res. 29 was not referred to committee, but instead bypassed committee consideration and was placed on the Senate legislative calendar on January 21, 2016.

    Repeal or Limitations on Use of Existing AUMFs
    A number of proposals have been made that would repeal existing authorizations without enacting a new authorization targeting the Islamic State. On February 10, 2015, Representative Barbara Lee introduced the Comprehensive Solution to ISIL Resolution (H.J.Res. 30), which
 does not include a new authorization for the use of military force, but would repeal the 2001 and
 2002 AUMFs and place new requirements on the President concerning the campaign against the
 Islamic State. Repeal of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs would become effective 60 days after
 enactment. The proposal states that the policy of the United States is to work through the United
 Nations and to carry out relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, support regional efforts to
 counter the Islamic State, and to ensure U.S. foreign assistance is provided only to Iraqi and
 Syrian groups subjected to human rights vetting. It requires the President to develop a
 comprehensive strategy, including strategy for non-military activities, to “"degrade and dismantle
 the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and submit to Congress a report that contains the
 strategy.”" The President would be required to update the report every 90 days.

    Senator Ben Cardin introduced Sunset of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act (S. 526S.
526) on February 12, 2015. The bill would repeal the 2001 AUMF three years upon enactment.
 On March 4, 2015, Representative Barbara Lee introduced a bill (H.R. 1303) that would repeal
 the 2001 AUMF 180 days after enactment, which includes a provision stating that the 2001
 AUMF has been used to “"justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the use of military
 force,”" and that “"such an interpretation is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare
 war.... ”" Representative Lee on the same day introduced a bill that would repeal the 2002 AUMF
 upon enactment (H.R. 1304). In June 2015, Representative Lee introduced two amendments to a
 house version of the FY2016 Defense Department appropriations bill (H.R. 2685) that would
 prohibit the use of FY2016 appropriated funds pursuant to the 2002 AUMF, and would prohibit
 the use of such funds pursuant to the 2001 AUMF after December 31, 2015 (H.Amdt. 484 and
 H.Amdt. 482 to H.R. 2685). Both amendments were not agreed to. Representative Schiff
 proposed an amendment to the same bill that would have prohibited the use of appropriated funds
 for the use of military force against the Islamic State through Operation Inherent Resolve after
 March 31, 2016 (H.Amdt. 479). This amendment also failed passage.


    Disapproval Measure Pursuant to War Powers Resolution

    In addition, the House considered a concurrent resolution (H.Con.Res. 55), introduced on June 4,
 2015, by Representatives Jim McGovern, Walter Jones, and Barbara Lee, to direct the President
 to remove U.S. armed forcesArmed Forces deployed to Iraq and Syria on or after August 7, 2014 (the date on
 which the President began using military force against the Islamic State), within 30 days after the
12

The exceptions are deployments involving (1) special operations forces, (2) training, (3) advising, (4) search and
rescue, (5) intelligence gathering, (6) ground support for air operations, (7) and limited duration actions against high
value targets.
13
Section 6 of P.L. 93-148 (50 U.S.C. § 1545).

Congressional Research Service

6

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

resolution’ resolution's adoption. Under the proposal, the deadline could have been extended until December
 31, 2015, at the latest, if the President determined it is not safe to withdraw such armed forces
Armed Forces within the 30-day deadline. This resolution was introduced pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War
 Powers Resolution, which states that at any time after a President deploys U.S. armed forces into
Armed Forces into hostilities without congressional authorization, Congress may direct withdrawal of such forces by
 concurrent resolution. Although the resolution does not explicitly refute the President’'s reliance
 on the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs for authority to strike the Islamic State, the invocation of Section
 5(c) indicates rejection of such interpretation of those authorizations.
 
    H.Con.Res. 55 was treated in accordance with Section 6 of the War Powers Resolution, providing
 for expedited consideration of a concurrent resolution disapproving the use of military force
 without congressional authorization. The House Foreign Affairs Committee considered and
 reported the resolution favorably to the House within 15 days of its introduction, and the House
 ordered by unanimous consent that it would without procedural delay consider the resolution with
 two hours of debate divided equally between the majority and minority if requested by Chairman
 Ed Royce of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman Royce made such request on June
 17, 2015, and after two hours of debate the resolution failed to pass by a vote of 139-288.


    The President’'s February 2015 IS AUMF Proposal

    On February 11, 2015, the President provided Congress with a draft proposal for a new IS
 AUMF,1415 stating in an accompanying letter that he “"can think of no better way for the Congress to
 join [the President] in supporting our Nation’'s security than by enacting this legislation, which
 would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL.”15 The
President’"16 The President's proposal would authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces that he deems “"necessary and
appropriate” appropriate" against the Islamic State and associated persons or forces. In the proposed
 authorization, “"the term ‘'associated persons or forces’' means individuals and organizations
 fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities
 against the United States or its coalition partners.”" The authorization does not include authority
 for the use of U.S. Armed Forces for “"enduring offensive ground combat operations.” The
proposal’" The proposal's authorization would terminate three years after enactment, and contains a provision
 repealing the 2002 AUMF upon enactment. The President would be required to report to
 Congress at least every six months on actions taken under the proposed IS AUMF.

    A number of aspects of the President’'s proposal could be considered and debated among
 Members of Congress.


 First, the President’'s proposal would prohibit “"enduring offensive ground combat
 operations,”" instead of specifically prohibiting the use of ground combat forces,
 or execution of ground combat operations, with exceptions for certain types of
 units or operations, as some of the previous IS AUMF proposals have. It is not
 clear what that limitation, expressed as it is, would mean in practice, although the
President’ President's letter states that it is designed to allow the same excepted units and/or
operations.

14

Available at http://www.cq.com/doc/4622425?0&pos=alert&dlvid=115410051&agenttype=13.
President Barack Obama, Letter from the President—Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces in
connection with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, February 11, 2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2015/02/11/letter-president-authorization-use-united-states-armed-forces-connection.
15

Congressional Research Service

7

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State










 operations. 
    Second, the President’'s proposal does not include any geographical limitation,
 possibly enabling the use of military force in countries other than Iraq and Syria.
 
    Third, the definition of “"associated persons or forces,”" especially the inclusion of
 the phrase “"fighting ... on behalf of ... ISIL,”" might be considered lacking in
 precision, leading to confusion in the future interpretation of what constitutes a
 lawfully targeted entity.
 
    Fourth, the President’'s proposal, unlike many of the previous IS AUMF
 proposals, does not provide a purpose or objective for the use of U.S. Armed
 Forces against the Islamic State in the authorization language itself. This could
 lead to concerns that the authorization does not sufficiently direct the President’s
's actions or provide a definition of victory, and therefore authorizes military
 operations without an endpoint or measurable goal.
 
    Fifth, although the President states in his letter that he still intends to engage
 Congress in reforming the 2001 AUMF, his proposal does not contain a provision
 that repeals or sunsets that measure, unlike most of the IS AUMF proposals
 previously introduced.
 
    Finally, the reporting requirement is for a basic periodic “"actions taken”" report,
 and is similar to certain reporting requirements already in place concerning
 deployed U.S. Armed Forces. This is in contrast to other IS AUMF proposals,
 which have required information concerning all targeted entities, specific reports
 on operations and effectiveness of those operations, and the budget effects of
 operations.

The President, in his December 6, 2015, address to the nation after the killings in San Bernardino,
 CA, by individuals who pledged support for the Islamic State, renewed his call for Congress to
 enact a new authorization for use of force against the Islamic State:

    [I]f Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote
 to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I
 have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets.  I think it’s
's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and
 committed, to this fight.16

17
    The President made similar comments in his State of the Union address on January 12, 2016,
 stating, “"If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our
 troops and the world, authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote.”" As in
 previous statements, however, the President did not link enactment of a new IS AUMF to the
 source of current presidential authority to direct the use of military force against the Islamic State,
 and indicated that military action against the group will continue regardless: “"[T]he American
 people should know that with or without congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as
terrorists before them.”17

16

President Barack Obama, Address to the Nation concerning the attack in San Bernardino, December 6, 2015,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/06/address-nation-president.
17
President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, January 12, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2016/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-state-union-address.

Congressional Research Service

8

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

 terrorists before them."18
    Selected Types of Proposed IS AUMF Provisions
 and Related Issues
 Issues
    In general, 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’ 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. Proposals for a new IS AUMF might 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 President has stated that an IS authorization should provide the flexibility to carry out “not
"not just our strategy [for the military campaign against the Islamic State] over the next two or three
 months, but our strategy going forward.”18"19 It could be argued, however, that even if limitations
 are enacted and perceived later to have a deleterious effect on the U.S. campaign against the
 Islamic State, such limitations could be removed or modified through subsequent legislative
 action if the need arises. Such limitations and an overall lack of flexibility in any IS AUMF,
 however, might be difficult to change legislatively if Members of Congress cannot agree to
 changes; neither the 2001 nor 2002 AUMF has been amended, for example, despite the stated
 need for amendments by observers and Members over the lifespan of those two measures.

    The following sections address some specific aspects of an AUMF that have or might come under
 debate in the 114th Congress.

114th Congress.
    Authorization Purpose and Scope

    Some observers and Members of Congress have argued that recent open-ended, broadly worded
 authorizations can empower a President to continue military operations outside of Congress’s
's intent. An IS AUMF could include language in the authorizing provision identifying the specific
 purpose for and scope of the President’'s use of U.S. military force, narrowing or broadening the
President’ President's flexibility. An authorization that authorizes force to defend “"U.S. national security”
" against the threat posed by the Islamic State would seem to provide a broad “"national security”
" basis for possible long-term, open-ended military operations. Authorizing force to protect U.S.
“interests” "interests" generally would seem to provide even wider authority to the President, while
 including the goal of protecting both the United States and U.S. allies could expand the range of
 purposes for military action. As to scope, many past AUMFs include language stating that the
 President can use all “"necessary and appropriate”" force to achieve the purpose of the
 authorization. While this could provide the President with the flexibility he needs to effectively
 employ U.S. Armed Forces, such language leaves the determination of the form and extent of
 U.S. military force generally to the President. Congress could decide to place limitations and
18

President Barack Obama, remarks at a press conference, November 5, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2014/11/05/remarks-president-press-conference.

Congressional Research Service

9

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

 conditions on any broader purpose and scope provisions in an attempt to shape the President’'s use
 of U.S. military force. (See “"Limitations and Conditions,”," below.)


    Identifying Targeted Entities

    Any new IS AUMF would be expected to name the Islamic State (or one of its other monikers,
 including ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh) as the primary entity to be targeted by authorized U.S. military
 force. As evidenced by the implementation of the 2001 AUMF, however, a number of issues arise
 in determining exactly who can be lawfully targeted under such a provision, and the extent to
 which Congress desires to define and/or limit the universe of lawful targets in an IS AUMF. First,
 while specifically targeting the Islamic State provides a basic starting point for determining
 authorized targets, in many cases it might be unclear whether individuals are in fact part of the
 Islamic State, are part of groups fighting alongside the Islamic State, or are merely part of nonalignednon-aligned groups also fighting in the region, either against the United States and its allies or
 otherwise. Congress might also wish to include language providing for future iterations of the
 structure of the Islamic State group. The Islamic State might splinter at multiple points in time
 into several new entities with different names and different affiliations, or combine with other
 groups to form new entities. Indeed, the Islamic State itself was formerly known, among other
 things, as Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and its former close relationship and subsequent reported split
 with Al Qaeda has complicated determinations of whether the 2001 AUMF could be applied
 against it. An IS AUMF could include language that extends the authority to use military force
 against any successor entities of the Islamic State.

    Perhaps the aspect of identifying lawful targeted entities considered most fraught is the matter of
“ "associated forces.”" One of the central criticisms of the application of authority in the 2001
 AUMF has been the expansion of military force to target entities that successive Administrations
 have designated “"co-belligerent”" with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. In the context of the current
 campaign against the Islamic State, the Obama Administration has asserted that the Islamic State
 can be targeted as it can be considered a branch or in some ways a successor to Al Qaeda.1920 It can
 be argued that this opens the possibility of military force being used now and in the future against
 a number of groups associated with the Islamic State, further expanding the universe of targeted
 entities, possibly in countries other than Iraq and Syria.
 
    Some recent IS AUMF proposals have attempted to better define what constitutes “associated
"associated forces,”" or requires presidential reporting on or certification of newly designated associated
 forces, in an attempt to circumscribe the number of lawfully targeted entities and ensure
 congressional input into any expansion of such entities. The term “"associated forces”" would seem
 to apply to forces that are not part of IS forces but are fighting in concert with such forces. Some
 proposals, however, such as the President’'s IS AUMF proposal, include language that seems to
 define both IS and associated forces, stating the term means “"individuals and organizations
 fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL.... ”" This language might be seen as overly broad and
 vague; Members of Congress may desire to more precisely define the term, ensuring that only
 those forces that are determined to directly engage in military operations in cooperation with IS
 forces are lawfully targeted under any IS AUMF. On the other hand, given the President’'s stated
 policies of defending U.S. national security, stabilizing and maintaining a democratic Iraq, and
 supporting moderate Syrian groups fighting the Syrian forces of the Asad government, an IS
 AUMF could eschew the “"associated forces”" term in favor of targeting the Islamic State and any
 other individuals or groups that pose a threat to those policies.
19

See “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest,” supra note 7.

Congressional Research Service

10

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State


    Limitations and Conditions

    In considering any proposals to limit the authority of an IS AUMF, for example, by prohibiting
 the use of ground forces or constraining operations to a certain geographic area, Congress must
 weigh competing interests. The President’'s proposal would not allow “"enduring offensive ground
 combat operations,”" while several previous IS AUMF proposals prohibited the use of ground
 combat forces or operations with specific carve-outs regarding special forces and training, among
 other units/operations. Understanding the expected effect of these different provisions would
 likely be key to Congress’'s decision on including them into a finalized IS AUMF. The limitation
 on the use of ground forces or prohibiting ground combat operations might, as some argue,
 significantly restrict the ability of the President and U.S. military leadership to prosecute conflict
 against the Islamic State in the manner they feel is most effective. Some in Congress might
 consider such restriction acceptable, however, if it is determined to avoid the involvement of the
 U.S. Armed Forces in another large-scale ground conflict following so closely upon the end of
 two such conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
    A geographic limitation might hinder the President’'s ability to strike IS and associated forces in
 countries other than Iraq and Syria, despite these forces’' proven ability to cross state borders
 when it suits their purposes. In addition, as more groups pledge to fight alongside the Islamic
 State, or identify themselves as parts of the Islamic State itself, in countries such as Egypt, Libya,
 Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, it could be reasonably expected that the President might
 determine that U.S. military operations should expand outside Iraq and Syria in the future.
 Congress, however, might wish to include such a limitation to prevent a similar geographic
 expansion of military operations to the President’'s expansion under the 2001 AUMF’'s authority
 to several countries other than Afghanistan.

 
    Repealing Previous AUMFs and Sunset Provisions

    The President’'s proposal includes a three-year sunset provision automatically terminating the ISspecificIS-specific authorization; H.J.Res. 27 would terminate the new authorization and repeal the 2001
 AUMF after three years; and Representative Schiff’'s December 2015 draft IS AUMF proposal
 would repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs immediately, replacing them with a comprehensive
 authorization against the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and the Afghan Taliban. There is concern that
 Congress placing time limitations on the campaigns against the Islamic State, as well as Al Qaeda
 and other terrorist groups targeted under the 2001 AUMF, would send the wrong message to such
 targeted groups and the world about U.S. resolve to defeat these groups. On the other hand, a
 sunset on authority to use military force could be utilized to ensure that the IS and 2001 AUMF
 authorizations are not interpreted to authorize the use of military force in perpetuity, and in a
 manner that some perceive as outside the scope and intent of the original authorizations. Given
 the Obama Administration’'s continuing reliance on that authorization to conduct the current
 campaign against the Islamic State, for example, leaving the 2001 AUMF in place without
 amendment might be a continuing source of confusion and contention concerning presidential
 authority to use military force against the Islamic State, and in Iraq, Syria, and the Middle
 East/North Africa region in general. In any case, some argue, automatic terminations of authority
 might force Congress to reconsider previous AUMFs and their provisions in light of changed
 circumstances, amending and reauthorizing as Congress sees necessary.


    Reporting and Certification

    Although the President has provided information both publicly and in briefings to Members of
 Congress concerning the campaign against the Islamic State, Congress may decide to require the

Congressional Research Service

11

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

 President to report to Congress both before a new authorization can enter into effect, and at
 regular intervals as the campaign moves forward. Ensuring Congress is being presented with
 substantive, up-to-date information might serve to mitigate concerns over unchecked expansion
 of the scope and duration of military operations taken under any IS AUMF. The President’s
's proposal would require general reporting on the actions taken under the authorization every six
 months, which is in line with the existing reporting requirements in the War Powers Resolution.20
21 Previous IS AUMF proposals have contained more frequent and detailed reporting
 requirements.2122 Representative Schiff’'s December 2015 draft IS AUMF proposal seeks to replace
 limiting provisions defining targetable associated forces and circumscribing the geographic and
 operational scope of the new authorization, instead creating specific congressional reporting
 requirements on those issues. Members of Congress might wish to have clear strategy presented
 before agreeing to authorize military force, requiring a report explaining such a strategy to
 Congress (such as the report required in H.J.Res. 30), and make it a condition of authorization.
 Periodic reporting could require updated information on the effectiveness of previously stated
 strategy, and the extent to which strategic goals are being achieved.

20
21

See Section 4(c) of the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148; 50 U.S.C. § 1543(c)).
See Table A-1 in Appendix A, and Table B-2 in Appendix B, below.

Congressional Research Service

12

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Appendix A.  
    Comparison of IS AUMF Proposals
 from the 114th Congress
114th Congress
    As discussed in the main text of this report, there have been several new proposals for
 authorizations to use military force against the Islamic State during the 114th114th Congress, both from
 Members of Congress and the President (see Table A-1).
    
      
        ).
Table A-1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State in the
114th Congress
Bill or Resolution

Title

Sponsor

Date Introduced

H.J.Res. 27

Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against ISIL
Resolution

Representative Adam Schiff

February 2, 2015

President’s February
2015 Proposed
AUMF

Authorization for Use of
Military Force against the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant

President Barack Obama

February 11, 2015

H.J.Res. 33

Authorization for Use of
Military Force against the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant

Representative Adam
Kinzinger

February 13, 2015

S. 1587

Authority for the Use of Military
Force Against the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant Act

Senator Tim Kaine

June 16, 2015

S.J.Res. 26

Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against the
Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant and its Associated
Forces

Senator Lindsey Graham

December 3, 2015

H.R. 4208

Authority for the Use of Military
Force Against the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant Act

Representative Scott Rigell

December 10, 2015

Schiff December
2015 Draft AUMF

Consolidated Authorization for
Use of Military Force Resolution
of 2015

Representative Adam Schiff

December 10, 2015
(draft announced)

Table B-2 114th Congress
      
      
        
          Bill or Resolution

          Title

          Sponsor

          Date Introduced

        

          H.J.Res. 27 

          Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIL Resolution

          Representative Adam Schiff

          February 2, 2015

        

          President's February 2015 Proposed AUMF

          Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

          President Barack Obama

          February 11, 2015

        

          H.J.Res. 33 

          Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

          Representative Adam Kinzinger

          February 13, 2015

        

          S. 1587 

          Authority for the Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Act

          Senator Tim Kaine

          June 16, 2015

        

          S.J.Res. 26 

          Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its Associated Forces

          Senator Lindsey Graham

          December 3, 2015

        

          H.R. 4208 

          Authority for the Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Act

          Representative Scott Rigell

          December 10, 2015

        

          Schiff December 2015 Draft AUMF

          Consolidated Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution of 2015

          Representative Adam Schiff

          December 10, 2015 (draft announced)

        

          S.J.Res. 29 

          Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its Associated Forces

          Senator Mitch McConnell

          January 20, 2016

        

    
    Table B-2, below, provides a breakdown of these seven proposals by type of provision. S. 1587
 and H.R. 4208 contain identical provisions, and are treated as one proposal in the table.

Congressional Research Service

13

  S.J.Res. 26 and S.J.Res. 29 contain substantially similar provisions, but some are not identical, and thus the resolutions are treated separately.
    
    
    
      
        Table A-2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in the 114th Congress
114th Congress
        Comparison of similar provisions (as of January 15, 2016)

Provision

President’s
February 2015
Proposed AUMF

H.J.Res. 27

H.J.Res. 33

S. 1587/H.R. 4208

S.J.Res. 26

Schiff December
2015 Draft AUMF

Scope of
authorized force

“The President is
authorized, subject to
the limitations in
subsection (c), to use
the Armed Forces of
the United States as
the President
determines to be
necessary and
appropriate”

“The President is
authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the
United States”

“The President is
authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the
United States as the
President determines
to be necessary and
appropriate”

“The President is
authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the
United States as the
President determines
necessary and
appropriate”

“The President is
authorized to use all
necessary and
appropriate force”

“The President is
authorized to use all
necessary and
appropriate force”

International
conditions for use
of force

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

Types of military
action authorized

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

Target of use of
military force

“ISIL or associated
persons or forces as
defined” in the
proposal

“the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant
(‘ISIL’)”

“the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant
(‘ISIL’) or associated
persons or forces as
defined in section 4”

“ISIL or associated
persons or forces as
defined in section 6”

“the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant,
its associated forces,
organizations, and
persons, and any
successor
organizations”

“Al Qaeda, the
Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL),
and the Afghan
Taliban,” as well as
“[a]ny organized and
armed group that is
associated with” one
of those entities “if
such group is a cobelligerent with such
entity in hostilities
against the United
States”

CRS-14

 Provision

President’s
February 2015
Proposed AUMF

H.J.Res. 27

H.J.Res. 33

S. 1587/H.R. 4208

S.J.Res. 26

Schiff December
2015 Draft AUMF

Purpose

none specified

none specified

none specified

“The purpose of this
authorization is to
protect the lives of
United States citizens
and to provide
military support to
regional partners in
their battle to defeat
ISIL.”

“to defend the
national security of
the United States
against the continuing
threat posed by the
Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant, its
associated forces,
organizations, and
persons, and any
successor
organizations”

none specified

Geographic
limitation

none specified

“The authority
granted in subsection
(a) shall be confined
to the territory of the
Republic of Iraq and
the Syrian Arab
Republic. The
limitation of this
subsection shall not
apply to the Armed
Forces of the United
States engaged in
training of indigenous
Syrian or regional
military forces for the
purpose of combating
ISIL.”

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

CRS-15

 Provision
Military unit/action
limitation

CRS-16

President’s
February 2015
Proposed AUMF
“The authority
granted in subsection
(a) does not authorize
the use of the United
States Armed Forces
in enduring offensive
ground combat
operations.”

H.J.Res. 27
“The authority
granted in subsection
(a) does not include
the authority for the
deployment of ground
forces in a combat
role. For purposes of
this subsection,
‘ground forces in a
combat role’ does not
include special
operations forces or
other forces that may
be deployed in a
training, advisory,
search and rescue, or
intelligence capacity.”

H.J.Res. 33
none specified

S. 1587/H.R. 4208
Bill states that “[t]he
use of significant
United States ground
troops in combat
against ISIL, except to
protect the lives of
United States citizens
from imminent threat,
is not consistent
with” the purpose of
the authorization.

S.J.Res. 26
none specified

Schiff December
2015 Draft AUMF
No limitation
provided; see
“GROUND FORCES
IN A COMBAT
ROLE” in the
Reporting/
Notification row of
this column for
related reporting
requirements.

 Provision

President’s
February 2015
Proposed AUMF

H.J.Res. 27

H.J.Res. 33

S. 1587/H.R. 4208

S.J.Res. 26

Schiff December
2015 Draft AUMF

Associated forces
definition/
limitation

“‘[A]ssociated
persons or forces’
means individuals and
organizations fighting
for, on behalf of, or
alongside ISIL or any
closely-related
successor entity in
hostilities against the
United States or its
coalition partners.”

none specified

“[T]he term
‘associated persons
or forces’ means
individuals and
organizations fighting
for, on behalf of, or
alongside ISIL or any
closely related
successor entity in
hostilities against the
United States or its
coalition partners.”

“In this Act, the term
‘associated persons
or forces’—
“(1) means individuals
and organizations
fighting for, on behalf
of, or alongside ISIL
or any closely related
successor entity in
hostilities against the
United States or its
coalition partners;
and
“(2) refers to any
individual or
organization that
presents a direct
threat to members of
the United States
Armed Forces,
coalition partner
forces, or forces
trained by the
coalition, in their fight
against ISIL.”

none specified

“Any organized and
armed group that is
associated with” “Al
Qaeda, the Islamic
State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL), and the
Afghan Taliban,” “if
such group is a cobelligerent with such
entity in hostilities
against the United
States.”

Government of
Syria limitation

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

Sunset

Three years after
date of enactment,
“unless reauthorized”

Three years after
date of enactment

none

Three years after
date of enactment,
“unless reauthorized”

none

Three years after
date of enactment

CRS-17

 Provision
AUMF Repeal/
Supersession

CRS-18

President’s
February 2015
Proposed AUMF
Proposal would
repeal 2002 AUMF

H.J.Res. 27
Proposal would
repeal 2002 AUMF
upon enactment, and
would repeal the
2001 AUMF three
years after enactment

H.J.Res. 33
Proposal would
repeal 2002 AUMF
upon enactment

S. 1587/H.R. 4208
Proposal would
repeal 2002 AUMF
upon enactment
Proposal states that
“[t]his authorization
shall constitute the
sole statutory
authority for United
States military action
against the Islamic
State of Iraq and the
Levant and associated
persons or forces,
and supersedes any
prior authorization
for the use of military
force involving action
against ISIL.”

S.J.Res. 26
none

Schiff December
2015 Draft AUMF
Draft resolution
would repeal 2001
and 2002 AUMFs

 Provision
Reporting/
Notification

CRS-19

President’s
February 2015
Proposed AUMF
“The President shall
report to Congress at
least once every six
months on specific
actions taken
pursuant to this
authorization.”

H.J.Res. 27

H.J.Res. 33

S. 1587/H.R. 4208

S.J.Res. 26

“The President shall,
at least once every 60
days after the date of
the enactment of this
joint resolution,
submit to the Speaker
of the House of
Representatives and
the President pro
tempore of the
Senate a report on
matters relevant to
this joint resolution,
including actions
taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority
granted in section 2
and the status of
planning for efforts
that are expected to
be required over the
next 60 days.”

“The President shall
report to Congress at
least once every
three months on
specific actions taken
pursuant to this
authorization.”

“The President shall
report to Congress at
least once every six
months on specific
actions taken
pursuant to this
authorization.”

“The President shall,
at least once every 60
days, submit to
Congress a report on
matters relevant to
this joint resolution,
including actions
taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority
granted in section 2.”

Schiff December
2015 Draft AUMF
PERIODIC
REPORTING ON
TARGETS/
LOCATIONS OF
USES OF FORCE
Every 90 days the
President must
submit to
“appropriate
congressional
committees” and
publish in the Federal
Register “a list of
entities and organized
and armed groups
against which” force
has been used and the
geographic location
where such force has
been used.
ASSOCIATED
GROUPS
If force has been used
against a group other
than a targeted entity,
the President must
explain to the
“appropriate
congressional
committees” the
determination that
such group is
associated and cobelligerent with a
targeted entity.

 Provision

President’s
February 2015
Proposed AUMF

H.J.Res. 27

H.J.Res. 33

S. 1587/H.R. 4208

S.J.Res. 26

Reporting/
Notification (cont.)

Consultation

CRS-20

Schiff December
2015 Draft AUMF
GROUND FORCES
IN A COMBAT
ROLE
If “ground forces in a
combat role” are
deployed, the
President must notify
the “appropriate
congressional
committees at the
earliest possible date
... consistent with the
national security
interests of the
United States.”
“Ground forces in a
combat role” do not
include “special
operations forces or
other forces that may
be deployed for
purposes of training,
advisory roles, search
and rescue,
intelligence gathering,
ground support for
air operations, or
limited duration
actions against high
value targets.”

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

none specified

 Provision

President’s
February 2015
Proposed AUMF

H.J.Res. 27

H.J.Res. 33

S. 1587/H.R. 4208

S.J.Res. 26

Schiff December
2015 Draft AUMF

War Powers
Resolution

Proposal states
authorization section
is “intended to
constitute specific
statutory
authorization within
the meaning of
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1544(b)).”

Resolution states
authorization section
is “intended to
constitute specific
statutory
authorization within
the meaning of
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
Resolution.”

Resolution states
authorization section
is “intended to
constitute specific
statutory
authorization within
the meaning of
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1544(b)).”

Both bills state
authorization section
is “intended to
constitute specific
statutory
authorization within
the meaning of
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1544(b)).”

Resolution states
authorization section
is “intended to
constitute specific
statutory
authorization within
the meaning of
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
Resolution.”

Draft resolution
states authorization
section is “intended
to constitute specific
statutory
authorization within
the meaning of
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
Resolution.”

Expedited
Consideration

none provided in
addition to those
included in the War
Powers Resolution

none provided in
addition to those
included in the War
Powers Resolution

none provided in
addition to those
included in the War
Powers Resolution

none provided in
addition to those
included in the War
Powers Resolution

none provided in
addition to those
included in the War
Powers Resolution

If a joint resolution is
introduced after the
“appropriate
congressional
committees” receive
a “ground forces in a
combat role”
notification that
would amend or
repeal the authority
provided in the draft
resolution, such new
joint resolution shall
be considered in
accordance with the
procedures described
in section 6 of the
War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1545).

Source: Congress.gov.

CRS-21

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Appendix B. Comparison of IS AUMF Proposals
from the 113th Congress22
Near the end of the 113th Congress, a number of Members proposed several new authorizations to
use military force against the Islamic State:
Table B-1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State in the
113th Congress
Bill or
Resolution

Title

Sponsor

Date Introduced

H.R. 5415

Authorization for Use of Military Force
against International Terrorism Act

Representative Frank Wolf

September 8, 2014

H.J.Res. 123

Authorization for the Use of Military
Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL)

Representative Darrell Issa

September 8, 2014

S.J.Res. 42

Authorization for Use of Military Force
against the Islamic State in Iraq and the
Levant

Senator Bill Nelson

September 8, 2014

S.J.Res. 43

Authorization for Use of Force Against
the Organization Called the Islamic State

Senator James Inhofe

September 8, 2014

S.J.Res. 44

Authorization for Use of Military Force
against the Islamic State in Iraq and the
Levant

Senator Tim Kaine

September 8, 2014

H.J.Res. 125

Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against ISIL Resolution

Representative Adam Schiff

September 16, 2014

H.J.Res. 128

Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against ISIL Resolution

Representative John Larson

September 19, 2014

S.J.Res. 47

Authorization for the Use of Military
Force against the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant

Senator Robert Menendez

December 13, 2014

Note: Each proposal was referred to either the House Foreign Affairs Committee or Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, except H.J.Res. 128, which was referred to both the House Foreign Affairs and House Rules
Committees, and S.J.Res. 47, which originated in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was reported
favorably to the full Senate.

The analysis provided below compares similar types of provisions included in IS AUMF
proposals from the 113thProvision
President's February 2015 Proposed AUMF
H.J.Res. 27
H.J.Res. 33
S. 1587/H.R. 4208
S.J.Res. 26
Schiff December 2015 Draft AUMF
S.J.Res. 29
Scope of authorized force
"The President is authorized, subject to the limitations in subsection (c), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate"
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States"
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate"
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines necessary and appropriate"
"The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force"
"The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force"
"The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force"
International conditions for use of force
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
Types of military action authorized
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
Target of use of military force
"ISIL or associated persons or forces as defined" in the proposal
"the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ('ISIL')"
"the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ('ISIL') or associated persons or forces as defined in section 4"
"ISIL or associated persons or forces as defined in section 6"
"the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations"
"Al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and the Afghan Taliban," as well as "[a]ny organized and armed group that is associated with" one of those entities "if such group is a co-belligerent with such entity in hostilities against the United States"
"the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations"
Purpose
none specified
none specified
none specified
"The purpose of this authorization is to protect the lives of United States citizens and to provide military support to regional partners in their battle to defeat ISIL."
"to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations"
none specified
"to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations"
Geographic limitation
none specified
"The authority granted in subsection (a) shall be confined to the territory of the Republic of Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic. The limitation of this subsection shall not apply to the Armed Forces of the United States engaged in training of indigenous Syrian or regional military forces for the purpose of combating ISIL."
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
Military unit/action limitation
"The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations."
"The authority granted in subsection (a) does not include the authority for the deployment of ground forces in a combat role. For purposes of this subsection, 'ground forces in a combat role' does not include special operations forces or other forces that may be deployed in a training, advisory, search and rescue, or intelligence capacity."
none specified
Bill states that "[t]he use of significant United States ground troops in combat against ISIL, except to protect the lives of United States citizens from imminent threat, is not consistent with" the purpose of the authorization.
none specified
No limitation provided; see "GROUND FORCES IN A COMBAT ROLE" in the Reporting/ Notification row of this column for related reporting requirements.
none specified
Associated forces definition/ limitation
"'[A]ssociated persons or forces' means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."
none specified
"[T]he term 'associated persons or forces' means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."
"In this Act, the term 'associated persons or forces'—
"(1) means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; and
"(2) refers to any individual or organization that presents a direct threat to members of the United States Armed Forces, coalition partner forces, or forces trained by the coalition, in their fight against ISIL."
none specified
"Any organized and armed group that is associated with" "Al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and the Afghan Taliban," "if such group is a co-belligerent with such entity in hostilities against the United States."
none specified
Government of Syria limitation
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
Sunset
Three years after date of enactment, "unless reauthorized"
Three years after date of enactment
none
Three years after date of enactment, "unless reauthorized"
none
Three years after date of enactment
none
AUMF Repeal/ Supersession
Proposal would repeal 2002 AUMF
Proposal would repeal 2002 AUMF upon enactment, and would repeal the 2001 AUMF three years after enactment
Proposal would repeal 2002 AUMF upon enactment
Proposal would repeal 2002 AUMF upon enactment
Proposal states that "[t]his authorization shall constitute the sole statutory authority for United States military action against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and associated persons or forces, and supersedes any prior authorization for the use of military force involving action against ISIL."
none
Draft resolution would repeal 2001 and 2002 AUMFs
none
Reporting/ Notification
"The President shall report to Congress at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization."
"The President shall, at least once every 60 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required over the next 60 days."
"The President shall report to Congress at least once every three months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization."
"The President shall report to Congress at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization."
"The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2."
PERIODIC REPORTING ON TARGETS/ LOCATIONS OF USES OF FORCE
Every 90 days the President must submit to "appropriate congressional committees" and publish in the Federal Register "a list of entities and organized and armed groups against which" force has been used and the geographic location where such force has been used.
"Not less frequently than once every 60 days, the President shall submit a report to Congress on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted under section 2."
Reporting/ Notification (cont.)
ASSOCIATED GROUPS
If force has been used against a group other than a targeted entity, the President must explain to the "appropriate congressional committees" the determination that such group is associated and co-belligerent with a targeted entity.
Reporting/ Notification (cont.)
GROUND FORCES IN A COMBAT ROLE
If "ground forces in a combat role" are deployed, the President must notify the "appropriate congressional committees at the earliest possible date ... consistent with the national security interests of the United States."
"Ground forces in a combat role" do not include "special operations forces or other forces that may be deployed for purposes of training, advisory roles, search and rescue, intelligence gathering, ground support for air operations, or limited duration actions against high value targets."
Consultation
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
War Powers Resolution
Proposal states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b))."
Resolution states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
Resolution states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b))."
Both bills state authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b))."
Resolution states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
Draft resolution states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
Resolution states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
Expedited Consideration
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
If a joint resolution is introduced after the "appropriate congressional committees" receive a "ground forces in a combat role" notification that would amend or repeal the authority provided in the draft resolution, such new joint resolution shall be considered in accordance with the procedures described in section 6 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1545).
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
Sources: Congress.gov; Whitehouse.gov; Justsecurity.org.

        
      
    
    
    Comparison of IS AUMF Proposals from the 113th Congress23Near the end of the 113th Congress, a number of Members proposed several new authorizations to use military force against the Islamic State:

    
      
        Table B-1. Proposed Authorizations to Use Force Against the Islamic State in the 113th Congress
      
      
        
          Bill or Resolution

          Title

          Sponsor

          Date Introduced

        

          H.R. 5415

          Authorization for Use of Military Force against International Terrorism Act

          Representative Frank Wolf

          September 8, 2014

        

          H.J.Res. 123

          Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

          Representative Darrell Issa

          September 8, 2014

        

          S.J.Res. 42

          Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant

          Senator Bill Nelson

          September 8, 2014

        

          S.J.Res. 43

          Authorization for Use of Force Against the Organization Called the Islamic State

          Senator James Inhofe

          September 8, 2014

        

          S.J.Res. 44

          Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant

          Senator Tim Kaine

          September 8, 2014

        

          H.J.Res. 125

          Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIL Resolution

          Representative Adam Schiff

          September 16, 2014

        

          H.J.Res. 128

          Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIL Resolution

          Representative John Larson

          September 19, 2014

        

          S.J.Res. 47

          Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

          Senator Robert Menendez

          December 13, 2014

        
Note: Each proposal was referred to either the House Foreign Affairs Committee or Senate Foreign Relations Committee, except H.J.Res. 128, which was referred to both the House Foreign Affairs and House Rules Committees, and S.J.Res. 47, which originated in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was reported favorably to the full Senate.

    
    The analysis provided below compares similar types of provisions included in IS AUMF proposals from the 113th Congress and issues related to those provisions. Table B-2 provides a
 breakdown of seven out of eight of these proposals by type of provision. Treatment of S.J.Res. 47
 is included in the section entitled “"Calls for a New AUMF and Congressional Action in the 113th
Congress” in the main text of this report.

22

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. 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.

Congressional Research Service

22

 Table B-2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in the 113th Congress
Comparison of Similar Provisions

Provision

H.R. 5415

H.J.Res. 123

H.J.Res. 125

H.J.Res. 128a
with U.N. Security
Council Resolution

H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
Security Council
Resolution

S.J.Res. 42

S.J.Res. 43

S.J.Res. 44

Scope of
authorized
force

“The President is
authorized ... to
use all necessary
and appropriate
force”

“The President is
authorized to use
the Armed Forces
of the United States
as the President
determines to be
necessary and
appropriate”

“The President is
authorized to use
the Armed Forces
of the United
States”

“The President is
authorized to use the
United States Armed
Forces as the
President determines
to be necessary and
appropriate”

Same, except subject
to conditions (see
Reporting/
Certification row,
below) and enactment
of a second joint
resolution under
expedited procedures

“The President is
authorized to use
appropriate force”

“the President is
authorized to use all
necessary and
appropriate force”

“the President is
authorized ... to use
all necessary and
appropriate force”

International
conditions for
use of force

“with the close
consultation,
coordination, and
cooperation with
NATO and
regional allies”

none specified

none specified

U.N. Security Council
resolution authorizing
use of force against
ISIL

No U.N. Security
Council resolution
authorizing use of
force against ISIL

none specified

none specified

“as part of a
multinational
coalition”

CRS-23

 Provision
Types of
military action
authorized

H.R. 5415
none specified

CRS-24

H.J.Res. 123
none specified

H.J.Res. 125
none specified

H.J.Res. 128a
with U.N. Security
Council Resolution
none specified

H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
Security Council
Resolution

S.J.Res. 42
none specified

S.J.Res. 43
none specified

S.J.Res. 44
“to participate in a
campaign of
airstrikes in Iraq, 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”

 H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
Security Council
Resolution

H.J.Res. 125

H.J.Res. 128a
with U.N. Security
Council Resolution

Target of use of
military force

“those countries,
“Islamic State of
organizations, or
Iraq and the Levant
persons associated (ISIL)”
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”

“Islamic State of
Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL)”

“Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant
(‘ISIL’)”

“Islamic State of Iraq
“Islamic State of Iraq “Islamic State (or
and the Levant (‘ISIL’)” and the Levant (ISIL)” “IS”), formally known
as the Islamic State
of Iraq and the
Levant, as well as any
successor
organization”

“Islamic State in Iraq
and the Levant
(ISIL)”, as well as
ISIL-associated
forces, subject to
requirements in
Section 4 (see
below)

Purpose

“to eliminate all
such terrorist
groups and
prevent any future
acts of
international
terrorism against
the United States
or its allies by
such terrorist
groups, countries,
organization, or
persons”

none specified

“to ... defend the
national security of
the United States
against the Islamic
State of Iraq and the
Levant (‘ISIL’); and
enforce a United
Nations Security
Council resolution”
that authorizes a
multilateral coalition
to take several types
of action against ISIL

“to defend the
national security of
the United States
against the Islamic
State of Iraq and the
Levant (‘ISIL’)”

“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”

Provision

H.R. 5415

CRS-25

H.J.Res. 123

“to defend the
national security of
the United States
against the
continuing threat
posed by the
Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant
(ISIL)”

S.J.Res. 42

“to prevent terrorist
attacks on the people
and interests of the
United States and our
allies”

S.J.Res. 43

“to defend the
national security of
the United States
against the threat
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”

S.J.Res. 44

 Provision

H.R. 5415

H.J.Res. 123

H.J.Res. 125

H.J.Res. 128a
with U.N. Security
Council Resolution

Geographic
limitation

none specified

none specified

“authority ... shall none specified
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/action
limitation

none specified

none specified

“does not include none specified
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”

Associated
forces
definition/
limitation

none specified

none specified

none specified

CRS-26

none specified

H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
Security Council
Resolution

use of U.S. Armed
Forces authorized
“other than the use of
such Armed Forces in
direct ground combat
operations”

S.J.Res. 42

S.J.Res. 43

S.J.Res. 44

none specified

none specified

Authorization applies
to Iraq and Syria

“does not include
authorization for the
use of rotational
ground forces”

none specified

“does not include ...
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”

none specified

none specified

“does not include ...
authorization for the
use of force against
forces associated
with ISIL, unless such
forces are identified
in a report submitted
under section 4” of
the resolution.

 Provision

H.R. 5415

H.J.Res. 123

H.J.Res. 125

H.J.Res. 128a
with U.N. Security
Council Resolution

H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
Security Council
Resolution

none

S.J.Res. 44

none

none

Sunset

none

120 days after date
of enactment

18 months after
two years
date of enactment

three years after date none
of enactment

one year from date
of enactment

AUMF Repeal/
Supersession

none

Resolution would
repeal 2002 AUMF

Resolution would
repeal 2002
AUMF
immediately, and
repeal the 2001
AUMF 18 months
after date of
enactment

none

Resolution would
repeal 2002 AUMF

Resolution would repeal 2002 AUMF
immediately, and repeal the 2001 AUMF 2
years after date of enactment

none

S.J.Res. 43

none

CRS-27

none

S.J.Res. 42

Government of
Syria limitation

none

“Nothing in this
resolution shall be
construed as ...
authorizing support
for force in support
of, or in cooperation
with, the national
government of Syria
... or its security
services”

 Provision
Reporting/
Notification

H.R. 5415
none

H.J.Res. 123
Not later than 60
days after
enactment,
President is
required to report
on “status of all
actions taken”;
“description of all
proposed actions”;
“status of
engagement of allies
of the United States
and international
coalitions in
combating” ISIL;
and “estimated
budgetary effects of
actions proposed”

H.J.Res. 125

H.J.Res. 128a
with U.N. Security
Council Resolution

“The President
none specified
shall, at least once
every 60 days”
after enactment,
report on
relevant matters
including actions
taken and planned
actions under the
authorization

H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
Security Council
Resolution

S.J.Res. 42

President must certify none
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

S.J.Res. 43

S.J.Res. 44

Not later than 15
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

Section 4 requires
the President to
identify ISILassociated forces
targetable under the
resolution in a
report every 90 days

none specified

none specified

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

none specified

CRS-28

none specified

none specified

“The President shall consult on a regular basis none specified
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”

 Provision
War Powers
Resolution

H.R. 5415

H.J.Res. 123

H.J.Res. 125

Bill states
authorization
section is
“intended to
constitute specific
statutory
authorization
within the meaning
of section 5(b) of
the War Powers
Resolution”

Resolution states
authorization
section is “intended
to constitute
specific statutory
authorization within
the meaning of
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
Resolution”

Resolution states
authorization
section is
“intended to
constitute specific
statutory
authorization
within the
meaning of
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
Resolution”

CRS-29

H.J.Res. 128a
with U.N. Security
Council Resolution

H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
Security Council
Resolution

(in both cases) Resolution states that
authorization sections are “intended to
constitute specific authorization within the
meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers
Resolution”

S.J.Res. 42

S.J.Res. 43

S.J.Res. 44

Resolution states
authorization section
is “intended to
constitute specific
statutory
authorization within
the meaning of
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
Resolution”

Resolution states
authorization section
is “intended to
constitute specific
statutory
authorization within
the meaning of
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
Resolution”

Resolution states
authorization section
is “intended to
constitute specific
statutory
authorization within
the meaning of
section 5(b) of the
War Powers
Resolution”

 Provision
Expedited
Consideration

H.R. 5415
none provided in
addition to those
included in the
War Powers
Resolution

H.J.Res. 123

H.J.Res. 125

none provided in
addition to those
included in the War
Powers Resolution

none provided in
addition to those
included in the
War Powers
Resolution

H.J.Res. 128a
with U.N. Security
Council Resolution
none provided in
addition to those
included in the War
Powers Resolution

H.J.Res. 128a
without U.N.
Security Council
Resolution
Provides expedited
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

S.J.Res. 42
none provided in
addition to those
included in the War
Powers Resolution

S.J.Res. 43
none provided in
addition to those
included in the War
Powers Resolution

S.J.Res. 44
none provided in
addition to those
included in the War
Powers Resolution

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
 Congress" in the main text of this report.
    
    
      
        Table B-2. Proposed Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in the 113th Congress
        Comparison of Similar Provisions
Provision
H.R. 5415
H.J.Res. 123
H.J.Res. 125
H.J.Res. 128awith U.N. Security Council ResolutionH.J.Res. 128awithout U.N. Security Council ResolutionS.J.Res. 42
S.J.Res. 43
S.J.Res. 44
Scope of authorized force
"The President is authorized  ...  to use all necessary and appropriate force"
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate"
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States"
"The President is authorized to use the United States Armed Forces as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate"
Same, except subject to conditions (see Reporting/ Certification row, below) and enactment of a second joint resolution under expedited procedures
"The President is authorized to use appropriate force"
"the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force"
"the President is authorized ... to use all necessary and appropriate force"
International conditions for use of force
"with the close consultation, coordination, and cooperation with NATO and regional allies"
none specified
none specified
U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing use of force against ISIL
No U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing use of force against ISIL
none specified
none specified
"as part of a multinational coalition"
Types of military action authorized
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
"to participate in a campaign of airstrikes in Iraq, 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 of military force
"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"
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)"
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)"
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ('ISIL')"
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ('ISIL')"
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)"
"Islamic State (or "IS"), formally known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as well as any successor organization"
"Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)", as well as ISIL-associated forces, subject to requirements in Section 4 (see below)
Purpose
"to eliminate all such terrorist groups and prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States or its allies by such terrorist groups, countries, organization, or persons"
"to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)"
none specified
"to   ... defend the national security of the United States against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ('ISIL'); and enforce a United Nations Security Council resolution" that authorizes a multilateral coalition to take several types of action against ISIL 
"to defend the national security of the United States against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ('ISIL')"
"to prevent terrorist attacks on the people and interests of the United States and our allies"
"to defend the national security of the United States against the threat 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"
"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 limitation
none specified
none specified
"authority ... 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
none specified
none specified
none specified
Authorization applies to Iraq and Syria
Military unit/action limitation
none specified
none specified
"does not 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"
none specified
use of U.S. Armed Forces authorized "other than the use of such Armed Forces in direct ground combat operations"
"does not include authorization for the use of rotational ground forces"
none specified
"does not include ... 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"
Associated forces definition/ limitation
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
none specified
"does not include ... authorization for the use of force against forces associated with ISIL, unless such forces are identified in a report submitted under section 4" of the resolution. 
Government of Syria limitation
none
none
none
none
none
none
"Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as ... authorizing support for force in support of, or in cooperation with, the national government of Syria ... or its security services"
Sunset
none
120 days after date of enactment
18 months after date of enactment
two years
three years after date of enactment
none
one year from date of enactment
AUMF Repeal/ Supersession
none
Resolution would repeal 2002 AUMF
Resolution would repeal 2002 AUMF immediately, and repeal the 2001 AUMF 18 months after date of enactment
Resolution would repeal 2002 AUMF immediately, and repeal the 2001 AUMF 2 years after date of enactment
none
none
Resolution would repeal 2002 AUMF
Reporting/ Notification
none
Not later than 60 days after enactment, President is required to report on "status of all actions taken"; "description of all proposed actions"; "status of engagement of allies of the United States and international coalitions in combating" ISIL; and "estimated budgetary effects of actions proposed"
"The President shall, at least once every 60 days" after enactment, report on relevant matters including actions taken and planned actions under the authorization
none specified
President must 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
none
Not later than 15 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
Section 4 requires the President to identify ISIL-associated forces targetable under the resolution in a report every 90 days
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
none specified
none specified
none specified
"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"
none specified
none specified
none specified
War Powers Resolution
Bill states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution"
Resolution states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution"
Resolution states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution"
(in both cases) Resolution states that authorization sections are "intended to constitute specific authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution"
Resolution states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution"
Resolution states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution"
Resolution states authorization section is "intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution"
Expedited Consideration
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
Provides expedited 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
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
none provided in addition to those included in the War Powers Resolution
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.

CRS-30

 A New Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State

Author Contact Information
Matthew C. Weed
Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation
mweed@crs.loc.gov, 7-4589

Congressional Research Service

31

 Author Contact Information
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation
        ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
      
Footnotes1.
            
        
           U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, hearing on regional implications of U.S. strategy in Syria and Iraq, 114th Cong., 1st sess., December 1, 2015 (testimony of Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter).
2.
            
        
           For more information and analysis of the IS crisis, the U.S. response, and related issues, see CRS Report R43612, The Islamic State and U.S. Policy, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
3.
            
        
           President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, January 12, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-state-union-address; see also President Barack Obama, Address to the Nation concerning the attack in San Bernardino, December 6, 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/06/address-nation-president.
4.
            
        
           Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/letter-president-war-powers-resolution-regarding-iraq; http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/letter-president-war-powers-resolution-regarding-syria.
5.
            
        
           President Barack Obama, remarks at a press conference, November 5, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/05/remarks-president-press-conference.
6.
            
        
           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.
7.
            
        
           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-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-9112014.
8.
            
        
           See also CRS Report R43720, U.S. Military Action Against the Islamic State: Answers to Frequently Asked Legal Questions, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
9.
            
        
           Testimony of Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Authorization For The Use of Military Force Against ISIL, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., December 11, 2014.
10.
            
        
           This definition is the exact language included in the President's IS AUMF proposal. See "The President's February 2015 IS AUMF Proposal," below.
11.
            
        
           Text of the draft joint resolution is available at https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SCHIFF_023_xml.pdf.
12.
            
        
           These are the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.
13.
            
        
           The exceptions are deployments involving (1) special operations forces, (2) training, (3) advising, (4) search and rescue, (5) intelligence gathering, (6) ground support for air operations, (7) and limited duration actions against high value targets.
14.
            
        
           Section 6 of P.L. 93-148 (50 U.S.C. §1545).
15.
            
        
           Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/aumf_02112015.pdf.
16.
            
        
           President Barack Obama, Letter from the President—Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces in connection with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, February 11, 2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/11/letter-president-authorization-use-united-states-armed-forces-connection.
17.
            
        
           President Barack Obama, Address to the Nation concerning the attack in San Bernardino, December 6, 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/06/address-nation-president.
18.
            
        
           President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, January 12, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-state-union-address.
19.
            
        
           President Barack Obama, remarks at a press conference, November 5, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/05/remarks-president-press-conference.
20.
            
        
           See "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest," supra note 7.
21.
            
        
           See Section 4(c) of the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148; 50 U.S.C. §1543(c)).
22.
            
        
           See Table A-1 in Appendix A, and Table B-2 in Appendix B, below.
        
      
      
        23.
            
        
           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. 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.
Bill or Resolution	Title	Sponsor	Date Introduced
H.J.Res. 27	Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIL Resolution	Representative Adam Schiff	February 2, 2015
President's February 2015 Proposed AUMF	Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant	President Barack Obama	February 11, 2015
H.J.Res. 33	Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant	Representative Adam Kinzinger	February 13, 2015
S. 1587	Authority for the Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Act	Senator Tim Kaine	June 16, 2015
S.J.Res. 26	Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its Associated Forces	Senator Lindsey Graham	December 3, 2015
H.R. 4208	Authority for the Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Act	Representative Scott Rigell	December 10, 2015
Schiff December 2015 Draft AUMF	Consolidated Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution of 2015	Representative Adam Schiff	December 10, 2015 (draft announced)
S.J.Res. 29	Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its Associated Forces	Senator Mitch McConnell	January 20, 2016