Order Code RL33532
War Powers Resolution:
Presidential Compliance
Updated June 12, 2007
Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade

---

War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance
Summary
Two separate but closely related issues confront Congress each time the
President introduces armed forces into a situation abroad that conceivably could lead
to their involvement in hostilities. One issue concerns the division of war powers
between the President and Congress, whether the use of armed forces falls within the
purview of the congressional power to declare war and the War Powers Resolution
(WPR). The other issue is whether or not Congress concurs in the wisdom of the
action. This report does not deal with the substantive merits of using armed forces
in specific cases, but rather with congressional authorization for military action, and
the application and effectiveness of the WPR. The purpose of the WPR (P.L. 93-148,
passed over President Nixon’s veto on November 7, 1973) is to ensure that Congress
and the President share in making decisions that may get the United States involved
in hostilities. Compliance becomes an issue whenever the President introduces U.S.
forces abroad in situations that might be construed as hostilities or imminent
hostilities. Criteria for compliance include prior consultation with Congress,
fulfillment of the reporting requirements, and congressional authorization. If the
President has not complied fully, the issue becomes what action Congress should
take to bring about compliance or to influence U.S. policy. A related issue has been
congressional authorization of U.N. peacekeeping or other U.N.-sponsored actions.
For over three decades, war powers and the War Powers Resolution have been
an issue in U.S. military actions in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Central America,
and Europe. Presidents have submitted 121 reports to Congress as a result of the War
Powers Resolution, although only one (the Mayaguez situation) cited Section 4(a)(1)
or specifically stated that forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent
hostilities. Congress invoked the WPR in the Multinational Force in Lebanon
Resolution (P.L. 98-119), which authorized the Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18
months. In addition, P.L. 102-1, enacted in January 1991, authorizing the use of U.S.
armed forces in response to Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, stated that it constituted
specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the WPR. On November 9,
1993, the House used a section of the WPR to state that U.S. forces should be
withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action
in appropriations legislation. War powers have been at issue in former
Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Kosovo, Iraq, and Haiti. Authorizing military actions in response
to the terrorist attacks against the United States of September 11, 2001, through P.L.
107-40 directly involved war powers. The continued use of force to obtain Iraqi
compliance with U.N. resolutions remained a war powers issue from the end of the
Gulf war on February 28, 1991, until the enactment of P.L. 107-243, in October
2002, which explicitly authorized the President to use force against Iraq, an authority
he exercised in March 2003, and continues to exercise for military operations in Iraq.
Debate continues on whether using the War Powers Resolution is effective as
a means of assuring congressional participation in decisions that might get the United
States involved in a significant military conflict. Proposals have been made to
modify or repeal the resolution. None have been enacted to date. This report will be
updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
United Nations Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Former Yugoslavia/Bosnia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Iraq: Post 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Instances Formally Reported Under the War Powers Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Consultation with Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

---

War Powers Resolution: Presidential
Compliance
Most Recent Developments
On December 15, 2006, the President sent to Congress “consistent” with the
War Powers Resolution, a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing
United States military deployments and operations “in support of the war on terror,”
in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and as part of the Multinational Force (MNF)
in Iraq. Presently, about 134, 000 military personnel are deployed in Iraq. U.S. forces
were also deployed in the Horn of Africa region, and in Djibouti to support necessary
operations against al-Qaida and other international terrorists operating in the region,
including Yemen. U.S. military personnel continue to support the NATO-led
Kosovo Force (KFOR). The current U.S. contribution to KFOR is about 1,700
military personnel. The NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo was established in November
22, 2004 as a successor to its stabilization operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina to
continue to assist in implementing the peace agreement. Approximately 100 U.S.
personnel are assigned to the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo who assist in defense
reform and perform operational tasks, such as “counter-terrorism and supporting the
International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia.”
Background and Analysis
Under the Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to
declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the
President is Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that
the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the
United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces. During the
Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in
undeclared wars. Many Members of Congress became concerned with the erosion
of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved
in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. On November 7, 1973,
Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) over the veto of President
Nixon.
The War Powers Resolution (WPR) states that the President’s powers as
Commander in Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities
are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory
authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States
or its forces. It requires the President in every possible instance to consult with
Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities or imminent
hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional

---

CRS-2
authorization. It also requires the President to report to Congress any introduction
of forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities, Section 4(a)(1); into foreign territory
while equipped for combat, Section 4(a)(2); or in numbers which substantially
enlarge U.S. forces equipped for combat already in a foreign nation, Section 4(a)(3).
Once a report is submitted “or required to be submitted” under Section 4(a)(1),
Congress must authorize the use of forces within 60 to 90 days or the forces must be
withdrawn. (For detailed background, see CRS Report RL32267, The War Powers
Resolution: After Thirty-Three Years, by Richard F. Grimmett, and CRS Report
RL31133, Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force:
Historical Background and Legal Implications, by Jennifer Elsea and Richard F.
Grimmett.) It is important to note that since the War Powers Resolution’s enactment,
over President Nixon’s veto in 1973, every President has taken the position that it is
an unconstitutional infringement by the Congress on the President’s authority as
Commander in Chief. The courts have not directly addressed this question.
United Nations Actions
U.N. Security Council resolutions provide authority for U.S. action under
international law. Whether congressional authorization is required under domestic
law depends on the types of U.N. action and is governed by the Constitution, the
U.N. Participation Act (P.L. 79-264, as amended), as well as by the War Powers
Resolution. Section 8(b) of the War Powers Resolution exempts only participation
in headquarters operations of joint military commands established prior to 1973.
For armed actions under Articles 42 and 43 of the U.N. Charter, Section 6 of the
U.N. Participation Act authorizes the President to negotiate special agreements with
the Security Council, subject to the approval of Congress, providing for the numbers
and types of armed forces and facilities to be made available to the Security Council.
Once the agreements have been concluded, further congressional authorization is not
necessary, but no such agreements have been concluded. Some Members have
sought to encourage negotiation of military agreements under Article 43 of the U.N.
Charter. Questions include whether congressional approval is required only for an
initial agreement on providing peacekeeping forces in general, or for each agreement
to provide forces in specific situations, and how such approvals would relate to the
War Powers Resolution.
Section 7 of the U.N. Participation Act authorizes the detail of up to 1,000
personnel to serve in any noncombatant capacity for certain U.N. peaceful settlement
activities. The United States has provided personnel to several U.N. peacekeeping
missions, such as observers to the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine.
In these instances, controversy over the need for congressional authorization has not
occurred because the action appeared to fall within the authorization in Section 7 of
the Participation Act. Controversy has arisen when forces have been deployed in
larger numbers or as possible combatants.
In the 103rd Congress, Members used several vehicles in seeking some control
over future peacekeeping actions wherever they might occur. Both the Defense
Appropriations Act for FY1994, P.L. 103-139 (Section 8153), and for FY1995, P.L.

---

CRS-3
103- 335 (Section 8103), stated the sense of Congress that funds should not be used
for U.N. peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations unless the President
consulted with Congress at least 15 days in advance whenever possible. Section
1502 of the Defense Authorization for FY1994, P.L. 103-60, required the President
to submit by April 1, 1994, a report on multinational peacekeeping including the
requirement of congressional approval for participation and the applicability of the
War Powers Resolution and the U.N. Participation Act.
Along similar lines, the conference report accompanying the Department of
State Appropriations Act for FY1994, H.R. 2519 (P.L. 103-121, signed October 27,
1993), called for the Secretary of State to notify both Appropriations Committees 15
days in advance, where practicable, of a vote by the U.N. Security Council to
establish any new or expanded peacekeeping mission. The Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, P.L. 103-236, signed April 30, 1994, established new
requirements for consultation with Congress on U.S. Participation in U.N.
Peacekeeping Operations. Section 407 required monthly consultations on the status
of peacekeeping operations and advance reports on resolutions that would authorize
a new U.N. peacekeeping operation. It also required 15 days’ advance notice of any
U.S. assistance to support U.N. peacekeeping operations and a quarterly report on all
assistance that had been provided to the U.N. for peacekeeping operations. To permit
presidential flexibility, conferees explained, the quarterly report need not include
temporary duty assignments of U.S. personnel in support of peacekeeping operations
of less than 20 personnel in any one case.
The following discussion provides background on major cases of U.S. military
involvement in overseas operations in recent years that have raised War Powers
questions.
Former Yugoslavia/Bosnia
The issue of war powers and whether congressional authorization is necessary
for U.S. participation in U.N. action was also raised by efforts to halt fighting in the
former territory of Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia. The United States participated
without congressional authorization in airlifts into Sarajevo, naval monitoring of
sanctions, aerial enforcement of a “no-fly zone,” and aerial enforcement of safe
havens.
Because some of the U.S. action has been taken within a NATO framework,
action in Bosnia has raised the broader issue of whether action under NATO is
exempt from the requirements of the War Powers Resolution or its standard for the
exercise of war powers under the Constitution. Article 11 of the North Atlantic
Treaty states that its provisions are to be carried out by the parties “in accordance
with their respective constitutional processes,” implying some role for Congress in
the event of war. Section 8(a) of the War Powers Resolution states that authority to
introduce U.S. forces into hostilities is not to be inferred from any treaty, ratified
before or after 1973, unless implementing legislation specifically authorizes such
introduction and says it is intended to constitute an authorization within the meaning
of the War Powers Resolution. Section 8(b) states that nothing in the Resolution

---

CRS-4
should be construed to require further authorization for U.S. participation in the
headquarters operations of military commands established before 1973, such as
NATO headquarters operations.
On August 13, 1992, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 770 calling
on all nations to take “all measures necessary” to facilitate the delivery of
humanitarian assistance to Sarajevo. On August 11, 1992, the Senate passed S.Res.
330 urging the President to work for such a resolution and pledging funds for
participation, but saying that no U.S. military personnel should be introduced into
hostilities without clearly defined objectives. On the same day, the House passed
H.Res. 554 urging the Security Council to authorize measures, including the use of
force, to ensure humanitarian relief. Thus, both chambers of Congress supported
action but not by legislation authorizing the use of U.S. forces. For details of
congressional actions relating to Bosnia from 1993 through 1995, see CRS Report
RL32267, The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty-Three Years, by Richard F.
Grimmett.
In late 1995, the issue of war powers and Bosnia was raised again as President
Clinton sent more than 20,000 American combat troops to Bosnia as part of a
NATO-led peacekeeping force. In December 1995, Congress considered and voted
on a number of bills and resolutions, but the House and Senate could not come to
consensus on any single measure. Subsequently, President Clinton in December
1996, agreed to provide up to 8,500 ground troops to participate in a NATO-led
follow-on force in Bosnia termed the Stabilization Force (SFOR). On March 18,
1998, the House defeated by a vote of 193-225, H.Con.Res. 227, a resolution
directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to
remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(H.Rept. 105-442). (For additional information, see CRS Report RL32392, Bosnia
and Herzegovina: Issues for U.S. Policy, by Steven Woehrel, CRS Report RL32282,
Bosnia and Kosovo: U.S. Military Operations, by Steve Bowman, and CRS Report
RL32267, The War Powers Resolution: After Thirty-Three Years, by Richard F.
Grimmett.)
Kosovo
The issue of presidential authority to deploy forces in the absence of
congressional authorization, under the War Powers Resolution, or otherwise, became
an issue of significant controversy in late March 1999 when President Clinton
ordered U.S. military forces to participate in a NATO-led military operation in
Kosovo. This action has become the focus of an ongoing policy debate over the
purpose and scope of U.S. military involvement in Kosovo. The President’s action
to commit forces to the NATO Kosovo operation also led to a suit in Federal District
Court for the District of Columbia by some Members of Congress seeking a judicial
finding that the President was violating the War Powers Resolution and the
Constitution by using military forces in Yugoslavia in the absence of authorization
from the Congress.

---

CRS-5
The Kosovo controversy began in earnest when on March 26, 1999, President
Clinton notified the Congress “consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” that on
March 24, 1999, U.S. military forces, at his direction and in coalition with NATO
allies, had commenced air strikes against Yugoslavia in response to the Yugoslav
government’s campaign of violence and repression against the ethnic Albanian
population in Kosovo. Prior to the President’s action, the Senate, on March 23, 1999,
had passed, by a vote of 58-41, S.Con.Res. 21, a nonbinding resolution expressing
the sense of the Congress that the President was authorized to conduct “military air
operations and missile strikes in cooperation with our NATO allies against the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).”
Subsequently, the House voted on a number of measures relating to U.S.
participation in the NATO operation in Kosovo. On April 28, 1999, the House of
Representatives passed H.R. 1569, by a vote of 249-180. This bill would prohibit the
use of funds appropriated to the Defense Department from being used for the
deployment of “ground elements” of the U.S. Armed Forces in the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia unless that deployment is specifically authorized by law. On that same
day the House defeated H.Con.Res. 82, by a vote of 139-290. This resolution would
have directed the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution,
to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present
operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On April 28, 1999, the House
also defeated H.J.Res. 44, by a vote of 2-427. This joint resolution would have
declared a state of war between the United States and the “Government of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.” The House on that same day also defeated, on a 213-213
tie vote, S.Con.Res. 21, the Senate resolution passed on March 23, 1999, that
supported military air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. On April
30, 1999, Representative Tom Campbell and 17 other members of the House filed
suit in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a ruling requiring
the President to obtain authorization from Congress before continuing the air war, or
taking other military action against Yugoslavia.
The Senate, on May 4, 1999, by a vote of 78-22, tabled S.J.Res. 20, a joint
resolution, sponsored by Senator John McCain, that would authorize the President
“to use all necessary force and other means, in concert with United States allies, to
accomplish United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization objectives in the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).” The House, meanwhile,
on May 6, 1999, by a vote of 117-301, defeated an amendment by Representative
Istook to H.R. 1664, the FY1999 defense supplemental appropriations bill, that
would have prohibited the expenditure of funds in the bill to implement any plan to
use U.S. ground forces to invade Yugoslavia, except in time of war. Congress,
meanwhile, on May 20, 1999, cleared for the President’s signature, H.R. 1141, an
emergency supplemental appropriations bill for FY1999, that provided billions in
funding for the existing U.S. Kosovo operation.
On May 25, 1999, the 60th day had passed since the President notified Congress
of his actions regarding U.S. participation in military operations in Kosovo.
Representative Campbell, and those who joined his suit, noted to the Federal Court
that this was a clear violation of the language of the War Powers Resolution
stipulating a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the area of hostilities occur after 60 days
in the absence of congressional authorization to continue, or a presidential request

---

CRS-6
to Congress for an extra 30 day period to safely withdraw. The President did not
seek such a 30-day extension, noting instead that the War Powers Resolution is
constitutionally defective. On June 8, 1999, Federal District Judge Paul L. Friedman
dismissed the suit of Representative Campbell and others that sought to have the
court rule that President Clinton was in violation of the War Powers Resolution and
the Constitution by conducting military activities in Yugoslavia without having
received prior authorization from Congress. The judge ruled that Representative
Campbell and others lacked legal standing to bring the suit (Campbell v. Clinton, 52
F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 1999)). Representative Campbell appealed the ruling on June
24, 1999, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The appeals
court agreed to hear the case. On February 18, 2000, the appeals court affirmed the
opinion of the District Court that Representative Campbell and his co-plaintiffs
lacked standing to sue the President. (Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir.
2000). On May 18, 2000, Representative Campbell and 30 other Members of
Congress appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court. On October 2,
2000, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, refused to hear the appeal
of Representative Campbell thereby letting stand the holding of the U.S. Court of
Appeals. (Campbell v. Clinton, cert. denied, 531U.S. 815 October 2, 2000). On
May 18, 2000, the Senate defeated by, a vote of 47-53, an amendment to S. 2521, the
Senate’s version of the Military Construction Appropriations Act, FY2001, that
would have, among other things, terminated funding for the continued deployment
of U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo after July 1, 2001 unless the President
sought and received Congressional authorization to keep U.S. troops in Kosovo. (For
detailed discussion of major issues see CRS Report RL31053, Kosovo and U.S.
Policy, by Steven J. Woehrel and Julie Kim; CRS Report RL30352, War Powers
Litigation Initiated by Members of Congress Since the Enactment of the War Powers
Resolution, by David M. Ackerman.)
Iraq: Post 1991
During the week of October 3, 1994, Iraq began sending two additional
divisions to join regular forces in southern Iraq, close to the border of Kuwait. On
October 8, President Clinton responded by sending about 30,000 additional U.S.
forces and additional combat planes to join the forces already in the Gulf area. He
said the United States would honor its commitment to defend Kuwait and enforce
U.N. resolutions on Iraq. Congress recessed on October 8 until November 29, 1994,
so it did not discuss the issue of congressional authorization. On October 28,
President Clinton reported to Congress that by October 15 there were clear
indications that Iraq had redeployed its forces to their original location. On
November 7, the Defense Department announced 7,000 of the U.S. forces would be
withdrawn before Christmas.
Earlier, three continuing situations in Iraq since the end of Desert Storm brought
about the use of U.S. forces and thus raised war powers issues. The first situation
resulted from the Iraqi government’s repression of Kurdish and Shiite groups. U.N.
Security Council Resolution 688 of April 5, 1991, condemned the repression of the
Iraqi civilian population and appealed for contributions to humanitarian relief efforts.
The second situation stemmed from the U.N. cease-fire resolution of April 3, 1991,

---

CRS-7
Security Council Resolution 687, which called for Iraq to accept the destruction or
removal of chemical and biological weapons, and international control of its nuclear
materials.
The third situation was related to both of the earlier ones. On August 26, 1992,
the United States, Britain, and France began a “no-fly” zone, banning Iraqi fixed
wing and helicopter flights south of the 32nd parallel and creating a limited security
zone in the south, where Shiite groups are concentrated. After violations of the
no-fly zones and various other actions by Iraq, on January 13, 1993, the outgoing
Bush Administration announced that aircraft from the United States and coalition
partners had attacked missile bases in southern Iraq and that the United States was
deploying a battalion task force to Kuwait to underline the U.S. continuing
commitment to Kuwait’s independence. On January 6, 1993, the United States gave
Iraq an ultimatum to remove newly deployed missiles in the no-fly zone. On January
19, 1993, President George H.W. Bush reported to Congress that U.S. aircraft on
December 27, 1992, had shot down an Iraqi aircraft that had entered the no-fly zone
and had undertaken further military actions on January 13, 17, and 18.
President Clinton said on January 21, 1993, that the United States would adhere
to the policy toward Iraq set by the former Bush Administration, and on January 22,
23, April 9 and 18, June 19, and August 19, 1993, U.S. aircraft fired at targets in Iraq
after pilots detected Iraqi radar or anti-aircraft fire directed at them. A number of
such incidents occurred while planes patrolled the no-fly zone. On June 6, 1994,
President Clinton reported that over the previous two years, the northern no-fly zone
had deterred Iraq from a military offensive in the northern zone. Iraqi forces had
responded to the no-fly zone in the south, he reported, by continuing to use
land-based artillery to shell marsh villages. In addition, Iraq was conducting a large
search and destroy operation and razing and burning marsh villages, in violation of
U.N. Security Council Resolution 688. Until Iraq fully complied with all relevant
U.N. Security Council resolutions, he reported, the United States would maintain
sanctions and other measures designed to achieve compliance.
A war powers issue for years was whether the use of U.S. force in Iraq in the
period after the early 1991 Desert Storm conflict had been authorized by Congress.
P.L. 102-1 authorized the President to use U.S. armed forces pursuant to U.N.
Security Council Resolution 678 to achieve implementation of previous Security
Council Resolutions; Security Council Resolution 687 was adopted after this. On
August 2, 1991, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill
for FY1992 supporting the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
Resolution 687. Senator Dole said the amendment was not intended to authorize the
use of force by the President, and that in his view in the current circumstances the
President required no specific authorization from Congress. As enacted, Section
1095 of P.L. 102-190 states the sense of Congress that it supports the use of all
necessary means to achieve the goals of Security Council Resolution 687 as being
consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.
The bill (Section 1096) also included an amendment by Senator Pell supporting the
use of all necessary means to protect Iraq’s Kurdish minority, consistent with relevant
U.N. resolutions and authorities contained in P.L. 102-1.

---

CRS-8
In addition to these continuing situations, on June 28, 1993, President Clinton
reported to Congress that on June 26, U.S. naval forces had launched a Tomahawk
cruise missile strike on the Iraqi Intelligence Service’s main command and control
complex in Baghdad and that the military action was completed. He said the Iraqi
Intelligence Service had planned the failed attempt to assassinate former President
Bush during his visit to Kuwait in April 1993. On September 5, 1996, President
Clinton reported to Congress on U.S. military actions in Iraq to obtain compliance
with U.N. Security Council Resolutions, especially in light of attacks by Iraqi
military forces against the Kurdish-controlled city of Irbil. U.S. actions ordered by
the President included extending the no-fly zone in southern Iraq from 32 to 33
degrees north latitude, and cruise missile attacks from B-52H bombers and ships in
the USS Carl Vinson Battle Group against fixed, surface-to-air missile sites,
command and control centers, and air defense control facilities south of the 33rd
parallel in Iraq. Except for the report of June 28, 1993, Presidents Bush and Clinton
did not cite the War Powers Resolution in their reports related to military activities
in Iraq in the period after the 1991 Gulf War. Rather, they submitted them
“consistent with” P.L. 102-1, which required the President to submit a report to the
Congress at least once every 60 days on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by
Iraq with the U.N. Security Council resolution adopted in response to the Iraq
aggression.
Starting in 1998 and through the end of the Clinton Administration, Iraq’s
refusal to permit U.N. weapons inspection teams access to various Iraqi sites, and
Iraqi threats to U.S. aircraft policing the “no-fly zones” resulted in U.S. military
action on numerous occasions against Iraqi military forces and targets in the “no-fly
zones.” President Clinton chose to report these actions under the requirements of
P.L. 102-1, rather than the War Powers Resolution. In early February 2001,
President George W. Bush authorized U.S. aircraft to attack Iraqi radar installations
in Southern Iraq believed to threaten allied forces enforcing the “no-fly zone.”
Additional bombings of Iraqi sites were authorized and took place from the summer
of 2001 into March 2003. Such actions, in the past, were reported under P.L. 102-1.
Congress provided authorization for future military action, under specified
conditions, through passage of P.L. 107-243 signed into law on October 16, 2002.
In a report to Congress on January 20, 2003, pursuant to P.L. 107-243, President
Bush stated that information required to be reported regarding actions taken against
Iraq required by section 3 of P.L. 102-1 would in the future be included in the reports
required by P.L. 107-243. On March 19, 2003, President Bush directed U.S. Armed
Forces to commence combat operations against Iraq to enforce its disarmament.
Since he announced the end of major combat operations against Iraq on May 1, 2003,
the President has made periodic reports on the current situation in Iraq “consistent
with” P.L. 107-243, which have become the equivalent of reports to Congress
envisioned by the War Powers Resolution. For a recent example of these reports to
Congress see House Document 108-231, 108th Congress, 2nd session, submitted
November 4, 2004. (For related information, see CRS Report RL31701, Iraq: U.S.
Military Operations, by Steve Bowman, and CRS Report RL31339, Iraq: U.S.
Regime Change Efforts and Post-Saddam Governance, by Kenneth Katzman.)

---

CRS-9
Haiti
On July 3, 1993, Haitian military leader Raoul Cedras and deposed President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide signed an agreement at Governors Island providing for the
restoration of President Aristide on October 30. The United Nations and
Organization of American States took responsibility for verifying compliance.
Because the Haitian authorities did not comply with the agreement, on October 13,
1993, the U.N. Security Council voted to restore sanctions against Haiti. On October
20, President Clinton submitted a report “consistent with the War Powers
Resolution” that U.S. ships had begun to enforce a U.N. embargo. Some Members
of Congress complained that Congress had not been consulted about nor authorized
the action. On October 18, 1993, Senator Dole said he would offer an amendment
to the FY1994 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 3116) which would require
congressional authorization for all deployments into Haitian waters and airspace
unless the President made specified certifications. Congressional leaders and
Administration officials negotiated the terms of the amendment. As enacted, Section
8147 of P.L. 103-139 stated the sense that funds should not be obligated or expended
for U.S. military operations in Haiti unless the operations were (1) authorized in
advance by Congress, (2) necessary to protect or evacuate U.S. citizens, (3) vital to
the national security and there was not sufficient time to receive congressional
authorization, or (4) the President submitted a report in advance that the intended
deployment met certain criteria.
On May 6, 1994, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 917 calling for
measures to tighten the embargo. On June 10, 1994, President Clinton announced
steps being taken to intensify the pressure on Haiti’s military leaders that included
assisting the Dominican Republic to seal its border with Haiti, using U.S. naval
patrol boats to detain ships suspected of violating the sanctions, a ban on commercial
air traffic, and sanctions on financial transactions. As conditions in Haiti worsened,
President Clinton stated he would not rule out the use of force, and gradually the use
of force appeared certain. Many Members continued to contend congressional
authorization was necessary for any invasion of Haiti. On July 31, the U.N. Security
Council authorized a multinational force to use “all necessary means to facilitate the
departure from Haiti of the military leadership ... on the understanding that the cost
of implementing this temporary operation will be borne by the participating Member
States” (Resolution 940, 1994).
On August 3, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Department of Veterans
Affairs appropriation, H.R. 4624, by a vote of 100-0 expressing its sense that the
Security Council Resolution did not constitute authorization for the deployment of
U.S. forces in Haiti under the Constitution or the War Powers Resolution, but the
amendment was not agreed to in conference. President Clinton said the same day
that he would welcome the support of Congress but did not agree that he was
constitutionally mandated to obtain it. On September 15, 1994, in an address to the
Nation, President Clinton said he had called up the military reserve and ordered two
aircraft carriers into the region. His message to the military dictators was to leave
now or the United States would force them from power. The first phase of military
action would remove the dictators from power and restore Haiti’s democratically
elected government. The second phase would involve a much smaller force joining

---

CRS-10
with forces from other U.N. members which would leave Haiti after 1995 elections
were held and a new government installed.
While the Defense Department continued to prepare for an invasion within days,
on September 16 President Clinton sent to Haiti a negotiating team of former
President Jimmy Carter, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell, and
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn. Again addressing the
Nation on September 18, President Clinton announced that the military leaders had
agreed to step down by October 15, and agreed to the immediate introduction of
troops from the 15,000 member international coalition beginning September 19. He
said the agreement was only possible because of the credible and imminent threat of
multinational force. He emphasized the mission still had risks and there remained
possibilities of violence directed at U.S. troops, but the agreement minimized those
risks. He also said that under U.N. Security Council resolution 940, a 25-nation
international coalition would soon go to Haiti to begin the task of restoring
democratic government. Also on September 18, President Clinton reported to
Congress on the objectives in accordance with the sense expressed in Section 8147
(c) of P.L. 103-139, the FY1994 Defense Appropriations Act.
U.S. forces entered Haiti on September 19, 1994. On September 21, President
Clinton reported “consistent with the War Powers Resolution” the deployment of
1,500 troops, to be increased by several thousand. (At the peak in September there
were about 21,000 U.S. forces in Haiti.) He said the U.S. presence would not be
open-ended but would be replaced after a period of months by a U.N. peacekeeping
force, although some U.S. forces would participate in and be present for the duration
of the U.N. mission. The forces were involved in the first hostilities on September
24 when U.S. Marines killed 10 armed Haitian resisters in a fire-fight.
On October 3, 1994, the House Foreign Affairs Committee reported H.J.Res.
416 authorizing the forces in Haiti until March 1, 1995, and providing procedures for
a joint resolution to withdraw the forces. On October 6, the House adopted an
amended text introduced by Representative Ron Dellums. As passed, H.J.Res. 416
stated the sense of the Congress that the President should have sought congressional
approval before deploying U.S. forces to Haiti, supported a prompt and orderly
withdrawal as soon as possible, and required a monthly report on Haiti as well as
other reports. This same language was also adopted by the Senate on October 6 as
S. J. Res. 229, and on October 7 the House passed S.J.Res. 229. President Clinton
signed it on October 25, 1994 (P.L. 103-423).
After the U.S. forces began to disarm Haitian forces and President Aristide
returned on October 15, 1994, the United States began to withdraw some forces. On
March 31, 1995, U.N. peacekeeping forces assumed responsibility for missions
previously conducted by U.S. military forces. By September 21, 1995, President
Clinton reported the United States had 2,400 military personnel in Haiti as
participants in the U.N. Mission in Haiti (UNMIH), and 260 U.S. military personnel
assigned to the U.S. Support Group Haiti. On December 5, 1997, President Clinton
stated that he intended to keep some military personnel in Haiti, even though United
Nations peacekeeping forces were withdrawing. The Pentagon stated that U.S.
military personnel in Haiti would be about 500, consisting mainly of engineering and
medical units, with a combat element responsible for protecting the U.S. contingent.

---

CRS-11
On March 2, 2004, the President reported to Congress “consistent with the War
Powers Resolution” that, on February 29, he had sent about “200 additional U.S.
combat-equipped, military personnel from the U.S. Joint Forces Command” to Port-
au-Prince, Haiti, for a variety of purposes, including preparing the way for a U.N.
Multinational Interim Force, and otherwise supporting U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1529 (2004). For further information on Haiti, see CRS Report RL32294,
Haiti: Developments and U.S. Policy Since 1991 and Current Congressional
Concerns, by Maureen Taft-Morales.
Somalia
In Somalia, the participation of U.S. military forces in a U.N. operation to
protect humanitarian assistance, which began in December 1992, became
increasingly controversial as fighting and casualties increased and objectives
appeared to be expanding. On October 7, 1993, President Clinton announced that all
U.S. forces would be withdrawn by March 31, 1994, and most forces left by that date.
The remaining 58 Marines, who had remained to protect U.S. diplomats, were
withdrawn September 15, 1994.
A major issue for Congress was whether to authorize U.S. action in Somalia. On
February 4, 1993, the Senate passed S.J.Res. 45 to authorize the President to use U.S.
armed forces pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 794. S.J.Res. 45 stated
it was intended to constitute the specific statutory authorization under Section 5(b)
of the War Powers Resolution. On May 25, 1993, the House amended and passed
S.J.Res. 45. The amendment authorized U.S. forces to remain for one year. S.J.Res.
45 was then sent to the Senate for its concurrence, but the measure did not reach the
floor.
As sporadic fighting resulted in the deaths of Somali and U.N. forces, including
Americans, controversy over the operation intensified. On September 9, 1993, the
Senate adopted an amendment to S. 1298, the Defense Authorization Bill, expressing
the sense of Congress that the President by November 15, 1993, should seek and
receive congressional authorization for the continued deployment of U.S. forces to
Somalia. It asked that the President consult with Congress and report the goals,
objectives, and anticipated jurisdiction of the U.S. mission in Somalia by October 15,
1993. On September 29, the House adopted a similar amendment to its bill, H.R.
2401. On October 7, the President consulted with congressional leaders from both
parties for over two hours on Somalia policy and also announced that U.S. forces
would be withdrawn by March 31, 1994.
On October 15, 1993, the Senate adopted an amendment by Senator Byrd to
H.R. 3116, the Defense Department Appropriations Act for FY1994, cutting off
funds for U.S. military operations in Somalia after March 31, 1994, unless the
President obtained further spending authority from Congress. The Senate approved
the use of military operations only for the protection of American military personnel
and bases and for helping maintain the flow of relief aid by giving the U.N. forces
security and logistical support. The amendment, which became Section 8151 of P.L.
103-139, required U.S. forces in Somalia to remain under the command and control

---

CRS-12
of U.S. commanders. In addition, on November 9, 1993, the House adopted
H.Con.Res. 170, using Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to direct the
President to remove forces from Somalia by March 31, 1994; sponsors stated it was
a non-binding measure, and the Senate did not act on the measure. The Defense
Appropriations Act for FY1995 (P.L. 103-335, signed September 30, 1994)
prohibited the use of funds for the continuous presence of U.S. forces in Somalia,
except for the protection of U.S. personnel, after September 30, 1994.
On November 4, the U.N. Security Council decided to end the U.N. mission in
Somalia by March 31, 1995. On March 3, 1995, U.S. forces completed their
assistance to United Nations forces evacuating Somalia.
Instances Formally Reported
Under the War Powers Resolution
Presidents have submitted 121 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers
Resolution. Of these, President Ford submitted 4, President Carter 1, President
Reagan 14, President George H.W. Bush 7, President Clinton 60, and President
George W. Bush 35. For a summary of the 111 reports submitted by the Presidents
from 1975-2003, see CRS Report RL32267, The War Powers Resolution: After
Thirty-Three Years, by Richard F. Grimmett. The following is a brief summary of
reports submitted by President Bush George W. Bush since January 2004. The
reports are submitted to the Speaker of the House as executive communications, and
subsequently published on the U.S. government printing office website under House
Documents. The full texts of these Presidential reports may be found at
[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/index.html].
(112) On January 22, 2004, the President reported to Congress “consistent with
the War Powers Resolution” that the United States was continuing to deploy combat
equipped military personnel in Bosnia and Herzegovina in support of NATO’s
Stabilization Force (SFOR) and its peacekeeping efforts in this country. About 1,800
U.S. personnel are participating.
(113) On February 25, 2004, the President reported to Congress “consistent
with the War Powers Resolution” that, on February 23, he had sent a combat-
equipped “security force” of about “55 U.S. military personnel from the U.S. Joint
Forces Command” to Port-au-Prince, Haiti to augment the U.S. Embassy security
forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light of the instability
created by the armed rebellion in Haiti.
(114) On March 2, 2004, the President reported to Congress “consistent with the
War Powers Resolution” that on February 29 he had sent about “200 additional U.S.
combat-equipped, military personnel from the U.S. Joint Forces Command” to Port-
au-Prince, Haiti for a variety of purposes, including preparing the way for a UN
Multinational Interim Force, and otherwise supporting UN Security Council
Resolution 1529 (2004).

---

CRS-13
(115) On March 20, 2004, the President sent to Congress “consistent with the
War Powers Resolution,” a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing
United States military deployments and operations “in support of the global war on
terrorism (including in Afghanistan),” as well as operations in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Haiti. In this report, the President noted that U.S. anti-
terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen,
and Eritrea. He further noted that U.S. combat-equipped military personnel
continued to be deployed in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led KFOR (1,900
personnel); in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the NATO-led SFOR (about 1,100
personnel); and approximately 1,800 military personnel were deployed in Haiti as
part of the U.N. Multinational Interim Force.
(116) On November 4, 2004, the President sent to Congress, “consistent with
the War Powers Resolution,” a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing
United States military deployments and operations “in support of the global war on
terrorism.” These deployments, support or military operations include activities in
Afghanistan, Djibouti, as well as Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
and Kosovo. In this report, the President noted that U.S. anti-terror related activities
were underway in Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea. He further noted
that U.S. combat-equipped military personnel continued to be deployed in Kosovo
as part of the NATO-led KFOR (1,800 personnel); and in Bosnia and Herzegovina
as part of the NATO-led SFOR (about 1,000 personnel). Meanwhile, he stated that
the United States continues to deploy more than 135,000 military personnel in Iraq.
(117) On May 20, 2005, the President sent to Congress “consistent with the
War Powers Resolution,” a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing
United States military deployments and operations “in support of the global war on
terrorism,” as well as operations in Iraq, where currently about 139,000 U.S. military
personnel are stationed. U.S. forces are also deployed in Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen,
Eritrea, and Djibouti assisting in “enhancing counter-terrorism capabilities” of these
nations. The President further noted that U.S. combat-equipped military personnel
continued to be deployed in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led KFOR (1,700
personnel). Approximately 235 U.S. personnel are also deployed in Bosnia and
Herzegovina as part of the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo who assist in defense
reform and perform operational tasks, such as counter-terrorism and supporting the
International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia.
(118) On December 7, 2005, the President sent to Congress “consistent” with
the War Powers Resolution, a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing
United States military deployments and operations “in support of the global war on
terrorism,” and in support of the Multinational Force in Iraq, where about 160, 000
U.S. military personnel are deployed. U.S. forces are also deployed in the Horn of
Africa region — Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Djibouti — assisting in “enhancing
counter-terrorism capabilities” of these nations. The President further noted that U.S.
combat-equipped military personnel continued to be deployed in Kosovo as part of
the NATO-led KFOR (1,700 personnel). Approximately 220 U.S. personnel are also
deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo
who assist in defense reform and perform operational tasks, such as “counter-
terrorism and supporting the International Criminal Court for the Former
Yugoslavia.”

---

CRS-14
(119) On June 15, 2006, the President sent to Congress “consistent” with the
War Powers Resolution, a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing
United States military deployments and operations “in support of the war on terror,”
and in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and as part of the Multinational Force
(MNF) in Iraq. Presently, about 131, 000 military personnel were deployed in Iraq.
U.S. forces were also deployed in the Horn of Africa region, and in Djibouti to
support necessary operations against al-Qaida and other international terrorists
operating in the region. U.S. military personnel continue to support the NATO-led
Kosovo Force (KFOR). The current U.S. contribution to KFOR is about 1,700
military personnel. The NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo was established in November
22, 2004 as a successor to its stabilization operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina to
continue to assist in implementing the peace agreement. Approximately 250 U.S.
personnel are assigned to the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo who assist in defense
reform and perform operational tasks, such as “counter-terrorism and supporting the
International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia.”
(120) On July 18, 2006, the President reported to Congress “consistent” with the
War Powers Resolution, that in response to the security threat posed in Lebanon to
U.S. Embassy personnel and citizens and designated third country personnel,” he had
deployed combat-equipped military helicopters and military personnel to Beirut to
assist in the departure of the persons under threat from Lebanon. The President noted
that additional combat-equipped U.S. military forces may be deployed “to Lebanon,
Cyprus and other locations, as necessary.” to assist further departures of persons from
Lebanon and to provide security. He further stated that once the threat to U.S.
citizens and property has ended, the U.S. military forces would redeploy.
(121) On December 15, 2006, the President sent to Congress “consistent” with
the War Powers Resolution, a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing
United States military deployments and operations “in support of the war on terror,”
in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and as part of the Multinational Force (MNF)
in Iraq. Presently, about 134, 000 military personnel are deployed in Iraq. U.S. forces
were also deployed in the Horn of Africa region, and in Djibouti to support necessary
operations against al-Qaida and other international terrorists operating in the region,
including Yemen. U.S. military personnel continue to support the NATO-led
Kosovo Force (KFOR). The current U.S. contribution to KFOR is about 1,700
military personnel. The NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo was established in November
22, 2004 as a successor to its stabilization operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina to
continue to assist in implementing the peace agreement. Approximately 100 U.S.
personnel are assigned to the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo who assist in defense
reform and perform operational tasks, such as “counter-terrorism and supporting the
International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia.”

---

CRS-15
Consultation with Congress
Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution requires the President “in every
possible instance” to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces
into situations of hostilities and imminent hostilities, and to continue consultations
as long as the armed forces remain. A review of instances involving the use of armed
forces since passage of the Resolution, noted in this report, indicates there has been
very little consultation with Congress under the Resolution when consultation is
defined to mean seeking advice prior to a decision to introduce troops. Presidents
have met with congressional leaders after the decision to deploy was made but before
commencement of operations.
One problem is the interpretation of when consultation is required. The War
Powers Resolution established different criteria for consultation than for reporting.
Consultation is required only before introducing armed forces into “hostilities or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances,” the circumstances triggering the time limit. A second problem is the
meaning of the term consultation. The executive branch has often taken the view that
the consultation requirement has been fulfilled when from the viewpoint of some
Members of Congress it has not. The House report on the War Powers Resolution
said, “... consultation in this provision means that a decision is pending on a problem
and that Members of Congress are being asked by the President for their advice and
opinions and, in appropriate circumstances, their approval of action contemplated.”
A third problem is who represents Congress for consultation purposes. The House
version specifically called for consultation between the President and the leadership
and appropriate committees. This was changed to less specific wording in final
House-Senate conference committee version, to provide some flexibility. Some
critics of the existing statute have introduced proposals to specify a consultation
group. But Congress has yet to act on such a proposal.

---

CRS-16
Issues for Congress
An immediate issue for Congress when the President introduces troops into
situations of potential hostilities is whether to invoke Section 4(a)(1) of the War
Powers Resolution and trigger a durational limit for the action unless Congress
authorizes the forces to remain. If Congress concurs in a President’s action,
application of the Resolution may be desirable either to legitimize the action and
strengthen it by making clear congressional support for the measure or to establish
the precedent that the Resolution does apply in such a situation. On the other hand,
some may believe it is preferable to leave the President more flexibility of action than
is possible under the Resolution. Or some may not wish to have a formal vote on
either the issue of applying the Resolution or the merits of utilizing armed forces in
that case. If Congress does not concur in an action taken by a president, the
Resolution offers a way to terminate it.
A longer-term issue is whether the War Powers Resolution is working or should
be amended. Some contend that it has been effective in moderating the President’s
response to crisis situations because of his awareness that certain actions would
trigger its reporting and legislative veto provisions. Or they suggest that it could be
effective if the President would comply fully or Congress would invoke its
provisions. Others believe it is not accomplishing its objectives and suggest various
changes. Some have proposed that the Resolution return to the original
Senate-passed version, which would enumerate circumstances in which the President
needed no congressional authorization for use of armed forces (namely to respond to
or forestall an armed attack against the United States or its forces or to protect U.S.
citizens while evacuating them) but prohibit any other use or any permissible use for
more than 30 days unless authorized by Congress. Others would replace the
automatic requirement for withdrawal of troops after 60 days with expedited
procedures for a joint resolution authorizing the action or requiring disengagement.
Still others would repeal the Resolution on grounds that it restricts the President’s
effectiveness in foreign policy or is unconstitutional.
Several Members have suggested establishing a consultative group to meet with
the President when military action is being considered. Senators Byrd, Nunn, Warner,
and Mitchell introduced S.J.Res. 323 in 1988 and S. 2 in 1989 to establish a
permanent consultation group of 18 Members consisting of the leadership and the
ranking and minority members of the Committees on Foreign Relations, Armed
Services, and Intelligence. The bill would permit an initial consultative process to
be limited to a core group of six Members — the majority and minority leaders of
both chambers plus the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the
Senate. On October 28, 1993, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Lee Hamilton
introduced H.R. 3405 to establish a congressional consultative group equivalent to
the National Security Council. No action was taken on this proposal.
Thus far, however, executive branch officials and congressional leaders, who
themselves have varying opinions, have been unable to find mutually acceptable
changes in the War Powers Resolution. President Clinton, in Presidential Decision
Directive 25 signed May 3, 1994, supported legislation to amend the Resolution
along the lines of the Mitchell, Nunn, Byrd, and Warner proposal of 1989, to

---

CRS-17
establish a consultative mechanism and also eliminate the 60-day withdrawal
provisions. Although many agreed on the consultation group, supporters of the
legislation contended the time limit had been the main flaw in the War Powers
Resolution, whereas opponents contended the time limit provided the teeth of the
Resolution. The difficulty of reaching consensus in Congress on what action to take
is reflected in the fact that in the 104th Congress, only one measure, S. 5, introduced
January 4, 1995, by then Majority Leader Dole was the subject of a hearing. S. 5, if
enacted, would have repealed most of the existing War Powers Resolution. An effort
to repeal most of the War Powers Resolution in the House on June 7, 1995, through
an amendment to the Foreign Assistance and State Department Authorization Act for
FY1996-97 (H.R. 1561) by Representative Hyde, failed (201-217). Other than these
instances, no other War Powers related legislation was even considered during the
104th Congress.
On March 18, 1998, the House defeated H.Con.Res. 227, a resolution that
would have directed the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers
Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina (H.Rept. 105-442). It was the hope of Representative Tom Campbell,
its sponsor, that passage of the resolution could lead to a court case that would
address the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On March 31, 1998, the
House passed a Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 3579) that would ban use of
funds for conduct of offensive operations against Iraq, unless such operations were
specifically authorized by law. This provision was dropped in the conference with
the Senate. On June 24, 1998, the House passed H.R. 4103, the Defense Department
Appropriations bill for FY1999, with a provision by Representative Skaggs that
banned the use of funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act “to
initiate or conduct offensive military operations by United States Armed Forces
except in accordance with the war powers clause of the Constitution (Article 1,
Section 8), which vests in Congress the power to declare and authorize war and to
take certain specified, related actions.” The Skaggs provision was stricken by the
House-Senate conference committee on H.R. 4103. No further War Powers-related
actions were taken by Congress by the adjournment of the 105th Congress.
During the 106th Congress, efforts were made to force the President to seek
congressional authority for military operations in Kosovo, leading to votes in the
House and Senate on that issue. Subsequently, Representative Tom Campbell and
others sued the President in Federal Court in an effort to clarify congressional-
Executive authority in this area. A Federal District Court and an Appeals Court
refused to decide the case on the merits, instead holding that the plaintiffs lacked
standing to sue. On October 2, 2000, the United States Supreme Court, let stand the
holding of the U.S. Appeals Court.1
During the first session of the 107th Congress, the Congress passed S.J.Res. 23,
on September 14, 2001, in the wake of the terrorist attacks against the World Trade
Center in New York City, and the Pentagon building in Arlington, Virginia. This
legislation, titled the “Authorization for Use of Military Force,” passed the Senate by
1 Campbell v. Clinton, 52 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 1999), aff’d, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000),
cert. denied, 531 U.S. 815 (2000).

---

CRS-18
a vote of 98-0; the House of Representatives passed it by a vote of 420-1. This joint
resolution authorizes the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against
those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or
persons.” Congress further declared in the joint resolution that “Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers resolution,” the above language is “intended to
constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) the War
Powers Resolution.” S.J.Res. 23 further stated that “Nothing in this resolution
supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.” President George W.
Bush signed S.J.Res. 23 into law on September 18, 2001 (P.L. 107-40, 115 Stat.
224).
During the second session of the 107th Congress, the Congress passed H.J.Res.
114, the Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (P.L.
107-243 ). On October 16, 2002, President Bush signed this legislation into law.
This statute authorizes the President to use the armed forces of the United States
as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq.
Prior to using force under this statute the President is required to communicate to
Congress his determination that the use of diplomatic and other peaceful means will
not “adequately protect the United States ... or ... lead to enforcement of all relevant
United Nations Security Council resolutions” and that the use of force is “consistent”
with the battle against terrorism. The statute also stipulates that it is “intended to
constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.” It further requires the President to make periodic reports
to Congress “on matters relevant to this joint resolution.” Finally, the statute
expresses Congress’s “support” for the efforts of the President to obtain “prompt and
decisive action by the Security Council” to enforce Iraq’s compliance with all
relevant Security Council resolutions.
P.L. 107-243 clearly confers broad authority on the President to use force. The
authority granted is not limited to the implementation of previously adopted
Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq but includes “all relevant ...
resolutions.” Thus, it appears to incorporate resolutions concerning Iraq that may be
adopted by the Security Council in the future as well as those already adopted. The
authority also appears to extend beyond compelling Iraq’s disarmament to
implementing the full range of concerns expressed in those resolutions. The
President’s exercise of the authority granted is not dependent upon a finding that Iraq
was complicit in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Moreover, the authority
conferred can be used for the purpose of defending “the national security of the
United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” On March 19, 2003,
President Bush used the authority granted in P.L. 107-243 by launching a military
attack against Iraq. The President continues to use that authority for ongoing military
operations in Iraq.

---