Controversy continues over the appropriate role that Congress should play in regulating U.S. military operations against foreign entities. U.S. action against Libya reignited consideration of long-standing questions concerning the President's constitutional authority to use military force without congressional authorization, as well as congressional authority to regulate or limit the use of such force. There may be a renewed focus on whether or to what extent Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate limits on the President's authority to conduct military operations in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, or other locations. Congress may consider measures, for example, to repeal the authorization to use force in against those responsible for the terrorist attacks of 2001, to set deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, to prohibit some units from participating in certain ongoing military operations, or to make other requirements that could affect the deployment of the Armed Forces. It has also been suggested that, at least in certain circumstances, the President's role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces provides sufficient authority for his deployment of additional troops, and any efforts on the part of Congress to intervene could represent an unconstitutional violation of separation-of-powers principles. While even proponents of strong executive prerogative in matters of war appear to concede that it is within Congress's authority to terminate U.S. participation in hostilities by cutting off funding entirely for a military operation, a few have suggested that spending measures that restrict but do not end financial support for an armed conflict would be an infringement on executive power tantamount to an "unconstitutional condition." The question may turn on whether the President's decisions on troop deployment and mission assignment are purely operational decisions committed to the President in his role as Commander in Chief, or whether congressional action to limit the availability of troops and the missions they may perform is a valid exercise of Congress's authority to allocate resources using its war powers and power of the purse. At least two arguments support the constitutionality of Congress's authority to limit the President's ability to continue military operations. First, Congress's constitutional power over the nation's Armed Forces arguably provides ample authority to legislate with respect to how they may be employed. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes ... to ... pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence," "To raise and support Armies," "To provide and maintain a Navy," "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," and "To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water," as well as "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." Further, Congress is empowered "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers ..." as well as "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Secondly, Congress has virtually plenary constitutional power over appropriations, one that is not qualified with reference to its powers in Section 8. Article I, Section 9 provides that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." It is well established, as a consequence of these provisions, that "no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress" and that Congress can specify the terms and conditions under which an appropriation may be used, so long as the restrictions do not impair power inherent solely in other branches or otherwise run afoul of constitutional restrictions on congressional prerogatives. On the executive side, the Constitution vests the President with the "executive Power," Article II, Section 1, clause 1, and appoints him "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," id ., §2, clause 1. The President is empowered, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties," authorized "from time to time [to] give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and [to] recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient," and bound to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Id ., §3. He is bound by oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," and, to the best of his "Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Id ., §1, clause 8. It is clear that the Constitution allocates powers necessary to conduct war between the President and Congress. While the ratification record of the Constitution reveals little about the meaning of the specific war powers clauses, the importance of preventing all of those powers from accumulating in one branch appears to have been well understood, and vesting the powers of the sword and the purse in separate hands appears to have been part of a careful design. It is generally agreed that some aspects of the exercise of those powers are reserved to the Commander in Chief, and that Congress could conceivably legislate beyond its authority in such a way as to intrude impermissibly into presidential power. The precise boundaries separating legislative from executive functions, however, remain elusive. There can be little doubt that Congress would exceed its bounds if it were to confer exclusive power to direct military operations on an officer not subordinate to the President, or to purport to issue military orders directly to subordinate officers. At the same time, Congress's power to make rules for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces provides it wide latitude for restricting the nature of orders the President may give. Congress's power of appropriations gives it ample power to supply or withhold resources, even if the President deems them necessary to carry out planned military operations. The power "To Declare War" has long been construed to mean not only that Congress can formally take the nation into war, but also that it can authorize the use of the Armed Forces for military expeditions that may not amount to war. While a restrictive interpretation of the power "To declare War" is possible, for example, by viewing the Framers' use of the verb "to declare" rather than "to make" as an indication of an intent to limit Congress's ability to affect the course of a war once it is validly commenced, Congress's other powers over the use of the military would likely fill any resulting void. In practice, courts have not sought to delineate the boundaries of each clause relating to war powers or identify gaps between them to find specific powers that are denied to Congress. Early exercises of Congress's war powers may shed some light on the original understanding of how the war powers clauses might empower Congress to limit the President's use of the Armed Forces. In the absence of a standing army, early presidents were constrained to ask Congress for support in advance of undertaking any military operations. Congress generally provided the requested support and granted the authority to raise the necessary troops to defend the frontiers from deprivations by hostile Indians and to build a navy to protect U.S. commerce at sea. Congress, in exercising its authority to raise the army and navy, sometimes raised forces for specific purposes, which may be viewed as both an implicit authorization to use the forces for such purposes and as an implicit limitation on their use. On the other hand, Congress often delegated broad discretion to the President within those limits, and appears to have acquiesced to military actions that were not explicitly authorized. In several early instances, Congress authorized the President to use military forces for operations that did not amount to a full war. Rather than declaring a formal war with France, Congress authorized the employment of the naval forces for limited hostilities. The Third Congress authorized the President to lay and enforce embargoes of U.S. ports, but only while Congress was not in session (and embargo orders were to expire 15 days after the commencement of the next session of Congress). The Fifth Congress authorized the President to issue instructions to the commanders of public armed ships to capture certain French armed vessels and to recapture ships from them, and to retaliate against captured French citizens who had seized U.S. citizens and subjected them to mistreatment. Congress also authorized U.S. merchant vessels to defend themselves against French vessels. The Supreme Court treated these statutes as authorizing a state of "partial war" between the United States and France. Such an undeclared war was described as an "imperfect" war, in which those who are authorized to commit hostilities act "under special authority," as distinguished from a "Solemn" or "perfect" war, in which all members of one nation are at war with all members of the other nation. This suggests an early understanding that Congress's war powers extend to establishing the scope of hostilities to be carried out by the Armed Forces. In the majority of cases, however, it appears that Congress has given broad deference to the President to decide how much of the Armed Forces to employ in a given situation. After Tripoli declared war against the United States in 1801 and U.S. vessels were already engaged in defensive actions against them, Congress did not enact a full declaration of war. Rather, it issued a sweeping authorization for the commissioning of privateers, captures, and other actions to "equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite by the President of the United States , for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas," as well as to "cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify, and may, in his opinion, require ." In declaring war against Great Britain in 1812, Congress authorized the President to "use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper...." That Congress has traditionally left it up to the President to decide how much of the Armed Forces to employ in a given conflict need not imply that such deference is constitutionally mandated. The fact that Congress has seen fit to include such language may just as easily be read as an indication that Congress believes that the decision is its to delegate. Under this view, even in the case of a declaration of war, Congress retains the power to authorize the President to use only a portion of the Armed Forces to engage in a particular conflict, although some argue that such limitations must come at the initiation of an authorization to use force and cannot later be amended or repealed On the other hand, some have argued that the President is authorized to deploy all of the Armed Forces as he sees fit, with or without an express authorization to use force or a declaration of war. According to this theory, in essence, Congress can stop the deployment of military forces only by cutting appropriations or discharging the troops. Congress has also used its authority to provide for the organization and regulation of the Armed Forces to regulate how military personnel are to be organized and employed. The earliest statutes prescribed in fairly precise terms how military units were to be formed and commanded. For example, the 1798 act establishing the Marine Corps mandated the raising of a corps to consist of "one major, four captains, sixteen first lieutenants, twelve second lieutenants, forty-eight sergeants, forty-eight corporals, thirty-two drums and fifes, and seven hundred and twenty privates...." Congress authorized the President to appoint certain other officers as necessary if he were to assign the Marine Corps or any part of it to shore duty, and to assign the detachment to duty in "forts and garrisons of the United States, on the sea-coast, or any other duty on shore." Officers of the Marine Corps could be detached to serve on board frigates and other armed vessels. The Marine Corps was increased in size and reorganized in 1834 to be commanded by a colonel, with the proviso that no Marine Corps officer could be placed in command of a navy yard or vessel of the United States. It appears to have been understood that personnel and units authorized to perform certain duties could not be assigned to perform other duties without authorization from Congress. In 1808, when Congress authorized eight new regiments of specific types and composition, it felt compelled to include language making members of the light dragoon regiment liable to "serve on foot as light infantry" until sufficient horses and other accouterments could be provided. The Supreme Court later interpreted an 1802 statute providing for the establishment of the Corps of Engineers, although broadly worded to permit the President to direct that its members serve such duty in such places as he saw fit, to authorize only engineering duties: But, however broad this enactment is in its language, it never has been supposed to authorize the President to employ the corps of engineers upon any other duty, except such as belongs either to military engineering, or to civil engineering. Early in the nation's history, the Commander-in-Chief power was understood to connote "nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy." Concurring in that view in 1850, Chief Justice Taney stated: [The President's] duty and his power are purely military. As Commander-in-Chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. This formula, taken alone, provides only an approximate demarcation of the line separating Congress's role from the President's. Advocates of a strong role for Congress might characterize a legislative effort to limit the number of troops available for a particular military operation as placing troops "by law" under the President's command, while proponents of a strong executive would likely view it as a limitation on the President's ability to "employ them in the manner" he sees fit. With respect to the latter argument, however, it should be noted that the particular question before the Fleming Court did not call into question the extent to which Congress could restrict the manner of employing troops once placed at the command of the President. Other early cases demonstrate Congress's authority to restrict the President's options for the conduct of war. In Little v. Barreme , Chief Justice Marshall had occasion to recognize congressional war power and to deny the exclusivity of presidential power. There, after Congress had authorized limited hostilities with France, a U.S. vessel under orders from the President had seized what its commander believed was a U.S. merchant ship bound from a French port, allegedly carrying contraband material. Congress had, however, provided by statute only for seizure of such vessels bound to French ports. Upholding an award of damages to the ship's owners for wrongful seizure, the Chief Justice said: It is by no means clear that the president of the United States whose high duty it is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and who is commander in chief of the armies and navies of the United States, might not, without any special authority for that purpose in the then existing state of things, have empowered the officers commanding the armed vessels of the United States, to seize and send into port for adjudication, American vessels which were forfeited by being engaged in this illicit commerce. But when it is observed that [an act of Congress] gives a special authority to seize on the high seas, and limits that authority to the seizure of vessels bound or sailing to a French port, the legislature seems to have prescribed that the manner in which this law shall be carried into execution, was to exclude a seizure of any vessel not bound to a French port. Accordingly, the Court held, the President's instructions exceeded the authority granted by Congress and were not to be given force of law, even in the context of the President's military powers and even though the instructions might have been valid in the absence of contradictory legislation. In Bas v. Tingy , the Court looked to congressional enactments rather than plenary presidential power to uphold military conduct related to the limited war with France. The following year, in Talbot v. Seeman , the Court upheld as authorized by Congress a U.S. commander's capture of a neutral ship, saying that "[t]he whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry." During the War of 1812, the Court recognized in Brown v. United States that Congress was empowered to authorize the confiscation of enemy property during wartime, but that absent such authorization, a seizure authorized by the President was void. The onset of the Civil War provided some grist for later assertions of unimpeded presidential prerogative in matters of war. In the Prize Cases , the Supreme Court sustained the blockade of Southern ports instituted by President Lincoln in April 1861, at a time when Congress was not in session. Congress had at the first opportunity ratified the President's actions, so that it was not necessary for the Court to consider the constitutional basis of the President's action in the absence of congressional authorization or in the face of any prohibition. Nevertheless, the Court approved the blockade five-to-four as an exercise of presidential power alone, on the basis that a state of war was a fact and that, the nation being under attack, the President was bound to take action without waiting for Congress. The case has frequently been cited to support claims of greater presidential autonomy by reason of his role as Commander in Chief. However, it should be recalled that where Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus varied from legislation enacted later to ratify it, the Court looked to the statute rather than to the executive proclamation to determine the breadth of its application in the case of Ex parte Milligan . In a partial concurrence to the majority's decision, Chief Justice Chase described the allocation of war powers as follows: The power to make the necessary laws is in Congress; the power to execute in the President. Both powers imply many subordinate and auxiliary powers. Each includes all authorities essential to its due exercise. But neither can the President, in war more than in peace, intrude upon the proper authority of Congress, nor Congress upon the proper authority of the President.... The Chief Justice described the Commander-in-Chief power as entailing "the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns," but nevertheless agreed that military trials of civilians accused of violating the law of war in Union states were invalid without congressional approval, despite the government's assertion that the "[Commander in Chief's] power to make an effectual use of his forces [must include the] power to arrest and punish one who arms men to join the enemy in the field against him." On the other hand, the Supreme Court has also suggested that the President has some independent authority to employ the Armed Forces, at least in the absence of contrary congressional action. In the 1890 case of In re Neagle , the Supreme Court suggested, in dictum, that the President has the power to deploy the military abroad to protect or rescue persons with significant ties to the United States. Discussing examples of the executive lawfully acting in the absence of express statutory authority, Justice Miller approvingly described the Martin Koszta affair, in which an American naval ship intervened to prevent a lawful immigrant from being captured by an Austrian vessel, despite the absence of clear statutory authorization. Only one federal court, in an 1860 opinion, has clearly held that in the absence of congressional authorization, the President has authority to deploy military forces abroad to protect U.S. persons (and property). Nevertheless, there historically appears to be some support for this view by both the executive and legislative branches. However, the scope of any such authority remains unclear, as does the degree to which it may be limited by an act of Congress. The expansion of presidential power related to war, asserted as a combination of Commander-in-Chief authority and the President's inherent authority over the nation's foreign affairs, began in earnest in the 20 th century. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp , the Supreme Court confirmed that the President enjoys greater discretion when acting with respect to matters of foreign affairs than may be the case when only domestic issues are involved. In that case, Congress, concerned with the outside arming of the belligerents in the war between Paraguay and Bolivia, had authorized the President to proclaim an arms embargo if he found that such action might contribute to a peaceful resolution of the dispute. President Franklin Roosevelt issued the requisite finding and proclamation, and Curtiss-Wright and associate companies were indicted for violating the embargo. They challenged the statute, arguing that Congress had failed adequately to elaborate standards to guide the President's exercise of the power thus delegated. Writing for the Court, Justice Sutherland concluded that the limitations on delegation in the domestic field were irrelevant where foreign affairs are involved, a result he based on the premise that foreign relations is exclusively an executive function combined with his constitutional model positing that internationally, the power of the federal government is not one of enumerated but of inherent powers, emanating from concepts of sovereignty rather than the Constitution. The Court affirmed the convictions, stating that: It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations—a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution. It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations, embarrassment—perhaps serious embarrassment—is to be avoided and success for our aims achieved, congressional legislation which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. Moreover, he, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war. The case is cited frequently to support a theory of presidential power not subject to restriction by Congress, although the case in fact involved an exercise of authority delegated by Congress. Curtiss-Wright remains precedent admonishing courts to show deference to the President in matters involving international affairs, including by interpreting ambiguous statutes in such a manner as to increase the President's discretion. The case has also been cited in favor of broad presidential discretion to implement statutes related to military affairs. To the extent, however, that Justice Sutherland interpreted presidential power as being virtually plenary in the realms of foreign affairs and national defense, the case has not been followed to establish that Congress lacks authority in these areas. The constitutional allocation of war powers between the President and Congress, where Congress had not delegated the powers exercised by the President, was described by Justice Jackson, concurring in the Steel Seizure Case: The Constitution expressly places in Congress power "to raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy." This certainly lays upon Congress primary responsibility for supplying the armed forces. Congress alone controls the raising of revenues and their appropriation and may determine in what manner and by what means they shall be spent for military and naval procurement.... There are indications that the Constitution did not contemplate that the title Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander in Chief of the country, its industries and its inhabitants. He has no monopoly of "war powers," whatever they are. While Congress cannot deprive the President of the command of the army and navy, only Congress can provide him any army or navy to command. The Jackson opinion is commonly understood to establish that whatever powers the President may exercise in the absence of congressional authorization, the President may act contrary to an act of Congress only in matters involving exclusive presidential prerogatives. Presidents from Truman to Obama have claimed independent authority to commit U.S. Armed Forces to involvements abroad absent any congressional participation other than consultation and after-the-fact financing. In 1994, for example, President Clinton based his authority to order the participation of U.S. forces in NATO actions in Bosnia-Herzegovina on his "constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations" and as his role as Commander in Chief, and protested efforts to restrict the use of military forces there and elsewhere as an improper and possibly unconstitutional limitation on his "command and control" of U.S. forces. In March 2011, President Obama ordered U.S. military forces to take action as part of an international coalition to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized U.N. Member States to take all necessary measures (other than through military occupation) to protect civilians from attacks by the Libyan government and to establish a no-fly zone over the country. Although these operations had not been authorized by legislation, the executive submitted a report to Congress which claimed that the President has the "constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad." The executive branch has also, on occasion, claimed independent authority to detain, interrogate, and try belligerents captured in hostilities, and suggested that this authority may not be circumscribed by Congress. In the context of what it described as the "Global War on Terror," the George W. Bush Administration claimed that the President's Commander-in-Chief authority entails inherent authority with respect to the capture and detention of suspected terrorists, authority he has claimed cannot be infringed by legislation, meaning that even criminal laws prohibiting torture were deemed inapplicable to activities conducted pursuant to the President's war powers. In 2004, the Supreme Court avoided deciding whether Congress could pass a statute to prohibit or regulate the detention and interrogation of captured suspects, which the Bush Administration had asserted would unconstitutionally interfere with core Commander-in-Chief powers, by finding that Congress had implicitly authorized the detention of enemy combatants when it authorized the use of force in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. However, the Supreme Court in 2006 invalidated President Bush's military order authorizing trials of aliens accused of terrorist offenses by military commission, finding that the regulations promulgated to implement the order did not comply with relevant statutes. The Court did not expressly pass on the constitutionality of any statute or discuss possible congressional incursion into areas of exclusive presidential authority, which was seen by many as implicitly confirming Congress's authority to legislate in such a way as to limit the power of the Commander in Chief. While it is well established that Congress and the President each possess authority on ending a military conflict, issues may arise if the political branches are in disagreement as to whether or how U.S. participation in an armed conflict should cease. Inter-branch disagreement regarding the cessation of hostilities has been a rare occurrence, but it is not unprecedented. While Congress appears to have the constitutional authority to compel the cessation of U.S. participation in hostilities via statutory command, efforts to compel the withdrawal of U.S. forces from an armed conflict over the opposition of the President have generally proven ineffective except when tied to funding restrictions. The following sections discuss Congress's constitutional authority to end a military conflict via statute, the implications that the War Powers Resolution or the repeal of prior military authorization have upon the continued use of military force, and other considerations which may inform congressional decisions to limit the use of military force via statutory command or through funding limitations. Although the U.S. Constitution expressly empowers Congress to declare war, it is notably silent regarding which political body is responsible for returning the United States to a state of peace. Some evidence suggests that this omission was not accidental. During the Constitutional Convention, a motion was made by one of the delegates to modify the draft document by adding the words "and peace" after the words "to declare war." This motion, however, was unanimously rejected. Convention records do not clearly evidence the Framers' intent in rejecting the motion. Some early constitutional commentators suggested that the motion failed because the Framers believed that the power to make peace more naturally belonged to the treaty-making body, as conflicts between nations were typically resolved through treaties of peace. Although the Framers did not specifically empower Congress to make peace, they also did not expressly locate the power with the treaty-making body, perhaps because of a recognition that peace might sometimes be more easily achieved through means other than treaty. It has been suggested that the Framers did not allocate an exclusive body with peace-making authority because they believed "it should be more easy to get out of a war than into it." Given the failure to designate a single political branch responsible for returning the country from a state of war to a state of peace, the power to make peace was likely understood to be a shared power, with each branch having authority to terminate a military conflict. The executive could return the country to a state of peace through a treaty with the warring party, subject to the Senate's advice and consent. Congress could declare peace or rescind a previous authorization to use military force pursuant to its plenary authority to repeal prior enactments, its power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, or its power to make laws "necessary and proper" to effectuate its constitutional powers. Regardless of the Framers' intent, the legislative and executive branches have historically treated peace-making as a shared power. Peace has been declared in one of three ways: (1) via legislation terminating a conflict, (2) pursuant to a treaty negotiated and signed by the executive and ratified following the advice and consent of the Senate, and (3) through a presidential proclamation. All three methods have been recognized as constitutionally legitimate by the Supreme Court, including most clearly in the 1948 case of Ludecke v. Watkins , where the Court plainly stated, "The state of war may be terminated by treaty or legislation or Presidential proclamation." Notably, the Court has recognized that the termination of a military conflict is a "political act," and it has historically refused to review the political branches' determinations of when a conflict has officially ended. While historical practice and Supreme Court jurisprudence provide support for congressional authority to terminate an armed conflict via statutory enactment, it should be noted that in all instances where hostilities have been terminated through legislation, there has either been consensus between the political branches regarding the propriety of such action or acquiescence by one branch to the actions of the other to end hostilities. There is no instance where, for example, the courts have been asked to consider whether Congress may return the country to a state of peace via legislation passed over the objection of the President. However, the Constitution does not distinguish between the force and effect given to legislation signed into law by the President and laws which are enacted via the overriding of a presidential veto. In any event, the executive's authority to continue waging war would be at its "lowest ebb," as he would be acting in contravention of the expressed will of Congress, meaning he could "rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter." Enacted in 1973 over President Nixon's veto, the War Powers Resolution (WPR) was an effort by Congress to reassert its role in matters of war—a role that many Members believed had been allowed to erode during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. The WPR provides a mechanism by which Congress may ostensibly force the President to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities which have not been authorized either pursuant to a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization. In the nearly four decades since its enactment, however, the WPR has never been successfully employed by Congress to compel the withdrawal of U.S. forces over the opposition of the President, and most, if not all, presidential administrations have viewed aspects of the WPR as unconstitutionally trenching upon the executive's constitutional authority in matters of war and foreign relations. The WPR requires the President to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" prior to introducing U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities and to report to Congress within 48 hours when, absent a declaration of war, U.S. Armed Forces are introduced into "hostilities or ... situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." Section 5(b) of the act provides that after this report is submitted (or after such date that it was required to be submitted), U.S. troops be withdrawn from hostilities at the end of 60 days (90 days in certain circumstances), unless Congress authorizes continued involvement by passing a declaration of war or some other specific authorization for continued U.S. involvement in hostilities. Moreover, Section 5(c) provides a means by which Congress may, at any time, compel the withdrawal of U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities occurring outside the United States by means of a concurrent resolution. The constitutionality and efficacy of various aspects of the WPR have been the subject of long-standing debate. There does appear to be a general consensus that the constitutional validity of Section 5(c) is doubtful in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1983 case of INS v. Chadha . In Chadha , the Court held that for a resolution to become a law, it must go through the bicameral and presentment process in its entirety. Accordingly, concurrent or simple resolutions, which are not presented to the President for his signature, could not be used as "legislative vetoes" against executive action. Although the Chadha Court did not expressly find WPR Section 5(c) to be unconstitutional, it was listed in Justice White's dissent as one of nearly 200 legislative vetoes for which the majority had sounded the "death knell," and most commentators have agreed with this assessment. Thus, it seems highly unlikely that Section 5(c) of the WPR could be effectively used to limit U.S. military operations. While the provision requiring the withdrawal of troops in Section 5(b) of WPR has also been criticized by some legal observers, there appears to be greater support for the provision's constitutional validity, including within the executive branch. Nonetheless, even assuming that the provision is constitutionally valid, it may not always act as a statutory constraint to military action. As an initial matter, Section 5(b) establishes a requirement for the withdrawal of U.S. troops 60 days after Armed Forces are introduced without congressional authorization into a situation where hostilities are imminent, unless Congress enacts legislation providing authority for the use of force or extends the deadline. Accordingly, this provision would not appear to supply a means by which Congress could compel the withdrawal of U.S. forces from military operations when the introduction of these forces had been done pursuant to congressional authorization, as is the case for ongoing U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Indeed, even if Congress were to rescind statutory authorization for these conflicts, the legality of actions that had been taken pursuant to it would not be nullified so as to trigger the statutory deadline for troop withdrawal established under WPR Section 5(b). Arguably, however, a substantial increase in troop levels that takes place subsequent to any repeal of the authorization for military operations in Afghanistan could trigger the requirements of WPR Section 5(b), although it is unclear how large such an increase would need to be before it would be sufficiently "substantial." Congress has in the past enacted or considered legislation declaring the 60-day limit to have taken effect, although apparently with little practical effect. Moreover, disagreement may arise between the political branches regarding the scope of military activities covered by Section 5(b). The most prominent recent example of this occurring involves U.S. operations in support of the NATO-led mission against Muammar al Qadhafi's regime in Libya. When U.S. operations continued beyond the 60-day deadline for unauthorized hostilities established by the WPR, some argued that Section 5(b) required their immediate termination unless authorization was obtained from Congress. The Obama Administration did not challenge the constitutionality of the WPR's requirement that unauthorized hostilities be terminated within 60 days, but claimed that this requirement did not apply to ongoing U.S. operations. The continued engagement in manned and unmanned aerial attacks upon Libyan targets, in the Administration's view, was sufficiently limited so as not to constitute "hostilities" under the WPR, because they "do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops." While the Obama Administration's interpretation of the War Powers Resolution's application of U.S. military activity has been criticized by some observers as overly constrained, it seems unlikely that the dispute will be definitively resolved by the courts. Although there have been several instances where Members of Congress have brought suit against the executive and argued that a particular military action contravenes the WPR or the constitutional allocation of war powers (including a challenge to the Libyan action which was dismissed on standing grounds), in all cases where final rulings have been issued, these challenges have been dismissed without the reviewing court reaching the underlying merits of the litigants' claims. The courts have variously relied on the political question doctrine, the equitable/remedial discretion doctrine, ripeness, mootness, and congressional standing concerns as grounds for dismissal. The courts have made clear, however, that while formidable, none of the aforementioned procedural barriers constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to resolving the statutory or constitutional issues concerning war powers. All of the opinions to date indicate that the barrier to the exercise of jurisdiction stems from the posture of the cases, not some institutional shortcoming. Absent such an irreconcilable conflict, however, many believe it is unlikely that the courts will venture into this politically and constitutionally charged thicket. As a procedural matter, it is more difficult for Congress to statutorily require the termination of a military conflict than to limit appropriations necessary for the continuation of hostilities. As in the case of ordinary legislation, congressional declarations of peace and rescissions of military authorization have historically taken the form of a bill or joint resolution passed by both houses and presented to the President for signature. Like other legislation, such measures are subject to presidential veto, which Congress may override only with a two-thirds majority of each house. In contrast, Congress's ability to deny funds for the continuation of military hostilities is not contingent upon the enactment of a positive law, though such a denial may take the form of a positive enactment. Although the President has the power to veto legislative proposals, he cannot compel Congress to pass legislation, including bills to appropriate funds necessary for the continuation of a military conflict. Thus, while a majority of both houses would be necessary to terminate military authorization, and a super-majority of both houses would be required to override a presidential veto, a simple majority of a single house could prevent the appropriation of funds necessary for the continuation of a military conflict. It should be noted, however, that legislation probably would be required to prevent the President from exercising statutory authority to transfer certain funds appropriated to other operations for use in support of the military conflict that Congress was attempting to limit. Like other positive legislation, such a measure would be subject to presidential veto. While it may be procedurally easier for Congress to refuse appropriations for a military conflict than to rescind military authorization or establish a statutory deadline for the termination of U.S. participation in hostilities, policy considerations may sometimes make the latter option more appealing. For example, some Members of Congress who support the winding down of a military operation might nevertheless be reluctant to reduce the funds for troops on the battlefield. There might also be concerns over potential effects that a denial of appropriations might have on unrelated military operations. Although appropriations legislation can be crafted to effectively terminate hostilities while permitting funding of force protection measures during the orderly redeployment of troops from the battlefield, such legislation, like other positive enactments, would be subject to presidential veto. In 2007, for example, Congress passed a supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war in Iraq that contained conditions for further U.S. troop deployments and a deadline for ending some military operations. The President vetoed the bill, arguing in part that these restrictions were unconstitutional because they "purport[ed] to direct the conduct of operations of war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency by the Constitution, including as commander in chief of the Armed Forces." When an attempt to override the President's veto failed, Congress passed another supplemental bill that provided no timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, which was signed into law by the President. In certain circumstances, a President may be more willing to agree to either a statutory limitation on the continuation of an armed conflict, or the rescission of prior statutory authorization for a military operation, than to an appropriations bill that limits the funding of military operations—particularly if these measures do not include a deadline for troop withdrawal. Indeed, during the Vietnam conflict, Congress was able to rescind military authorization at an earlier date than it was able to cut off appropriations. In 1971, Congress passed and President Nixon signed a measure rescinding the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which had provided congressional authorization for U.S. military operations against North Vietnam. The Mansfield Amendment, enacted later that year, called for the "prompt and orderly" withdrawal of U.S. troops from Indochina at the "earliest possible date." However, these measures did not include a deadline for troop withdrawal. Although U.S. troop presence in South Vietnam diminished considerably pursuant to the Nixon Administration's "Vietnamization" strategy even prior to these enactments, the United States continued significant air bombing campaigns in the years following the rescission of military authorization. During this same period, President Nixon vetoed or threatened to veto a number of appropriations bills that would have either prohibited funds from being used for certain military operations in Southeast Asia or required a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. In 1973, two years after rescinding military authorization, Congress was finally able to enact appropriations limitations, signed by the President, that barred combat operations in Indochina. These appropriations measures were approved only after the signing of a cease-fire agreement with North Vietnam and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Vietnam, and served primarily to end the aerial bombing campaign in Cambodia and prevent U.S. forces from being reintroduced into hostilities. In sum, in situations where Congress seeks to prevent the executive's continuation of military combat operations, it may be procedurally easier for Congress to deny appropriations than it would be to statutorily compel a withdrawal from hostilities. However, past experience suggests that, at least in certain circumstances, policy considerations may cause the two branches to view the rescission of military authorization as a more appealing alternative—postponing an inter-branch conflict on appropriations for a later date, enabling Congress to signal its interest in winding down a conflict, and (at least temporarily) preserving the President's discretion as to how the conflict is waged. Although Congress has the power to rescind authorization of a military conflict or enact a declaration of peace, the practical effect that such an action might have on the President's ability to continue a military conflict may nevertheless remain difficult to predict. Historically, courts have been unwilling to interpret a congressional rescission of military authorization as barring the executive from continuing to wage a military campaign, at least so long as Congress continues to appropriate money in support of such operations . Although the War Powers Resolution, discussed supra, establishes procedures by which Congress may direct the withdrawal of U.S. troops from military conflicts that lack statutory authorization, the constitutionality and practical effects of these requirements have been questioned. Finally, even in the absence of express congressional authorization, the President may possess some inherent or implied power as Commander in Chief to continue to engage in certain military operations. The following sections explain these points in greater detail. Jurisprudence suggests that courts would not necessarily view a repeal of prior authorization, by itself, as compelling the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. As an overarching matter, courts have been highly reluctant to act in cases involving national security, especially when they require a pronouncement as to the legality of a military conflict or the strategies used therein. Many such cases have been dismissed without reaching the merits of the arguments at issue, including when they involve a political question that the judiciary considers itself ill-suited to answer. Legal actions brought by Members of Congress challenging the lawfulness of military actions have had no greater success than suits brought by private citizens. While the courts have suggested a willingness to intervene in disputes between the two branches that reach a legal (as opposed to political) impasse, they have yet to find an impasse on matters of war that has required judicial settlement. In other words, as long as Congress retains options for bringing about a military disengagement but has not exercised them, courts are unlikely to get involved. The Vietnam conflict is the lone instance where Congress repealed military authorization while major combat operations were still ongoing. Although the Nixon Administration significantly decreased the number of U.S. troops present in South Vietnam following the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and enactment of the Mansfield Amendment in 1971, major combat operations continued into 1973, when Congress cut off all funding for military operations in Indochina. During this period, federal courts heard a number of suits challenging the legality of continued hostilities in the absence of congressional authorization. None of these challenges proved successful, in large part because Congress continued to appropriate money for military operations. It is a well-established principle that Congress's appropriation of funds may serve in some circumstances to confer authority for executive action. Reviewing courts have found this principle no less applicable concerning matters of war. The appropriation of billions of dollars in support of U.S. combat operations in Indochina, even after the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, was viewed as congressional authorization for continued U.S. participation in hostilities, regardless of whether some Members of Congress had a motivation for approving continued appropriations other than that reflected in the express language of the enacted legislation. Courts have also declined on political question grounds to examine the motives of Congress in choosing to appropriate funds after rescinding direct authorization for U.S. military activities. In the words of one court, any attempt to assess Congress's intentions in appropriating funds, and determining whether such appropriations were truly meant to further continuing hostilities, would necessarily "require the interrogation of members of Congress regarding what they intended by their votes, and then synthesization of the various answers. To do otherwise would call for gross speculation in a delicate matter pertaining to foreign relations." Such an examination of Congress's motivations was deemed beyond the scope of appropriate judicial scrutiny. Some argued that Congress's termination of statutory authorization for ongoing hostilities and instruction that the conflict end at the soonest practical date barred the President, at the very least, from "escalating" hostilities. Though the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit suggested in a 1971 case that this argument might be valid, subsequent rulings indicated that the court would only be willing to consider this argument in very limited circumstances. Notably, in the 1973 case of DaCosta v. Laird , the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a challenge to the President's order to mine the harbors of North Vietnam, where it was argued that this order represented an unlawful escalation of hostilities in light of congressional enactments ordering the withdrawal of U.S. troops at the earliest practicable date. The circuit court dismissed this challenge because it raised a nonjusticiable political question. Deciding such a case would require the court to assess the strategy and tactics used by the executive to wind down a conflict, an assessment it was ill-equipped to make: Judges, deficient in military knowledge, lacking vital information upon which to assess the nature of battlefield decisions, and sitting thousands of miles from the field of action, cannot reasonably determine whether a specific military operation constitutes an "escalation" of the war or is merely a new tactical approach within a continuing strategic plan. What if, for example, the war "de-escalates" so that it is waged as it was prior to the mining of North Vietnam's harbors, and then "escalates" again? Are the courts required to oversee the conduct of the war on a daily basis, away from the scene of action? In this instance, it was the President's view that the mining of North Vietnam's harbor was necessary to preserve the lives of American soldiers in South Vietnam and to bring the war to a close. History will tell whether or not that assessment was correct, but without the benefit of such extended hindsight we are powerless to know. Though the circuit court did not completely rule out the possibility that a further escalation of hostilities could be deemed unlawful, the court suggested it would be willing to consider such arguments only in the most limited of circumstances. For example, the court suggested that a "radical change in the character of war operations—as by an intentional policy of indiscriminate bombing of civilians without any military objective— might be sufficiently measurable judicially to warrant a court's consideration." In Holtzman v. Schlesinger , decided later that year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had declared unlawful the continued bombing of Cambodia following the removal of U.S. troops and prisoners of war from Vietnam. The circuit court held that it was a nonjusticiable political question as to whether the bombing violated the Mansfield Amendment's instruction that hostilities be terminated at the "earliest practicable date." Comparing the situation with that at issue in DaCosta , the court found that the challenge raised "precisely the questions of fact involving military and diplomatic expertise not vested in the judiciary." Further, even assuming arguendo that the military and diplomatic issues raised by the bombing were judicially manageable, the circuit court found that Congress had authorized the bombing through continued appropriations. Taken together, these cases suggest that a reviewing court would probably not interpret a repeal of prior military authorization, or even a requirement that the executive terminate hostilities as soon as practicable, as necessarily requiring the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from ongoing hostilities. Further, courts may be reluctant to assess whether specific military tactics or strategies pursued by the executive contradict these statutory requirements and constitute an impermissible "escalation" of a conflict. Accordingly, it does not appear that the termination of direct authorization to use force, or perhaps even a statutory requirement that the President take action to wrap up hostilities, would be interpreted by a reviewing court as constraining the executive's ability to continue U.S. combat operations, absent additional action such as the denial of appropriations or possibly the inclusion of an unambiguous deadline for troop withdrawal. Even in the absence of express congressional authorization, it is recognized that the President may still employ military force in some circumstances pursuant to his powers as Commander in Chief and his inherent authority in the area of foreign affairs, at least so long as no statute stands in his way. In the case of an armed conflict that had been initiated with congressional authorization, a President would likely argue that this inherent authority would permit him to instruct U.S. forces to engage in certain military operations, even if statutory authorization for U.S. participation in that conflict had been rescinded. Further, even if Congress were to enact legislation requiring the cessation of military operations after a specified date, it is highly unlikely that this measure would be interpreted to prohibit any and all military operations, specifically as they relate to rescue and evacuation missions. It appears understood, at least as a matter of historical practice, that such missions are not intended to be covered under legislation otherwise barring future participation in hostilities, at least in the absence of clear statutory language to that effect. Congress has used its spending power to restrict the deployment and use of the Armed Forces in the past. In 1973, for instance, after other legislative efforts failed to draw down U.S. participation in combat operations in Indochina, Congress effectively ended it by means of appropriations riders prohibiting use of funds. Section 307 of the Second Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1973, P.L. 93-50 (1973), stated that, "None of the funds herein appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam, and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended for such purpose." Section 108 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 1974, P.L. 93-52 (1973), provided that, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on or after August 15, 1973, no funds herein or heretofore appropriated may be obligated or expended to finance directly or indirectly combat activities by United States military forces in or over or from off the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia." A year later, Congress passed an authorizing statute, Section 38(f)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, P.L. 93-559 (1974), which set a total ceiling of U.S. civilian and military personnel in Vietnam of 4,000 six months after enactment and a total ceiling of 3,000 within one year of enactment. A provision of an authorization act, Section 404 of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, P.L. 94-329 (1976), comprehensively prohibited using funds for military and paramilitary operations in Angola. It stated that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no assistance of any kind may be provided for the purpose, or which would have the effect, of promoting, augmenting, directly or indirectly, the capacity of any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual to conduct military or paramilitary operations in Angola, unless and until Congress expressly authorizes such assistance by law enacted after the date of enactment of this section. This section added that if the President determined that the prohibited assistance to Angola should be furnished, he should submit to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations a report describing recommended amounts and categories of assistance to be provided and identities of proposed aid recipients. This report also was to include a certification of his determination that furnishing such assistance was important to U.S. national security interests and an unclassified detailed statement of reasons supporting it. Section 109 of the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1976, P.L. 94-330 (1976), signed the same day as P.L. 94-329 , provided that, "None of the funds appropriated or made available pursuant to this act shall be obligated to finance directly or indirectly any type of military assistance to Angola." In the 1980s, various versions of the Boland Amendment were enacted to prohibit using funds for various military activities in or around Nicaragua. For example, Section 8066 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act included in the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year, 1985, P.L. 98-473 , 98 Stat. 1935 (1984), stated that During Fiscal Year 1985, no funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose, or which would have the effect of supporting, indirectly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operation in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization, movement or individual. This provision stated that after February 28, 1985, the President could expend $14 million in funds if the President made a report to Congress which specified certain criteria, including the need to provide further assistance for military or paramilitary operations prohibited by the Boland Amendment, and if Congress passed a joint resolution approving such action. In the 1990s, Congress enacted Section 8151 of the DOD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994, P.L. 103-139 (1993), which approved using Armed Forces for certain purposes including combat in a security role to protect United Nations units in Somalia, but cut off funding after March 31, 1994, except for a limited number of military troops to protect American diplomatic personnel and American citizens unless further authorized by Congress. Section 8135 of the DOD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995, P.L. 103-335 (1994), provided that, "None of the funds appropriated in this act may be used for the continuous presence in Somalia of United States military personnel, except for the protection of United States personnel, after September 30, 1994." In title IX of the DOD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995, P.L. 103-335 (1994), Congress provided that, "No funds provided in this act are available for United States military participation to continue Operation Support Hope in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994, except for any action that is necessary to protect the lives of United States citizens." These examples reveal the approaches that Congress has employed to prohibit or restrict using military force. They have ranged from the least comprehensive "none of the funds appropriated in this act may be used" to the most comprehensive "notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may be used." The phrase "none of the funds appropriated in this act" limits only funds appropriated and made available in the act that carries the restriction, but not funds, if any, that may be available pursuant to other appropriations acts or authorizing statutes. To restrict funds appropriated and made available not only in the act that carries the restriction, but also pursuant to other appropriations acts, Congress has used the phrase "none of the funds appropriated in this act or any other act may be used." The most comprehensive restriction is "notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may be used." This language precludes using funds that have been appropriated in any appropriations acts as well as any funds that may be made available pursuant to any authorizing statutes including laws that authorize transfers of appropriated or nonappropriated funds. There is a parliamentary impediment to including the phrases "none of the funds appropriated in this act or any other act may be used" or "notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may be used" in a general appropriations bill. House Rule XXI, clause 2, makes subject to a point of order language that changes existing law (i.e., legislation) in a general appropriations bill (i.e., a regular or supplemental appropriations bill providing appropriations for several agencies, but not a continuing resolution). A bill that appropriates funds for a single purpose or a single agency is not a general appropriations bill to which this restriction applies. The intent of Rule XXI, clause 2 is to separate the legislative vehicles for authorizations and appropriations. Nevertheless, a practice has developed that just as the House may decline to appropriate funds for a purpose that has been authorized by law, it may by limitation prohibit the use of appropriated funds in a general appropriations bill for part of a purpose while appropriating funds for the remainder of it. Such a limitation "... may apply solely to the money of the appropriation under consideration" and "... may not apply to money appropriated in other acts." Thus, the phrase "none of the funds appropriated in this act may be used" would not be subject to a point of order, but the phrase "none of the funds in this or any other act may be used" generally would be subject to a point of order under Rule XXI, clause 2 because it would extend the effect of the limitation to money appropriated in other acts and would be considered legislation. To avoid a point of order, a limitation in a general appropriations bill may not impose new or additional duties on an executive official and may not make an appropriation contingent upon (i.e., "unless" or "until") the occurrence of an event not required by law. If a Member raises a point of order that language in a general appropriations bill violates Rule XXI, clause 2, and the point of order is sustained by the chair, the legislative language is stricken. Although legislation in a general appropriations bill is subject to a point of order under Rule XXI, clause 2, House rules are not self-enforcing. Consequently, legislation may be included in a general appropriations bill and become law if no point of order is raised, if a point of order is overruled, or if the House either suspends the rules or agrees to a special order rule reported from the Committee on Rules that waives the point of order against including such legislation. Similarly, Senate Standing Rule XVI prohibits amendments in a general appropriations bill, if offered by either the Committee on Appropriations or an individual Senator, that would propose legislation. The Senate rule, however, does permit legislation to be included if it is germane to the subject matter of the bill under consideration. If a point of order that an amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill is raised, the proponent of the language may defend it by asserting that it is germane. The presiding officer makes an initial determination as to whether there is any House language to which the amendment conceivably could be germane. If such language is found, the question of germaneness is submitted to the Senate. If a majority of Senators vote that the amendment in question is germane, the point of order falls and the amendment remains under consideration. If the Senate does not vote that the amendment is germane, the presiding officer sustains the point of order and the amendment falls. As mentioned earlier, the intent of these House and Senate rules is to separate authorizing and appropriating functions. Prohibiting use of funds for a purpose or purposes does not contravene the House or Senate rule provided that the prohibition applies only to funds appropriated in the bill being considered. Because an appropriations act generally funds programs for a fiscal year, each provision contained in the act is presumed to be in effect only until the end of the fiscal year. "A provision contained in an annual appropriation act is not to be construed as permanent legislation unless the language used therein or the nature of the provision makes it clear that Congress intended it to be permanent. The presumption can be overcome if the provision uses language indicating futurity or if the provision is of a general character bearing no relation to the object of the appropriation. . . . The most common word of futurity is 'hereafter' and provisions using this term have often been construed to be permanent." Other words of futurity include "after the date of approval of this act," "henceforth," and specific references to future fiscal years. While including a word or words of futurity has the effect of making a provision extend beyond the fiscal year covered by an appropriations act, such a provision would constitute legislation that would appear to be subject to a point of order under House Rule XXI, clause 2 and Senate Standing Rule XVI during congressional consideration. If the parliamentary impediments can be overcome, however, such legislation may be enacted and become valid law. A fundamental principle in appropriations law is that appropriations may not be augmented with funds from outside sources without statutory authority: As a general proposition, an agency may not augment its appropriations from outside sources without specific statutory authority. When Congress makes an appropriation, it also is establishing an authorized program level. In other words, it is telling the agency that it cannot operate beyond the level that it can finance under its appropriation. To permit an agency to operate beyond this level with funds derived from some other source without specific congressional sanction would amount to a usurpation of the congressional prerogative. Restated, the objective of the rule against augmentation of appropriations is to prevent a government agency from undercutting the congressional power of the purse by circuitously exceeding the amount Congress has appropriated for that activity. While no statute in precise terms expressly prohibits augmenting appropriations, the concept is based on some appropriations laws. The Miscellaneous Receipts Statute, 31 U.S.C. Section 3302(b), requires that a government official who receives money for the government from any source must deposit it in the U.S. Treasury as soon as practicable without deduction for any charge or claim. Under the Purpose Statute, 31 U.S.C. Section 1301, appropriated funds may be used only for the purposes for which they are appropriated. A criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. Section 209, prohibits supplementing the salary of an officer or employee of the government from any source other than the United States government. An example of a statute permitting gift funds from other countries to finance a war is Section 202 of the Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 1991, P.L. 101-403 (1990), passed before the first Gulf war. Section 202 added a new Section 2608 to title 10 of the United States Code to authorize any person, foreign government, or international organization to contribute money or real or personal property for use by the Department of Defense. However, before the Department of Defense could spend the funds, they had to be first appropriated by Congress. The Purpose Statute states that funds may be used only for purposes for which they have been appropriated; by implication it precludes using funds for purposes that Congress has prohibited. When Congress states that no funds may be used for a purpose, an agency would violate the Purpose Statute if it should use funds for that purpose; it also in some circumstances could contravene a provision of the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 1341. Section 1341 prohibits entering into obligations or expending funds in advance of or in excess of an amount appropriated unless authorized by law. If Congress has barred using funds for a purpose, entering into an obligation or expending any amount for it would violate the act by exceeding the amount—zero—that Congress has appropriated for the prohibited purpose. To determine whether an agency has violated the Antideficiency Act, it would be necessary to review the language in an appropriations act or authorizing statute that includes a prohibition on using funds for a specific purpose. If an appropriations act prohibits using funds "in this act" for a purpose, for example, expending any amount from that act for the prohibited purpose would appear to contravene the Antideficiency Act because Congress has appropriated zero funds for it. Entering into obligations or expending funds, if any, that may be available from a different appropriations act or other fund for that purpose, however, would not appear to be prohibited by the Antideficiency Act; an agency would be able to use funds from sources other than the appropriations act that contains the prohibition or limitation. Violating the Antideficiency Act would be significant because it has notification and penalty provisions not found in the Purpose Statute. The Purpose Statute does not expressly provide for penalties; it generally is enforced by imposing administrative sanctions on the officer or employee who violates the statute. The Antideficiency Act, by contrast, not only contains a provision that provides for administrative discipline, including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office, 31 U.S.C. Section 1349, but also one that requires an immediate report of a violation to the President and Congress, 31 U.S.C. Section 1351. Moreover, the Antideficiency Act has a criminal penalty provision: Section 1350 of title 31 provides that an officer or employee who "knowingly and willfully" violates the act "shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than two years, or both." Although the act has a criminal provision, no one appears to have been prosecuted or convicted for violating it. Another criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. Section 435, not part of the Antideficiency Act, makes punishable by a fine of $1,000, imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, knowingly contracting to erect, repair, or furnish any public building or for any public improvement for an amount more than the amount appropriated for that purpose. The Antideficiency Act prohibits entering into obligations or expending funds in advance of or in excess of an amount appropriated unless authorized by law . One law that authorizes entering into obligations in advance of appropriations is the Feed and Forage Act. Also referred to as Revised Statute 3732, the Feed and Forage Act is part of and an express exception to the Adequacy of Appropriations Act, 41 U.S.C. Section 6301. Section 6301 generally states that no government contract or purchase may be made unless it is authorized by law or is under an appropriation adequate to its fulfillment. The Feed and Forage Act exception authorizes the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as service in the Navy to make contracts in advance of appropriations for clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, transportation, or medical and hospital supplies. Obligations entered into pursuant to Feed and Forage Act authority must not exceed the necessities of the current year. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security immediately must advise Congress of the exercise of this authority and report quarterly on the estimated obligations incurred pursuant to it. Although the Feed and Forage Act authorizes entering into obligations such as contracts, actual expenditures are not permitted pursuant to this authority until Congress appropriates the necessary funds. The Constitution accords Congress with ample authority to regulate the use of military personnel. Among other things, Congress is designated with the power "To raise and support Armies;" "To provide and maintain a Navy;" "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" and "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." Some have argued that congressional action limiting the use of particular troops during wartime would, at least in certain circumstances, infringe upon the President's authority as Commander in Chief to conduct a military campaign in a manner that he deems appropriate. As a matter of historical practice, Congress has occasionally imposed limitations and other requirements on the deployment of U.S. troops, including during wartime. These limitations have been effectuated either through a statutory prohibition on the use of military personnel for a particular purpose, or via the denial of appropriations in support of a particular operation. The following are examples in which Congress has limited the President's ability to use particular military personnel for certain purposes: 1915— The Army appropriations act restricted Army tours of duty in the Philippines to two years and tours in the Canal Zone to three years, unless a servicemember requested otherwise or in cases of insurrection or actual or threatened hostilities. The restriction was amended in 1934 to provide for two-year tours in both areas as well as at certain other foreign duty stations. The restriction was repealed in 1945, and replaced with a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to report twice annually to the Armed Services committees regarding regulations governing the lengths of tours of duty for the Army and Air Force outside the continental United States. 1933— The Treasury and Post Office Appropriation Act for FY1934, provided that "Assignments of officers of the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps to permanent duty in the Philippines, on the Asiatic Station, or in China, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Panama Canal Zone shall be for not less than three years. No such officer shall be transferred to duty in the continental United States before the expiration of such period unless the health of such officer or the public interest requires such transfer, and the reason for the transfer shall be stated in the order directing such transfer." 1940— The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 provided that "Persons inducted into the land forces of the United States under this Act shall not be employed beyond the limits of the Western Hemisphere except in the Territories and possessions of the United States, including the Philippine Islands." 1945— In an act extending the Selective Training and Service Act until the end of World War II, as determined by the earlier of dates proclaimed by the President or by concurrent resolution by both houses of Congress, provided that no inductee under the age of 19 "shall be ordered into actual combat service until after he has been given at least six months of [appropriate] military training...." 1948— The Selective Service Act of 1948 provided that 18- and 19-year old enlistees for one-year tours could not be assigned to land bases outside the continental United States. 1951— The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1951 required inductees, enlistees, and other persons called to active duty to receive at least four months' "full and adequate" training prior to deployment overseas, and prohibited the expenditure of funds to transport or maintain a servicemember overseas in violation of the provision. 1956— 10 U.S.C. Section 6015 prohibited assignment of female servicemembers to duty on combat aircraft and all vessels of the Navy. 10 U.S.C. Section 6018 prohibited the assignment of Navy officers to shore duty not explicitly authorized by law. 1985— The National Defense Authorization Act, 1985 prohibited the expenditure of funds to support an end strength of U.S. Armed Forces personnel stationed in NATO countries above a level of 326,414. The measure was later modified to reduce the level further but to provide waiver authority to the President to increase the force level to up to 311,855, upon notification to Congress, if he determined the national security interests required exceeding the ceiling. 1992— The National Defense Authorization Act for FY1992 prohibited the use of appropriated funds to support an end strength level of members of the Armed Forces of the United States assigned to permanent duty ashore in nations outside the United States at any level in excess of 60 percent of the end strength level of such members on September 30, 1992, with exceptions in the event of declarations of war or emergency. The precise scope of Congress's ability to limit the deployment of U.S. military forces has not been ruled upon by the courts, and it is therefore unclear whether legislative measures limiting the use of particular military personnel during wartime would ever be deemed an unconstitutional infringement upon the President's authority as Commander in Chief. Nonetheless, historical practice suggests that, at least in some circumstances, Congress may oblige the President to comply with certain requirements on the deployment of particular military personnel, including during periods of armed conflict. Much of the historical debate over war powers has taken place in the context where a President has initiated the use of military force with ambiguous or no congressional authorization. There is no obvious reason, however, to suppose that Congress's constitutional power to limit hostilities depends on whether the hostilities were initiated with Congress's express approval at the outset. Likewise, it does not seem consistent to suggest that Congress's authority to limit the scope of hostilities may be exercised validly only at the initiation of hostilities, without opportunity for changing course once troops are engaged. In modern times, federal courts have been reticent to decide cases involving war powers on the merits, including those involving appropriations measures. However, in discussing whether a particular challenge raises non-justiciable political questions involving matters textually committed to the political branches by the Constitution, courts have generally reiterated the understanding of a shared allocation of war powers. That is, it is generally agreed that Congress cannot "direct campaigns," but that Congress can regulate the conduct of hostilities, at least to some degree, and that Congress can limit military operations without the risk of a presidential veto by refusing to appropriate funds. In 1970, in response to a challenge related to the Vietnam conflict, a federal district court expounded on the theme of congressional authority, with particular reference to Congress's appropriations power: The power to commit American military forces under various sets of circumstances is shared by Congress and the Executive.... The Constitutional expression of this arrangement was not agreed upon by the Framers without considerable debate and compromise. A desire to facilitate the independent functioning of the Executive in foreign affairs and as commander-in-chief was tempered by a widely shared sentiment opposing the concentration of unchecked military power in the hands of the president. Thus, while the president was designated commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Congress was given the power to declare war. However, it would be shortsighted to view Art. I, §8, cl. 11 as the only limitation upon the Executive's military powers.... [I]t is evident that the Founding Fathers envisioned congressional power to raise and support military forces as providing that body with an effective means of controlling presidential use thereof. Specifically, the House of Representatives ... was viewed by the Framers as the bulwark against encroachment by the other branches. In The Federalist No. 58 (Hamilton or Madison), we find: The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse—that powerful instrument by which we behold in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure. Despite Congress's well-established authority over appropriations, some have argued that the power of the purse cannot be wielded in such a way as to fetter the discretion of the Commander in Chief. Congress's power of the purse is subject to the same constitutional restrictions as any other legislative enactment, including those that affect allocation of powers among the three branches. That is, Congress cannot use appropriations measures to achieve unconstitutional results, although it might, in some circumstances, achieve a similar result simply by failing to appropriate money. The doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions" generally applies to laws conditioning benefits for states or private citizens on their relinquishment of constitutional rights, but some have argued that it applies as well to legislation authorizing executive branch expenditures. This notion, however, adds little to the analysis. If Congress has ample constitutional authority to enact legislation that restricts the scope of military operations, as relevant judicial opinions suggest, then it can also use the appropriations process for that purpose. The larger question remains whether any limitation enacted amounts to an unconstitutional usurpation of the actual conduct of war. Some commentators agree that Congress has the authority to cut off funds for military operations entirely, but assert that a partial cut-off or limitation on the use of funds in an ongoing conflict would amount to an unconstitutional interference with the President's authority to conduct battlefield operations. There has been some suggestion in the past that the President's responsibility to provide for troops in the field justifies further deployments without prior authorization from Congress, with some arguing that the President has an independent implied spending power to carry out these responsibilities. These arguments do not easily square with Congress's established prerogative to limit the scope of wars through its war powers, and do not conform with Congress's absolute authority to appropriate funds. Moreover, the persuasiveness of such arguments may depend upon whether or not U.S. participation in hostilities has been authorized by Congress. Congress has frequently, although not invariably, acceded to presidential initiatives involving the use of military force. While a history of congressional acquiescence may create a gloss on the constitutional allocation of powers, such a gloss will not necessarily withstand an express statutory mandate to the contrary. It does not appear that Congress has developed a sufficiently consistent or lengthy historical practice to have abandoned either its war power or its authority over appropriations. The executive branch has objected to legislative proposals it views as intrusive into presidential power, including limitations found in appropriations measures. And it remains possible to construe the function of "conducting military operations" broadly to find impermissible congressional interference in even the most mundane statutes regulating the Armed Forces. To date, however, no court has invalidated a statute passed by Congress on the basis that it impinges the constitutional authority of the Commander in Chief, whether directly or indirectly through appropriations. In contrast, presidential assertions of authority based on the Commander-in-Chief Clause, in excess of or contrary to congressional authority, have been struck down by the courts. On the other hand, Presidents have sometimes deemed such limitations to be unconstitutional or merely precatory, and have at times not given them the force of law. In other words, Administrations have relied on an argument based on the assumption that a given spending measure unconstitutionally impinges on the President's Commander-in-Chief authority to justify the President's failure to adhere to a limitation on national security spending while continuing to spend the funds, sometimes employing the "canon of constitutional avoidance" to construe a statute in conformity with its own view of its inherent powers. While the avoidance canon does not appear to have been employed by the courts to resolve separation-of-powers conflicts between the President and Congress, such issues seem unlikely to be resolved by the courts in any event. In sum, it seems that under the constitutional allocation of powers Congress has the prerogative of placing a legally binding condition on the use of appropriations to regulate or end the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces. Such a prohibition seems directly related to the allocation of resources at the President's disposal, and would therefore not appear to interfere impermissibly with the President's ability to exercise command and control over the U.S. Armed Forces. Although not beyond question, such a prohibition would arguably survive challenge as an incident both of Congress's war power and of its power over appropriations.

Summary: Controversy continues over the appropriate role that Congress should play in regulating U.S. military operations against foreign entities. U.S. action against Libya reignited consideration of long-standing questions concerning the President's constitutional authority to use military force without congressional authorization, as well as congressional authority to regulate or limit the use of such force. There may be a renewed focus in the 113th Congress on whether or to what extent Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate limits on the President's authority to conduct military operations in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, or other locations. This report begins by discussing constitutional provisions allocating war powers between Congress and the President, and presenting a historical overview of relevant court cases. It considers Congress's constitutional authority to end a military conflict via legislative action; the implications that the War Powers Resolution or the repeal of prior military authorization may have upon the continued use of military force; and other considerations which may inform congressional decisions to limit the use of military force via statutory command or through funding limitations. The report discusses Congress's ability to limit funding for U.S. participation in hostilities, examining relevant court cases and prior measures taken by Congress to restrict military operations, as well as possible alternative avenues to fund these activities in the event that appropriations are cut. The report then provides historical examples of measures that restrict the use of particular personnel, and concludes with a brief analysis of arguments that might be brought to bear on the question of Congress's authority to limit the availability of troops to serve in ongoing military operations. Although not beyond debate, such limitations appear to be within Congress's authority to allocate resources for military operations. Portions of this report are taken from an earlier report, CRS Report RL33837, Congressional Authority to Limit U.S. Military Operations in Iraq, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].