Deirdre Shesgreen

WASHINGTON – Springfield-area lawmakers voted in favor of arming and training Syrian rebels this week, approving one element of the Obama administration's plan to combat the militant Islamic group known as ISIS.

But several of the region's representatives said that measure was only a "first step," with Congress likely to take up a more contentious and weighty question after the election: whether to authorize the use of U.S. military force against ISIS.

ISIS, which calls itself the Islamic State, has seized territory in Iraq and Syria, and it has shocked the public with beheadings of American and British captives. It appears increasingly likely that confronting ISIS will be at the top of Congress's agenda in a lame-duck session scheduled for November.

"The best thing for us to do is draft and work on and vote on a new authorization for the use of military force," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who sits on the Armed Services Committee.

In outlining his plan to attack ISIS, Obama said he has the authority he needs to use American military might, but he would like "buy-in" from Congress.

The president has relied on measures Congress passed in 2001 and 2002, which respectively authorized the use of U.S. force against al-Qaida and the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, as the basis for his power to take previous military action in Iraq.

But Democrats and Republicans alike have questioned whether those years-old measures should be "stretched," as Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., put it, to cover the new battle against ISIS.

"When the president decided last week to 'go on offense' against the group, the need for congressional approval was plain," Kaine said.

Kaine introduced a proposal Wednesday to repeal the 2002 Iraq war authorization and grant the president new, narrowly tailored authority to strike ISIS.

His measure would bar the use of U.S. ground troops in the effort, and it would expire after one year, among other restrictions.

McCaskill and other Missouri lawmakers said they don't not share Kaine's view that Obama is required to receive new legal authority from Congress for the ISIS fight. But they said it would be better for Congress to weigh in with an explicit approval.

"The president has the authority he needs in the 2001 authorization," said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who also sits on the Armed Services Committee. "But I think the president would be wise to present more of a plan to Congress and ask the Congress to join in a renewed partnership."

McCaskill similarly said it doesn't make sense for the president or Congress "to rely on (a law) that was broadly drafted 13 years ago" for the current campaign against ISIS.

But a vote to begin a new military conflict — even if it is limited to U.S. air strikes — is likely to be much more controversial than the smaller step Congress took this week to intervene in Syria.

Before breaking for the election, the House approved a plan allowing the Pentagon to train and equip moderate Syrian opposition forces. The rebels are trying to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but they could also help confront ISIS.

All three Springfield-area House members supported that measure, which passed the House in a bipartisan vote of 273-to-156 on Wednesday. It was attached as an amendment to a short-term spending bill that will fund the government through Dec. 11.

Rep. Billy Long, R-Springfield, called it a "first step to defeating ISIL," which is another acronym used to identify the terrorist group. He noted that it bars the use of U.S. ground troops and requires the president to report to Congress on the effort to strengthen the Syrian rebels.

Long added that "as the facts on the ground evolve we will very likely have to address this situation again legislatively."

The Senate approved the spending bill, with the Syrian provision included, on Thursday. Both McCaskill and Blunt voted in favor of the package, which passed 78-22.

But Blunt, McCaskill, and Long all said they were not sure what a broader authorization should include, saying it's too early in the conflict to know what authority Obama will need and how far Congress will be willing go in endorsing his strategy.

Blunt said Congress should not try to impose limits on the president, such as the ban on ground troops included in Kaine's legislation.

"The Congress telling the president how to fight the war is a very different and more troublesome thing than the president coming to the Congress and saying 'Here's what we plan to do. Will you join in?'" Blunt said.

Obama will have to lay out a detailed plan to defeat ISIS, Blunt said, and then Congress will decide whether to join "an understood effort."

Politics reporter Deirdre Shesgreen writes for the News-Leader from Gannett's offices in Washington.