Two war-authorization frameworks are now circulating in Congress. They are not the same bill, they do not do the same thing, and they are not reconcilable by redlining. [1] [2]

Senator Lisa Murkowski's Senate bill enumerates six specific strikes as the authorized scope of military action against Iran. There is no sunset clause. The authorization holds until Congress repeals it or the strikes are exhausted. Representative Tim Barrett's House bill works from the opposite logic: it imposes a 90-day wind-down clock from enactment, after which the President must return to Congress for further authority. [1] [2] Murkowski's design is scope-limited but temporally open. Barrett's is temporally limited but does not enumerate what actions are permitted within the 90 days. This paper reported Tuesday that both members were moving on authorization; the constitutional gap between their approaches is now visible.

These are not minor drafting differences. Congress authorizing six named strikes produces a different legal regime than Congress setting a 90-day clock. A president holding Murkowski's authority faces one set of constraints; a president operating under Barrett's faces another. Neither bill has reached the floor of its chamber. If they ever do, the conference committee problem will be substantial — and the administration has not said whether it would accept either framework. No floor action is scheduled in the Senate or the House.

-- SAMUEL CRANE, Washington