On Wednesday President Obama sent Congress legislation authorizing using military forces against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The proposed legislation would limit Obama from the use of “enduring offensive ground combat operations.”

The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces.

Many Democrats want tougher language that would rule out the use of ground troops.

Representative Chris Van Hollen (MD-D) had the following to say about it:

First, it provides overly-broad, fresh authority for the deployment of U.S. ground forces in combat operations in Iraq, Syria, and any other countries in which ISIL or its affiliates may be operating.

Second, it leaves in place indefinitely the blank check authority granted to the Executive in the 2001 AUMF. [I]t makes little sense to place reasonable boundaries on the Executive’s war powers against ISIL while leaving them checked elsewhere.

Whereas Republicans do not feel the president is doing enough.

Tom Rooney (FL-R), a member of the House Appropirations and Intelligence Committee issued the following statement about about Obama’s request to use military force against ISIS:

I continue to question why we would handcuff our military’s ability to degrade and destroy ISIS, as President Obama demanded last fall. How can our military operate effectively under those undue and dangerous restrictions?

Rooney went on to say the president is already fighting ISIS and failing. The only difference is this time he asked permission:

While the President is finally taking the right step by consulting with Congress and seeking authorization, we should not simply rubber stamp a strategy that he is already executing, and which is already failing.

President Obama is expected to deliver a statement at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday from the White House about the draft legislation.