Members of Connecticut's delegation in Washington, D.C., are calling for their colleagues to debate and vote on the prospect of using military force against the Islamic State group following recent news reports that Congress is avoiding what would be the first war vote in 13 years.

"Congress should perform its duty and its responsibility," U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-1st District, said by phone Tuesday in advocating for a vote on the issue. Larson said there's "no question" certain members of Congress are "skirting the issue."

Larson said the scope and limitations of military force will determine whether or not he would vote yes. He said he has strong reservations to putting boots on the ground.

"Training, assisting, providing air cover is different than boots on the ground," he said.

While they welcomed debate on the issue, the congressmen outlined various stipuations that would have to be met in order for them to agree to using military force, with most expressing strong reservations to putting boots on the grounds.

"Congress is putting itself out of business when it comes to foreign policy if we don't debate it," U.S. Sen Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said by phone Tuesday.

Murphy is against putting U.S. troops on the ground, saying that "just becomes a big giant recruiting tool for every enemy that we're trying to destroy."

In February, President Barack Obama proposed legislation that would authorize military operations against the Islamic State for three years but would not allow the use of armed forces in "enduring offensive ground combat operations." The proposal would also require the president to report to Congress "at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization," and repeal the 2002 authorization for use of military force, known as AUMF, that allowed the ground invasion in Iraq.

"The president, to his credit, went first," U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, said by phone Tuesday. "I think it's important to note that he was actually proposing to narrow his scope of authority."

In his proposal, Obama asked to narrow the executive branch's ability to use military force as opposed to seeking a more expansive power.

Courtney said he "basically agrees" with the general outline of what the president proposed. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, which, Courtney said, has primary jurisdiction over the matter, "did absolutely nothing" with the president's proposal.

"If there were a vote tomorrow to send massive numbers of American troops for a combat mission I would vote against it," U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said by phone Tuesday.

"The solution to the horrific and unspeakable atrocities" by the Islamic State group, Blumenthal said, requires both military and political action. Any plan for using military force against the group would have to be "extraordinarily well-defined in terms of mission, objective, scope and scale," he said.

There are currently two AUMFs; one from 2001, which was passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, and one from 2002. Both measures have been governing the U.S. involvement in the conflict to date.

"There's really no end to executive power overseas if we accept that the 2001 AUMF covers ISIL all over the globe," Murphy said, using an acronym for the Islamic State.

When the issue came to a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which he is a member, Murphy voted in favor of a time-limited authorization for use of military force that would've prevented ground combat operations by U.S. troops. The proposal also included a provision the senator authored that would have required the executive branch to submit a comprehensive strategy detailing the political, diplomatic, and military objectives of the United States, with a clear end goal and exit strategy.

In advocating for Congress to debate the issue, U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3rd District, said in a prepared statement that "any vote on the House floor would require careful review." 

"I will not support legislation that commits U.S. combat troops to an open-ended conflict in Iraq or Syria. I pay close attention to how our objectives in the region are defined and how we can ensure we are not dragged into an open-ended conflict," DeLauro's statement said.

Staff for U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-4th District, directed The Day to a statement he made last week questioning the deployment of American troops to Syria without AUMF.

"President Obama's decision to put approximately 50 American troops on the ground in Syria is troubling. We continue, without obvious success or strategy, to fight on both sides of a messy, Middle Eastern civil war. In any event, the commitment of American soldiers into combat requires an Authorization for the Use of Military Force from Congress, which has not been passed," Himes' statement said.

In a prepared statement, U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-5th District, said, "I have urged President Obama to seek and receive explicit authorization to combat ISIS. Congress ought to fulfill its constitutional responsibility and debate a new AUMF for our current actions in Syria and Iraq."

Esty has opposed the continued reliance on the 2001 AUMF, which she considers overly broad, and supports an AUMF that is limited in scope, time and geography.

A bipartisan group of representatives sent a letter last week to House speaker Paul Ryan calling on him to schedule a vote on the issue.

j.bergman@theday.com

Twitter: @JuliaSBergman