Video: Congress breathes sigh of relief after president's Syria remarks

Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton share stage: 2016 preview? 0:46 September 11, 2013

Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton share stage: 2016 preview?In Philadelphia, a possible glimpse of the 2016 presidential candidates together. Jeb Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton shared the same stage when he honored her with the Liberty Medal for her career in pubic service. Charlie Rose reports.

View the original article here

On Syria, Obama and Congress get down to business

It's all hands on deck on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers finish filing in from summer recess to make a call about whether to OK a military strike in civil war-torn Syria, just over a week after President Obama requested congressional authorization for force amid mounting evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.

Some members of Congress have been at it for a week; the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, having scrambled back to Washington upon the president's proclamation, narrowly approved a resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria. That legislation hangs in the balance of the Senate, where it could see a vote on final passage as early as Wednesday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has predicted the upper chamber will ultimately approve the resolution, despite the abundant opposition among members of both parties. But in the House, the outcome of a vote is far more uncertain, despite endorsements from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who have signaled opposition than support for the proposed military action.

A CBS News estimate reveals that while 191 members of the House remain undecided on whether to authorize military action, only 34 (24 Democrats, 10 Republicans) support or are leaning toward supporting authorization.  Sixty-seven, including 53 Republicans, have said they're against authorization, and an additional 117, including 92 Republicans, are leaning toward voting no.

With numbers like that, it's "an uphill slog" for the president - who met with several Senate Republicans Sunday night and, on Monday, will sit down for interviews with six network news anchors - to get Congress to back authorization, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said Sunday on "Face the Nation."

"They really needed to start two years ago on this process and really haven't done it, so they don't have strong relationships in Congress today," Rogers said of the administration. "And, candidly, [they] have done an awful job explaining to the American people what is in our national security interests in any level of engagement in a place like Syria."

Rogers said he backs a "very limited" strike in Syria amid mounting evidence that President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. But Mr. Obama's campaign for such a move - including his surprise announcement during August recess to seek congressional approval, a move typically reserved for boots-on-the-ground scenarios - has been "mystifying," he argued.

Play Video

"I completely understand why people are skeptical of this," Rogers said. "You have a reluctant commander-in-chief, first of all, who's trying to come to the American people and say, 'I'm going to do something but I'm not going to do a lot; I'm not sure exactly what we're trying to do.' I mean, that's what the American people are hearing. And hearing that, I'm skeptical as well."

Though feedback from his constituents has been overwhelmingly against striking Syria, Rogers said, his vote on the resolution "cannot be about Barack Obama; it has to be about what is in the best interests of the United States of America.

"...If we just make it about us," he said, "being Congress or the American people, against our frustrations against this president, we miss the big picture about what is in the best interests of U.S. national security interests. Small and effective now save big and ugly later. So we're either going to pay this price now or we're going to pay a bigger price later."

There's "no doubt about it," though, that the bulk of Americans oppose U.S. involvement in Syria, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said later on the program; Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., in the same segment, agreed.

Play Video

Amash said in town halls across his state he has gauged "not just disapproval of the war - overwhelming disapproval - from Republicans, from Democrats. And when you're dealing with an issue like war, you must take into consideration what the public thinks. You're asking people to possibly send their loved ones into harm's way.

"...Based on the objectives that the administration has laid out, based on the strategy they've laid out," Amash continued, "I can't come up with a reason right now why the United States should support this action."

With an eye on the House's more limited resolution than what passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Cummings said "it's possible" he could still get behind the president's request. Mr. Obama will make his final plea with remarks to the nation Tuesday at 9 p.m.

"He's got to show, first of all, that this is in our core national security interests, and why it is," Cummings said. "He's got to show that if we don't completely degrade Assad's capability, how do we make sure we still deter him from using these chemical weapons? And then he's got to show us that this will not end up in a scenario where we are finding ourselves in deeper involvement in a civil war over there in Syria. These are difficult issues he's got."

View the original article here

The puzzle behind Congress' impending Syria vote

WASHINGTON When President Obama surprised the world Saturday with his announcement that he's seeking congressional approval before launching a military strike on civil war-torn Syria, it brought into play a complicated puzzle Mr. Obama and his team are facing in efforts to get a majority of Congress on board.

If recent history is any guide, this is going to be a challenge for the administration. No matter the issue, the president and the divided Congress have seen eye-to-eye on very little.

Not helping the president's cause: America is against military strikes in Syria.  Bolstering that sentiment are two polls released Tuesday that showed significant opposition to such action.

A Pew poll showed Americans opposing military airstrikes against Syria by 48-29 percent, and a Washington Post/ABC News survey reveals opposition by a 59-36 percent margin.

The plan over the coming week is for the administration to "flood the zone," as a senior administration put it. The president kicked things off Tuesday with a meeting with congressional leaders. Meanwhile, members of his team fanned out across the Capitol, holding a series of classified and unclassified briefings and hearings with members of Congress.

Complicating matters is a significant difference between the Syria debate and the other issues that have confounded Mr. Obama and Congress: Authorization to attack Syria doesn't cleanly break along party lines.

The Republican Party is split between hawks who would rather see more than the "limited" and "proportional" military strike expressed by the president.

Play Video

Play Video

There are some, such as Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who have repeatedly indicated they want a military intervention on behalf of the rebels fighting the Syrian regime and have said a limited strike is not enough.

After meeting with the president Monday, the two did express tepid support for Mr. Obama, suggesting doing something limited would be better than the "catastrophic" consequences that would result if Congress voted against authorization.

McCain did point out Tuesday, however, that his support for Mr. Obama wasn't full-throated, telling "CBS This Morning" that the president should have just gone ahead and launched a strike without congressional consent.

"I don't think the president should have done this," McCain said. "Once he announced that we were going to have strikes, I think he should have acted, as other presidents have, both Republican or Democrat. But it is what it is."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., who had raised questions about a strike last week, announced their support for a strike Tuesday after meeting with Mr. Obama Tuesday. While that alone may be a small victory for the president, getting the rest of the Republican Conference - or a significant number of them, at least -- is proving to be a tall order.

Libertarian-leaning Republicans who have been extremely vocal in their isolationism, such as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., are steadfast in their opposition to military action in Syria. Amash, who is holding 11 town hall meetings in his Michigan district this week, tweeted at Boehner and Cantor that most of the people he's talking to oppose a strike.

.@SpeakerBoehner @GOPLeader I just finished 2nd stop of 11 to listen to constituents on #Syria. Almost unanimous opposition to U.S. strikes.

-- Justin Amash (@repjustinamash) September 3, 2013

Later, he told Kalamazoo, Mich., CBS affiliate WWMZ-TV, "It's running at almost 100 to 1 against strikes in terms of people contacting me. It's pretty overwhelming. I think it's pretty solidly against military strikes."

"We don't have a long-term strategy I've heard. I'm very concerned if we get involved we'll have it escalate and eventually you could have something like troops on the ground, I don't want to see it go that direction."

Secretary of State John Kerry scolded the likes of Paul and Amash at Tuesday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing saying, "this is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter."

Play Video

Paul later grilled Kerry at that hearing, telling the secretary of state that "I haven't had one person come up to me and say they're for this war" and imploring that Kerry assure Congress that the administration wouldn't go ahead with strikes if Congress voted the authorization down.

"Make me proud today, Secretary Kerry. Stand up for us and say that you're going to obey the Constitution," Paul said.

When Kerry responded that the president still has constitutional authority to launch a military strike without Congress' approval, Paul shot back, "You're making a joke of us, you're making us into theater."

Other war-weary Republicans have expressed concern over the cost of military action not only in dollars, but in its potential effect on the military.

Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., who represents a southeastern Virginia district that's home to a large military population, announced his opposition Tuesday after last week corralling 140 House members, including 21 Democrats, demanding the president seek congressional authorization before proceeding in Syria. Although Mr. Obama has now turned to Congress, Rigell is still not on board.

"If I had to pull out my voting card today, I'd vote no (to strike in Syria). But I look forward to the debate." -Rigell on #syria @CNNsotu

-- Rep. Scott Rigell (@RepScottRigell) September 1, 2013

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said he's leaning toward voting "no" on authorization because he doesn't believe a strike against Syria will be a one-and-done situation for the U.S.

"It may sound real easy when people like Secretary Kerry say that 'it is going to be quick and we're going to go in, we're going to send a few cruise missiles, wash our hands and go home.' It doesn't work that way. This could be a war in the Middle East, it's serious," Inhofe said on Fox News Tuesday.

Interestingly, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has avoided taking a stand on this, though he finds himself in a precarious position politically as he is navigating fights within his own ranks while simultaneously fighting for his political life back home against a tea party Republican as he seeks re-election next year.

All McConnell offered on Tuesday regarding Syria was a written statement: "While we are learning more about his plans, Congress and our constituents would all benefit from knowing more about what it is he thinks needs to be done - and can be accomplished - in Syria and the region."

Play Video

For their part, top Democratic leaders, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are behind the president's plan, but the rank-and-file are not all on board, with resistance coming the war-weary as well as the anti-war faction. For instance, in addition to the 21 Democrats who signed Rigell's letter, over 60 signed a similar letter circulated by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who is against an attack.

Some Democrats, like Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., are simply against any action in Syria. "We are not the world's policemen. That is not our responsibility," Grayson told CNN.

And another issue war-weary Democrats seem to be worried about, like Republican Sen. Inhofe, is that the U.S. will be forced to follow up militarily. On Saturday, following Mr. Obama's remarks, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., tweeted his concern:

I am deeply concerned that the proposed White House resolution for #Syria is over-broad and would allow troops on the ground. Can't support.

-- Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) September 1, 2013

Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minn., expressed a similar sentiment to CBS News Tuesday.

"Guess what: a strike inevitably leads to retaliation, which leads to a change in circumstance," Nolan said. "And the very same people who were against boots on the ground are now the ones who guess who are saying well, we're going to have to put some boots on the ground to get this done."

The heavy lifting to sway this bipartisan opposition is now in the hands of the president's team as well as the congressional leaders who support a strike; Mr. Obama is overseas through the end of the week attending events in Sweden and the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

View the original article here

The puzzle behind Congress' impending Syria vote

WASHINGTON When President Obama surprised the world Saturday with his announcement that he's seeking congressional approval before launching a military strike on civil war-torn Syria, it brought into play a complicated puzzle Mr. Obama and his team are facing in efforts to get a majority of Congress on board.

If recent history is any guide, this is going to be a challenge for the administration. No matter the issue, the president and the divided Congress have seen eye-to-eye on very little.

Not helping the president's cause: America is against military strikes in Syria.  Bolstering that sentiment are two polls released Tuesday that showed significant opposition to such action.

A Pew poll showed Americans opposing military airstrikes against Syria by 48-29 percent, and a Washington Post/ABC News survey reveals opposition by a 59-36 percent margin.

The plan over the coming week is for the administration to "flood the zone," as a senior administration put it. The president kicked things off Tuesday with a meeting with congressional leaders. Meanwhile, members of his team fanned out across the Capitol, holding a series of classified and unclassified briefings and hearings with members of Congress.

Complicating matters is a significant difference between the Syria debate and the other issues that have confounded Mr. Obama and Congress: Authorization to attack Syria doesn't cleanly break along party lines.

The Republican Party is split between hawks who would rather see more than the "limited" and "proportional" military strike expressed by the president.

Play Video

Play Video

There are some, such as Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who have repeatedly indicated they want a military intervention on behalf of the rebels fighting the Syrian regime and have said a limited strike is not enough.

After meeting with the president Monday, the two did express tepid support for Mr. Obama, suggesting doing something limited would be better than the "catastrophic" consequences that would result if Congress voted against authorization.

McCain did point out Tuesday, however, that his support for Mr. Obama wasn't full-throated, telling "CBS This Morning" that the president should have just gone ahead and launched a strike without congressional consent.

"I don't think the president should have done this," McCain said. "Once he announced that we were going to have strikes, I think he should have acted, as other presidents have, both Republican or Democrat. But it is what it is."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., who had raised questions about a strike last week, announced their support for a strike Tuesday after meeting with Mr. Obama Tuesday. While that alone may be a small victory for the president, getting the rest of the Republican Conference - or a significant number of them, at least -- is proving to be a tall order.

Libertarian-leaning Republicans who have been extremely vocal in their isolationism, such as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., are steadfast in their opposition to military action in Syria. Amash, who is holding 11 town hall meetings in his Michigan district this week, tweeted at Boehner and Cantor that most of the people he's talking to oppose a strike.

.@SpeakerBoehner @GOPLeader I just finished 2nd stop of 11 to listen to constituents on #Syria. Almost unanimous opposition to U.S. strikes.

-- Justin Amash (@repjustinamash) September 3, 2013

Later, he told Kalamazoo, Mich., CBS affiliate WWMZ-TV, "It's running at almost 100 to 1 against strikes in terms of people contacting me. It's pretty overwhelming. I think it's pretty solidly against military strikes."

"We don't have a long-term strategy I've heard. I'm very concerned if we get involved we'll have it escalate and eventually you could have something like troops on the ground, I don't want to see it go that direction."

Secretary of State John Kerry scolded the likes of Paul and Amash at Tuesday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing saying, "this is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter."

Play Video

Paul later grilled Kerry at that hearing, telling the secretary of state that "I haven't had one person come up to me and say they're for this war" and imploring that Kerry assure Congress that the administration wouldn't go ahead with strikes if Congress voted the authorization down.

"Make me proud today, Secretary Kerry. Stand up for us and say that you're going to obey the Constitution," Paul said.

When Kerry responded that the president still has constitutional authority to launch a military strike without Congress' approval, Paul shot back, "You're making a joke of us, you're making us into theater."

Other war-weary Republicans have expressed concern over the cost of military action not only in dollars, but in its potential effect on the military.

Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., who represents a southeastern Virginia district that's home to a large military population, announced his opposition Tuesday after last week corralling 140 House members, including 21 Democrats, demanding the president seek congressional authorization before proceeding in Syria. Although Mr. Obama has now turned to Congress, Rigell is still not on board.

"If I had to pull out my voting card today, I'd vote no (to strike in Syria). But I look forward to the debate." -Rigell on #syria @CNNsotu

-- Rep. Scott Rigell (@RepScottRigell) September 1, 2013

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said he's leaning toward voting "no" on authorization because he doesn't believe a strike against Syria will be a one-and-done situation for the U.S.

"It may sound real easy when people like Secretary Kerry say that 'it is going to be quick and we're going to go in, we're going to send a few cruise missiles, wash our hands and go home.' It doesn't work that way. This could be a war in the Middle East, it's serious," Inhofe said on Fox News Tuesday.

Interestingly, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has avoided taking a stand on this, though he finds himself in a precarious position politically as he is navigating fights within his own ranks while simultaneously fighting for his political life back home against a tea party Republican as he seeks re-election next year.

All McConnell offered on Tuesday regarding Syria was a written statement: "While we are learning more about his plans, Congress and our constituents would all benefit from knowing more about what it is he thinks needs to be done - and can be accomplished - in Syria and the region."

Play Video

For their part, top Democratic leaders, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are behind the president's plan, but the rank-and-file are not all on board, with resistance coming the war-weary as well as the anti-war faction. For instance, in addition to the 21 Democrats who signed Rigell's letter, over 60 signed a similar letter circulated by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who is against an attack.

Some Democrats, like Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., are simply against any action in Syria. "We are not the world's policemen. That is not our responsibility," Grayson told CNN.

And another issue war-weary Democrats seem to be worried about, like Republican Sen. Inhofe, is that the U.S. will be forced to follow up militarily. On Saturday, following Mr. Obama's remarks, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., tweeted his concern:

I am deeply concerned that the proposed White House resolution for #Syria is over-broad and would allow troops on the ground. Can't support.

-- Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) September 1, 2013

Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minn., expressed a similar sentiment to CBS News Tuesday.

"Guess what: a strike inevitably leads to retaliation, which leads to a change in circumstance," Nolan said. "And the very same people who were against boots on the ground are now the ones who guess who are saying well, we're going to have to put some boots on the ground to get this done."

The heavy lifting to sway this bipartisan opposition is now in the hands of the president's team as well as the congressional leaders who support a strike; Mr. Obama is overseas through the end of the week attending events in Sweden and the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

View the original article here

Video: 9/1: Congress to vote on Syria action; homeowners take garages to a whole new level

9/1: Congress to vote on Syria action; homeowners take garages to a whole new level 20:25 September 1, 2013

9/1: Congress to vote on Syria action; homeowners take garages to a whole new levelMany members of Congress are still deciding whether or not they will vote to approve the use of U.S. military force against Syria for using chemical weapons on its people; and, more homeowners are spending more money to turn their garages into a complete living space. Garages have now surpassed basements as the part of the home builders receive requests for work to be done on.

View the original article here

Obama's wait for Congress on Syria strike is historic twist

In his 24 years on Capitol Hill, Joe Lieberman "never saw anything like" President Obama's surprise announcement Saturday that he will seek congressional authorization for a limited strike in civil war-torn Syria, the former independent Connecticut senator said over the weekend on "Fox News Sunday."

"We had President Clinton acting in Bosnia and Kosovo without endorsement by Congress," Lieberman said. "In the 1991 Gulf War, President Bush 41 was massing troops, ultimately over a half a million Americans. There was a debate about whether he should come to Congress for authorization - he did; it was very close. Passed in the Senate by only 52 to 47. But nothing like this.

"...The administration says consistently that he doesn't have to come to Congress to take military action," he went on. "Secretary [of State John] Kerry on Friday in a brilliant, convincing, moving statement essentially indicts [Syrian President] Bashar al Assad as a mass murderer. And then the president says yesterday, let's wait. There is a mass murderer at loose. And right now, while we are waiting, he's dispersing his critical assets."

Mr. Obama's decision to take his case for direct involvement in Syria's two-year-old conflict to Congress marked an abrupt turnaround for the White House, which had appeared on the cusp of ordering U.S. forces to launch a missile attack against Syria, in light of evidence that Assad's regime used chemical weapons against his own people.

And irony notwithstanding - the president as well as his then-fellow senators, Kerry, Vice President Joe Biden, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, all at one point opposed the Iraq War - it also stood out as being historically uncommon for a limited strike: Authorization requests are typically reserved for boots on the ground.

It's true that the president's move was an unlikely course of action, agreed Norm Ornstein, congressional scholar at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. "If you look at past experiences involving military action," he said, "pretty much any time except the first Gulf War, presidents have generally gone ahead and just done it and then waited to see what the consequences were."

Play Video

Ornstein reasoned the president's possible rationale: "He probably thought, after two wars, that it makes sense to bring Congress in. He's always believed Congress plays a role in these types of decisions. It also gives Congress a buy-in -- cuts down on what will be an enormous amount of carping. Those who criticize him no matter what he does, it puts them on the line to make a decision in the face of very powerful evidence that Assad has engaged in unspeakably evil act."

Making the Sunday show rounds, lawmakers were torn about whether Congress would OK the president's resolution requesting authorization for military force.

When Mr. Obama said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would mark a "red line" that Assad wouldn't be allowed to cross with impunity, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Face the Nation," "he didn't say, 'It's a red line - and by the way I'm going to have to seek the approval of Congress.' He said it was a red line, and that the United States of America would act. And that's a big difference, and that's one of the reasons why this is so problematic."

One of the loudest critics of the administration's handling of Syria, McCain said Mr. Obama should have taken action early on, and called Assad "euphoric" about the president's announcement Saturday. With "unprecedented leaking" about what ships and missiles the United States have positioned in the region, he argued, "a reversal at this point, I think, has serious consequences as far as the steadfastness and purpose of this administration."

View the original article here

Can Obama strike Syria without Congress' consent?

President Obama has yet to say what course of action he'll take to respond to the alleged use of chemical weapons by President Bashar al Assad's regime in Syria, but his administration has previewed the justification it will use if Mr. Obama decides to take military action.

Mr. Obama on Wednesday said he has "no interest in any open-ended conflict in Syria." However, he added, "we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable."

To launch an assault against the Assad regime that meets domestic legal standards, Mr. Obama's actions would have to pass constitutional muster and meet the statutory requirements set by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

Before taking over the executive branch, Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden strongly asserted that the president's ability to use military force is constrained by Congress. Yet since Mr. Obama took over the White House, the administration hasn't shied away from unilaterally deciding to take limited military action.

Mr. Obama's approach follows one that presidents have taken since the end of World War II, when administrations started exercising their war powers more independently. Some administrations have argued the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has never weighed in on the issue -- leaving the extent of the president's war powers an open question.

Play Video

Play Video

"Part of the problem is these are legal issues, and legal issues are settled in court at the end of the day," James Lindsay, a senior vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations, told CBSNews.com. "And when courts choose not to adjudicate it, people are free to lay down their interpretation of the rules."

Predictably, when it comes to war powers, the president has the political advantage -- he is, after all the commander in chief. Congress, however, has the constitutional authority to declare war, so legislators do their best to keep the president's powers in check.

As a senator and presidential candidate in 2007, Mr. Obama said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."

Biden, also a senator and presidential candidate in 2007, said he would move to impeach President Bush if he unilaterally attacked Iran because of its nuclear programs.

In 1998, Biden said on the Senate floor, "To be sure, the commander in chief ensures that the president has the sole power to direct U.S. military forces in combat. But that power - except in very few limited instances - derives totally from congressional authority."

Yet in 2011, the administration took military action in Libya without any congressional approval, prompting the Republican-led House of Representatives to vote to rebuke the president.

In its legal justification for action in Libya, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued that Congress' authority to declare "war" was limited by the definition of war. "This standard generally will be satisfied only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period," the OLC wrote.

View the original article here

Treasury's Lew: Congress needs to pass debt limit

WASHINGTON — Congress needs to raise the debt limit and take away the ?cloud of uncertainty? about the nation?s ability to pay its bills, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

?The fight over the debt limit in 2011 hurt the economy, even though, in the end, we saw an extension of the debt limit. We saw confidence fall, and it hurt the economy,? Lew said on NBC?s ?Meet The Press.? ?Congress needs to do its job. It needs to finish its work on appropriation bills. It needs to pass a debt limit.?

Senior lawmakers on Capitol Hill are trying to come up with must-do legislation to keep federal agencies running after Sept. 30 and prevent the possibility of a government shutdown. At issue is what is normally routine: a plug-the-gap measure to fund the government for a few weeks or months until a deal can be worked out on appropriations bills giving agencies their operating budgets for the full 2014 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

However, some Democrats don?t want to vote to continue to fund the government at new, lower levels mandated by the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration. And some conservatives are making a last stand against President Barack Obama?s new health care law. In addition, Senate Democrats are resistant to a $20 billion spending cut sought by many Republicans.

The issue has divided Republicans between those who think it?s appropriate to use the threat of a government shutdown as a negotiating tactic, and those who don?t.

Rep. Peter King, R.-N.Y., said Republicans should be searching for ways to de-fund or repeal the Obama health care act. But he called threatening to shut down the government ?terror politics? and said the strategy wouldn?t work. Others have worried that the gamesmanship could cause Republicans to lose control of the House.

Some observers say it?s an idea doomed to fail anyway, since Obama brings both a veto pen and the White House podium to the battle.

?We should not be closing down the government under any circumstances,? King said Sunday on CNN?s ?State of the Union.?

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has taken just that tack, rounding up fellow conservatives to pledge to oppose any budget extension that funds implementation of the health care law. Sunday, he said it was unfair to implement a law that many Americans don?t want and that still has wrinkles that need to be ironed out.

?I understand that there?s some in the Washington establishment, some from both political parties, that weren?t happy with me over this,? Lee said on ?Fox News Sunday.? ??And in this instance, I?m going to take that as a compliment, an indication that I?m doing something right.?

?The fact is that we can delay this bill,? he added. ?And if we can delay it, we can stop its consequences, at least for now.?

Lew maintains that the president won?t negotiate over the debt limit.

?The mere fact of negotiating over the debt limit, after 2011, would introduce this notion that somehow there?s a question about whether or not we?re going to pay our bills, whether or not we?re going to protect the full faith and credit of the United States,? Lew said on ABC?s ?This Week with George Stephanopoulos.? ??Well, it?s not OK to default. Congress can?t let us default.?

?(Congress) has to stop looking for what?s the last possible moment,? Lew told ?Fox News Sunday.? ??They should get back after they take their time off in August and they should finish their work and get it done so that there?s no uncertainty about America?s ability to pay its bills.?

Separately, Lew said no federal bailout is in the works for the city of Detroit, which recently filed for bankruptcy protection. Pressed as to why the government chose to bail out big banks, the auto industry and others, but isn?t assisting the city, Lew said on CNN?s ?State of the Union? that the government has been giving Detroit technical advice and has made resources available to help take down blighted properties through federal programs.

But Lew said that the situation during the financial crisis that warranted the other bailouts was ?unique,? and that the current problems that Detroit has with its creditors, ?it?s going to have to work out with its creditors.?

View the original article here