Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Q: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) predicted Friday that his chamber would ultimately vote in favor of authorizing military action in Syria. 
  
 “I think we are going to have 60 votes,” Reid told reporters. “It’s a work in progress.” 
  
 Text Size - 
  
 + 
  
 reset Obama to address nation Tuesday State Dept: Confident in Congress 
  
 “We have another important briefing today. Members have been coming back. I talked to one member just now — he said ‘I’ve been to three briefings.’ Have you learned anything? He said, ‘I’ve learned something new on every occasion.’” 
  
 Reid said he has spoken “many times” to President Barack Obama, but declined to answer what fellow Senate Democrats would need in order to be able to support the resolution. 
  
 (VIDEO: VandeHei, Allen analysis on Syria situation) 
  
 The top Senate leader’s comments came as the Senate on Friday formally filed a resolution that would authorize Obama to launch military strikes in Syria, a move that sets up a series of votes on the high-stakes measure next week. 
  
 The move is part of a series of steps that will set up a procedural vote on the resolution next Wednesday. Until then, senators will continue to get briefed by top administration officials — one classified session is scheduled for Monday evening. 
  
 Reid kept his comments on the Senate floor brief, noting that “many, many people have been killed” in the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack that the Obama administration says was perpetrated by the Assad regime. 
  
 (PHOTOS: Syria: Where politicians stand) 
  
 Reid also thanked Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, the panel’s top Republican for their “tremendous model of bipartisanship and cooperation” in drafting the resolution. 
  
 Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) presided over the short pro forma session. 
  
 The Senate Foreign Relations Committee cleared the authorization measure on a 10-7 vote on Wednesday, with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) voting present. The resolution is much narrower than the initial version drafted by the White House, imposing an explicit ban on U.S. ground troops for combat operations. It also limits military action in Syria to 60 days, with one 30-day extension if necessary. 
  
 Two Democrats on the panel – Tom Udall of New Mexico and Chris Murphy of Connecticut – dissented, and in the days since the resolution passed, other Democrats, such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Brian Schatz of Hawaii, have announced their opposition. 
  
 Follow @politico ||||| The House could push back a vote on a resolution authorizing military strikes on Syria by as long as a week, according to a memo Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) sent to Republican lawmakers Friday. 
  
  
  
 “Understanding that there are differing opinions on both sides of the aisle, it is up to President Obama to make the case to Congress and to the American people that this is the right course of action,” Cantor wrote in a memo outlining the House GOP’s fall agenda. “Members should expect a robust debate and vote on an authorization of use of military force pertaining to Syria in the next two weeks.” 
  
  
  
  
  
 ADVERTISEMENT 
  
 In a joint statement last Saturday, the top four members of the House Republican leadership said they expected the House to consider a Syria resolution “the week of September 9th.”While Cantor and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) support a resolution authorizing strikes, opposition is mounting among the Republican rank-and-file, and it is now likely that the House will wait until the Senate votes first. The Senate action could come next week, after the Foreign Relations Committee approved a revised force resolution on Wednesday.President Obama is due to address the nation on Syria on Tuesday. He has said that military leaders have advised him that an attack against the Assad regime could be effective at any time. 
  
 In the memo, Cantor said the House would take up a stopgap spending bill to keep the federal government open beyond Sept. 30. The continuing resolution, he said, would maintain spending at sequestration levels. The House would also act to raise the debt limit before U.S. borrowing authority runs out in mid-October, Cantor said. He did not detail what the bill would include, but he said House Republicans “will demand fiscal reforms and pro-growth policies which put us on a path to balance in ten years in exchange for another increase in the debt limit.” 
  
  
  
 The House may “begin considering” immigration reform this fall, Cantor said, but he made no mention of legislation that would address the legal status of illegal immigrants. 
  
 “Before we consider any other reforms, it is important that we pass legislation securing our borders and providing enforcement mechanisms to our law enforcement officials,” he wrote. 
  
  
  
 Among the other items on the House agenda are bills to “dismantle, defund and delay ObamaCare,” enact cuts and reforms to the food stamp program, roll back environmental regulations to promote domestic energy production and shift federal money from political conventions to children’s medical research. 
  
  ||||| The Post's Aaron Blake tells us what has changed on the vote for intervention in Syria. (The Washington Post) 
  
 The Post's Aaron Blake tells us what has changed on the vote for intervention in Syria. (The Washington Post) 
  
 Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) waited for the laughter to die down. 
  
 At a town hall meeting with tea party supporters, somebody had asked Yoho about a rumor. Was it true that he — a conservative veterinarian in his first term who loudly opposes any compromise with the White House — was working with Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), Congress’s leading liberal loudmouth? 
  
 The laughter stopped. 
  
 “I wish I could tell you it wasn’t true,” Yoho recounted saying. “But it is true.” There were gasps, he said. 
  
 Yoho and Grayson are among a group of unlikely allies in Congress: liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans, united by their opposition to a military strike against Syria. 
  
 View Graphic As of Sept. 4, lawmakers appear to be tentatively dividing into four camps over military action in Syria. 
  
 The Democrats in the group have lost faith in war. The Republicans have lost faith (or never had it) in President Obama. In this case, — as Obama seeks approval for a limited kind of warmaking — their doubts aligned. 
  
 The result was an ad hoc coalition of Congress’s unwilling. 
  
 This group has become the core of a surprising backlash in the House. At least for now, it appears that more than half of representatives are ready to defy both a Republican speaker and a Democratic president, and vote against a military strike. 
  
 “What you’re hitting on is this general consensus — across the political spectrum — that we just need to mind our own business. And that’s not a liberal or conservative concept. It’s just a universal law of life,” Grayson said. He has taken it upon himself to organize the effort to oppose the strike. 
  
 “We’re gonna win,” Grayson predicted this week. “Pretty sure.” 
  
 Converting support 
  
 Congress is not likely to hold votes on a Syria strike until next week, at the earliest. That leaves plenty of time for the tide to turn. President Obama has planned a national address from the Oval Office on Tuesday to make the case for military intervention. 
  
 But, for now, the nays appear to have it: Just 25 House members have signaled they will vote yes. 
  
 That makes this a remarkable moment on Capitol Hill. Obama, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have joined to support action against Syria. 
  
 And, in the House, the coalition that’s with them is smaller than the Congressional Cement Caucus. (The Senate is more evenly split: Roughly one-quarter of its members are for military intervention, another quarter appear against it and the other half are undecided.) 
  
 On the other side of the issue, more than 200 House members are in the “no” or “leaning no” category. That total includes people from many of Congress’s political tribes, including the centrists and party loyalists least likely to cross the leaders. 
  
 “I’m disappointed,” Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo (R-N.J.), who hails from a Democratic-leaning district and has supported most compromises this year, told reporters after a classified briefing Thursday. LoBiondo said he has “great problems” with the strike and is for now planning to vote against the resolution. 
  
 “We don’t want to make the same mistake we made before,” Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus and a regular supporter of Obama’s agenda, told reporters after the same briefing. 
  
 This side also includes mainstream Republicans such as Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.) and Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (Fla.), close allies of Boehner who were appointed by him to the House Intelligence Committee. If the speaker’s own allies are against this, it gives plenty of cover for conservative lawmakers to oppose it without fear of further alienating Boehner. 
  
 Previous partnerships 
  
 But many of this side’s most enthusiastic members — its recruiters, organizers and “whips” — are those from the ideological edges of both parties. 
  
 This is not their first time working together. In July, many of the same members led an effort to rein in National Security Agency spying — limiting it only to people tied to an active investigation. 
  
 Obama opposed them. Boehner opposed them. And the coalition lost. But not by much: The margin was 217 to 205. For many members, that was a sign that they could find allies across the aisle. 
  
 Some have been trying to organize a stronger effort this time. So far, they’ve attracted slightly more than half of those who voted for the NSA amendment — and dozens upon dozens of members who weren’t with them before. 
  
 In some case, the recruiting process is collaborative, gentle. 
  
 “We’re at this point trying to put a group of folks together to see what kind of language we could all support,” said Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). His aim was to gain signatures for a letter that would urge Obama to assemble a multinational coalition before taking any action on Syria. 
  
 In other cases — particularly those involving Grayson — the planned approach sounds more like serving someone with a subpoena. He has gathered 35,000 signatures on an online petition, dontattacksyria.com. When Congress returns, Grayson said, he’s going to divide up the names by congressional district. 
  
 And go looking for congressmen. 
  
 “I’m going to take actual lists of their constituents who signed the petition and show them,” Grayson said. “We’ve set up our own ad hoc whip operation,” he said, with running tallies of who’s on his side. 
  
 The job, in many cases, is not hard. 
  
 Many legislators have recounted comments from constituents that run lopsidedly against the idea of intervention. 
  
 “I have yet to speak to a member whose constituents have said, this is really important,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who is part of a solid conservative bloc normally opposed to most of the president’s agenda. 
  
 “I don’t think we’ve had a single call or comment in favor,” Chaffetz said. “It is not lighting up the phones, other than, ‘Don’t do it.’ ” 
  
 Exhibiting independence 
  
 The strong coalition assembled against action in Syria is a demonstration of something profound about Capitol Hill. There, power does not work the way it used to. 
  
 By the usual rules of Congress, for instance, Grayson would be a man with almost no power at all. He is a member of the minority party, in his second term, who gained infamy as a loud, partisan attack dog against Republicans during the health-care debate. His most famous accusation was: “The Republican health-care plan is this: Die quickly.” 
  
 But the rules have changed. So, for that matter, has Grayson. And Grayson himself seems to have changed his approach, abandoning full-time partisan warfare for an outreach to libertarians who agree with him on this issue. “You could say we have a love-hate relationship,” he said, and now is the time for love. 
  
 In the current Congress — where party discipline has broken down and members cannot plan beyond the next primary — new members are desperate to show their independence. So among the hard “no” votes in the House against a strike on Syria, many are in their first or second term. 
  
 “It’s not our civil war. It’s theirs,” said Yoho. “To attack that country — a sovereign country that did not attack us — is an act of aggression. It’s an act of war.” 
  
 Grayson says he’s just trying to be effective. Yoho thinks he’s watching a conversion experience. 
  
 “I says, ‘Alan’ — I says, ‘You’re starting to sound more like a libertarian,’ ” he recalled in a phone interview. “He said, ‘I know. But it scares me.’ ” |||||
A:
When President Obama addresses the nation on Tuesday about Syria, he'll no doubt be hoping to sway members of Congress, too. Just how tricky that will be is made clear by the Washington Post, which reports that opposition to any such military strike has managed the rare feat of uniting liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans. The story focuses on Alan Grayson on the left and Ted Yoho on the right, both Florida representatives. “We’re gonna win,” says Grayson. “Pretty sure.” The Post's count suggests they've got a clear advantage. It has more than 100 members "solidly against" military action, and the same number leaning against. Another 185 are undecided. Those definitely in favor? Just 25, though that includes the top two leaders from each party (Boehner, Cantor, Pelosi, and Hoyer.) "This is a remarkable moment in American politics," write David A. Fahrenthold and Paul Kane. "A demonstration that the power of parties may be ebbing after a period of strong partisan discipline." Things are much closer in the Senate, and Harry Reid predicted today that he'll get his 60 votes, reports Politico. Meanwhile, a memo from Cantor to GOP lawmakers says they should expect a vote "in the next two weeks." That suggests to the Hill that House leaders are considering delaying the vote from next week to the one following.