Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated Thursday that he may postpone a confrontation with Republicans over stalled nominations until after the Senate considers the bipartisan immigration bill that the Judiciary Committee OK’d Tuesday.

“I am not going to do anything to interfere with the immigration bill,” he said.

At issue was the so-called “nuclear option,” a possible move by Reid and the Democrats to unilaterally curb filibusters by a simple majority vote, instead of by 67 votes as required by Senate rules.

Reid charged at a press conference Thursday that Republican foot-dragging had delayed or blocked confirmation of several key Obama nominees, with Republican senators submitting more than 1,100 written questions to Gina McCarthy, Obama’s choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

McCarthy, Labor Secretary nominee Tom Perez, consumer financial watchdog Richard Cordray,  and five nominees to the National Labor Relations Board are awaiting confirmation.

“Presidents need to have the team they want when they want them – and this is not working” Reid said told reporters. “It is time for this gridlock to end – that is my message.” He added, “There are no threats – we simply want the Senate to work the way that it should.” 

He added later, “We’re not threatening anybody with anything.”

But Sen. Charles Schumer, D- N.Y. argued that “the public would be happy to hear that the Senate is changing the way it is doing business. So the other side (the Republicans) must be careful – if they think they can win a debate over whether the Senate should change its rules, they might very well be mistaken.”

In a victory for Obama, the Senate Thursday was poised to confirm his nomination of Sri Srinivasan to serve on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Senate Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R- Ky. indicated Wednesday that Republicans supported Srinivasan, a lawyer who has served in the Solicitor General’s office in both the Bush and Obama administrations, calling him "a nominee we all agree on.... We like him."

Discussing Srinivasan, Schumer smiled as he said to reporters, “We may be seeing him coming before the Senate again soon,” – a reference to speculation that Obama might nominate Srinivasan to the Supreme Court if a vacancy occurs. 

But looming in the weeks ahead is a potentially incendiary standoff over what many Democrats are urging: a change in Senate rules to end filibusters of nominees.

In 2005, Senate Republicans threatened to use the “nuclear option” after Democrats blocked votes on nominees to the federal courts by President George W. Bush. The roles were reversed in 2005 with Democrats supporting filibusters of nominee and Republicans accusing them of obstructionism. Eventually the two sides settled their dispute and allowed several Bush nominees to be confirmed to the federal bench.

Reid reminisced Wednesday about the agreement that Democrats had struck with Republicans on confirming those nominees. He said, “We agreed to put some people on the bench that we have regretted since then -- Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith, Brett Kavanaugh” – all of whom are judges now serving on the D.C. Circuit appeals court.

This story was originally published on Thu May 23, 2013 1:42 PM EDT

With one of President Barack Obama’s key nominees on the verge of being confirmed by the Senate on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appeared to edge away Wednesday from an idea that some Democrats are calling for: enacting a change in Senate rules to stop filibusters which delay votes on Obama appointees.

During a debate on the Senate floor with Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, Reid said, "I'm not saying we're going to change the rules" regarding the filibuster, but argued that the Senate must move faster to confirm Obama nominees.

He accused Republicans of “slow-walking” nominees and bogging them down by submitting hundreds and, in one case, a thousand written questions to the nominee before the confirmation vote could occur.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid speaks after a weekly Senate Democratic caucus meeting May 21, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

McConnell accused Reid of using the threat of a unilateral change in in Senate rules – the so-called “nuclear option” – to create “the majority’s own culture of intimidation right here in the Senate.”

The roles were reversed back in 2005 when the Republican majority, including McConnell, threatened to use the “nuclear option” to stop Democratic filibusters, supported by Reid at the time, of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

McConnell noted Wednesday that Republicans had agreed to an up-or-down vote on Obama’s nomination of Sri Srinivasan to serve on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with that vote to occur the Tuesday after the Senate returns from its one-week Memorial Day recess.

“Instead the majority leader chose to jam the minority,” McConnell complained, accusing the Democrats of “manufacturing a crisis to justify their heavy-handed behavior.”

Reid moved on Tuesday to limit debate on Srinivasan and have his confirmation vote Thursday.

McConnell called Srinivasan "a nominee we all agree on.... we like him" and argued that speeding up his nearly certain confirmation was Reid gratuitously using his power.

Srinivasan is crucial because so far in the four and a half years of his presidency, Obama has gotten no one confirmed to that court, which handles most legal challenges to regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bodies and serves as a major stepping stone to the Supreme Court.

In March, Republicans blocked a confirmation vote on another Obama nominee to that court, Caitlin Halligan.

 “You have a majority on that court that is wreaking havoc with the country,” Reid said, adding that with further GOP delays perhaps the judges on that court will issue more opinions in the next couple of weeks favorable to the Republicans – as that court did in January when it ruled that Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional since he had made them when there was no Senate recess.

Reid also reminisced Wednesday about the agreement that he and other Democrats had struck with Republicans in 2005 on confirming Bush’s judicial nominees, an agreement that was made under the threat of the Republicans using the nuclear option.

He said, “We agreed to put some people on the bench that we have regretted since then -- Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith, Brett Kavanaugh” – all of whom are judges now serving on the D.C. Circuit appeals court.

Awaiting Senate action after the Memorial Day recess are other nominees such as Thomas Perez to be labor secretary, Gina McCarthy to head the EPA, and five Obama nominees to serve on the National Labor Relations Board.

George Kohl, senior director for the Communications Workers of America, a labor union, said he didn’t interpret Reid’s comment Wednesday as him ruling out any future use of the nuclear option.

For the CWA, the NLRB nominees are crucial. “If they don’t get that (floor) vote in July, the Labor Board will cease to function on Aug. 27 when the chairman’s term expires. We think that’s a crisis for America.”

If McConnell doesn’t allow a vote on the NLRB nominees, “we think the rules (on ending debate) need to be changed” so the NLRB can protect workers’ right, Kohl said.

This story was originally published on Wed May 22, 2013 3:36 PM EDT

Four months and four days after the Newtown shootings, the U.S. Senate has indefinitely shelved major gun legislation. 

The move follows the 54-46 defeat of a compromise to expand background checks, the most critical of a series of amendments that failed to pass the Senate on Wednesday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the decision on the floor Thursday. He said he spoke to President Barack Obama and the two agreed the best way to move forward was to “hit pause.”

“Yesterday, President Obama said it was a shameful day for the Senate, and it probably was,” Reid said. “But we should make no mistake. This debate is not over. In fact this fight is just beginning.”

But realistically, Senate aides privately say, the issue is done with for now. Even pieces of the plan that might have passed with wide bipartisan support -- making gun trafficking a federal crime, improving school safety and addressing mental health -- will be set aside.

"This was a real emotional, everybody was involved," said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who led efforts for a compromise on background checks. "They’ll look at it and take a little time, take a breather and make a decision."

Manchin said his compromise would have passed the Senate if the National Rifle Association hadn't threatened to dock lawmakers' grades with the organization if they voted for the amendment.

"If it wasn't scored, it would get 70," Manchin said.

Now, the political reckoning begins. Gun control advocates -- from the president on down -- were angry with Wednesday's outcome and urged Americans to keep up pressure on lawmakers who voted against it.

"Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious," former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wrote in a New York Times opinion piece published after the vote. Giffords was shot at a Tucson grocery store as she met with constituents in 2011.

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Father of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victim, Mark Barden introduces President Barack Obama as former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Vice President Joe Biden and family members of the Newtown shooting victims look on in the Rose Garden of the White House on April 17, 2013.

Of the senators who voted no, she wrote: "I’m asking citizens to go to their offices and say: You've disappointed me, and there will be consequences."

Visibly angry, Obama on Wednesday said even members of his own party voted out of fear of the gun lobby.

"A lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too.  And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- to vote 'no,'" Obama said.

Giffords' group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, insists they'll be a force in the upcoming 2014 elections, remembering this vote the same way the NRA will.

"It's a target-rich environment after yesterday, as we'd say in the military," Mark Kelly, Giffords' husband, told reporters at the National Press Club.

NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, Mike Viqueira and Ali Weinberg contributed to this report. 

Related story:

• First Thoughts: Why the gun measure was defeated

This story was originally published on Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:59 PM EDT

Although it was overshadowed this week by the maneuvering over background checks of gun buyers, President Barack Obama’s nomination of Sri Srinivasan to serve on the federal appeals court in Washington will likely end up being more important in the long run. 

Srinivasan, who delivered a sure-footed performance during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, is on the verge of getting lifetime tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the nation’s most powerful appeals court – a court that Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy said recently “is more important than the Supreme Court because on so many of the issues that go there, they will have the final word.” It’s the end of the road for most cases since the Supreme Court accepts only a fraction of the requests for appeals.

Related: Reid not ready to move on changing filibuster rule on nominations 

The court on which Srinivasan would serve decides whether regulations on energy and environmental policy, campaign finance, labor law, and other matters stand or fall. The court also decides appeals from detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

Obama’s legislative agenda may not get far this year, which makes his regulatory agenda -- and the court that decides its fate – even more crucial.

With life tenure, Srinivasan, who is 46 and who now serves as Deputy Solicitor General, would be voting to uphold or strike down regulations long after Leahy and many other senators have left the Senate.

So far Obama hasn’t gotten to appoint anyone to the D.C. circuit appeals court which is now divided between four judges appointed by Republican presidents and three judges appointed by Bill Clinton. (There are also six senior judges with a reduced workload who take part in some cases.) The court has four vacancies and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Obama will soon be sending the Senate three more nominees to the court.

Last month Republicans blocked a confirmation vote on Obama’s nominee Caitlin Halligan – and if they block a vote on Srinivasan it could spark a historic battle over changing Senate rules – the so-called “nuclear option” – to ban filibusters of judicial nominees. A rules change would allow confirmation of a nominee by 51 votes, rather than the 60 which the filibuster in effect requires.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D- N.Y., said Republicans had blocked Halligan “because they wanted to see the D.C. Circuit empty until they could get nominees more to their liking…. The hard right wants to use the D.C. Circuit to undo all kinds of government decisions”–including environmental regulations, he said.

Referring to the bipartisan Gang of 14 accord in 2005 in which senators vowed to not filibuster judicial nominees except in undefined “extraordinary circumstances,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D- R.I., told the committee that “the Gang of 14 agreement has now been broken and that opens the door, as far as I’m concerned, to the nuclear option.”

If Democrats don’t find a way to overcome GOP delays and filibusters, Obama’s nominees will “go into a hostage pool” on the Senate floor and “they become pawns in other (political) struggles,” Whitehouse said.

But Srinivasan’s nomination does not look to be the one on which Republicans and Democrats will fight the ultimate filibuster battle.

His credentials are sterling – he served as a law clerk to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and has done tours of duty in the solicitor general’s office during both the Bush administration and the Obama administration. He has been endorsed by former Bush solicitor general Paul Clement and former Solicitor General and D.C. Circuit judge Kenneth Starr.

Recommended: Boehner rejects GOP campaign chief Walden's Social Security comment

As a witness Wednesday, Srinivasan was deferential, witty, and wise enough to know when to listen and not to talk.

Although he argued part of the Obama administration’s position before the Supreme Court against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) two weeks ago, Srinivasan told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R- Iowa, that the decision to not defend DOMA was made by Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder several months before he began working in the solicitor general’s office. He sidestepped answering a question on DOMA by saying his personal views weren’t relevant and that in event he couldn’t discuss the case because it was pending before the high court. 

Responding to a question posed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R- Texas, Srinivasan said he did not believe in the idea of “a living Constitution” with a meaning that judges change as social conditions change. “The Constitution has an enduring, fixed quality to it,” he told Cruz.

The Texas Republican noted that he’d known Srinivasan for years and that they had both served as law clerks for judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of appeals in 1995-1996.

Alluding to his own unpopularity among Senate Democrats, Cruz told Srinivasan, “We have been friends for a long time – so I am hopeful that our friendship will not be seen as a strike against you by some,” a remark that drew laughter in the hearing room. 

After quizzing Srinivasan, Cruz thanked him “for a very fine job you’ve done today.”

Another Republican on the panel, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, quizzed Srinivasan and then told him, “I think you’re going to make a great circuit court of appeals judge and I intend to support you….”

Hatch said after he left the hearing that he did not expect his GOP colleagues would block a vote on confirming Srinivasan.

And there'd be a risk of alienating some of the nation’s Indian-American population if the Republicans blocked a vote on Indian-born Srinivasan. He’d be the first Asian-American to serve on the D.C. circuit and the first American of Indian ancestry to serve as a federal appeals court judge.

But among Senate Republicans there’s still residual anger over Democrats’ filibusters of President George W. Bush’s appeals court nominees such as Miguel Estrada in 2003 and 2004. Grassley heatedly told reporters after Wednesday's hearing, “We Republicans were stupid in 2005 when we didn’t do the nuclear option…. If we’d done that, Estrada would be on the (appeals) court now and maybe on the Supreme Court. We had seven cloture votes on Estrada," who had "a perfect record. But no, a Hispanic couldn’t be appointed by a Republican (president) -- because he might be on the Supreme Court.”

Continuing an uneasy standoff with Republicans on filibusters of President Barack Obama's nominees to the federal courts and to executive branch positions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated Tuesday he isn't quite ready to pull the trigger on changing Senate rules to curb or abolish such filibusters.

A move by Reid to change Senate filibuster rules by a simple majority vote – sometimes called the “nuclear option” – would spark a major battle with Senate Republicans.

“I hope that's not necessary,” he said Tuesday when asked if he’ll move to change the Senate’s rules on filibustering nominations.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to the media on April 9, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Democrats in 2003 and 2004, when George W. Bush was president, and Republicans more recently have used the threat of a prolonged debate or filibuster to delay, and in some cases, block confirmation votes on judicial and executive branch nominees.

Three weeks ago, New York attorney Caitlin Halligan, Obama’s nominee to fill one of the vacancies on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, withdrew after the Senate fell nine votes short of the 60 needed to end debate and move to a final confirmation vote.

Reid’s comments came the day before the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts its confirmation hearing on another Obama nominee to the appeals court in Washington, Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan.

Commenting on the four vacancies on that court, Reid said Tuesday, “We haven’t had a new person on that court since 2006 or 2007. Some say it’s a court more important than the Supreme Court of the United States” – that’s because by statute it handles much of the litigation involving federal regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency.

“They’ve blocked new people coming on that court,” Reid said, referring to Senate Republicans. “We’re going to have this young man (Srinivasan). We hope that can be done very quickly. And then we expect in the next couple of weeks – I spoke to the White House this morning – three more nominations.”

He complained that Republican senators were delaying too many nominations, through threats of filibusters and by other means.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters Tuesday that Democrats’ complaints about confirmation of judges was unwarranted since Republicans had allowed on Tuesday the confirmation of the tenth judicial nomination of Obama’s second term, and because about 75 percent of the vacancies in the judiciary do not yet have nominees.

According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, there are now 17 appeals court vacancies and six nominees pending for those spots. For the federal trial courts (district courts) there are 68 vacancies and 17 nominees pending for them.

Progressive groups and labor unions such as the Communications Workers of America have been urging Reid to curtail the filibuster.

The question now is whether Republicans will try to delay a confirmation vote on Srinivasan, once his nomination is reported out by the Judiciary Committee.

And if the GOP does filibuster Srinivasan’s nomination, then would that lead Reid to move to change the rules on filibusters?

Curt Levey, president of the conservative group The Committee for Justice, which is involved in judicial nominations battles, said, “Pending Srinivasan’s confirmation hearing, we tentatively oppose his confirmation for a couple of reasons. One, he has filed amicus briefs opposing voter ID laws and supporting racial preferences in admissions, two issues that are very much in the hands of the federal courts.”

And second, Levey said, Srinivasan was involved in an Obama administration deal with the city of St. Paul, Minn., in which the city dropped its appeal in a Fair Housing Act case in return for the administration declining to intervene in two False Claims Act suits against the city.

Harkening back to the Democratic filibusters of Bush’s judicial nominees, Levey said, “Recall that the four D.C. Circuit vacancies are partly the result of Democrats’ obstruction of tremendously qualified Bush nominees, including Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler.”

The struggle over filibusters is also playing out in the case of Richard Cordray, Obama’s choice to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Until Obama agrees to changes in the CFPB structure to make it a multi-member board akin to other regulatory agencies, Republicans are blocking a confirmation vote on Cordray.

Obama gave Cordray a recess appointment last year to head the CFPB. But the appeals court in Washington held that Obama had acted unconstitutionally by giving a recess appointment to three members of the National Labor Relations Board on Jan. 4, 2012. Obama gave Corday his recess appointment on that same day, which, some Republicans say, puts Cordray’s appointment under a legal cloud.

Senate Democrats are pushing forward with a plan to require all gun buyers to get a background check before they can buy a firearm.

"Later tonight, I will start the process of bringing a bill to reduce gun violence to the Senate floor. This bill will include the provisions on background checks, school safety and gun trafficking reported by the Judiciary Committee," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement Thursday evening.

T.J. Kirkpatrick / Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to the press after the weekly Senate Democrats policy luncheon on March 19, 2013 in Washington, DC.

But it's still far from certain that the Senate can pass the background check provision, now considered the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's gun control legislation. Senators are still negotiating the exact language to be used in that provision. 

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin is still talking with Republicans about background checks-- and is in touch with the National Rifle Association -- in an attempt to find compromise language that could garner significant Republican support.

Senate aides say they'll substitute in that compromise language after the Senate returns from recess -- if they can achieve such a compromise.

A proposed assault weapons ban isn't part of the bill -- instead, it will be offered as an amendment.

"The bill I advance tonight will serve as the basis for opening debate. Once debate begins, I will ensure that a ban on assault weapons, limits to high-capacity magazines, and mental health provisions receive votes, along with other amendments," Reid said in his statement.

What does the Senate gun control bill do?

• Requires a background check for anyone who wants to buy a gun, closing the gun show loophole. This is the most contentious part of the bill, and senators are still trying to find a compromise that can pass the Senate.
• Makes gun trafficking a federal crime and increases penalties for people who buy a gun for someone else (known as "straw purchasing.") This provision has broad bipartisan support.
• Helps schools pay for infrastructure to make schools safer -- like reinforced doors -- and training programs for students, faculty and staff. This also has bipartisan support.

With less than 36 hours to go until the much-discussed 'sequestration' deadline, the Senate blocked a pair of competing bills to prevent the broad, automatic cuts from taking effect.

Neither measure was expected to reach the 60-vote threshold required to move a fix forward, with Republicans and Democrats taking up the legislation largely for show the day before the cuts are slated to kick in. 

The Republican sequester ‘replacement’ proposal -- which would have offered the administration more authority to allocate the spending cuts -- was killed with a vote of 38 to 62. The White House had threatened to veto that bill in the unlikely event that it passed.

A Democratic plan focused on closing tax loopholes and raising some taxes garnered 51 votes, short of the 60 necessary to move it forward. 

With both sides still deadlocked over how to address the deficit, congressional leaders will meet with the president at the White House tomorrow. 

President Barack Obama lambasted Senate Republicans in a statement, saying that GOP opposition to the Democrats' bill stood in the way of a solution. 

"Even though a majority of Senators support [the Democrats'] approach, Republicans have refused to allow it an up-or-down vote - threatening our economy with a series of arbitrary, automatic budget cuts that will cost us jobs and slow our recovery," he said.

"Instead of closing a single tax loophole that benefits the well-off and well-connected, they chose to cut vital services for children, seniors, our men and women in uniform and their families," the statement read. "They voted to let the entire burden of deficit reduction fall squarely on the middle class."
"

Earlier Thursday, competing press conferences, lawmakers from both parties continued to lay blame at each other's feet as they acknowledged that the across-the-board reductions to the nation's military and domestic spending programs are inevitable.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid olds a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on the eve of the budget sequester Feb. 28, 2013 in Washington, DC.

House Speaker John Boehner argued Thursday that the budget ball remains in Democrats' court, a case he says he will make again tomorrow in the meeting with Obama.

"My message at the White House will be the same that I'm telling you today,” he said. “It's time for them to do their job and to pass a bill."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded that Republican calls for Democratic action "take a lot of pizzazz."

"They've done nothing," Reid said, saying that House Republicans are hiding behind the lower chamber's now-expired passage of budget measures last year while failing to allow compromise legislation to come up for a vote.

The weariness over the sequester jockeying – which promises to drag on for weeks as the fight shifts to future deadlines for greenlighting federal funding -- even spilled over into the Senate chaplain’s opening prayer this morning.

Mentioning the cuts in his invocation, Senate Chaplain Rev. Barry Black prayed "Rise up, oh God, and save us from ourselves."

NBC's Mike Viqueira contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:41 PM EST

The Senate voted to confirm former Sen. Chuck Hagel as President Barack Obama's next secretary of defense following weeks of dogged opposition by Republican senators to their erstwhile colleague.

The Senate voted 58 to 41 to formally confirm Hagel, on the heels of a procedural vote earlier in the day that cleared the way for Tuesday afternoon's final vote.

That earlier vote dispensed with a filibuster that Senate Republicans had waged for a week and a half against Hagel, whose confirmation was delayed by Republicans past the President's Day recess in order to allow for more time to dig into the former Nebraska senator's background.

A number of Republican detractors — including Sens. John McCain, Ariz., Lindsey Graham, S.C. and Kelly Ayotte, N.H. — reversed their votes on Monday in order to allow the Hagel nomination to move forward.

The Senate voted 71 to 27 to move forward with Hagel's nomination, clearing the 60-vote threshold needed to end the GOP filibuster. A handful of the Republicans who allowed Hagel's nomination to come to a final vote ultimately voted against confirmation.

In the end, Obama was able to win confirmation for Hagel, his choice to succeed outgoing Secretary Leon Panetta at the Pentagon. But not before Republicans were able to drag out the confirmation fight and, in the process, ding Hagel, their onetime GOP Senate colleague from the Cornhusker State.

Republicans had fought strenuously to defeat Hagel, accusing him at points of harboring hostilities toward Israel, and sympathies for the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Tied into Hagel's nomination as well have been Republicans' long-running effort to ding Obama and his administration over their handling of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. 

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Former Senator Chuck Hagel testifies during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his nomination to be Defense Secretary, on Capitol Hill in Washington, in this January 31, 2013, file photo.

"What has their filibuster gained my Republican colleagues?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked on the Senate floor. "Twelve days later, Senator Hagel's exemplary record of service to his country remains untarnished."

Reid added: "Senate Republicans have delayed for the better part of two weeks for one reason and one reason only: partisanship."

Hagel didn't necessarily help his cause during a combative confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Republicans aggressively questioned Hagel on a variety of matters during the Jan. 31 hearing. 

Even still, Democrats held firm in their backing for the former Nebraska senator, helping to move his nomination forward. Republicans, though, managed to buy themselves more time — they said, to more fully investigate Hagel's background — by waging a filibuster against the nomination on Feb. 14. 

Democrats angrily protested the delay, especially as current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta planned to leave the job, as dangerous and unprecedented. Republican opponents of Hagel, though, said at that time that they would drop their objections to holding a confirmation vote after last week's recess.

This story was originally published on Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:37 PM EST

The nation’s capital was enveloped in a familiar kind of gridlock late Monday, as Republicans again demanded that President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats act first to put off $85 billion in automatic cuts slated to take effect on Friday.

“The president says we have to have another tax increase to avoid the sequester,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said of the hefty and indiscriminate spending cuts. “Well, Mr. President, you got your tax increase. It's time to cut spending.”

Related: Obama to govs: Push Congress to avert cuts

As Congress returned to work following a weeklong recess, the Obama administration and lawmakers appeared no closer to resolving the automatic spending cuts before their Friday deadline. While both Democrats and Republicans bemoan the cuts as potentially catastrophic for the economy and the national defense, both sides have been locked in a virtual staring match over the sequester.

The end result is that the cuts seem likely to take effect, if only for some limited period of time, come Friday. Both sides spent Monday posturing rather than working toward a solution.

For their part, the House GOP is content to rest upon the two bills they had passed in the last Congress meant to offset the $85 billion in spending cuts with a series of additional, alternative cuts. Democrats, led by Obama, had rejected that alternative as “unbalanced” because it did not include some measure of new tax revenue.

But, buoyed by stronger approval ratings than congressional Republicans, the president has also been generally unwilling to budge from his stance that a sequester replacement would have to include new tax revenue – likely through closing loopholes and deductions – in addition to other spending cuts.

“Unfortunately, in just four days Congress is poised to allow a series of arbitrary, automatic budget cuts to kick in that will slow our economy, eliminate good jobs, and leave a lot of folks who are already pretty thinly stretched scrambling to figure out what to do,” Obama told a bipartisan group of governors at the White House this morning.

The president leaned on the governors to pressure their respective states' congressional delegations to support a compromise agreement.

Obama has relied increasingly on these public events to make his arguments to the public, pursuing a sort of "outside" strategy meant to rally pressure on lawmakers to strike deals on a range of issues. For instance, Obama will travel to Newport News, Va., on Tuesday to highlight the negative toll the sequester would take on that region's defense industry.

For their part, Republicans have derided the president as spending more time on campaigning against the GOP than working toward a deal.

"Instead of using our military men and women as campaign props, if the president was serious, he'd sit down with Harry Reid and begin to address our problems," Boehner said Monday, referencing the dire warnings of furloughed workers and potential pay cuts for some employees involved with the nation's defenses.

Boehner and the rest of the House GOP appeared no closer to relenting on their demand that any final compromise originate in the Senate. After a roller-coaster past two years in the House, in which conservative lawmakers often threatened to upset delicate agreements Boehner had struck with Obama, the speaker has adopted a strategy of deferring to the Senate on many top legislative matters.

Before the recess, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the rest of the Democratic leadership unveiled a sequester proposal that would offset the impending cuts with new taxes on corporations and the ultrawealthy, more modest defense cuts and additional cuts in discretionary spending.

"Congress has the power to prevent these self-inflicted wounds," Reid said Monday on the Senate floor. "We have the power to turn off the sequester."

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio responds to President Barack Obama's remarks to the nation's governors earlier today about how to fend off the impending automatic budget cuts, Monday, Feb. 25 on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Amid the pessimism about the prospects for a deal, Boehner half-heartedly told reporters that "hope springs eternal" that an agreement could be reached by Friday.

"The president can sit down with Harry Reid tonight and work with Senate Democrats, who have the majority in the Senate to move a bill. It's time for them to act. I've made this clear for months now, and yet we've seen nothing," he said.

This story was originally published on Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:18 PM EST

A bipartisan group of senators formally unveiled an immigration reform framework that they hope the Senate could pass "in overwhelming and bipartisan fashion" by late spring or early summer.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday on Capitol Hill, five of the eight members of a bipartisan working group announced the contours of their agreement, which would shore up America's borders and provide an eventual path to citizenship for undocumented workers.

"We still have a long way to go, but this bipartisan grouping is a major breakthrough," New York Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democratic member of the group of eight, said Monday afternoon.

Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, set an ambitious goal of translating the statement of principles released Sunday evening by the senators into legislation by March. He said the Senate would try to approve the legislation for consideration in the House by the end of spring, or early summer.

The major development involves the pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers that would be established under the Senate plan. Conservatives have resisted similar proposals -- even when they were proposed by President George W. Bush -- and labeled them as "amnesty" for individuals who entered the United States illegally.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that Americans "have been too content for too long" to allow many undocumented workers to provide basic services "while not affording them any of the benefits that make our country so great."

"It is not beneficial to this country to have these people here, hidden in the shadows," added McCain, whose own experience on the issue of immigration provides an instructive example of why immigration reform has been so elusive for Congress.

McCain had long been one of the most vocal advocates of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers, but tempered his opinions in recent years amid conservative scrutiny. As he was fighting off a conservative primary challenger in 2010, McCain appeared in a television ad saying it was time to "build the danged fence" -- a reference to the proposed fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, which is favored by a number of Republicans.

The senators' announcement on Monday comes a day before President Barack Obama was set to make a major policy address on Tuesday in Nevada on the topic of immigration. While Obama had not been expected to outline any formal legislation during his remarks, lawmakers from both parties will carefully parse the president's words for their impact on the immigration debate. Schumer said that he had spoken to the president about the Senate framework, and that the president was "delighted" by it.

Obama himself had vowed to achieve comprehensive immigration reform during his first term, but his efforts were stymied. That failure invited a degree of consternation from the Latino community during last year's presidential campaign, even though Obama had taken executive action to halt the deportation of individuals who were illegally brought to the United States as children.

(That order, made by Obama last summer, sought to effectively enact much of the DREAM Act, a piece of legislation that failed in the Senate as recently as 2010, when some Republicans who'd previously supported the law flipped, and voted against it.)

Indeed, the success of this push in the Senate may well hinge on Republicans' willingness to go along with a plan that gives undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, an influential House Republican, already labeled the Senate framework as "amnesty" in a statement on Monday.

House GOP leaders were otherwise mum on Monday toward the Senate proposal, though top Republicans have previously expressed a preference for tackling immigration in a piecemeal manner.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the eight-member group and a favorite of conservatives, has worked to gather conservative support for the proposal. He said at Monday's press conference that while no one is happy about the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally, "We have an obligation and need to address the reality that we face."

The other factor weighing upon Republicans involves their poor performance among Hispanic voters -- a bloc that is growing in importance in a variety of key battleground states -- during last fall's election.

"The Republican Party is losing support of our Hispanic citizens," McCain said Monday in a nod toward a variable that could convince more GOP lawmakers to support this bipartisan proposal. But, McCain noted, "We're not going to get everybody onboard."

In the meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pledged to "do everything in [his] power as the majority leader to get a bill across the finish line."

"Nothing short of bipartisan success is acceptable to me," he said in remarks on the Senate floor preceding the group of eight's press conference.

Updated 3:15 pm: Twitter has a way of really highlighting the comity in Washington.

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R), upset with Harry Reid saying Hurricane Katrina was "nothing in comparison" to Hurricane Sandy and the devastation caused to the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut area, lashed out on the social network calling the Senate majority leader an "idiot."

"Sadly, Harry Reid has again revealed himself to be an idiot, this time gravely insulting Gulf Coast residents," Vitter Tweeted, linking to a story in the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

Vitter later also released a statement with the same language and adding, "Both Katrina and Sandy were horribly destructive storms that caused real human misery.  And by most any measure, Katrina was our worst natural disaster in history. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused 1,833 deaths and over $108 billion in damage. Hurricane Sandy has caused 131 deaths and $65 billion in damage."

On Friday, Reid said the following on the floor, urging passage of Sandy funding:

"I really do believe it is important that I have the record reflect the reason we have gotten as far as we have on Sandy is because of the senior Senator from New York. It is too bad that it has taken so long. When we had that devastation from Katrina, we were there within days taking care of Mississippi, Alabama, and especially Louisiana--within days. We are now past 2 months with the people of New York and New Jersey.

"The people of New Orleans and that area, they were hurt but nothing in comparison to what happened to the people in New York and New Jersey. Almost 1 million people have lost their homes; 1 million people lost their homes. That is homes, that is not people in those homes. So I think it is just unfortunate that we do not have the relief for New York and New Jersey and the rest already. It has to be done. We have to meet the needs of the American people when an act of God occurs."

The Times-Pic writes:

"Sandy devastated some of the nation's most populated areas, but it didn't come close to Katrina. Hurricane Katrina, and the flooding that followed when federally built levees failed, killing  1,833 and causing more than $145 billion in damage. Sandy has been blamed for 120 deaths and over $80 billion in damage."

Monday afternoon, Reid released a statement saying he "misspoke" on Friday:

"In my recent comments criticizing House Republicans for threatening to betray Congress' tradition of providing aid to disaster victims in a timely fashion regardless of region, I simply misspoke. I am proud to have been an advocate for disaster victims in the face of Republican foot-dragging, from Hurricane Katrina to Hurricane Sandy, from fires in the west to tornadoes in the Midwest. I have worked hard with Senator Landrieu to ensure that the people of the Gulf Coast have the resources they need to fully recover, and I will continue to advocate on their behalf until the region is fully recovered."

The House passed a $9.7 billion Sandy recovery aid package Friday, which the Senate took up and passed by unanimous consent. The House is expected to take up another $51 billion aid package as a result of Sandy Jan. 15th, after it returns from recess.