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 intimation 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

Lawmakers expressed both anger and bewilderment that IRS leaders had not told Congress sooner about indications that the tax agency had improperly singled out conservatives and Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.

A highly anticipated hearing by the top investigative committee in the Republican-controlled House delivered on the drama that was expected. Lois Lerner, the IRS official in charge of the division accused of wrongdoing, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against testifying, and defiantly asserted her innocence.

"I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws," she said. "I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided any false information to this or any other committee."

But her refusal to testify left the hearing on an uncertain note. Republicans only recessed the meeting – versus formally adjourning it – and threatened to re-call Lerner, whom they asserted had waived her Fifth Amendment privileges by making her brief statement.

"I am looking into the possibility of recalling her and insist she answer questions in light of a waiver,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the committee.

But much of lawmakers' ire was trained on the IRS leadership for failing to disclose any indication of IRS wrongdoing to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, whose inquiry into the matter prompted an inspector general inquiry into targeting of conservative groups. Both Democrats and Republicans voiced outrage that Douglas Shulman, the commissioner of the IRS during much of the abuses, did not tell lawmakers that an internal IRS investigation had suggested improper action by the IRS to single out conservative groups.

"At that point, I didn’t have anything concrete," Shulman responded. "I didn’t have a full set of facts to come back to Congress or the committee with."

His answered angered Democrats as much as Republicans.

"If you didn’t know, you were derelict in your duty," said Issa.

Carolyn Kaster / AP

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. holds up a document as he speaks to IRS official Lois Lerner on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, May 22, 2013, during the committee's hearing to investigate the extra scrutiny IRS gave to Tea Party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status.

"You misled Congress. Make no question about it … When you learned there was a list, you did nothing," said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., who raised the prospect of appointing a special prosecutor in his opening remarks. "You abdicated your responsibility and you allowed Congress to proceed under your prior information that was false, that was untrue."

And for the first time, the IRS inspector general who generated the report that laid out the explosive allegations, J. Russell George, came under scrutiny from lawmakers. Issa pressed George as to why his office hadn't told Congress about indications of targeting at an earlier point during the investigation.

"I think it would behoove all of us to make sure that accurate information is given to Congress so we don’t act precipitously," George responded in reference to his office's actions.

The tense exchanges followed a somewhat explosive opening to the hearing, in which Lerner refused to answer lawmakers’ questions. But she delivered a brief statement explaining her role at the IRS and denying any wrongdoing.

That statement angered committee conservatives, who said that Lerner had essentially offered testimony, and thus had waived her ability to invoke her constitutional right to not testify. Issa dismissed Lerner nonetheless, but warned that his panel might again seek her testimony in the future. Following her dismissal, Lerner’s role remained largely absent through the questioning of the other witnesses.

The scrutiny of the IRS witnesses was characteristic of a hearing that focused far more on the actions of the agency and the subsequent investigation than whether the IRS came under undue influence from the Obama administration to single out conservatives.

The one administration witness, Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin, denied that he had ever directed the targeting of conservative groups. "Absolutely not, congresswoman," he said in response to a question on that matter, one of the few questions he faced during the hearing.

While Republicans have insinuated for much of the last two weeks that the IRS abuses were part of a "culture of intimidation" within the Obama administration, that line of inquiry generally took a backseat during Wednesday's hearing. (By contrast, Republicans focused on finding ties to Obama much more during a hearing last Friday by the House Ways and Means Committee and a hearing Tuesday before the Senate Finance Committee.)

An exception to that came when Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, linked the Obama administration’s assertion that the IRS abuses were limited to rogue employees to its initial assertion following last year’s terror attack in Benghazi that it was the outgrowth of a spontaneous protest. (This assertion about Benghazi was eventually proved wrong, and has become another point of contention between the White House and congressional Republicans.)

Related Stories:

• Ex-Cincy IRS official doubts agency's explanation for Tea Party scandal

This story was originally published on Wed May 22, 2013 10:41 AM EDT

The White House finds itself in a public relations mess… Even as it argues that the press is seeing the trees (like the IG report) but missing the forest (Obama had no role in IRS controversy)… Issa’s committee knew about the IG report, too?... Senate Judiciary Committee clears immigration bill, which now moves to the Senate floor… NYT: The number of drone strikes declines… WaPo on Petraeus’ role in the Benghazi talking points… Florida shooting connected to Boston bombing… Will Weiner get his second chance?... And Garcetti wins LA mayoral run-off.

Jacquelyn Martin / AP

President Barack Obama meets with Myanmar's President Thein Sein in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, May 20, 2013.

*** The White House’s public relations mess: While there is still no evidence connecting the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups directly to the White House or to the president personally, or to his re-election campaign, it doesn’t mean the White House doesn’t have a PR problem on its hands. And this PR mess is largely self-inflicted. For starters, its explanation about when it learned of the inspector general’s IRS investigation keeps changing. “Just a day after telling reporters that chief of staff Denis McDonough and other senior White House staff learned of the situation nearly a month ago, press secretary Jay Carney revealed Tuesday that White House officials had consulted with the Treasury Department on how to make the findings public,” Politico writes. Then we discover that the IRS official Lois Lerner plans to plead the 5^th Amendment at today’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Both developments make it SEEM like the White House or the administration has something to hide -- even if the evidence (so far) is that Team Obama wasn’t directly connected to this IRS story. And speaking of a PR mess, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney didn’t help things when he compared a question about HHS’s fundraising to questions about the president’s birth certificate. That’s the way a White House acting as if it’s in a bunker mentality responds to legitimate questions.

*** White House: Press is seeing the trees but missing the forest: All that said, the White House believes reporters are seeing the trees but missing the forest. According to an administration official, its P.R. priorities were 1) demonstrating that the president had NO role in this controversy and 2) demanding accountability and new hires immediately. And this official believes both of those priorities have been met. For the White House, all other questions -- including who knew about the IG report and when they knew it -- are secondary, and it has taken them time to get their facts straight. But that explanation also assumes that the White House’s story won’t continue to change. And that gets at the issue of a credibility problem. And right now, the White House press shop has a credibility problem with many reporters in that press room. And assuming they have nothing to hide, it’s a self-inflicted credibility problem.

*** Issa’s committee knew about the IG report, too? Speaking of the IG report, the inspector general who investigated the IRS’s targeting of conservative-sounding groups testified at the Senate Finance Committee yesterday that Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee also knew about the report back in 2012 and communicated with the IG’s office. So Democrats argue something along the lines of, “Issa’s committee knew about it, too, and didn’t say anything public!!!” But an Issa spokesman tells First Read, “The administration is trying to draw a false a parallel between its own responsibilities and an Oversight Committee that requested the IG audit. This includes a false characterization that the Committee voluntarily waited for [the IG’s office] to complete its investigation. In reality, the committee made extensive efforts to ask [the inspector general] if wrongdoing had been found but was rebuffed on multiple occasions. Administration officials drawing a false parallel have offered no evidence that they made a similar effort to learn all that they could about wrongdoing.” 

*** Senate Judiciary Committee clears immigration bill: Despite everything else happening (IRS, the Oklahoma disaster, etc.), the immigration train keeps moving forward. By a 13-5 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved the sweeping bipartisan immigration-reform legislation, which now heads to the Senate floor. Per NBC’s Carrie Dann, “Three Republicans -- Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah -- joined the panel's 10 Democrats to vote in favor of the bill. Flake and Graham are both members of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that originally drafted the 844-page immigration legislation. Hatch's support was won after the Utah lawmaker secured changes to the bill's provisions for the hiring of high-skilled foreign workers.” But there also was some drama, Dann notes. “In an emotional moment shortly before final passage, committee chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced that he would not call for a vote on an amendment that would have recognized the marriages of same-sex spouses in immigration law. Republicans in the bipartisan Gang of Eight said the LGBT measure would have broken apart the fragile coalition crafted by the bill's drafters.” The decision to pull the same-sex amendment only highlights the fact that Leahy wasn’t in charge of his own committee hearing; Chuck Schumer was.  

*** NYT: The number of drone strikes decline: A day before Obama’s speech on national security at the National Defense University, the New York Times reports that the number of drone strikes overseas has declined. “Strikes in Pakistan peaked in 2010 and have fallen sharply since then; their pace in Yemen has slowed to half of last year’s rate; and no strike has been reported in Somalia for more than a year.” We expect that the president will discuss the drone wars, as well the Guatanamo Bay prison. But it would also be a smart place for Obama to discuss and either defend, denounce, or explain the Justice Department tough actions against national-security leaks, which seem to have infringed on press freedoms. If he fails to use tomorrow’s speech to deal with the press’ growing anger about the targeting of individual journalists, it could be a missed opportunity.

*** On Petraeus’ role in the Benghazi talking points: We’ve told you that the fight over the Benghazi talking points seemed to be more bureaucratic politics than electoral politics. And this Washington Post article seems to further confirm that. “A close reading of recently released government e-mails that were sent during the editing process, and interviews with senior officials from several government agencies, reveal [former CIA head David] Petraeus’s early role and ambitions in going well beyond the committee’s request, apparently to produce a set of talking points favorable to his image and his agency. The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that [Rep.] Ruppersberger had requested. It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.” 

*** Florida shooting connected to Boston bombing: Don’t be surprised if this story grabs a lot more attention later today. “An FBI agent was involved in a fatal shooting in Orlando early Wednesday that a local TV station says may have ties to the Boston Marathon bombings,” USA Today writes. “FBI officials have confirmed that a man died while one of its agents was "conducting official duties," the Orlando Sentinelreports, but would not elaborate. WESH-TV [an NBC affiliate] identifies the victim as 27-year-old Ibragim Todashev.” NBC’s Richard Esposito reports that the shooting IS connected to Boston bombing case. “It is connected in that the person shot is linked to Tsarnaev and has associates who are extremists overseas. They were interviewing him regarding his connections to Tsarnaev. He had been interviewed before. He started out cooperative. Flipped out. Went to attack agent. Then was shot.”

*** Will Weiner get his second chance? Anthony Weiner has released a slick two-minute video announcing his bid for New York mayor. "Look, I made some big mistakes, and I know I let a lot of people down,” he says in the video, which also features his wife Huma Abedin and young son. “But I've also learned some tough lessons. I'm running for mayor because I’ve been fighting for the middle class and those struggling my entire life. And I hope I get a second chance to work for you." Later in the video, wife Huma adds, “We love this city, and no one will work harder to make it better than Anthony.” While we still have our doubts that Weiner becomes NYC’s next mayor, his presence in the race likely means that front-runner Christine Quinn would face a run-off -- one in which she could struggle.

*** Garcetti to become LA’s next mayor: And in Los Angeles’ mayoral run-off, City Councilman Eric Garcetti defeated City Comptroller Wendy Greuel by eight percentage points, 54%-46%, succeeding outgoing Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The Los Angeles Times: “Garcetti will be the first elected Jewish mayor of the city. At 42, he will also be the youngest in more than a century. He is scheduled to take office July 1.” More: “At $33 million, the mayoral campaign was the most expensive in city history. The flood of money and advertising from those groups largely went toward tearing down the two contenders, alienating many Angelenos who hadn't already been left cold.”

http://is.gd/ccxyrR%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on http://is.gd/TzuR1b%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Drew Angerer / The New York Times via Redux Pictures

Supporters of immigration reform cheer after the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation to overhaul the nation's immigration laws on Tuesday.

A sweeping bill to overhaul the nation's immigration system cleared its first major hurdle late Tuesday night, with the 18-member committee charged with completing a first round of legislative edits voting to advance the amended bill to the full Senate.  

The vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee was 13-5.  

Three Republicans - Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah -- joined the panel's 10 Democrats to vote in favor of the bill. 

Flake and Graham are both members of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that originally drafted the 844-page immigration legislation. Hatch's support was won after the Utah lawmaker secured changes to the bill's provisions for the hiring of high-skilled foreign workers.  

Five Republicans - Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Lee of Utah and Jeff Sessions of Alabama -- voted against the legislation. 

The measure will now head to the Senate floor. 

In a statement, President Barack Obama - who has made the passage of immigration reform the top legislative goal of his second term -- lauded the committee for its "open and inclusive process" and said the legislation as approved is "largely consistent with the principles of commonsense reform I have proposed." 

"I encourage the full Senate to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor at the at the earliest possible opportunity and remain hopeful that the amendment process will lead to further improvements," he said. 

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who does not serve on the panel but is a crucial player in wooing fellow conservatives to support the bill, similarly praised the committee but noted that "work still remains to be done."

"Immigration reform will not become law unless we can earn the confidence of the American people that we are solving our immigration problems once and for all," he said, adding that he is "optimistic" that the bill can be satisfactorily improved on the Senate floor. 

On Tuesday, the top Republican in the upper chamber affirmed that he will not block the immigration proposal from being debated by the full Senate.

“I think the Gang of Eight has made a substantial contribution in moving the issue forward," Sen. Mitch McConnell told reporters. "I’m told that the Judiciary Committee hasn’t in any fundamental way undone the agreements that were agreed by the eight senators, so I’m hopeful we can get a bill that we can pass here in the Senate.”

In an emotional moment shortly before final passage, committee chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced that he would not call for a vote on an amendment that would have recognized the marriages of same-sex spouses in immigration law. 

Republicans in the bipartisan Gang of Eight said the LGBT measure would have broken apart the fragile coalition crafted by the bill's drafters. 

As written, the bill would open a 13-year path to citizenship for qualified undocumented immigrants, establish a new program for low-skilled temporary workers, require new border security strategies and implement a nationwide employment verification system. 

Conservatives who oppose the reform proposal say that it fails to secure the border adequately and does not do enough to prevent a new wave of illegal immigration into the country.

Throughout five days of marathon work sessions, senators on the panel tweaked the bill's provisions for modifying immigrant worker programs, tracking foreign nationals who overstay visas and implementing new border security measures along the nation's southern border. 

But Flake and Graham -- the two Republican members of the Gang of Eight who serve on the committee - joined with Democrats to vote down amendments deemed a threat to the "Gang of Eight" compromise.

When the final vote was announced, attendees in the hearing room broke into cheers of "Si se puede!" and "Yes we can!" 

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 PM EDT

A top IRS official scheduled to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight committee has notified Congress that she will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS unit which handled tax-exempt organizations, won't answer questions about what she knows about the improper screening of conservative groups or about why she repeatedly failed to tell Congress that such targeting was going on, according to a letter from her lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd. 

The news of Lerner's intention to invoke the Fifth Amendment was first reported Tuesday by the L.A. Times.

Some members of Congress have called for Lerner to be relieved of her responsibilities. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) alleged that she gave false and misleading testimony to Congress.

Her lawyer wrote, "She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation, but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course."

A spokesman for the House committee said: "The Committee has been contacted by Ms. Lerner's lawyer who stated that his client intended to invoke her Fifth Amendment right and refuse to answer questions. Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena from Chairman Issa to appear at tomorrow's hearing -- the Committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight. Chairman Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs."

An FBI criminal investigation has been launched into whether any of the IRS actions were illegal and potentially into whether senior officials lied to Congress. Given that, testifying under oath carries added legal risk. 

With a final committee vote on a comprehensive immigration reform bill finally in sight, proponents of immigration reform won the support of a key Republican panel member after hammering out a bipartisan compromise dealing with visas for high-skilled foreign workers.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, long considered a Republican swing vote on the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee, announced Tuesday night that he will vote the comprehensive immigration reform bill out of committee after the panel approved language relaxing restrictions on employers seeking to hire foreign workers for high-tech jobs. But he cautioned that he may vote against the bill on Senate floor if other changes to the legislation are not made.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Sen. Orrin Hatch, the co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, questions witnesses during testimony in Washington May 21, 2013.

The new language was the result of a deal between Hatch and Gang of Eight negotiator Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York, designed specifically to woo the Utah Republican but risking the ire of labor groups who believe the changes will hurt American workers who are qualified for the same high-tech jobs.

"We have been and remain opposed to Hatch's amendments," AFL-CIO spokesman Jeff Hauser said of the compromise language. "On the same say day that the Senate is grilling Apple for tax avoidance, it is a mistake to support an amendment so that tech companies can avoid hiring qualified American workers."

The Hatch-Schumer amendment passed by voice vote. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the panel, attempted to change its provisions, but his amendments were voted down

As written, the bill would initially raise the cap the number of H1-B visas from 65,000 to 110,000 -- with provisions to increase that number to 180,000.

Gang of Eight negotiator Sen. Marco Rubio, who has worked to garner support for the legislation among his fellow Republicans, welcomed Hatch's backing for the bill. 

"The Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval of Senator Hatch’s proposal to improve the H-1B visa provisions in the immigration legislation address key concerns shared by many conservatives," he said in a statement. "We must modernize our broken legal immigration system to meet the needs of America’s 21st century economy and create jobs. Senator Hatch’s amendment provides important protections for American workers while also ensuring that fast-growing and high-tech firms can continue to create jobs here in America."

Earlier Tuesday, the committee voted down an amendment proposed by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that would have stripped out the Gang of Eight's foundational principle that qualified undocumented immigrants to the United States should be eligible to work towards full citizenship.  The amendment failed 5-13 , with Hatch joining Gang of Eight Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham in voting with Democrats against the measure.

Cruz, discussed as a possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said the inclusion of the path to citizenship would "only encourage others to violate the law."

The Tea Party-affiliated senator added that, if the pathway remains in the bill, the reform effort will be voted down in the Republican-controlled House. That assertion was flatly rejected by Schumer, who retorted that "if we don't have a path to citizenship, there is no reform."

Another Cruz-sponsored amendment that would have made undocumented immigrants ineligible for means-tested federal benefits failed 6-12.

Hatch voted in support of that measure.

A few issues remain - including a possible high-stakes discussion about whether LGBT foreign nationals should be eligible to apply for green cards through their partners and spouses in the United States.

But senators hope to wrap up their committee work as soon as tonight and advance the amended bill to the full Senate, which is expected to take up the bill this summer.

On Tuesday, the top Republican in the upper chamber said he will not block the immigration debate on the Senate floor.

"With regard to getting started on the bill, it’s my intention if there is a motion to proceed required, to vote for the motion to proceed so we can get on the bill and see if it we’re able to pass a bill that actually moves the ball in the right direction,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said – indicating that he won’t support using Senate rules and procedures to keep the chamber from debating the legislation.

McConnell also said that he’s “hopeful” that a comprehensive immigration bill can pass the Senate.

“I think the Gang of Eight has made a substantial contribution in moving the issue forward…I’m told that the Judiciary Committee hasn’t in any fundamental way undone the agreements that were agreed by the eight senators," he said. "So I’m hopeful we can get a bill that we can pass here in the Senate.”

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 4:33 PM EDT

WASHINGTON – This past Sunday while in Atlanta speaking at the Morehouse College commencement, President Barack Obama used one of his powers that is not diminished by the controversies swirling around the White House: the power of the bully pulpit. 

In a speech at the historically black, all-male college, the president delivered some tough love to the 500 or so black men seated in front of him.

First, he heaped praise on the class of 2013. “Your generation is uniquely poised for success unlike any generation of African Americans that came before it,” he said.

But then he said they – and others in the black community -- needed to keep striving for more and used himself as an example.

“We know that too many young men in our community continue to make bad choices,” the president said. “And I have to say, growing up, I made quite a few myself.  Sometimes I wrote off my own failings as just another example of the world trying to keep a black man down. … But one of the things that all of you have learned over the last four years is there's no longer any room for excuses.”

This message of empowerment, delivered directly to the black community, is not a new theme for this president; it’s just the latest iteration of the effort.

In 2008, while first campaigning for the presidency, then-Sen. Obama said this during a Father’s Day speech at a church in Chicago: “There's a reason why our families are in disrepair and some of it has to do with a tragic history, but we can't keep on using that as an excuse.”

It’s clear that Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama have realized that even as the president has to face tough questions about mismanagement at the Internal Revenue Service and resources at diplomatic facilities around the world, they can still use their notoriety to encourage blacks to help themselves.

And, in the last week, it seemed like a coordinated effort by the First Couple to push this message. On Friday, the first lady got into the act while speaking at another historically black university in Maryland, Bowie State University. 

“We need to once again fight to educate ourselves and our children like our lives depend on it,” she said, “because they do.”

And she paraphrased this line her husband used back in 2004 when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention: “Children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white." 

Even if Washington can’t get anything done, it seems both the president and the first lady are determined – with just three years to go until they leave the White House -- not only to inspire, but to inform.  By deliberately choosing to speak at historically black universities, they force a light to be shined on these places that represent some of the best of the African-American community. 

President Obama usually includes specific references to the stories of graduates in the audience during commencement speeches and Sunday’s was no different.

“When Leland Shelton was 4-years-old, social services took him away from his mama, put him in the care of his grandparents,” Obama said. “By age 14, he was in the foster care system. Three years after that, Leland enrolled in Morehouse. And today he is graduating Phi Beta Kappa on his way to Harvard Law School.”

The words are important, but what was captured on video was a teary Leland Shelton surrounded by his capped-and-gowned Morehouse brothers cheering him on. 

The importance of cameras capturing African Americans celebrating education and beaming that around the world is not lost on this First Couple, and it’s one of the goals of these speeches. The other goal: to make sure everybody, but particularly African Americans, keep striving for excellence and helping each other succeed in a world that is still full of challenges.

Yes, the last two weeks haven't been kind to the Obama White House. Yes, the administration has found itself on the defensive -- regarding the IRS, Benghazi and leak-investigation controversies. And, yes, those stories aren't going way.

But it's also unclear if these controversies are political winners for the Republican Party.

In addition to new polls showing that President Obama's approval rating remains above 50 percent after these stories first surfaced, a Washington Post/ABC survey suggests that Republicans are suffering from a focus deficit.

According to the poll, just 33 percent of Americans believe congressional Republicans are mainly concentrating on matters that are personally important to them, while 60 percent say they aren’t.

By comparison, 51 percent say Obama is mainly focusing on things important to them, versus 44 percent who disagree -- matching his approval rating in the poll

And 43 percent of respondents think congressional Democrats are concentrating on matters of importance, compared with 50 percent who say they're not.

Bottom line: The public believes that Obama and the Democrats are focusing more on the issues they care about than Republicans are. 

Conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru reaches a similar conclusion in his latest column.

[Republicans] have no real health-care agenda. Voters don’t trust them to look out for middle-class economic interests. Republicans are confused and divided about how to solve the party’s problems. What they can do is unite in opposition to the Obama administration’s scandals and mistakes. So that’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to win news cycles when they need votes.

Congressional Republicans were right to press for hearings on all of these issues. But investigations of the administration won’t supply them with ideas. They won’t make the public trust Republicans. They won’t save them from themselves.

Political observer Charlie Cook adds:

But at what point do [Republicans] decide that maybe voters might be more interested in other issues or worries than about politicians on one side pointing fingers and throwing allegations at those on the other side?

Yet a problem for Republicans -- if they decide to turn their attention to other issues -- is that Republicans really care about these controversies.

According to a separate Pew poll, 37 percent of Republicans are following the IRS story very closely (compared with 21 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of independents), while 34 percent of Republicans are following the Benghazi investigation closely (versus 18 percent of Democrats and 26 of indies).

So Republicans might find themselves trapped in this box: They really want to focus on these controversies, and their voters do, too. But others want the GOP to concentrate their attention elsewhere.

U.S. senators of both parties directed outrage at top IRS officials over not being informed earlier as to the tax agency’s work to target conservatives and demanded answers Tuesday as to why action was not taken more quickly to halt the abuses. 

Senators voiced their dismay at the IRS leadership’s efforts to respond to indications that officials in the agency’s Cincinnati office had singled out conservative and Tea Party advocacy that had applied for tax-exempt status. 

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. demanded to know, “Why wasn't more firm action taken by people, either the commissioner himself or by people at the top?  It's outrageous. Any person can figure out this is unacceptable conduct.” 

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican, said there was no doubt the episode constitutes a “scandal,” saying it “undermines Americans' trust that their government will enforce the law without regard for political beliefs or party affiliation.” 

A former IRS commissioner who presided over most of the time in which the IRS targeted conservatives, Douglas Shulman, told members of the committee that he was not aware of the full facts surrounding the abuses until earlier this month. 

And Steven Miller, the acting IRS commissioner who resigned from that position last week, took responsibility for the controversial manner in which the IRS sought to first publicize the agency’s abuses ahead of the release of an inspector general report on the matter. Miller said he was responsible for a plot to plant a question for an IRS official, Lois Lerner, at an American Bar Association panel discussion to allow her to publicly reveal the IRS targeting. 

“Obviously, the entire thing was an incredibly bad idea,” said Miller about the strategy, explaining that the IRS had failed to follow through with its plan to simultaneously brief Capitol Hill about the forthcoming report.

Those revelations hardly comforted Democratic or Republican senators alike, whose hearing marked the second official inquiry into the IRS controversy. Baucus openly wondered why IRS employees who engaged in or oversaw the abuses were not fired.

The revelations about the work by IRS officials to single out conservatives have become enmeshed with partisan politics. Though President Barack Obama has condemned the abuses and vowed to cooperate with congressional investigations into the matter, that has hardly silenced Republicans’ criticism of the controversy.

The GOP has focused heavily on the question of when Obama was made aware of the IRS’s practices, and whether he should have been briefed on the matter sooner. A hearing last week found that senior Treasury Department officials were notified of the existence of the investigation as early as last summer. And White House press secretary Jay Carney disclosed Monday that the White House counsel, Kathy Ruemmler, was notified of the details of the forthcoming report in late April. She, in turn, briefed White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other senior officials, though they decided against personally briefing Obama.

But much of senators’ ire on Tuesday focused on the IRS leadership’s awareness of the singling out of conservatives as it unfolded, and their disclosure of those abuses to Congress during the subsequent investigation.

Shulman defended his performance by explaining that he did not know the full facts of the inspector general’s findings. He said he found out sometime during the spring of 2012 that there was a list including the word “Tea Party” being used by the officials in the tax-exempt office. But Shulman maintained he did not know what other words were on that list, nor was he aware of the severity or scope of the abuses.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Senator Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican, confer during testimony in Washington May 21, 2013.

“When I left, the I.G. was looking into this to gather all of the facts,” he said. “I've now had the benefit of reading the report and that's the full accounting of facts that I have at this point.”

Republicans voiced outrage that no IRS official had disclosed their awareness of potential abuses or an investigation into the controversy during lawmakers’ efforts to get answers to that very question during the past few years.

“That is a lie by omission and you kept it from the people who are required to oversee this matter,” Hatch angrily told Miller, the outgoing IRS chief who had declined to previously reveal the IRS targeting.

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 12:15 PM EDT

Exactly one year ago today, President Obama was focused on trying to help a community heal from a massive tornado that killed dozens when he spoke at a high school commencement in Joplin, Mo.

Joplin, like Moore, Okla., Monday, was leveled by a tornado in late May of 2011.

Now, the president is once again dealing with a tragedy, at its infancy. The pictures from the tornado in Oklahoma are eerily similar to those in Joplin, and presidents in these times are expected to comfort.

“You will not travel that path alone; your country will travel it with you," Obama said Tuesday at the White House. He also noted the “enormous grief that has to be absorbed. Our prayers are with the people of Oklahoma, and we will back up those prayers with deeds for as long as it takes.”

Almost two years ago to the day, President Obama traveled to Joplin where he spoke at a memorial service for those killed. The president mentioned Joplin twice in his remarks at the White House.

“How we respond when the storm strikes is up to us. How we live in the aftermath of tragedy and heartache, that’s within our control,” he said in Joplin in 2011. “And it’s in these moments, through our actions, that we often see the glimpse of what makes life worth living in the first place. In the last week, that’s what Joplin has not just taught Missouri, not just taught America, but has taught the world.”

A year later, Obama was back in Joplin speaking at the high school commencement with a similar, but slightly different message, one expressing pride in Joplin’s resilience. To reinforce that, he used the phrase, “You’re from Joplin,” six times.

“The job of a commencement speaker primarily is to keep it short,” Obama said, before adding, “The other job is to inspire. But as I look out at this class, and across this city, what’s clear is that you’re the source of inspiration today. To me. To this state. To this country. And to people all over the world.”

He continued: “By now, I expect that most of you have probably relived those 32 minutes again and again. Where you were. What you saw. When you knew for sure that it was over. The first contact, the first phone call you had with somebody you loved, the first day that you woke up in a world that would never be the same. And yet, the story of Joplin isn’t just what happened that day. It’s the story of what happened the next day. And the day after that. And all the days and weeks and months that followed.”

And like in the aftermaths of other tragedies, the president quoted scripture.

“We can define our lives not by what happens to us, but by how we respond,” Obama said. “We can choose to carry on. We can choose to make a difference in the world. And in doing so, we can make true what’s written in Scripture -- that ‘tribulation produces perseverance, and perseverance, character, and character, hope.’ Of all that’s come from this tragedy, let this be the central lesson that guides us, let it be the lesson that sustains you through whatever challenges lie ahead.”

And that will inevitably be the challenge in Oklahoma.

"What they can be certain of is that Americans from every corner of this country will be right there with them, opening our homes, our hearts to those in need," Obama said Tuesday in his remarks at the White House. "Because we're a nation that stands with our fellow citizens as long as it takes. We've seen that spirit in Joplin, in Tuscaloosa; we saw that spirit in Boston and Breezy Point. And that’s what the people of Oklahoma are going to need from us right now."

He added, “The people of Moore should know your country will remain on the ground, there for them,” Obama said, “beside them for as long as it takes.”

Also read: A timeline of other Obama tragedy speeches.