Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Wednesday that there will not be enough votes in the House to pass the Senate's immigration bill as it is currently written even if the legislation can find the 60 votes it will need in the upper chamber. 

"I can tell you that the bill as currently structured is not going to pass in the House. And I think it's going to struggle to pass in the Senate," Rubio said after a meeting between Senate and House conservatives.

Rubio’s comments came shortly before Rep. Raul Labrador, an Idaho conservative who has been working on immigration in the House, said he will no longer be a part of an eight-person bipartisan working group that had recently hit snags in negotiations. 

Labrador left the talks after a standoff over whether newly legalized immigrants who were previously undocumented should be eligible to receive government-based health care, the issue he called the breaking point that caused him to part from the group. 

"I think my exit just means that I couldn't agree with them on language," Labrador told reporters, "I don't think it means anything for immigration reform." 

Earlier Wednesday, Rubio said border security provisions must be strengthened before conservatives will support the bill in sufficient numbers to make it law. He has pledged to push amendments to the bill that would stiffen those requirements and potentially shift the power to craft security plans from the Department of Homeland Security to Congress. 

"If the changes don't happen, the bill can't pass," Rubio said. "We'll keep working. We won't abandon the effort. We'll keep working to ensure the bill can pass." 

The Senate bill is expected to be taken up on the floor of the upper chamber next week. Rubio, along with Democrat and fellow “Gang of Eight” member Sen. Bob Menendez, has said that it does not currently have the 60 votes required for passage, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated last week that it would be “pretty easy” to pull together sufficient support. 

But Rubio pointed to the Republican-controlled House as a major factor, even if the bill passes the Senate with broad bipartisan backing. 

"Let's remember - the goal here is not to pass a bill out of the Senate,” he said. “The goal here is to reform our immigration laws. And that requires something that can pass the House, the Senate, and be signed by the president." 

Rubio and a handful of other GOP senators -- including Jeff Flake, Rand Paul, Jeff Sessions, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz -- met with conservative House Republicans for over an hour in the basement of the Capitol to discuss the immigration reform efforts. Attendees described the meeting as an "open discussion" where participants voiced concern about passing legislation that could mirror what happened in 1986, when President Reagan signed a bill offering ‘amnesty’ to millions of undocumented immigrants.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said the House will not take up the Senate bill wholesale.

"It's very clear that the House will not take the Senate bill,” Goodlatte said, noting that the panel that he chairs is working through smaller pieces of legislation to beef up border and interior enforcement.

Some House Republicans are pessimistic that a larger package could be signed into law by the end of the summer at all.  Rep. John Fleming, R-La., told reporters Wednesday "It may pass in the Senate, but I don't see it passing into law."

"The border security piece of this is a big, big stumbling block," Fleming said, "I don't think Republicans are going to support anything that is milquetoast in the way of border security.”

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 5, 2013 4:17 PM EDT

As lawmakers paused Wednesday to remember Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Vice President Joe Biden eulogized the late New Jersey lawmaker as a man who “worked like hell” on behalf of the American people – and who loved both the Senate and Amtrak almost as much as Biden himself. 

“Like me, he loved the Senate,” Biden said of the late senator, who died Monday at the age of 89. “Because he saw it as the place where he could do more – with the financial success he had, all the philanthropy he had, the influence he had in the community – he believed, and he was right, there was no place he could do as much to impact the people that he cared about than the United States Senate.”

Lautenberg was the oldest member of the Senate and the last World War II veteran to serve in the chamber. During almost 30 years on Capitol Hill, he authored drunk driving laws, passed legislation to ban smoking on airplanes, fought for public transit and worked to curb gun violence.

Seth Wenig / AP

The casket containing the body of U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg is carried into the Park Avenue Synagogue in New York, Wednesday, June 5, 2013.

On Wednesday afternoon, Lautenberg’s casket will be transported to the New Jersey train station that bears his name and will travel to Washington, D.C. on an Amtrak train. There, it will lie in repose in the United States Capitol in the Lincoln Catafalque -- built for the coffin of Abraham Lincoln --  before his burial Friday at Arlington National Cemetery.

Biden, who was serving his second term when Lautenberg was first elected in 1982, said he advised him to run for re-election before the ailing lawmaker announced in February that he would not seek re-election in 2014 due to his failing health. 

In their remarks earlier in the services, Lautenberg’s children indicated that their father regretted the decision to announce his coming retirement and wished that he could “take the whole thing back” as recently as a few weeks before his death.

“Your dad never quit,” Biden told them.  “He never quit anything. He never gave up. He never gave in.”

Noting that both men loved the trains that run along the East Coast corridor, Biden at one point recalled running at break-neck speed for the train he took every day, only to be told by Amtrak staff that “don’t worry, you’re OK, we’re holding it for Lautenberg.”

Biden also won prolonged laughter for his opening comment on speaking after hours of emotional tributes from Lautenberg’s former colleagues – including former senator and secretary of State Hillary Clinton – and family members.

“If there’s a definition of redundant, I’m it,” he remarked.

A contingent of former and current senators and staff members were also on hand for the ceremony, as were New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Newark Mayor Cory Booker – who coveted Lautenberg’s seat even before the octogenarian senator announced his expected retirement.

Calling him “a steadfast champion of women’s rights and opportunities,” Clinton said Lautenberg was considered an honorary member of the Senate Women’s Caucus.

“He loved and he was loved,” Clinton said after lauding his accomplishments in defense of the nation’s environment, veterans and children.  “And after all, that’s what makes a great life.”

Sen. Robert Menendez, now New Jersey’s senior senator, called his departed colleague “one of the most tenacious men I have ever met” and joked about Lautenberg’s love for pop superstar Lady Gaga, whose concerts he attended both for a political fundraiser and for his 86th birthday celebration.

“Bonnie, I’m sure you know he loved you dearly,” he told Lautenberg’s widow. “Even Lady Gaga couldn’t lift a finger to you.”

Seventeen members of the Senate were listed as honorary pallbearers for the departed senator and the upper chamber was not in session Wednesday as members paused to remember their colleague.

Lautenberg is survived by his wife, six children and 13 grandchildren.

Wondering how he would go on without his dad, son Josh Lautenberg said his father would have advised the family “to move forward without hesitation, run the stairs, walk fast and grab a hot dog on the way." 

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 5, 2013 2:14 PM EDT

Four opponents of the Gang of Eight immigration bill are keeping up their pressure as the full Senate prepares to consider the legislation next week, telling colleagues in a letter Tuesday that the bill “will leave our borders unsecure and our immigration system deeply dysfunctional.”

The letter is signed by four Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee  - Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa – who, along with Texas Sen. John Cornyn, voted against the bill as amended by the 18-member panel last month.   (Cornyn was not a signer of the circulated letter.)  

The four lawmakers have been pushing hard against the bipartisan compromise legislation, arguing that its central tenets were “predicated on a deal struck” before the Judiciary panel began the process of amending it.  The bill’s supporters did accept over 140 changes to the bill – many proposed by Republicans – but rejected proposals from both parties that they said would have disrupted the legislation’s delicate compromises between stakeholders like unions, business and immigrant rights groups. 

“The last thing this country needs right now is another 1,000-plus page bill that, like Obamacare, was negotiated behind closed doors with special interests,” the four senators wrote. “We want immigration reform to pass, but only if it actually fixes the broken system, rather than allowing the problems to grow and fester.” 

The legislation is expected to be considered on the Senate floor beginning next week, where senators on both sides of the aisle will continue to propose changes to it.

While some Republicans argue that the Gang of Eight bill should be heavily overhauled or defeated, others who helped negotiate the legislation warn of the policy and political consequences of opposing reforms to address the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Gang of Eight, told reporters at the Capitol Tuesday that the GOP is "toast" in the next presidential election if the party is blamed for the effort's failure. 

"From our party's point of view, if this thing falls apart and we get blamed because we're not practical, we created border security mechanisms that were unachievable, we tried to change the structure in a dramatic way and we get the blame, we're toast in 2016," he said. 

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 4, 2013 2:24 PM EDT

Setting the stage for what is likely to be a months-long struggle with Senate Republicans, President Barack Obama on Tuesday nominated two attorneys and a judge to fill the vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – considered to be the nation’s second-most powerful court since so many federal regulations are litigated before that court.

Accusing Senate Republicans of obstructing his judicial nominees with “blatant” political maneuvers, Obama called for an up-or-down vote on the three. “The Senate is tasked with providing advice and consent,” the president said in remarks at the White House. “They can approve a president’s nominee or they can reject  president’s nominee. But they have a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation.”

Noting that his first-term nominees overall waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of former President George W. Bush, Obama said, “time and again, congressional Republicans cynically used Senate rules and procedures to delay, and even block, qualified nominees from coming to a full vote.” 

“I recognize that neither party has a perfect track record here,” Obama said but added, “what’s happening now is unprecedented.  For the good of the American people it has to stop.”

Obama’s picks for the D.C. Court of Appeals are:

• Cornelia “Nina” Pillard, a former Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who now teaches at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington;
• Patricia Ann Millett, an appellate lawyer who has argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court. Millett served in the Justice Department for years before joining a law firm in Washington.
• Judge Robert Wilkins, a federal trial court judge in Washington and a former public defender.

Last month, the Senate unanimously confirmed Sri Srinivasan, Obama’s nominee to the D.C. Circuit, and with eight active-duty judges, some Republicans argue the court now has enough judges to handle its workload.

In March, Caitlin Halligan, another Obama nominee to the court, withdrew after Senate Republicans blocked her from a getting a confirmation vote. The National Rifle Association opposed Halligan due to her involvement while Solicitor General for the state of New York in a lawsuit against gun manufacturers.

Prior to the Srinivasan confirmation vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “You have a majority on that court that is wreaking havoc with the country,” Reid 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.

Commenting Monday on reports that Obama would nominate three people to fill the vacancies on the D.C. Circuit, Sen. Charles Grassley, R- Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said, “It’s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda. No matter how you slice it, the D.C. Circuit ranks last, or almost last, in nearly every category that measures workload.”

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 4, 2013 10:48 AM EDT

What Chris Christie is thinking… Announcement for scheduling a special election for Lautenberg’s Senate seat could come as early as today… Christie’s list of names for an interim Senate pick… A Booker-vs.-Pallone primary in ’13?... Obama to begin public fight over judges at 10:30 am ET Rose Garden ceremony… House holds another IRS hearing at 10:00 am ET… Senate looks into military sexual assaults… New NBC/WSJ poll comes out first thing tomorrow morning… And Mr. Smith goes to Washington? Voters head to the polls in Missouri to replace ex-Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO).

*** What Chris Christie is thinking: A day after Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) passed away, the conversation now turns to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) pick to temporarily fill the Senate seat. And it’s an upcoming move that has political implications -- both in the state and nationally, and for this year, 2014, and possibly 2016. According to Republicans familiar with the process, the first issue is how long the interim pick would serve with the scheduling of a special election. Expect Christie to announce his intention of how to proceed regarding the special election timing in the next few days, and maybe as early as today. The reason: The law appears to be murky, with conflicting statutes on the books. Had Lautenberg died a month ago, the law would have been clear about holding a special election this year. Had Lautenberg passed away next month, the law would have been clear about waiting until Nov. 2014. For now, according to these Republican sources, Christie is operating on a 2013 timeline. So that means primaries in August and a general election either in October or simultaneously with the gubernatorial race in November. The strictest reading of the law, per these Republicans, suggests October for the general -- which would keep the Senate special separated from Christie’s re-election contest. But holding an October special would also cost the state money. 

Jeff Zelevansky / Jeff Zelevansky / Getty Images file

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks at a groundbreaking ceremony at Essex County Community College on May 7, 2013 in Newark, N.J.

*** A complicated matter: Obviously, holding a senate race at the same time as his re-election complicates Christie’s efforts to run up the score in his re-election and it could even put his re-election at real risk. But wasting money on an election just weeks before a regularly scheduled one is not exactly the most fiscally conservative thing to do. The perfect REPUBLICAN solution for Christie would be to wait unti,l 2014 but his folks believe that reading of the law would never hold up in the state courts and he’d be ordered to hold a 2013 election.

*** Christie’s list of names for an interim pick: The Republicans close to this process assume that no matter how Christie interprets the law regarding the special election, someone will sue and get courts to clarify. And that’s why Christie wants to set things in motion ASAP -- to speed up the legal process for anyone wanting to challenge his reading of the law. As for candidates the governor might appoint to temporarily fill the Senate seat before the special election, Christie’s first choice is former Gov. Tom Kean Sr. (R); in fact, we understand the two men will meet soon about it.  Kean Sr. is in a tier all by himself. The next tier of potential appointees includes Kean’s son, Tom Kean Jr. (whom Bob Menendez beat in ’06, 53%-44%) Joe Kyrillos (whom Menendez thumped in ’12), and the state’s current lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno. Christie potentially picking Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) is possible -- if he would be willing to give up his safe congressional seat, which is unlikely. And LoBiondo is thought of as the only serious GOP member of Congress on short list. One other thing: Christie would prefer this interim pick run in the special election, so Kean Sr. agreeing to hold the seat but pass on a run IS NOT Christie’s preference.

*** A Booker-vs.-Pallone primary in ’13? What's interesting about the likely quick special election is that it doesn't preclude the 2014 race -- that is, you’ll have a special Senate election this year and then another race for the seat in 2014. But this also means that Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who’s widely assumed to jump into this special election, would probably face a primary fight now from Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ).Why? Well, Pallone can run for the Senate seat in 2013 without risking his House seat. So it’s a free shot for the Democratic congressman. Of course, the state party could decide against holding a party primary and choose the nominee at a convention of sorts. There will be national pressure on New Jersey Democrats to rally around Booker, whether Pallone likes that or not

*** Obama begins public fight over judges: At 10:30 am from the White House Rose Garden today, President Obama will do something we don’t remember seeing him do before -- announcing judicial picks to the public (other than ones to the Supreme Court). Per the Washington Post, the president will nominate “two female lawyers and an African American federal judge Tuesday to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” They are “veteran appellate lawyer Patricia A. Millett; Georgetown University Law Center professor Cornelia ­T. L. Pillard; and Robert L. Wilkins, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to a White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement had not been made.” Obama has been criticized by many Democrats publicly and privately for not making a bigger public push for his judicial nominations. Yet by nominating three appellate picks at once -- after Republicans filibustered a previous nominee, Caitlin Halligan -- Obama “will effectively be daring Republicans to find specific ground to filibuster all the nominees,” as the New York Times wrote last week. One additional thing to keep in mind: If Obama is to wage a battle over judges, it has to come in the next 18 months. Why? After 2014, it’s likely there will be fewer Senate Democrats and maybe even a GOP-controlled Senate.

*** House holds another IRS hearing: Another day, another congressional hearing looking into the controversies surrounding the Internal Revenue Service. At 10:00 am ET, the House Ways and Means Committee holds a hearing featuring groups who were targeted in their application for tax-exempt status because of their conservative-sounding names. The groups include the Laurens County Tea Party, Wetumpka Tea Party, San Fernando Valley Patriots, and Linchpins of Liberty. This comes one day after the new acting IRS Commissioner, Danny Werfel, testified on the Hill, vowing “to work quickly and with the cooperation of Congress to implement reforms to the tax agency,” NBC’s Mike O’Brien reported yesterday. 

*** Senate looks into military sexual assaults: Also on Capitol Hill today, the Senate Armed Services Committee holds a hearing at 9:30 am ET to discuss pending legislation on sexual assaults in the military. As NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski noted on “TODAY” this morning, the hearing comes after Defense officials confirmed three Naval Academy football players who are under investigation for allegedly assaulting an unconscious female midshipman at a party last year. The victim's attorney claims that when her client reported the incident, she was disciplined for drinking but the three football players went unpunished and were permitted to play out the season.

*** NBC/WSJ poll coming out! How does the public view American institutions like the military and IRS after these recent stories? They have damaged President Obama’s political standing? We’ll be releasing a brand-new NBC/WSJ poll on these subjects and more first thing tomorrow morning.

*** Mr. Smith goes to Washington? Lastly today, Missouri voters go to the polls to fill the congressional seat vacated by former Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO). Jessica Taylor writes: “Republican state Rep. Jason Smith is the overwhelming favorite to succeed former Rep. Jo Ann Emerson in a little-noticed special election in the expansive southeastern rural Missouri district. Emerson resigned earlier this year to take a job as CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Smith faces fellow Democratic state Rep. Steve Hodges on the ballot, along with two other minor party candidates. But the overwhelming GOP tilt of the conservative district (Mitt Romney wont the district by 34 points) makes him essentially a lock for Tuesday’s special election.”

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 Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

As New Jersey stops to mourn the death of longtime Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., political speculation has turned to whom Republican Gov. Chris Christie will appoint to succeed the late senator — and for how long.

Christie’s upcoming decision could have consequences on his re-election bid this year, where he’s the overwhelming favorite, as well as on any potential run for president in 2016 or beyond.

While Christie gets to select an interim successor to replace Lautenberg in the Senate — potentially reducing the Democrats’ majority in the chamber – there appear to be two conflicting sections in New Jersey law mandating when a special election must be held.

One New Jersey provision states that if the vacancy occurs more than 70 days before a regularly scheduled statewide general election (so before Aug. 27, 2013), that vacancy would be filled on the next statewide general election, or Nov. 5, 2013, since the Garden State holds off-year elections.

Jeff Zelevansky / Getty Images file

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks at a groundbreaking ceremony at Essex County Community College on May 7, 2013 in Newark, New Jersey.

But Republicans point to a different statute, which says that the election would be held on the next general election only if the vacancy occurs 70 days before the state’s primary, which is being held June 4, 2013. In this case — which Republicans clearly prefer — the special election would be held in November 2014, when Lautenberg’s seat, which he'd already announced an intent to relinquish, will be up anyway.

Whichever statute wins the day could be the difference of a Republican serving just a handful of months as New Jersey’s next senator in deep-blue New Jersey — or a Republican serving for at least a year and half through 2014.

According to the Newark Star-Ledger, the state Office of Legislative Services said in a memo that it believes any appointment Christie makes would serve until November 2014, when Lautenberg’s full six-year term expires.

Democrats say they’re closely reviewing what are “clearly conflicting laws,” but state Democrats are especially pushing for a 2013 special election, hoping turnout could boost their ticket.

Newark Mayor Cory Booker had already announced he would run for the Senate seat in 2014 — passing up the opportunity to not only challenge Christie, with whom he already enjoys a close relationship, but also announcing before Lautenberg had officially said he would retire, severely rubbing Lautenberg and many of his allies the wrong way. Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone is also heavily weighing a bid, and Rep. Rush Holt could still run as well.

If he does choose to make an appointment, Christie, a heavy favorite for re-election this fall over Democrat Barbara Buono, is still most likely to make a GOP pick. But given the Republican’s unpredictability, many in the state GOP are already privately whispering that Christie will do what’s best for his own political future.

While some rumored Monday that a Booker appointment was a possibility, though a long-shot, one longtime GOP consultant in the state said, ““It would be surprising, but it wouldn’t’ be a jaw-dropper.”

Either way, the choice Christie makes, and when he weighs in regarding when an election should be, could have implications for his future political plans, with the moderate Republican already on tenuous ground with the more conservative wing of his own party after his sharp embrace of President Obama in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

According to several GOP sources, the least-damaging path for Christie seems to be to appoint a temporary placeholder that pledges not to run in the special election, much like Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick did in choosing Democrat Mo Cowan to briefly fill now-Secretary of State John Kerry’s Senate seat until the June 25 special election. But one key difference – Patrick was filling a seat his party currently holds, while Christie has the chance to flip an open seat toward his party.

Immediate Republican names that have surfaced include 2012 Senate nominee Joe Kyrillos, a state senator who’s been a longtime friend and confidante of the governor. Another possibility is state Sen. Tom Kean Jr., son of former Gov. Tom Kean Sr., who was the 2006 nominee for Senate, and another close Christie ally.

According to GOP sources, Kean, who got 44 percent in the 2006 race against Democrat Bob Menendez, won plaudits for running a difficult race in a bad year for Republicans, and is seen as a better choice in GOP circles than Kyrillos, even though he, too, ran a respectable race against Menendez in another uphill presidential year.

The state’s six GOP congressmen also seem like unlikely picks, especially if they would have to give up relatively safe House seats to take an appointment, and could trigger competitive races for their congressional seats.

Other names, though longer shots who could be temporary picks, some Republicans are mentioning include state Sen. Kevin O’Toole, a Hispanic lawmaker who’s also close with Christie; former state GOP chairman Jay Webber, now a state legislator who’s well-liked among conservatives; or even wealthy biotech executive John Crowley, who’s flirted with a statewide run before.

One name several Republicans don’t believe is likely is Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who is running for re-election alongside Christie but is being groomed as his potential successor, especially if he runs for president in 2016.

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 3, 2013 3:24 PM EDT

New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg passed away on Monday after struggling with health issues in recent months.

NBC News confirmed that the 89-year-old Democratic senator – the oldest member of the chamber – passed away from viral pneumonia that had sidelined him from the Senate for much of this year.

President Barack Obama hailed the late senator as "a proud New Jerseyan who lived America’s promise as a citizen, and fought to keep that promise alive as a senator."

Lautenberg was first elected to the Senate in 1982, and served into that capacity through 2001, when he initially retired. State Democrats beckoned him back into public life, though, in 2002 following the withdrawal of their candidate during a competitive race.

"First elected to the Senate in 1982, he improved the lives of countless Americans with his commitment to our nation’s health and safety, from improving our public transportation to protecting citizens from gun violence to ensuring that members of our military and their families get the care they deserve," Obama said.

Though Lautenberg missed a number of votes over the past few months due to illness, he did return to Washington for several high-profile votes. He made the trip to the Capitol in April for the Senate’s vote on legislation to strengthen gun control laws, and on May 16, he participated in a committee vote to approve President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the EPA.

"Never was Sen. Lautenberg to be underestimated as an advocate for the causes he believed in and as an adversary in the political world," New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "I think the best way to describe Frank Lautenberg and the way he would probably want to be described to all of you today is as a fighter. Sen. Lautenberg fought for the things he believed in and sometimes he just fought because he liked to."

"I am deeply saddened at the loss of my friend, Frank Lautenberg," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "History will show him to be one of the most productive Senators ever."

The longtime senator was the last remaining member of the Senate to have served in the military during World War II, following the retirement earlier this year of Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, and the death of Sen. Daniel Iouye, D-Hawaii. The flags at the U.S. Capitol were ordered to half-staff on Monday in mourning of Lautenberg.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

NBC News has confirmed that Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., the oldest member of the Senate, has died at the age of 89 of viral pneumonia June 3, 2013.

Lautenberg had announced his intention to retire in 2015, at the conclusion of his current term -- though not before publicly chastising Newark Mayor Cory Booker, D, for readying his own Senate campaign before Lautenberg made that announcement. The task will now fall to Christie to appoint an interim successor to Lautenberg.

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 3, 2013 9:54 AM EDT

While proponents of immigration reform are bracing for a tough fight this summer, most have remained generally optimistic that the political climate is finally right for the passage of a comprehensive bill. 

The American electorate as a whole? Not so much.

A new poll from Quinnipiac University shows that seven in ten registered voters think that Republicans and Democrats in Congress will not be able to work together to pass an immigration bill this year.

Hispanics and Democrats are slightly more optimistic, with about a third of each group saying that the bill will get to the president’s desk. But only 24 percent of voters overall said they believe that Congress can pass the legislation. 

But while voters are pessimistic about its passage, the poll also showed that a majority supports the compromise bill’s foundational principle of a “path to citizenship.”  Fifty-four percent said undocumented immigrants living in the United States should be able to remain in the country and eventually apply for U.S. citizenship.  Twelve percent said undocumented individuals should be able to stay but should not be eligible to become citizens; 29 percent believe undocumented immigrants should not be able to stay in the U.S. at all.

A bipartisan bill passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month by a 13-5 vote and will be taken up on the Senate floor in June. But the fate of various immigration measures in the Republican-controlled House is still unclear.

Voters overall in the Quinnipiac poll were evenly divided on the question of whether a candidate’s support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants would make them more or less likely to support him or her, while 44 percent of voters said the candidate’s position would not affect their support. But nearly half of Hispanics said a candidate’s support for a path to citizenship would make them more likely to support that candidate.

The poll surveyed 1,419 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points. 

This story was originally published on Fri May 31, 2013 10:33 AM EDT

If you ask around Washington D.C., the Republican Party could have a no-brainer opportunity to claw its way back toward a triumphant and diverse majority -- or it could be on the verge of legislating itself out of existence.

Since the 2012 election, when Latino voters selected Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by nearly a 3-1 margin, proponents of comprehensive immigration reform have pointed to the passage of the legislation as a political imperative for the survival of the GOP.

Opponents of the legislation, on the other hand, have questioned whether the embrace of a bill that contains a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants would have any long-term political benefit for Republicans. 

That’s a sentiment encapsulated by Kansas GOP Rep. Tim Huelskamp, who told Reuters this month that “There is no evidence to support this idea that Republicans will pick up a lot of votes if we give amnesty to 11 million folks.” 

So how would the passage of an immigration bill really change the way the country votes -- especially as Hispanics swell to a bigger share of the electorate?

Republicans who are skeptical of the reform effort point to data showing that Hispanics lean towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, while those on the other side of the issue argue that Hispanics share important social and fiscal values with the GOP.

And some in the party are simply eager to move on from a national debate fraught with the risk that one tone-deaf comment -- like Rep. Don Young’s reference to “wetbacks” earlier this year -- can erase months of progress in widening the party’s appeal.  

Both sides agree it’s generally true that, right now, Latinos are primarily a Democratic constituency, demonstrated in no small part by the fact that the Democratic candidate has won the Latino vote in every presidential election since at least 1972.

(Mitt Romney won just 27 percent of the Latino vote in the 2012 election. President George W. Bush won as high a share as 44 percent in 2004, according to some exit polls.)

An April 2013 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center showed three in 10 Latinos surveyed described themselves as “liberal,” compared to 21 percent of the general population.

And 75 percent of Hispanics surveyed said they prefer “a bigger government providing more services” to a smaller government providing fewer.

Steven Camarota, the director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies -- a group that supports limitations on legal immigration and has opposed the Senate bill’s provisions -- says that’s bad news for Republicans.

“Continuing ongoing levels of legal immigration likely will continue to shift the national electorate towards the Democratic Party and toward greater sympathy for government intervention in the economy,” he said.

Other Republicans optimistic about growing the GOP’s appeal among Hispanics see plenty of bright spots in the data.

The overwhelming preference for a larger government diminishes the longer Hispanics have been in the country, for example. While 81 percent of new Latino immigrants said they prefer a bigger government, the share goes down to 58 percent for those who are third-generation immigrants or more.

Latinos are also the fastest-growing group of small business owners in the country. 

And on some measures, including frequency of church attendance and opinions on abortion rights, Hispanics tend to be more culturally conservative than the public-at-large.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP file photo

Immigration activists gather on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, May 20, 2013, before the Senate Judiciary Committee began working on a landmark immigration bill to secure the border and offer citizenship to millions.

“The Hispanic community is open to candidates who speak to them, open to ideas that are pro-business, pro-entrepreneurial, about seeking the American Dream,” says Jennifer Sevilla Korn, the new Deputy Political Director and National Field Director for Hispanic Initiatives at the Republican National Committee

Korn’s new role at the RNC is to engage the Hispanic community nationwide and help implement the party’s “Growth and Opportunity Project,” which included recommendations for building better connections with minorities, women and young voters.

“There’s a huge window of opportunity to engage with Hispanics and talk about what we’re for, especially when you’re talking about small-business owners and Hispanic evangelicals,” she said. “There’s absolutely room there.”

Dr. Matt Barreto, a co-founder of polling group Latino Decisions, says that Republican rhetoric about illegal immigration, not conflict with an overarching political ideology, is mostly to blame for the party’s dismal performance with Latinos.

“There is certainly truth to the notion that there are some issues on which Latinos are more conservative and could be open to hearing Republican viewpoints,” Barreto said. “But when the Republican Party is associated with very negative rhetoric and positioning on immigration it makes people not want to listen.”

So, would those voters consider a Republican candidate if the GOP played ball on the passage of immigration reform?

A poll by Latino Decisions and America’s Voice in March of this year asked Hispanic voters that question.

Asked if they would be “more or less likely to vote for a Republican candidate in the future if Republicans take a leadership role in passing comprehensive immigration reform including a pathway to citizenship,” 44 percent of those surveyed said they would be more likely to support a Republican.

And a majority of Hispanic voters (63 percent) also said they would back a Republican candidate who supported a “pathway to citizenship” over a Democratic candidate who didn’t.

Potential GOP fears also increase at the threat of an influx of new, previously undocumented Hispanic voters who eventually earn the right to vote after becoming U.S. citizens – a process that would take most applicants more than 13 years.  

But it’s unclear what percentage of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country will choose to work their way toward citizenship rather than remaining legal permanent residents – who don’t have voting rights.

Skeptics charge that those granted citizenship will be so dependent on government programs that they will never support a Republican Party largely dedicated to scaling back the size of those programs.  

(Undocumented immigrants aren’t technically eligible for federal means-tested benefits like Medicaid and food stamps, and under the current version of the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill, previously undocumented immigrants with probationary legal status wouldn’t be eligible to receive those benefits either.)

Data from the 2010 American Community Survey does indicate that foreign-born individuals in the U.S. – meaning naturalized citizens as well as legal and undocumented residents – are more likely than natural-born Americans to lack a high school diploma or live below the poverty line, both indicators of dependency upon federal benefits.

But while immigrants are more likely to be low-income and thus eligible for benefits, some studies – like from the libertarian Cato Institute -- dispute that immigrants actually access those benefits at a higher rate than their counterparts in the native-born population.

No matter how many reams of data are available to each side, questions about the political impact of immigration reform won’t stop before the legislation meets its eventual success or failure after a full-throated debate on the airwaves and in the halls of Congress.

“This is a perfect opportunity for the Republican Party to reverse this very negative image that they have, to try to be associated with positive outreach to this new community and ‘say we are part of the solution,’” says Barreto.  

Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies believes just the opposite.

“It seems very likely that politically this bill is almost certainly going to hurt them, not just because it creates more Democratic voters but because it alienates the people who are likely to vote for them, including the less educated whites who have not been showing up to the polls,” says Camarota. “Without those people it’s hard to see how Republicans win another presidential election.”

Related stories:

• Groups look for next step in delicate immigration reform dance
• Conservative talkers, grassroots groups push anti-immigration reform effort

This story was originally published on Thu May 30, 2013 5:55 PM EDT

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 big victory for Obama, the Senate unanimously voted Thursday to confirm 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

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