They’ve been given an inch – can they take a mile? 

The national controversy involving revelations that the IRS has subjected conservative groups to extra scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status has evolved into a fill-in-the-blanks scandal for Republicans, who have substituted their own narrative for every gap in the Obama administration’s explanation for the abuses. 

Though the available evidence suggests the IRS fiasco is more an outgrowth of incompetence and mismanagement within the agency than a nefarious plot by President Barack Obama to target his political enemies, there are enough blind spots in the administration’s explanations to give Republicans enough of a pretext to float theories of much broader, more insidious scandals. 

“One of the things I want to know is everybody that had a significant income that contributed to Romney, I want to know what their audit rate was,” Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said on “Morning Joe” on Thursday. “Because the indications are out of Oklahoma right now that if you happen to be a conservative and are wealthy and gave to Romney, you got an audit where you’ve never gotten an audit before.” 

(A spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn, R, tweeted that his office was fielding similar reports out of Texas.) 

The top Senate Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, took to the floor of the Senate on Thursday to assert that it is “clear” that the IRS targeting goes well beyond rogue officials. (In a separate op-ed for the Washington Post, McConnell asserted that efforts sought by Democrats – legislatively and through the Federal Election Commission – to force shadowy political groups to disclose their donors were akin to the IRS targeting.) 

"The facts we've seen so far point to something far more systemic than that. And it shouldn't surprise anybody,” McConnell said. 

As of now, there is little more than anecdotal evidence to support an assertion that the targeting of conservatives within the IRS extends beyond processing applications for tax-exempt status. And even then, the IRS inspector general who conducted the investigation into those abuses, J. Russell George, told congressional hearings over the past week that his audit uncovered no evidence that partisanship had fueled the abuses, or that any outside official directed IRS officials to target conservative groups. 

But IRS officials’ own accounting for the abuses at the agency and the Obama administration’s own confused explanation about its own knowledge of the controversy have injected enough gray area for Republicans to use. And it adds to an existing feeding frenzy about Benghazi, and the administration’s work to monitor journalists’ activities in a leak investigation. 

The decision on Wednesday by Lois Lerner, the IRS official in charge of the tax-exempt division, to invoke her Fifth Amendment right to not offer self-incriminating testimony obviously offered GOP lawmakers something to latch onto. The clearly inept performances by former commissioners Steven Miller and Douglas Shulman, both of whom denied having any prior knowledge of the abuses of conservatives, and failed to act on any preliminary indication of the misconduct that crossed their desk, has also been easy fodder. 

The White House – largely by its own admission at this point – similarly botched the manner in which it explained its own knowledge of the scandal. White House press secretary Jay Carney was forced to revise the administration’s explanation several times over; it was only this week when he acknowledged that the White House learned of the scandal in late April through White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler, who conveyed the information to senior staff, but not the president himself. 

“It's pretty inconceivable to me that the president wouldn't know,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said during an interview Wednesday night on Fox News.

The irony, of course, is that top Republicans are making these allegations just as they openly admit at the same time that they lack any evidence whatsoever of presidential involvement in the IRS’s actions.

“We don’t have anything to say that the president knew about this. In fact, he says he learned about it on television,” Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“That may be the case,” Camp added. “But we need to know who started this and why it was allowed to continue for so long.”

And as recently as Thursday, as top Republicans continued to voice their conspiracy theories about the IRS, Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam, Republicans’ chief deputy whip, conceded again there’s no evidence that Obama had been involved in the IRS abuses.

“There’s no evidence that leads it to the Oval Office,” he said on “Daily Rundown” on Thursday. “And I think this is a situation where we need to be very careful and get the facts out and not come to conclusions and speculations before the facts speak for themselves.”

This story was originally published on Fri May 24, 2013 1:17 PM EDT

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

President Barack Obama speaks at the commencement ceremony for the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., Friday, May 24, 2013.

In a speech to the graduating class of 2013 at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., President Barack Obama challenged the 1,047 graduates to “live with integrity” and help restore trust in a military that has been stained by recent charges of sexual assault, just as other American institutions have been shaken by misconduct. “We need your honor… we need values now more than ever,” he urged them. “Even more than physical courage, we need your moral courage.”

“Those who commit sexual assault are not only committing a crime, they threaten the trust and discipline that make our military strong,” he said.

He drew a parallel between financial chicanery on Wall Street, the recent Internal Revenue Service scandal of targeted scrutiny of conservative groups, and the sexual assault incidents in the military, saying “If we want to restore the trust that the American people deserve to have in their institutions, all of us have to do our part -- and those of us in  leadership, myself included -- have to constantly strive to remain worthy of the public trust.”

“In recent decades many Americans have lost confidence in many of the institutions that help shape our society,” Obama noted. But “institutions do not fail in a vacuum. Institutions are made up of people – individuals – and we’ve seen how the actions of a few can undermine the integrity of those institutions .”

“Our military remains the most trusted institution in America,” he declared. “When others have shirked their responsibilities our armed offices have met every mission we’ve given them.”

But he added, “we must acknowledge that even here – even in our military -- we’ve seen how the misconduct of some can have effects that ripple far and wide.”

In recent weeks members of Congress have reacted in dismay to spate of military sexual misconduct scandals, including two cases in which the officers in charge of dealing with sexual assault cases were allegedly involved in crimes against women.

A recent Defense Department report estimated that 26,000 cases of sexual assault occurred in Fiscal Year 2012, a 37 percent increase from FY2011.

Two bills have been introduced to try to remedy the sexual assault problem. One by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D- Mo., would require a dismissal or a dishonorable discharge for a member of the military found guilty of rape or sexual assault.

Another bill offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. would remove the decision whether to take a case to special or general court-martial out of the military chain of command and give discretion to military prosecutors for crimes punishable by one year or more in confinement, except crimes uniquely military in nature.

“Just as you’ve changed over the past four years, so too have the challenges facing our military,” Obama told the Annapolis graduates. He touched on the themes he had addressed on Thursday when he delivered a major speech at the National Defense University re-orienting his strategy on terrorism.

He said Friday, “Let me say as clearly as I can: the United States of America will always maintain our military superiority, and as your commander in chief, I am going to keep fighting to give you the equipment and support required to meet the missions we ask of you and also make sure you are getting the pay and benefits and support that you deserve.”

The president said he would carry out a ship-building schedule that would achieve a 300-ship fleet with capacities that exceed the power of the next dozen nations’ navies combined.

Obama said in his speech Thursday that while “our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” that “this war, like all wars, must end.” He also warned against being “drawn into more wars we don't need to fight.”

Obama narrowed the parameters for the use of remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, to kill terrorists overseas and renewed his efforts to persuade Congress to agree to close the Guantanamo detention site in Cuba.

This story was originally published on Fri May 24, 2013 11:51 AM EDT

WEST DES MOINES, Iowa — Nearly three years before the 2016 election, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker took center stage in Iowa to address a large Republican fundraising dinner, which should only fuel speculation about his future presidential ambitions.

Walker, who survived a bitter recall effort in his home state in 2011 after he repealed collective bargaining rights for most public employees, emphasized his Iowa roots at a county dinner, and said the GOP should look to its roster of governors for a leader in the future.

“We should look to our states, to our governors, to our state legislative leaders to show the pathway we take not only in our states but in our country to move forward,” the Wisconsin governor told more than 600 people in attendance at the annual Polk County GOP dinner. “Optimism, relevance, and courage I think are the three keys to success in 2014, 2016 and beyond.”

The first-term governor, who is up for re-election in 2014, has pushed a reformist message for fellow Republicans (similar to the themes he stressed during speeches at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference as well as the National Rifle Association's annual meeting).

Those themes assume a greater significance, though, in Iowa, the state which hosts the first presidential nominating contest every four years. 

“The president and his allies they simply measure success by how many people are dependent on the government, how many people are on Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment compensation,” Walker said. “We should measure success by how many people are not.”

Walker's work to curb collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin, a stronghold of organized labor, has made him a hero among conservatives — and boosted his prospects as a dark horse contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016.

“If I wanted to lay the groundwork for a presidential run in Iowa, I would be doing precisely what Gov. Walker is doing right now,” Republican activist Dave Funk said.

If Walker does decide to run for president, he has clear advantages in Iowa. He lived in northeastern Iowa when he was young -- mentioning during the speech that he stopped in Plainfield on his way to Des Moines tonight. He also represents a neighboring state, something which Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad thinks gives Walker an edge in the Hawkeye State.

“I think he might do well. He is a Midwesterner. He is a problem solver. He is a grassroots, down to earth guy that I think the kind of people Iowans like,” Branstad told reporters prior to the dinner.

Previous speakers at the Robb Kelley Club Annual Spring Dinner have included Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich – both of whom ran for president in 2012.

But Walker downplayed the implications of his speech in Iowa – chalking it up to simply repaying a favor.

“Brandstad's a good friend of mine,” Walker told NBC’s Milwaukee affiliate WTMJ Thursday morning. “He did an event for me last year when I was running in the recall election. He, like other Governors across the country, have asked me to attend events and sparingly where I can occasionally I go to some and this is one of those."

Other potential 2016 presidential candidates have been sure to include Iowa on their list of places to stop. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., spoke at the Republican Party of Iowa’s Lincoln Dinner in Cedar Rapid’s earlier this month, and former Pennsylvania senator and 2012 Iowa Caucus winner Rick Santorum is scheduled to speak in August at the Lyon County GOP Dinner. 

This story was originally published on Thu May 23, 2013 11:05 PM EDT

Lois Lerner, the IRS official who oversees the agency’s division in charge of tax-exempt organizations, has been placed on administrative leave, a source told NBC News on Thursday. The IRS has selected Ken Corbin as acting director during Lerner's absence.

Lerner, whose responsibility for the targeting of conservative groups at the IRS has become a point of scrutiny in the controversy, had come under bipartisan fire. Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., wrote acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel earlier on Thursday seeking Lerner’s suspension.

Lerner had appeared before a House committee on Wednesday, but invoked her Fifth Amendment rights, and declined to testify. She offered a broad declaration denying any wrongdoing, however, which has prompted some Republicans to conclude she had effectively waived her Fifth Amendment rights. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who heads the oversight panel before which Lerner appeared, suggested Thursday he’ll seek to recall her as a witness.

This story was originally published on Thu May 23, 2013 5:52 PM EDT

President Barack Obama was repeatedly interrupted by a heckler whose taunts slowed the delivery of a major national security speech in the Washington, D.C. area.

The unidentified heckler began shouting at the president toward the tail end of his highly-anticipated address, when he touched upon U.S. policy toward detainees suspected of terrorist acts.

Obama was forced to pause three separate times and talk over the protester, interrupting the flow of the closing section of the speech at National Defense University.

“I'm about to address it ma'am, but you've got to let me speak,” Obama scolded the woman. “Why don't you sit down and let me tell you exactly what I'd do."

The antiwar group Code Pink, which often interrupts high-profile political events with vocal protests against U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy, said its founder Medea Benjamin was the person responsible for the interruption.

Though the president appeared somewhat irritated by the interruption, he said he was willing to cut the woman “some slack, because it’s worth being passionate about.”

He added after another interruption: “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. Obviously I do not agree with much of what she said. And obviously she wasn’t listening to me and much of what I said. But these are tough issues, and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong.”

Thursday wasn’t the only instance in which Obama was interrupted during a high-profile speech. During remarks last year about immigration at the White House, a conservative reporter, Neil Munro, heckled the president with a question about the impact of his announcement that day.

This story was originally published on Thu May 23, 2013 3:06 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

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

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

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

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

Los Angeles will make history when voters elect a new mayor on Tuesday but the runoff race between two Democratic candidates isn’t drawing much interest as turnout could reach a record low despite the more than $33 million that’s been spent on the nearly two year-long contest to succeed outgoing Mayor Anthony Villagarosa. 

The race pits City Controller Wendy Greuel, who would be the city’s first woman elected to the post, against City Councilman Eric Garcetti, who would be the first elected Jewish mayor.   

Garcetti, the son of former Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, has maintained a lead in the polls throughout the race, but most expected the runoff contest between the two to tighten. 

Greuel has racked up the most high-profile endorsements in the race, including ones from former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Barbara Boxer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and six members of the state’s congressional delegation.  Garcetti has been endorsed by former DNC Chairman Howard Dean and two California members of Congress. 

Greuel has also been the biggest beneficiary of outside money in the race, with groups combining to spend $7.7 million on her behalf, compared to juts $2.7 million for Garcetti. $5.6 million of that cash for Greuel has come from unions, with just $1 million from labor groups for Garcetti. 

Despite the high-spending contest, few people in Los Angeles seem to be paying very close attention. In the March primary, only 21% of 1.8 million registered voters went to the polls, and runoff turnout is typically much lower than that. According to a Los Angeles Times review, the winner may not even exceed the vote totals of the city’s 1938 contest. 

Los Angeles County Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman  said based on early absentee returns, he believes runoff turnout will actually exceed the primary.

But that doesn't mean that voter turnout won't still be low. 

"Voters in Los Angeles have voter fatigue," said Bauman, pointing to a string of not just statewide and congressional elections, but also numerous ballot measures and city and county elections. 

But as Los Angeles has also found itself in financial straits in recent years, Bauman said the race has dealt more with how to just maintain city services, instead of big ideas Villagarosa campaigned on during the last open seat race twelve years ago. 

"You don't have that dramatic flair to drive people to the polls," said Bauman. 

Still, Greuel hasn’t been able to overtake the city councilman in the race, and a USC Price/Los Angeles Times poll released this weekend showed her still trailing seven points, 48%-41%. Garcetti also leads among several critical constituencies – women, Latinos and Democrats, though Greuel has made small gains with each. In the race’s waning days, Greuel has said she remains optimistic the remaining undecided voters will break her way. With African-American voters still breaking nearly even, both candidates spent the weekend visiting black churches in the city’s South side to get voters to the polls.

One of the main reasons Greuel hasn’t been able to overtake the lead – her main labor backer, the city-controlled Department of Water and Power is highly unpopular in the area, especially in the crucial San Fernando Valley, even though she represented the area for seven years on the city council. Garcetti has painted her as a puppet of the city’s public works sector, while Greuel has hit back that Garcetti supported raises for the DWP.  

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 7:41 AM EDT