WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted 81-18 yesterday to end debate on 5th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Priscilla R. Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice whom Democrats have blocked with filibusters four times since she was nominated by the president in 2001.

Even Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who plans to vote against Owen in a vote scheduled today, supported ending debate.

The vote to end debate was the product of a compromise engineered Monday night by 14 "centrists" -- seven Republicans and seven Democrats -- allowing up-and-down votes for many stalled nominees in exchange for preserving the minority party's ability to block future picks with filibusters in "extraordinary circumstances."

But just hours after that deal was reached, several Republican senators complained that Democrats had violated the deal by insisting on exercising their right to continue debating Owen instead of proceeding directly to a vote.

Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., pointed out that senators had now debated Owen for more than 21 days on the Senate floor.

And, as some outside conservative groups railed against the compromise because it did not guarantee up-or-down votes for all of the president's nominees, many Republicans, including Frist, said repeatedly that the so-called "nuclear option" -- which would have blocked any future use of the filibuster on judicial nominees -- was still on the table if Democrats did not live up to their end of the deal.

"This is merely a truce, it's not a treaty," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who led the Senate Judiciary Committee before Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., took over this year.

But Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who had demanded up-or-down votes for all the nominees throughout the debate, had surprising words of praise for the agreement.

"I think the compromise is as good as the good faith of the people who signed it," Santorum said. "I'm of the opinion -- given what I've seen from my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats -- that this was a sincere compromise and a sincere attempt to return the precedent of the Senate back to the way it's worked for 214 years ... So I know that there are folks criticizing this. I am not one."

But other Senators continued to bicker yesterday over how to interpret the agreement, particularly what the definition of "extraordinary circumstances" would mean.

There were also disagreements over the approval process for two blocked appellate court nominees -- Michigan judge Henry Saad and former top Interior Department official, William G. Myers III. The negotiators did not make a commitment to vote either for or against those nominees.

Several Democratic senators also angered their Republicans colleagues by stating that two other conservative nominees -- D.C. Circuit Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, who was an aide to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, and 4th Circuit Court nominee William J. Haynes II would not make it out of committee. But Specter said he expected to hold hearings for both Haynes and Kavanaugh.

Despite the disagreements, many senators said yesterday that they were relieved to move on to other matters, particularly because voters at home have become increasingly convinced that members of Congress are out of touch with their problems.

"We're up here raising hell over a half-dozen federal judges ... and they really wonder if we know what it's like out there," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.

"We need to calm down, stop pruning our feathers and get back to the drudgery of producing legislation," Lott said. "I don't think people sent us here to make a statement, they sent us here to make a difference and we haven't been doing enough of that."

One of the factors that motivated the 14 senators to strike a deal Monday night was the threat that the ensuing rancor between the Democrats and Republicans would turn the Senate into what one Democrat had termed 'a legislative wasteland' where even routine matters could have been bottled up for months.

And though there were continuing disagreements over the terms of the deal, the negotiating partners said they were hopeful that the trust and good will they built up during their negotiations would help them find common ground on other legislative issues.

"The American people are very unhappy about the way we are doing business, poll after poll after poll shows that," said one of the chief negotiators, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "If we can show them we are making progress on a broad range of issues ranging from the highway bill to asbestos to environment, energy et cetera, then we will receive their approval and that will give us added reason to continue working in an amicable fashion."

Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democratic senator from Arkansas who took an early lead in the negotiations, said the compromise was a significant step toward more collegiality -- even on issues as potentially explosive as Social Security.

Even partisan players such as the staunchly liberal Sen.

Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said the group now known as the 'gang of 14' " could help set the course for negotiation on future legislation.

"