Updated at 5:53 p.m. ET – Former Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Barack Obama’s choice to be secretary of defense, finished a day-long marathon confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, enduring nearly eight hours of testy and skeptical questions from Republicans.

At the start of Thursday’s hearing, it seemed nearly certain that the Senate would vote to confirm Hagel. But the nominee labored at certain points during the day to clarify and explain his comments. Whether his occasional stumbles were serious enough to jeopardize his confirmation was not clear by the end of the testimony.

There are 55 senators in the Democratic caucus and 45 Senate Republicans, so if there’s no filibuster, Hagel would seem assured of confirmation. The last time the Senate rejected a Cabinet nominee was in 1989 when there was a Republican president and a Democratic-controlled Senate. 

Republican senators confronted Hagel with quotations from statements he had made months or years ago – and sometimes he apologized for them or amended them.

Late in the day Sen. Mike Lee, R- Utah, asked Hagel whether he’d said in 2003 that Israel keeps Palestinians “caged up like animals” and whether he still believes that.

Recommended: US aid seems secure despite Egyptian turmoil

“Like many things I’ve said, I would like to go back and change the words and the meaning,” Hagel told Lee. “If I had a chance to go back and edit it, I would. I regret that I used those words.”

But he said he’d made his statement “in a larger context … (addressing) the frustration in what’s happening (in Israel) which is not in Israel’s interest” and mentioned the need “to find ways that we can help bring peace and security to Israel.”

Quizzed by both Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Sen. David Vitter, R- La., on a statement he’d made calling the Iranian government a “legitimate” one, Hagel said, “I should have said ‘recognized’ instead of ‘legitimate.’”

At one point he told Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R- Ga., regarding U.S. policy toward Iran’s efforts to build nuclear weapons: “I’ve just been handed a note that I misspoke and said I supported the president’s position on ‘containment.’ If I said that, I meant to say that obviously – his position on containment – we don’t have a position on containment.”

Hagel then said, “I’ve had more attention paid to my words in the last eight weeks than I ever thought possible.”

This prompted Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D- Mich., to intervene, “Just to make sure your correction is clear, we do have a position on containment – which is we do not favor containment.” Hagel quickly concurred with Levin’s statement.

Hagel told the panel in his opening remarks that he is “fully committed to the president's goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” and that “all options must be on the table to achieve that goal. My policy is one of prevention, and not one of containment and the President has made clear that is the policy of our government.”

At another point, Hagel, explaining his criticism quoted in a 2008 book by Aaron David Miller, of “the Jewish lobby” and his allegation that “it intimidates a lot of people” in Congress – comments for which Hagel has apologized – said he ought to not have used the word “intimidates.”

“I should have used ‘influence,’” he said.

Later, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., challenged Hagel to “name one dumb thing we’ve been goaded into doing” by the pro-Israel lobby or to identify one member of Congress whom the pro-Israel lobby had intimidated. Hagel said, “I didn't have in mind a single person," and did not identify any policy the U.S. government had been goaded into.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, played Hagel a recording of an interview Hagel did in 2009 with an al Jazeera program. A listener submitted a question asking about “the image of the United States is that of the world’s bully” and whether the United States needed “to change the perception and the reality” before asking other nations to reduce their arsenals. In that 2009 program Hagel began his reply by saying, “Her observation is a good one … .”

When Cruz asked Hagel to explain this reply, he said Thursday, “I think my comment was it was a relevant and good observation. I don’t think I said that I agree with it.”

Early in the testimony, the Iraq war and President George W. Bush’s 2007 surge of U.S. troops into Iraq became the heated focus of the hearing.

Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., repeatedly pressed Hagel, a fellow Vietnam War veteran, on whether he had been right or wrong to say that the 2007 surge was “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.”

When McCain angrily said “Will you please answer the question?” Hagel told McCain “I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer … I’ll defer that judgment to history.”

When McCain shot back that Hagel had been wrong about the surge, Hagel said his “most dangerous blunder” comment had been “not just about the 2007 surge but the overall war of choice going into Iraq” in 2003.

As a senator, Hagel voted for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq, but later turned critical of Bush’s conduct of the operation.

Other Republicans on the committee repeatedly pressed Hagel on his support for endorsement of Global Zero, the movement calling for abolition of nuclear weapons by 2030.

Hagel served on the Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission which issued a report last May calling for an 80 percent reduction in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Hagel told ranking Republican committee member Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma that his position “has never been unilateral disarmament.”

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., testifies during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his nomination to be Defense Secretary, on Capitol Hill, Jan. 31, 2013.

And he said the Global Zero report was discussing “illustrative possibilities” and “scenarios” and wasn’t urging specific policies.

But last May’s Global Zero report, which Hagel signed on to, says that a drastically smaller U.S. arsenal could be negotiated bilaterally with Russia – “or implemented unilaterally.”

In his opening statement Hagel pledged that he would maintain an effective nuclear arsenal. “America's nuclear deterrent over the last 65 years has played a central role in ensuring global security and the avoidance of a World War III. I am committed to modernizing our nuclear arsenal,” he said.

Hagel, who was seriously wounded while serving as an Army infantryman in Vietnam, was a Republican senator from Nebraska from 1997 to 2009 but did not support Republican presidential candidates McCain in 2008 or Mitt Romney last year.

Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that new gun laws would not "fundamentally alter" the likelihood of another mass shooting, though he insisted there has been a "sea change" in American views on guns in the wake of Newtown.

"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.

"But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives," he said.

Biden was on the Hill to help sell a package of changes to the nation's gun laws that President Barack Obama is pushing in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings that killed 20 elementary school children and six adults. The president wants an assault weapons ban, limits on the size of gun magazines, universal background checks and a federal gun trafficking statute.

The 1994 assault-weapons ban was allowed to expire in 2004, and there had been little appetite to reenact it.

Still, that was before Newtown -- and the vice president insisted Thursday that the tragedy there changed the public's attitudes toward gun-safety legislation, a reality that would make new firearms regulations possible.

"I'm not saying there's an absolute consensus on all these things," Biden said, "but there is a sea change, a sea change in the attitudes of the American people. I believe the American people will not understand -- and I know that everyone in that caucus understands -- they won't understand if we don't act.

"The visual image of those 20 innocent children being riddled with bullets has, has absolutely, not only traumatized the nation, but it has caused-- like the straw that broke the camel's back."

As evidence, he pointed to what he said was new support from evangelical Christian groups for some gun regulation. Biden told reporters that support from conservative religious groups that represent largely rural constituencies was different than it's been during past legislative fights over guns.

Biden said he did not watch a gun violence hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee held Thursday; at that hearing, Democrats and gun-violence victims clashed with Republicans and the National Rifle Association over whether universal background checks would reduce gun crimes.

Biden on Wednesday met with former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, who both testified at the Senate hearing. 

The Senate approved a three-month suspension of the debt limit on Thursday, sending it to the White House for President Barack Obama’s likely signature.

The upper chamber voted 64 to 34 to add its approval to a plan conceived by House Republicans, which would push the deadline at which the government runs out of authority to borrow money to finance its obligations until May 18. The government would have otherwise run out of money within a matter of weeks.

In exchange for the extension of borrowing authority, both the House and Senate must now draft and approve separate budget resolutions by mid-April. The legislation approved Thursday by the Senate and last week by the House would place lawmakers’ pay into escrow if they were to fail to pass a budget.

The Obama administration has indicated that while the president would have preferred a longer-term extension of the debt ceiling, it did not oppose the short-term extension. Obama is expected to sign the legislation into law.

Attention will now turn to the normal budgeting process that typically dominates the first few months of the calendar year in Congress. Republicans’ gambit in offering this proposal was to highlight how Senate Democrats had failed to pass a formal budget resolution in the last four years. (Democrats argue they were working off of a de-facto budget stipulated by various spending cut agreements passed by Congress.)

Leaders of both chambers have suggested they’ll push ahead with ambitious, and markedly different, budgets.

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, will lead the GOP’s efforts; he’s vowed to produce a budget that would balance the budget in the next 10 years without raising any new taxes.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have said they plan to seek additional revenues from taxes in the budget they will produce. Washington Sen. Patty Murray, D, the chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee, will lead that effort.

Ex-Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) got into a back and forth with freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) over remarks Hagel made during an appearance on a call-in talk show on Al Jazeera.

The clip cited by Cruz has been making its way around conservative blogs over the past few days. In it, Hagel is asked about an emailed question from a viewer (in Georgia in the United States), who notes the perception that the U.S. is viewed as the “world’s bully.”

Here’s the clip and transcript of that:

EMAIL QUESTION: “Can the rest of the world be persuaded to give up their arsenal when the image of the U.S. is that of the world’s bully? Don’t we indeed need to change the perception and the reality before asking folks to lay down their arms (nuclear or otherwise)?

HAGEL: Well, her observation is a good one, and it’s relevant. Yes, to her question, and again I think that’s all part of leadership.

That’s where the clip cuts off. Cruz admonished Hagel during the hearing for not disagreeing with the emailer. In fact, Cruz concluded, Hagel “explicitly” agreed that the United States was the "world’s bully."

But there was more to what Hagel had to say.

The subject of the March 21, 2009 show -- two months after President Obama was sworn in to a first term -- was nuclear proliferation. Hagel believes, as Obama does, that the world, including the United States, should have fewer nuclear weapons.

Here’s a fuller clip from the show and the rest of what Hagel had to say, including the next question about the “perception” of the United States as the “world’s bully.”

Hagel blamed that “perception” on the Bush administration’s foreign policy. They “misplayed a lot of the great goodwill” the U.S. received after 9/11, Hagel said.

HAGEL: “…And again I think that all part of leadership. That’s why this must begin with the United States and Russia. Look, for example, what President Obama has done in the first two months he’s been in office. His Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, has met with the Russian Foreign Minister. She’s been in five regions of the world. The president of the United States is out of the United States now. He’ll be in different parts of the world over the next week. I think that is the beginning of, not just symbolism of reaching out, but, in fact, engaging, listening, finding common ground to build common interests based on consensus. We’re going to have differences. We will always have differences. But we should define our relationships based not on those differences but on our common interests.

HOST: “Well, I mean, that brings us to the new administration that is here in Washington. I think that perception of the United States being a bully in the world has come largely from what the previous administration has done.”

HAGEL: “Oh, I think that’s right. We are now in our unfortunately seventh and eighth years in two long wars. That’s not all America’s fault. Of course not. But I think this last administration misplayed a lot of the great goodwill that were [inaudible] to this country after the terrorist attacks on this country on Sept. 11, 2001. The fact is, the past is the past and we now move forward. Let’s try to get to high ground and fix some of these great problems and challenges for mankind. Working together, I believe we can do that.”

Chuck Hagel’s big day… Confirmation hearing begins at 9:30 am ET… Conservatives begin to push back on immigration reform… Obama comments on gun violence in Chicago… GDP news complicates everyone’s talking points… John Kerry and Al Gore -- two different paths after losing the presidency… On Bob Menendez and violating Crisis Management 101… Breaking the glass ceiling in NYC and LA?... And Cuccinelli echoes Romney’s “47%” comment?

*** Chuck Hagel’s big day: Yesterday the theatrics on Capitol Hill were all about guns. Today they’re about Chuck Hagel. As Hagel’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee begins at 9:30 am ET, the former Nebraska senator’s chances to be President Obama’s next defense secretary look better than at any point since his name was first floated. It’s likely that every Senate Democrat -- due to Chuck Schumer’s support -- will back Hagel. And right now, there’s at least one Republican (Thad Cochran) who’s planning to vote for his former GOP colleague. That’s 56 votes, which is enough for majority passage but not enough to prevent a filibuster. But do Republicans really pursue a filibuster against their former colleague? Talk about some story if they do. All that said, Hagel also has little margin for error. A bad performance today could undo all the positive momentum his nomination has had over the past couple of weeks. Bottom line: As long as there are no surprises, Hagel is likely to make it. But it also isn’t going to be easy. The most contentious questioning today is likely to come from GOP Sens. Jim Inhofe, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz.

*** Conservatives push back on immigration reform: After the bipartisan Senate framework and after Obama’s speech in Las Vegas, some conservatives are beginning to push back. Here is Sen. David Vitter (R-LA): “I love and respect Marco [Rubio]. I think he’s just amazingly naïve on this issue.” And here was the National Review yesterday: “Republican immigration reformers with an eye to political reality should begin by appreciating that Latinos are a Democratic constituency. They did not vote for Mitt Romney. They did not vote for John McCain. They did not vote for George W. Bush, and in the election before that they did not vote for George W. Bush again... Take away the Spanish surname and Latino voters look a great deal like many other Democratic constituencies. Low-income households headed by single mothers and dependent upon some form of welfare are not looking for an excuse to join forces with Paul Ryan and Pat Toomey.” Wow. But National Review is forgetting some recent history. In 2004, W. Bush won 40% of the Latino vote -- up significantly from McCain’s 31% in ’08 and Romney’s 27% in ’12. Folks, getting 40% of the Latino vote (vs. 27% to 31%) could be the difference between winning a close election or losing it. By the way, Rubio today addresses the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors in DC.

*** Rubio’s full-court press: Meanwhile, Marco Rubio’s full-court press to at least neutralize conservative critics continues. Within hours of RedState’s Erick Erickson publishing a diary against Rubio’s immigration compromise, Rubio responded with his own diary. Rubio’s message was similar to the one he had for Rush Limbaugh the day before -- he’s reluctantly come to the conclusion he has no choice but to try and forge a compromise. Trying to make the best of a bad situation is his message to these skeptical conservatives. What we found intriguing is that comments in response to Rubio while universally skeptical of the immigration plan were almost all personally praiseworthy of Rubio. So, so far, this strategy is working for him. By the way, Rubio today addresses the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors in DC. That’ll be a fairly friendly audience as many business groups want action on immigration.

*** Obama comments on gun violence in Chicago: Yesterday’s Senate hearing on guns was everything we thought it would be. It packed emotion (see Gabby Giffords) and conflict (Sen. Dick Durbin vs. Wayne LaPierre), and it suggested just how hard the debate will be. In addition to telling Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart that he’s going to “put everything I’ve got behind” immigration reform, President Obama commented on guns. When Diaz-Balart asked Obama why there’s so much gun violence in Chicago despite its tough guns laws, the president replied: “Well, the problem is that a huge proportion of those guns come in from outside Chicago. I mean, what is absolutely true is that if you are just creating a bunch of pockets of gun laws without having sort of a unified, integrated system, for example of background checks, then you know it's gonna be a lot harder for an individual community, a single community, to protect itself from this kind of gun violence. That's precisely why we think it's important for Congress to act.”

*** GDP news complicates everyone’s talking points: Wall Street didn’t overact to yesterday’s drop in GDP, and it’s quite possible that tomorrow’s government jobs report could be a strong one. Yet what appeared to have slowed down the economy in the last quarter was a decline in government spending -- especially defense spending and this was PRE-sequester. And that has thrown a wrench into everyone’s talking points. Obama and the Democrats want to point to a steadily growing economy, which the GDP news complicated. And Republicans want to say that cutting spending is the path to economic prosperity, which the GDP news also complicated since it’s clear it’s the LACK of government spending that slowed the economy last quarter.

*** John Kerry and Al Gore -- two different paths: In the past week, we’ve seen a confluence of events surrounding the last two defeated Democratic presidential nominees. John Kerry, who lost the 2004 election, overwhelmingly won confirmation to be secretary of state, and he delivered his farewell speech to the Senate as his colleagues (Democrat and Republican) celebrated him on the way out. And then there’s Al Gore, who lost the 2000 election (but won the popular vote), as he’s been giving numerous TV interviews to sell his new book. In her own interview with Gore, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked him about his sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera, which made Gore million and millions of dollars. “Well, I think it's important to focus on Al Jazeera itself. I completely understand the criticism and the point of view that you're reporting,” Gore told Mitchell. “But the fact is that Al Jazeera stands all around the world as a highly respected international newsgathering organization.  And its climate reporting has been outstanding far better than what's available now.” As the saying goes, there are always second acts in politics. And it’s interesting to see the two VERY different paths Kerry and Gore have taken. The other aspect of watching these two men who both came so close to the presidency: Kerry appears to be the same guy he was in 2004. Gore, on the other hand, seems quite different.

*** On Bob Menendez… : Per NBC’s Jonathan Dienst, Michael Isikoff, Pete Williams, and Tom Winter, the FBI on Tuesday night searched the offices of a West Palm Beach eye doctor who -- together with his family -- has donated more than $200,000 to Democratic candidates. He also has served as a fundraiser for Sen. Robert Menendez. FBI agents were seen carrying out boxes of materials from the offices of eye doctor Salomon Melgen. Law enforcement officials told NBC News there is an investigation underway, but declined to detail its focus. Last fall, New Jersey Republicans filed a complaint with the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee against Senator Menendez, alleging he accepted free flights to the Dominican Republic on a private jet and stays at Melgen's villa there at the Casa de Campo resort in violation of Senate rules.  The ethics complaint also questions whether some laws might have been broken. Yesterday, Menendez’s office issued this statement: "Dr. Melgen has been a friend and political supporter of Sen. Menendez for many years. Senator Menendez has traveled on Dr. Melgen's plane on three occasions, all of which have been paid for and reported appropriately. Any allegations of engaging with prostitutes are manufactured by a politically-motivated right-wing blog and are false."

*** … And violating Crisis Management 101: But Menendez violated a cardinal rule of Crisis Management 101: In this denial, he repeated the charge against him. It may seem like a small thing, but the fact is no major news organization -- including ours -- has been able to confirm any of the allegations on the prostitution stuff. And the evidence right now is so tenuous on the prostitution allegation that we decided it was irresponsible to even allude to it by saying “there are reports,” etc. However, the senator’s statement about the prostitution allegations has resulted in a lot of bad press on this front -- more than he would have gotten simply for his connection to the donor/friend under investigation.

*** Breaking the glass ceiling in LA and NYC? While this off-year features the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, don’t lose sight of the 2013 mayoral races in New York City and Los Angeles. The reason: The glass ceiling in these two most-populated U.S. cities could be shattered. As it turns out, neither has ever had a female mayor before. But with City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D) perhaps the front-runner in New York and with two Democratic women running in LA (City Controller Wendy Greuel and City Council member Jan Perry) that distinction could change this year. Here’s something else to chew on: Unlike in past years, neither mayoral field features a Latino candidate, so that means that Latinos will be the swing vote in these two races. In Los Angeles, the free-for-all primary is on March 7, and the general election is May 21 (if no one receives 50% in the primary). In New York, the dates haven’t been set yet.

*** Cuccinelli echoes Romney’s “47%” comment? Lastly, speaking of that gubernatorial race in Virginia, Democrats are pouncing on Ken Cuccinelli’s new book, arguing that some of the language in it isn’t too far removed from Mitt Romney’s infamous “47%” comments. An excerpt from the book, per the Washington Post: “One of their favorite ways to increase their power is by creating programs that dispense subsidized government benefits, such as Medicare, Social Security, and outright welfare (Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, and the like). These programs make people dependent on government. And once people are dependent, they feel they can’t afford to have the programs taken away, no matter how inefficient, poorly run, or costly to the rest of society.” More: “Citizens will vote for those politicians who promise more benefits each year, rather than the fiscally responsible politicians who try to point out that such programs are unsustainable and will eventually bankrupt the states or the nation.” No one can accuse of Cuccinelli of trying to do an election-year makeover. He is who he is, which is one the messages in his book. The question remains, though: Can Cuccinelli’s brand of conservatism win in swing-state Virginia. Every successful Republican candidate for governor in recent history has moderated to win (McDonnell, Allen, Gilmore etc), Cuccinelli does not appear to be following that same path.

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

Criticism over Chuck Hagel’s nomination for secretary of defense has been mounting for weeks, beginning even before the former Republican senator got the official nod.

Now, unhappy members of his own party will get the chance to grill him on a range of concerns, including Hagel’s antagonism to what he called “the Jewish lobby” and his vocal opposition of President George W. Bush’s 2007 surge strategy in Iraq.

Jason Reed / Reuters

Chuck Hagel reacts during meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington in this Jan. 23, 2013 file photo.

He takes to Capitol Hill on Thursday morning for his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, but despite what’s likely to be three or four hours of adversarial interrogation, it seems all but certain that the upper chamber will vote to confirm him. That is, unless he makes the kind of catastrophic blunder during his testimony that no nominee has made in recent memory.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, who is uncommitted on the Hagel nomination, said Tuesday the statements by some GOP senators that they wouldn’t try to block Hagel’s confirmation by a filibuster “changes things dramatically.”

Hagel will need only 51 votes to be confirmed, not the 60 he'd need if there were a filibuster. There are 55 senators in the Democratic caucus and 45 Senate Republicans.

Although Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., said on Fox News Monday night that he would block the Hagel nomination until current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testifies about the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, one of Graham’s frequent allies, Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., distanced himself Tuesday from that threat.

Both Graham and McCain serve on the Armed Services Committee.

Hagel, who was seriously wounded while serving as an Army infantryman in Vietnam, was a Republican senator from Nebraska from 1997 to 2009.

In his written answers to a questionnaire from members of the Armed Services Committee released on Wednesday, Hagel alluded to Vietnam, saying, “I understand what it is like to be a soldier in war. I also understand what happens when there is poor morale and discipline among the troops and a lack of clear objectives, intelligence, and command and control from Washington.”

He said his Vietnam experience would help him “to ensure we maintain the best fighting force in the world … and ensure that we are cautious and certain when contemplating the use of force.”

Some of the questions senators will pose to Hagel will likely focus on statements that he made years ago, such as his comment in 2007 about Bush that “before this (Iraq intervention) is over, you might see calls for his impeachment."

As a senator, Hagel voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but later turned critical of Bush’s conduct of the operation.

GOP senators will be listening closely for a “confirmation conversion” -- the familiar process in which a nominee recants or edges back from some of his previous statements.

But many questions Thursday will look ahead to the defense and fiscal challenges the nation faces over the next four years. Among them: 

• Potential intervention in the Syrian civil war: While senators such as McCain are calling for sending arms to rebels fighting against the regime of Bashar Assad, Hagel said in his answers to the committee, “I do not believe that providing lethal support to the armed opposition at this time will alleviate the horrible situation we see in Syria.” The risks of a widening conflict in Syria were underscored Wednesday when Israeli warplanes attacked Syrian military targets near Damascus. The airstrikes reportedly targeted a convoy carrying weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

• Intervention in North Africa: The Obama administration has expanded the war against al-Qaida with major new initiatives in Africa. The Pentagon is reportedly considering setting up a drone base in Niger, an African nation bordering Mali where U.S. forces have been supporting a French military operation against jihadists. This week the Obama administration entered into a status-of-forces agreement with Niger, allowing U.S. troops to operate in that country. Pentagon spokesman George Little said this week that in the Mali operation the U.S. military has been sharing intelligence with the French, providing airlift support to the French army, and refueling French military aircraft. 
• Iran and Israel: In his written answers to the Armed Services Committee, Hagel addressed the question of Iran’s nuclear program, saying, “I am committed to considering all options to counter Iran and its aggression, and to maintain U.S. support for missile defense systems in Israel.” He added, “While there is time and space for diplomacy, backed by pressure, the window is closing. Iran needs to demonstrate it is prepared to negotiate seriously.” In the past he has opposed some economic sanctions against Iran. GOP senators will press him on how willing he would now be to use military force, or to support Israel’s use of force against Iran.
• Afghanistan: Senators from both parties will seek some insight on where Obama and Hagel are heading with the future role of U.S. forces in Afghanistan where 66,000 U.S. troops are still operating. Hagel told the panel in his written answers that the U.S. mission after 2014 will be conducting counter-terrorism missions and training Afghan security forces. But he would not commit himself to any specific number of U.S. forces: “The size of the force will flow from missions assigned.”
• Women in combat: Panetta last week issued an order eliminating the Defense Department’s direct ground combat exclusion rule for women. He said more women could be on the battlefield “without compromising readiness or morale or our war fighting capabilities.” In his written answers to Armed Services Committee, Hagel said he supported Panetta’s decision, but Armed Services Committee ranking Republican member Sen. Jim Inhofe, R- Okla., is very wary of this change.
• Spending cuts: Defense outlays now account for 18 percent of total federal spending but the Pentagon is facing a budget squeeze. The Budget Control Act of 2011 effectively cut the Pentagon’s “base budget” (for everything other than overseas operations such as Afghanistan) by about 4 percent in 2012. The Congressional Budget Office says base-budget spending for the current fiscal year could be cut an additional 12 percent if BCA provisions, including automatic spending cuts called “sequestration,” are not canceled or delayed. In his written answers to committee questions, Hagel urged Congress “to eliminate the sequester threat permanently and pass a balanced deficit-reduction plan.” He said if the BCA spending cuts take place it would have dire effects such as furloughs for civilian defense workers, “less training, including cuts to flying and steaming hours which would reduce readiness” and “delayed weapons system buys with resulting price increases.”  

Almost exactly two years ago during the exhilaration of “Arab Spring,” there were soaring hopes both inside Egypt and abroad that with the overthrow of the autocratic Hosni Mubarak, an era of democracy and human rights might be dawning.

Today despite the change of leaders from Hosni Mubarak to Mohammed Morsi, authoritarian rule in Egypt continues -- and so too in all likelihood will U.S. aid to that country.

Amr Abdallah Dalsh / REUTERS

A man walks past riot police as he covers his face from tear gas during clashes with protesters opposing Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi, along Simon Bolivar Square, which leads to Tahrir Square, in Cairo Jan. 30, 2013. Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi flew to Germany on Wednesday to try to convince Europe of his democratic credentials, leaving behind a country in crisis after a week of violence that has killed more than 50 people.

For the current fiscal year, President Obama is requesting $1.55 billion in aid to Egypt, about 80 percent of it in the form of military assistance.

At this point, there appears to be no serious threat that Congress might block or cancel funds for Egypt, even given the arbitrary action Morsi has taken in recent months – such as his declaration that his decisions are immune from judicial review until a new constitution is adopted. On Sunday, Morsi imposed a state of emergency in three Egyptian cities torn by riots and protests. Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the head of the Egyptian military, warned Tuesday that the “collapse of the state” would occur if the warring factions in the country did not come to terms.

Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., who recently got back from a trip to the Middle East with other senators that included an interview with Morsi, told reporters Tuesday American aid should not be delayed while the U.S. waits for events to settle down in Egypt.

A delay might “contribute to the chaos that may ensue because of their collapsing economy,” McCain warned. “Their biggest problem is a collapsing economy. The Israelis are in favor of continuing the aid to Egypt. I think that’s important. We listen a lot to the Israelis.”

Illustrating a foreign policy divide in Republican ranks, Sen. Rand Paul, R- Ky., challenged secretary of state nominee Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., at his confirmation hearing last week on why the United States should pay to send F-16 fighters to Morsi’s regime.

Recommended: Two pressure points to watch on immigration

Last September, in the aftermath of attacks on American diplomats in Libya and Egypt, Paul declared in a Senate speech, “Not one penny more for Libya or Egypt or Pakistan until they act as our allies. Some say we have to keep sending it. Fine, let’s send it when they act as our allies. Let’s send it when they start behaving as civilized nations and come to their senses.”

“The American people are tired of this,” Paul said. “Our Treasury is bare. There is a multitude of reasons why we should not continue to send good money after bad.”

According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, "Between 1948 and 2011, the United States provided Egypt with $71.6 billion in bilateral foreign aid, including $1.3 billion a year in military aid from 1987 to the present. Since 1979, Egypt has been the second-largest recipient, after Israel, of U.S. bilateral foreign assistance."

But in his opposition to more U.S. taxpayer subsidies for Egypt, Paul remains very much an outlier both in his party and in the Senate as whole.

Kerry explained to his colleagues last week that Egypt is simply too important for America not to fund.

“We have critical interests with Egypt,” he said. “Egypt has thus far supported and lived by the peace agreement with Israel. And has taken steps to begin to deal with the problem of security in the Sinai. Those are vital to us and to our national interests and to the security of Israel.”

And on Tuesday an array of senators agreed with Kerry and McCain that the flow of U.S. funds to Morsi must continue.

When senators are asked about funding, the term they use is “engagement.” Asked whether the turmoil in Egypt should cause a pause in U.S. aid, Sen. Bob Corker, R- Tenn., the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday, “I don’t think it should affect our engagement, necessarily, with the country.”

Related: Senate votes to confirm Kerry as secretary of state

Sen. Bob Casey, D- Pa., who has been serving as chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on the Middle East, noted that “I have always said when we provide aid, it’s never unconditional and we should always evaluate our aid in the context of what’s happening at a particular time. But I don’t favor these blanket aid bans that we often hear debated here (in the Senate).”

Another Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Chris Coons, D- Del., who was on the recent trip to Middle East with McCain, said the senators’ discussion with Morsi touched on “the importance of ongoing U.S. support for their economy, for their military,” as well as “their progress toward full democracy” and Egypt’s adherence to its obligations under the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

Coons noted that there has been a hold on U.S. economic development assistance for the Cairo regime since mid-2012.

According to CRS, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R- Fla., then chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Rep. Kay Granger, R - Texas, House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee chairwoman, placed holds on $450 million in economic aid to Egypt.

“The question isn’t: would we further delay it (aid) ?” Coons said, “The question is: Is there a time when we’re going to begin releasing aid and providing some ongoing support to the Egyptian government?”

That hold is on economic development aid, but what about military aid, which is far larger?

Coons said the bipartisan delegation of senators had a “very positive” meeting with Egypt’s defense minister during their trip two weeks ago. “I came away from that convinced that we have a strong shared commitment to regional security and peace and that we are making a responsible investment of U.S. dollars in sustaining our military-to-military relationship.”

So, he added, “To the extent that they continue to make progress toward democracy, openness, and respecting their treaty obligations, I will continue to support U.S. assistance to Egypt.”

But Coons added Tuesday he wanted to get a briefing on the latest round of turmoil in Egypt.

Updated 3:17 p.m. - Democrats looking to sustain public pressure for new gun laws in the wake of the Newtown shootings clashed Wednesday with Republicans and the National Rifle Association over universal background checks, a far less dramatic proposed change than an assault weapons ban or limits on high capacity magazines.

"My problem with background checks is you're never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks," Wayne LaPierre, CEO and chief lobbyist for the NRA, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, the first since President Barack Obama laid out new measures to curb gun crime. "None of it makes any sense in the real world."

Related: Obama's gun plan begins slow, scrutinized trek through Congress

The obvious drama in the packed hearing room lasted over four hours, with passions running well beyond the normal staid congressional panel. The emotion was heightened by the presence of some major iconic figures in the battle over whether – and how – to tighten federal regulation of firearms.

LaPierre sat at the opposite end of the witness table from Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Critically wounded at a shooting in Tucson in 2011, Giffords opened the hearing with a dramatic plea, haltingly asking Congress to "do something to prevent gun violence."

Susan Walsh / AP

Mark Kelly, husband of former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; David Kopel, law professor at Strum College in Denver; Baltimore Police Chief James Johnson; Gayle Trotter, senior fellow with the Independent Women's Forum; and National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, are sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013, prior to testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence.

"My wife would not have been sitting here today if we had stronger background checks," Kelly told the committee later in the hearing. 

Under current law, people can buy guns through a private seller without getting a background check. It's commonly referred to as the "gun show loophole." The Obama administration's proposal to close this loophole by requiring background checks for all sales of firearms dominated much of Wednesday's hearing.

Related: Giffords 'Too many children are dying … you must act'

The exchanges at the hearing illustrated the sharp political divide over changing the nation's gun laws – and the difficulty in enacting any of the more dramatic new measures included in the package the White House is pushing, which includes an assault weapons ban and limits on high capacity magazines.

"The deaths in Newtown should not be used to put forward every gun control measure that has been floating around for years," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee's ranking member.

"Emotion often leads to bad policies," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who called the 1994 assault weapons ban a "singularly ineffective piece of legislation."

Even Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from rural Vermont, did not explicitly endorse the assault weapons ban that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced last week. But he did call for background checks, sharply challenging LaPierre on the subject.

Slideshow: Ariz. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

The NRA's position on background checks is a switch from the organization's position 14 years ago. "We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone," LaPierre told a congressional panel in 1999.

A place where there was some common ground: gun trafficking. 

“We may be able to work together to prevent straw purchasers from trafficking in guns,” Grassley said, a sentiment echoed by others on the panel.

The obvious legislative hurdles -- on display Wednesday -- help explain why Democrats are relying on a campaign-like strategy and a series of public events to try to ratchet up public demand for stricter regulations on firearms. Giffords' story makes her a compelling public advocate.

"Too many children are dying," she said Wednesday, breaking up the syllables during her testimony.

"It will be hard, but the time is now," said Giffords, who has embarked on an arduous recovery since she was shot in the head, affecting her speech. "You. Must. Act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you."

She walked into Wednesday's hearing, her husband holding her hand and carefully guiding her to her seat in front of the Senate panel.

She spoke for just over a minute; her husband helped her back out of the room.

"Gabby's gift for speech is a distant memory," Kelly said later. "She struggles to walk, and she is partially blind. Her right arm is completely paralyzed."

In trying to counter the emotional testimony, Republicans repeatedly praised Giffords’ perseverance and focused on trying to raise doubts about whether the measures Democrats had proposed to combat gun violence would work. They insisted current gun laws aren't being prosecuted effectively.

“This discussion, I sit here and listen to it, and my reaction is how little it has to do with the problem of keeping our kids safe and how much it has to do with the decadelong, two decadelong, gun ban agenda when we don’t even enforce the laws on the books,” LaPierre said.

Wednesday's hearings were the first in a planned series of sessions on gun laws. Leahy said Wednesday that he plans to begin the process of crafting a gun package in his committee next month. With Obama and Vice President Joe Biden publicly making the case for new laws, gun control advocates expect any action to begin in the Senate; the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has shown little appetite for taking up the issue.

In the wake of Newtown, a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 56 percent of Americans believe gun laws should be more strict. The survey showed just 7 percent believe gun restrictions should be less strict.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday that he planned to bring gun legislation to the Senate floor -- though with an open process that could allow senators to make changes. Such a process would likely make it harder to pass the bill.

“It’s very clear that there’s going to be a bill brought out of the committee, brought to the Senate floor, and there will be an amendment process there,” Reid said. He added that senators would be allowed to “bring up whatever amendments they want that deal with this issue.”

Updated, 11:08 am ET, Jan. 30: Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) appointed his former chief of staff, William "Mo" Cowan, to be the interim U.S. Senator to replace John Kerry. (Kerry was confirmed Tuesday as Secretary of State.)

Cowan will be one of just two African Americans serving in the U.S. Senate -- Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina being the other. But it is the first time the U.S. Senate will have two black senators serving at the same time. Both Cowan and Scott, however, were appointed. The last black senator before that was also appointed -- Roland Burris. The last elected black senator was Barack Obama.

Cowan will also be Massachusetts' second black senator. The first was Republican Ed Brooke, who served from 1967 to 1978.

This now means that newly elected Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) becomes the senior senator from Massachusetts. That represents a remarkable shift from the seniority Massachusetts had just a short time ago when both Sens. Ted Kennedy (D) and Kerry served at the same time.

"Mo's service on the front lines in our efforts to manage through the worst economy in 80 years and build a better, stronger Commonwealth for the next generation has earned him the respect and admiration of people throughout government," Patrick said in a statement. "The people of the Commonwealth have benefited from his wisdom and good judgment during his time in our office, and will again in the Senate." 

For his part, Cowan said, "I am honored and humbled by this appointment today. I pledge to you and the people of Massachusetts that during this interim period I will work as hard as humanly possible to perform my duties with the needs and aspirations of our state's citizens foremost in mind."

“I am very pleased to welcome Mo Cowan to the Senate," Warren said in a statement. "As former chief of staff to Governor Patrick, Mo brings a deep knowledge of the issues facing the people of our Commonwealth to the Senate. He will be a committed, hardworking interim Senator, and I look forward to working closely with him to protect the interests of Massachusetts families."

Cowan grew up in humble beginnings in a small town in North Carolina. His mother worked for minimum wage and his father died when he was 16, the Boston Globe reported. Cowan graduated from Duke University and then moved to Boston to attend Northeastern Law School. 

Cowan stayed in Boston to practice law and became friends with Patrick while both were attorneys.

Cowan also helped former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, and 2012 Republican presidential nominee, identify more diverse candidates for his judicial picks.

Patrick was also considering businesswoman Carol Fulp, who is African American, and Margaret Marshall, the first woman state Supreme Court chief justice.

Former Congressman Barney Frank openly campaigned for the post, but his lobbying is said to have rankled Patrick. Frank also criticized Chuck Hagel, President Obama's pick for Defense Secretary. Obama and Patrick are good friends, having gone to law school together. They've even shared speech writing.

Frank walked back his criticism of Hagel, but that may have been too late.

The state set the special election date for June 25th; the primary will be April 30th. 

Former Republican Sen. Scott Brown says he's now "leaning strongly" toward a run for the Senate again.

The top Democrat is seen as Congressman Ed Markey, but a poll out this week showed Brown as the favorite, if he runs, as he held sizable lead over Markey and other Democrats.

NBC's Luke Russert contributed to this report.

The two pressure points to watch on immigration… The gun debate begins on Capitol Hill… Breaking news: Economy contracted in the 4^th quarter… The unrest in Egypt… Hillary on 2016… Teeing up Thursday’s confirmation for Chuck Hagel… All eyes on Deval Patrick, Scott Brown… And updating the Obama cabinet shuffle.

*** Two pressure points to watch on immigration: It’s been quite a revealing past 48 hours in the still-evolving debate over immigration, with Monday’s bipartisan Senate framework and Tuesday’s speech by President Obama. So what have we learned? There are two pressure points that either could create enough force to ensure legislation gets through Congress, or that could scuttle any chance for a deal. One, Marco Rubio and Republicans considering any comprehensive immigration reform want a "trigger" to make sure that border enforcement comes before legalization. “Unless there’s real enforcement triggers, we are not going to have a bill that moves on the opportunity to apply for a green card,” Rubio told Rush Limbaugh yesterday. (The big question here, of course: What would these “triggers” be?) Two, Obama yesterday vowed to bring his own legislation if Congress doesn't quickly act. Translation: He'll blame Republicans for this failure. “If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away,” the president said in Las Vegas yesterday.

*** What the debate isn’t about: So those are the two big issues moving forward -- GOP pressure on Democrats for an enforcement trigger, and White House/Dem pressure on Republicans not to delay the legislation (a la what happened to health care in 2009). But here’s something this debate IS NOT about: whether Obama wants to use immigration as a way to club Republicans. It’s not even a question. The idea that anyone outside of political partisans -- or those looking for a reason to be against reform (but don’t want to look anti-Hispanic) -- believes that Obama doesn’t want to sign historic immigration legislation to fulfill a campaign promise is a bit naïve. Sure, the president is using campaign tactics to pressure Congress, but he wants the legislative “win”; he already got the political “win” in 2012. Don’t forget what happened during the fiscal-cliff debate just a month ago: The White House is always looking to cut a deal, even if it gets just half a loaf. There’s no political reward for not getting anything done for him in a second term. That’s the “leverage” that GOPers actually have with the president. That said, the president’s leverage is the public’s opinion. And if the WaPo/ABC poll, which shows his favorability rating at 60%, is not an outlier that will change the equation on Capitol Hill -- not just on immigration but other issues. Reason Magazine (which uses Princeton Survey Research, the same folks that conduct the Pew poll) has the president’s job-approval rating at 52%.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., questions Senator John Kerry (Not Pictured) during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing on Kerry's nomination to be secretary of state, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 24, 2013.

*** Gun debate begins on Capitol Hill: Today, however, immigration takes a back seat to the debate over guns. At 10:00 am ET, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on gun violence. Testifying: Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords, and the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre. (And NBC’s Frank Thorp confirms that Giffords herself will appear at the hearing. She will speak though not testify.) According to his prepared testimony, LaPierre will come out against even universal background checks, per NBC’s Kasie Hunt. “When it comes to the issue of background checks, let’s be honest -- background checks will never be ‘universal’ – because criminals will never submit to them,” he’s expected to say. Does this NRA line in the sand on universal background checks spook someone like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who appears to be open to such a measure and might actually co-sponsor Schumer’s bill? Another thing to consider here. It seems like an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing the Senate. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid allowing it to come to a vote means that pro-gun Democrats can vote against THAT measure but vote for something else (like background checks).

*** Breaking news: Economy contracted in the 4^th quarter: But both guns and immigration might get eclipsed by this breaking news: The U.S. economy contracted in the 4^th quarter. The AP: “The U.S. economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles. The Commerce Department said Wednesday that the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in the July-September quarter.”

*** More unrest in Egypt: What is taking place in Egypt is another big story. The New York Times: “A prominent Egyptian opposition leader called on President Mohamed Morsi on Wednesday to hold a national dialogue, a day after the nation’s top general warned that the state itself was in danger of collapse because of violence verging on anarchy in three Suez Canal cities.” In her exit interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Clinton commented on Mubarak’s ouster from Egypt, and she stood by what is the one of the most consequential foreign policy decisions the administration made that gets very little re-visiting: “It was an inevitable force of history that when the Egyptian people were rising up in such large numbers -- asking for what we believe in, freedom and opportunity, a chance to, you know, chart their own democratic future -- the United States cannot and should not be on the side of those who deny that.” Clinton added to FOX about the current situation there: “We have to work for, along with the international community, as well as people inside Egypt, is not to see these revolutions hijacked by extremists, not to see the return of dictatorial rule, the absence of the rule of law. And it's hard. It's hard going from decades under one-party or one-man rule, as somebody said, waking up from a political coma and understanding democracy. So we have a lot at stake in trying to keep moving these transformations in the right direction.”

*** Hillary and 2016: Of course, Clinton was also asked about 2016 in these exit interviews. And she used them to all of them to say not much new. Here’s what she told NBC’s Mitchell: “I don't have any decisions made. I have no real plans to make any such decisions. I'm looking forward to some very quiet time catching up on everything from sleep, to reading, to walking, with my family. I think it’s hard to imagine for me what it will be like next week when I wake up and I have nowhere to go. Maybe I'll go back to sleep for a change!” Bottom line: If she had to make her decision today, she’d probably be a “no.” But she’s also not shutting the door, either.

*** Teeing up Hagel’s confirmation hearing: Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing to be Obama’s next defense secretary is set for tomorrow. And per NBC’s Kasie Hunt and Mike Viqueira, he’ll be introduced by two former chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican John Warner. White House officials point to comments from Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip, who hasn't counted any "no" votes on Hagel among Democrats. Hunt and Viq add that the White House also points to friendly words from Republicans, including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. And now Roll Call is reporting that Republican Thad Cochran of Mississippi says he plans to vote for Hagel’s confirmation. Our take: Barring Hagel somehow melting down during his hearings, he’s on track for confirmation.

*** All eyes on Patrick, Scott Brown: After the Senate easily confirmed John Kerry to be secretary of state, by a 94-3 vote, all eyes are on Deval Patrick – as well as Scott Brown. Patrick’s pick to fill name an interim senator to fill Kerry’s Senate seat could come as early as today. And the AP reports that Brown is “leaning strongly toward” running the special election to replace Kerry.

*** Updating the cabinet shuffle: With Ray LaHood’s announcement that he will be stepping down from his post as Transportation secretary after his successor is confirmed, here are the cabinet members leaving, plus their replacements if applicable:

Hillary Clinton at State (John Kerry confirmed)
Leon Panetta at Defense (Chuck Hagel nominated)
Tim Geithner at Treasury (Jack Lew nominated)
Hilda Solis at Labor
Lisa Jackson at EPA
Ken Salazar at Interior
Ray LaHood at Transportation

And here are the cabinet secretaries who are remaining:

Janet Napolitano (DHS)
Arne Duncan (Education)
Tom Vilsack (Agriculture)
Eric Holder (Justice)
Kathleen Sebelius (HHS)
Eric Shinseki (Veterans Affairs)

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

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid speaks to members of the press after the weekly Senate Democratic Policy Luncheon at the U.S. Capitol January 29, 2013.

The Nevada Democrat’s comments come as Congress begins the challenging process toward approving its first major piece of gun legislation since the 1990s.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds its first hearings that topic on Wednesday, featuring high-profile witnesses on either side of that issue. Speaking in favor of gun control will be retired astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman injured critically in a 2011 shooting.

Giffords herself will deliver an opening statement to the committee.

On the other side will be National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, whose influential gun rights lobby is working to thwart the administration’s proposals on Capitol Hill. According to LaPierre’s prepared testimony, released Tuesday by the NRA, he will stake out a clear stance against the heart of the president's plan.

“When it comes to the issue of background checks, let’s be honest – background checks will never be ‘universal’ – because criminals will never submit to them,” said LaPierre in those prepared remarks.

LaPierre's testimony on Wednesday will surely reflect the sharp opposition to the Obama plan among gun rights groups; aversion that threatens to transform the battle into a legislative slog and sap the administration’s momentum.

Skepticism over assault weapons ban
While the outrage prompted by the December rampage at Sandy Hook elementary school has lingered longer than previous mass shootings, the impetus for gun control measures threatens to fade as time passes.

Already, one of the central proposals from Obama’s plan – renewing the ban on assault weapons – faces an uphill battle to be included in any final legislation. 

Reid, who has said he would not seek Senate passage of legislation that had no chance of approval in the House, was non-committal on the issue of the assault weapons ban during his comments on Tuesday. 

“I'll take a look at that,” he said of a proposed ban on assault weapons favored by California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

“As I've indicated to you folks, we're going to have votes on all kinds of issues dealing with guns. And I think everyone will be well advised to read the legislation before they determine how they're going to vote for it.”

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said that the House would consider whatever legislation on guns the Senate manages to pass, but has committed to little more than that. 

And, in fact, whatever legislation the Republican-controlled House is able to consider might depend ultimately on a handful of moderate Senate Democrats.

Several of those lawmakers have expressed skepticism toward the assault weapons ban, but have conveyed more interest in universal background checks – the element of Obama’s plan that gun control proponents that might have a better chance at passage. 

That provision appears poised even to win some Republican support: Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn told a Tulsa television station on Friday that he’s working with Democrats on legislation to ensure universal background checks. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was more reluctant to endorse such a measure, saying during an availability at the Capitol on Tuesday: “I'm among those who'd be happy to take a look at whatever the majority decides to advance on that subject.” 

But Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin congressman who frequently mentioned his pride as a hunter during his time as Mitt Romney’s running mate appeared to lend support to that idea during a Sunday interview on “Meet the Press.” 

“I think the question of whether or not a criminal is getting a gun is a question we need to look at. That's what the background check issue's all about,” he said. “And I think we need to look into making sure that there aren't big loopholes where a person can illegally purchase a firearm.”

The Senate confirmed President Barack Obama’s nomination of Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass, to be secretary of state Tuesday. The vote was 94 to 3, with three Republicans – Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. – voting against him.

“Sen. Kerry has a long history of liberal positions that are not consistent with a majority of Texans,” said Cornyn spokesman Drew Brandewie.

Kerry stood on the Senate floor as his colleagues voted on his confirmation. Kerry himself voted "present."

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., emerges after a unanimous vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approving him to become America's next top diplomat, replacing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2013.

Tuesday’s vote sets the stage for Kerry’s resignation from the Senate where he has served for 28 years. A special election will be held in Massachusetts, probably in June, to replace him.

At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Tuesday morning, incoming committee chairman Sen. Robert Menendez, D- N.J., praised Kerry’s “impressive grasp and depth and thoughtfulness on the critical issues” he will be facing in his new job. Among those issues is the U.S. response to the civil war in Syria in which more than 60,000 have been killed. At his confirmation hearing last week, Kerry came under bipartisan pressure on Syria.

Sen. Chris Coons, D- Del., a Foreign Relations Committee member who was part of a bipartisan Senate delegation that recently toured the Middle East, complained to Kerry that U.S. humanitarian aid intended for Syrian refugees “has not reached the people on the ground.”

On Tuesday Obama announced that he had approved an additional $155 million in humanitarian aid for Syrians and refugees fleeing the violence in the country. In comments to reporters Tuesday, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called this “a Band-Aid. We don’t even know – because of our lack of involvement in Syria – whether that aid actually gets to the Syrian freedom fighters. We know that a lot of it previously has gone through Damascus and has been diverted.”

McCain called the lack of U.S. intervention in supporting an overthrow of the regime of Bashar al-Assad “a shameful chapter in American history.”

But McCain said he has had many conversations with Kerry about Syria “and I think he is at least more concerned than anybody else in the administration.”

McCain, Coons and others want the U.S. aid to go directly to the Syrian opposition rather than being routed through the United Nations and the Syrian government.

Some senators are also urging Obama to impose a no-fly zone and to provide weapons to fighters who are trying to overthrow Assad.

Updated 3:34 p.m. ET - President Barack Obama hailed the Senate's bipartisan immigration framework at a major speech on that topic this afternoon in Nevada, but threatened to send his own alternative legislation to Capitol Hill if Congress fails to act.

The president embraced of a statement of principles offered Monday by four Democratic and four Republican senators, which would strengthen border security and employment verification in exchange for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the United States.

"The good news is that -- for the first time in many years -- Republicans and Democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together," Obama said in his speech in Las Vegas, according to prepared excerpts.

Jason Reed / Reuters

President Barack Obama arrives in Las Vegas, Jan. 29. Obama arrived in Nevada to deliver remarks on immigration reform.

"And yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators announced their principles for comprehensive immigration reform, which are very much in line with the principles I've proposed and campaigned on for the last few years," the president also said. "At this moment, it looks like there's a genuine desire to get this done soon. And that's very encouraging."

But in a speech in Nevada -- a Southwestern state that has experienced a boom in its Hispanic population -- the president said he refused to allow comprehensive immigration reform "to get bogged down in an endless debate."

"It's important for us to realize that the foundation for bipartisan action is already in place," he said. If lawmakers fail to advance their own proposal, Obama said he would send legislation to Congress based on his own principles "and insist that they vote on it right away."

He said at the top of his speech: "I'm here because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform."

The president used Tuesday's speech in Nevada to outline many of those principles, which rest on four pillars: strengthening border security, cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers, streamlining legal immigration and -- most importantly -- offering undocumented workers an earned path to citizenship. 

Those pillars mostly resemble the bipartisan Senate framework unveiled on Monday by lawmakers, which has prompted hopes that Congress would finally be able to advance a comprehensive immigration reform law, a priority that eluded Obama during his first term, and President George W. Bush before him.

The primary sticking point in those fights has been the pathway to citizenship, which conservatives deride as "amnesty" for those who have broken the law. Already, some prominent conservatives have expressed their skepticism of the Senate framework for exactly that reason.

"Yes, they broke the rules," Obama said of those undocumented immigrants. "They crossed the border illegally. Maybe they overstayed their visas. But these 11 million men and women are now here."

Republicans in particular had been closely watching Obama's actions for cues as to how the administration might handle immigration, and the emerging Senate deal. Republican lawmakers have openly worried that the president might stake out stark positions and oppose some of the enforcement measures included in the Senate framework, namely the trigger that would only allow a pathway to citizenship once the border enforcement mechanisms had been verified. 

"There are a lot of ideas about how best to fix our broken immigration system," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Any solution should be a bipartisan one, and we hope the President is careful not to drag the debate to the left and ultimately disrupt the difficult work that is ahead in the House and Senate."

But Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a rock star to conservatives who's seen as eyeing a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, has taken an active lead in selling this proposal to the right. Rubio has appeared in conservative media to both discourage Obama from opposing enforcement provisions, but also talk up the proposal as the best chance at compromise for Republicans.

"If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there -- in essence, if there's not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else happens unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place -- then I won't support it," Rubio, a member of the bipartisan gang of eight, told conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday. "But the principles clearly call for that."

But the president generally spoke in broad terms, and did not draw any bright lines as it relates to the Senate proposal. 

"I believe we are finally at a moment where comprehensive immigration reform is finally within our grasp," he said.

During the presidential campaign last fall, Univision asked President Obama about his biggest failure in his four years in office.

His answer: passing comprehensive immigration reform.

But Obama, at the forum sponsored by the Spanish-language network in September, continued:

"I think that I’ve learned some lessons over the last four years, and the most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside. That’s how I got elected, and that’s how the big accomplishments like health care got done."

Mitt Romney and the Republican Party pounced on those comments. "The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again,” Romney argued. “He said he can’t change Washington from inside; he can only change it from outside. Well, we’re going to give him that chance in November. He’s going outside!”

Yet campaign rhetoric aside, Obama was admitting a simple truth about American politics at that Univision forum: The power to change policy comes from public opinion. And it also comes from the ballot box.

In other words, elections have consequences -- especially after more than 70 percent of Latinos backed Obama in the 2012 presidential election, up from 67 percent in 2008.

That explains why Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who once championed comprehensive immigration reform but has opposed it ever since the '08 election -- is back on board.

"Elections, elections. The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens," McCain said at a news conference yesterday announcing his support of bipartisan principles to reform the nation's immigration system.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) put it another way. "The politics on this issue have been turned upside down," he said. "There is more political risk in opposing immigration reform rather than supporting it."

None of this is to say that immigration reform's passage through Congress is a sure thing. Already, opponents are asking that the Senate slow down consideration of any legislation. "No secret accord with profound consequences for this nation’s future can be rushed through. That means a full committee process and debate and amendments on the floor of the Senate," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said in a statement yesterday.

But it does point to how outside forces -- and elections -- can change politics, at least for a while, on issues like immigration and taxes.

Ray LaHood becomes the latest member of President Obama's cabinet to say they are leaving as the president begins his second term.

LaHood announced today he will leave his post as secretary of the Department of Transportation once a successor is confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

"As I look back on the past four years, I am proud of what we have accomplished together in so many important areas," LaHood said in a statement.

The former Illinois congressman was one of two Republicans President Obama appointed to cabinet secretary positions at the beginning of his first term. (Bob Gates at Defense was the other). Obama has nominated Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, to take over at Defense. He's expected to be confirmed.

LaHood's replacement was not immediately clear.

As he exits, LaHood touted accomplishments, including the stimulus, fuel-efficiency standards, high-speed rail, as well as initiatives on distracted driving, combatinng pilot fatigue, and highway safety.

Here's his full statement:

“I have let President Obama know that I will not serve a second term as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation.  It has been an honor and a privilege to lead the Department, and I am grateful to President Obama for giving me such an extraordinary opportunity.  I plan to stay on until my successor is confirmed to ensure a smooth transition for the Department and all the important work we still have to do. 

As I look back on the past four years, I am proud of what we have accomplished together in so many important areas.  But what I am most proud of is the DOT team. You exemplify the best of public service, and I truly appreciate all that you have done to make America better, to make your communities better, and to make DOT better.

Our achievements are significant.  We have put safety front and center with the Distracted Driving Initiative and a rule to combat pilot fatigue that was decades in the making.  We have made great progress in improving the safety of our transit systems, pipelines, and highways, and in reducing roadway fatalities to historic lows.  We have strengthened consumer protections with new regulations on buses, trucks, and airlines. 

We helped jumpstart the economy and put our fellow Americans back to work with $48 billion in transportation funding from the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009, and awarded over $2.7 billion in TIGER grants to 130 transportation projects across the Nation.  We have made unprecedented investments in our nation’s ports.  And we have put aviation on a sounder footing with the FAA reauthorization, and secured funding in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act to help States build and repair their roads, bridges and transit systems. 

And to further secure our future, we have taken transportation into the 21st century with CAFE Standards, NextGen, and our investments in passenger and High-Speed Rail.  What’s more, we have provided the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy with the funding and leadership it needs to prepare a new generation of midshipmen to meet our country’s rapidly-evolving defense and maritime transportation needs. 

Closer to home, we also have made great strides.  In December, the DOT was recognized as the most improved agency in the entire Federal government in the 2012 “Best Places to Work” rankings published by the Partnership of Public Service.  Even more impressive, DOT was ranked 9th out of the 19 largest agencies in the government. 
Each of these remarkable accomplishments is a tribute your hard work, creativity, commitment to excellence, and most of all, your dedication to our country.  DOT is fortunate to have such an extraordinary group of public servants.  I look forward to continuing to work with all of you as the selection and confirmation process of the next transportation secretary moves forward.  Now is not the time to let up - we still have a number of critical safety goals to accomplish and still more work to do on the implementation of MAP-21.   

I’ve told President Obama, and I’ve told many of you, that this is the best job I’ve ever had.  I’m grateful to have the opportunity to work with all of you and I’m confident that DOT will continue to achieve great things in the future. 

Thank you, and God bless you."

DAILY RUNDOWN: Chuck Todd talks about President Barack Obama’s praise for a bipartisan proposal on immigration reform.

MORNING JOE: Sen. John McCain, D-Ariz., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., discuss a bipartisan plan taking shape in the Senate that would reform the country's current immigration laws.

TODAY: The president will be traveling to Las Vegas, Nevada, to talk about the need for immigration reform just a day after a bipartisan group of senators unveiled their plan for dealing with the roughly 11 million undocumented people in this country. NBC's Kristen Welker reports.

NIGHTLY NEWS: NBC's Chuck Todd examines the immigration overhaul that could pass by late spring or early summer.

At what’s sure to be a contentious confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican critics of President Barack Obama’s secretary of defense nominee former Sen. Chuck Hagel will explain why they think he’s been soft on using force against Iran. And they’ll voice worry about how firm a supporter of Israel he’ll be at the Pentagon, giving his criticism of what he called the “Jewish lobby.”

But there’s another front in the Hagel battle: his endorsement of Global Zero, the movement calling for abolition of nuclear weapons. This is what makes Thursday’s hearing a chance for Republicans to raise questions about Obama’s nuclear weapons policy and the overall debate over the reduction and modernization of the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

With endorsements from former president Jimmy Carter, ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and other international leaders, the Global Zero movement has proposed a plan to reduce and ultimately eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2030.

Of course, Hagel’s Global Zero support doesn’t make him a maverick in the Obama administration. If confirmed, he’ll be working for a president who in 2009 called for “a world without nuclear weapons,” although Obama acknowledged, “This goal will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime.”

Recommended: Obama to embrace Senate deal

The ranking Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, said in an interview on C-Span Sunday that Hagel’s endorsement of Global Zero “concerns me a lot.” Inhofe also charged that Obama “wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal, he refuses to modernize it.”

Most nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal were produced 30 to 40 years ago, and no new ones have been produced since the end of the 1990's. So the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an agency within the Department of Energy, is charge of replacing some aging components and assessing the warheads for reliability.

Charles Dharapak / AP

President Barack Obama announces in the East Room of the White House, Monday, Jan. 7, 2013, that he is nominating former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, as the new Defense Secretary.

The Oklahoma Republican said the nuclear threats from North Korea and the potential for Iran to deploy a nuclear-armed ballistic missile make the reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent especially important.

(Inhofe announced he’ll oppose Hagel, but implied that he expects the former Nebraska senator will win confirmation.)

Hagel served on the Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission which issued a report last May calling for an 80 percent reduction in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

In contrast with Inhofe, the report said, “We surely do not need thousands of modern nuclear weapons to play this [deterrent] role vis-à-vis a country with a handful of primitive nuclear devices.”

It also said that a drastically smaller U.S. arsenal could be negotiated bilaterally with Russia “or implemented unilaterally.”

And it said that dramatic cuts in the size of the arsenal would allow downsizing of the “the costly modernization of the nuclear complex currently underway,” including plutonium facilities at Los Alamos, N.M. and the uranium processing facility called Y-12 in Oak Ridge, Tenn. Those plants help extend the service life of the warheads that go on missiles in U.S. submarines.

Sen. Bob Corker, R- Tenn., brought up Hagel’s Global Zero role at last week’s confirmation hearing for Obama’s secretary of state nominee, Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass.

“For those of us who care deeply about our nuclear arsenal, and modernization… some of the things that were authored in this (May 2012 Global Zero) report candidly are just concerning,” said Corker.

He told Kerry that normally there's a tension between the Defense Department which “presses for weaponry” and the State Department which “presses for nuclear arms agreements and reductions. And so in the event this person (Hagel) is confirmed, that balance is not going to be there.”

Recommended: Senate passes $50.5 billion in Sandy funds

Corker voted for New START treaty with Russia in 2010, one of 13 Republican senators to vote to ratify the pact. Twenty-six Republicans, including Inhofe, voted against ratifying the treaty. The treaty will cut the number of deployed strategic warheads from more than 1,700 last year to 1,550 by 2018.

Corker and other Republicans supported the treaty because of assurances from Obama that more money would be spent on modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal and using means other than nuclear tests to ensure that U.S. warheads would still work if they were ever used in a war.

But Corker said last summer he’d been “highly disappointed in the follow-through on modernization” of the arsenal. And according to a report this month from the Congressional Research Service, Republicans have been battling with the Obama administration over the building of a chemistry and metallurgy research facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, which the administration wants to delay for at least five years, but which Republicans want built in 2013.

Nuclear weapons manufacturing and maintenance is important to Corker’s home state, as was noted in a 2011 speech by Thomas D’Agostino, who was then the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) who told a crowd in Chattanooga, Tenn., “At NNSA, we are committed to doing our part to support the economic vitality of the Tennessee Valley. With roughly 8,000 people working at Y-12 on a given day, Y-12 is one of Tennessee's largest employers.”

He added that the Y-12 facility “has a tremendous impact on local businesses. Local procurements originating from Y-12 totaled $310.1 million for Tennessee businesses in 2010, including more than $254 million for small businesses.”

Thus, any move toward scrapping the U.S. nuclear arsenal or toward downsizing the nuclear modernization process – as recommended by the Global Zero report Hagel signed on to --would hurt Tennessee’s economy.

Trying to soothe Corker’s concerns about Hagel last week, Kerry said the abolition of nuclear weapons is “not something that could happen in today's world.” Kerry said. “It's a goal. It's an aspiration. And we should always be aspirational….it's worth aspiring to, but we'll be lucky if we get there in however many centuries the way we’re going.”

Kerry said “there's talk of going down to a lower number” than the 1,550 warheads in the New START treaty. “I think, personally, it's possible to get there if you have commensurate levels of inspections, verification, guarantees about the capacity of your nuclear stockpile program, etc.”

He said to Corker, “Now, Senator, I know you're deeply invested in that component of it, the nuclear stockpile proposal.” Kerry said the United States must maintain a reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, “because that's the only way you maintain an effective level of deterrence.”

Although Corker isn’t on the Armed Services Committee, Inhofe and other Republicans on the Armed Services panel are sure to press Hagel on whether he intends to follow through on the arsenal cut recommendation Global Zero made last May.

Obama expected to embrace Senate deal… The reason Obama is headed to Las Vegas: No state has better epitomized the power of the Latino vote… The Kabuki dance… On Rubio selling reform to the conservative base… On Schumer becoming the Democrats’ dealmaker… And Senate is set to confirm John Kerry as secretary of state.

*** Obama to embrace Senate deal: When President Obama delivers his immigration speech at 2:55 pm ET today in Las Vegas, he will hug the principles that the bipartisan group of senators outlined yesterday. “POTUS will applaud the bipartisan Senate agreement that is very consistent with his long-held view and lay out his vision for immigration reform,” top White House aide Dan Pfeiffer just tweeted. Obama also will call on the Senate to act on the legislation soon. While one publication is reporting that the White House has developed its own immigration-reform plan that’s more liberal than the bipartisan Senate outline, that information is outdated. Had the bipartisan senators NOT acted yesterday, you likely would have seen Obama offer his own plan. But the senators did act, and their plan is the plan. The last thing the White House wants to do is blow up this fragile coalition. As we reported yesterday, the White House floated the idea of doing a more liberal or progressive bill during a meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus last week, as a counter to what was being offered in the Senate, and the CHC shot the idea down. The CHC’s advice to the White House was let the Senate work its will – at least for now. That said, the White House insisted last night to reporters that if the Senate coalition falters and if bill shows signs of dying, the president will step in with his own legislation.

Related: Obama’s vs. Senators’ immigration reform plan: 6 points on what overlaps, what differs

Larry Downing / Reuters

President Barack Obama speaks in the State Dining Room of the White House, Jan. 24, 2013.

*** Vegas, baby: So why is the president giving his speech in Las Vegas? There is no state that better epitomizes the power of the Latino vote in American politics than Nevada. In 2010, Harry Reid won 69% of Latinos in his race against Sharron Angle, according to the exit polls, saving his Senate seat from a GOP that was convinced was theirs for the taking. And two years later, Obama won 71% of that vote -- matching what he received nationwide. The three states that have moved the most dramatically in presidential contests since 2004 have been Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, and it’s due primarily to the Latino vote in all three states. (New Mexico is not even remotely a purple state anymore.) In Nevada, in particular, Latinos make up 27% of the state’s population and 19% of the voters in the 2012 election. Translation: The Latino influence in the state has even more room to grow.

*** Kabuki dance: While Obama will embrace the bipartisan Senate framework today, one Republican senator who’s part of the deal -- Sen. Lindsey Graham -- was criticizing Obama on FOX last night. “In 2008, he promised comprehensive immigration reform in the first year of his presidency, and it took all the oxygen out of the room,” Graham said. More: “In 2007, when we were trying to do immigration reform, he folded like a cheap suit because labor, the AFL-CIO, got mad at the bill to allow temporary workers... So I don't need a lecture from Barack Obama about bipartisanship; he was never very good at it in the Senate.” Moreover, top Marco Rubio staffers last night tweeted that Obama was “to oppose security and enforcement triggers,” even though the article that was cited never explicitly said that; it simply said Obama “does not favor linking legal status to border security.” So what’s going on here? This is all Kabuki theater to show that these Republicans aren’t in bed with the White House. The best way some Republicans privately believe they have to get more folks on board (or at least to convince some groups not to be overly aggressive AGAINST this plan) is to not look like they are “giving” the president a “win.” Politico also makes this point: “Whether he likes it or not, the president’s top legislative priority rests in the hands of McCain, his former 2008 rival, and Rubio, one of the GOP’s leading candidates to take back the White House in 2016.”

*** On Rubio selling reform to the conservative base: That said, this is an important test for Marco Rubio. He has spent the last several days selling comprehensive immigration to conservatives. And today, he speaks with Rush Limbaugh, who has criticized the bipartisan Senate framework. (“This immigration bill that everybody’s touting on TV is essentially the Bush immigration bill that was beat back in 2007,” Limbaugh said yesterday.) One of Ronald Reagan’s great talents was selling compromise to his party -- and declaring victory. Can Rubio pull this off, especially on an issue that base conservatives have opposed in the past two presidential elections? Rubio’s job with Limbaugh isn’t to convince him to sign on; we’re not sure that’s possible. What Rubio’s goal is today is to convince Limbaugh not to aggressively be AGAINST what he’s doing. If he can pull this off, it will be quite the feather in his hat as we get closer and closer to 2016 -- and perhaps show Rubio has some Reagan-like political skills.

*** On Schumer becoming the Democrats’ dealmaker: For those who closely follow American politics, Chuck Schumer is an easy target to mock. The running joke, for years, has been that the most dangerous place in DC is to be between Schumer and a TV camera. Perhaps lost in this caricature, however, is that Schumer has become the Democrats’ mover and shaker on key legislation -- dare we say the most effective dealmaker on the Democratic side of the aisle right now. On immigration, he’s reaching across the aisle to work with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio. And on guns, the legislation that has the best chance of passage is Schumer’s (on universal background checks) where he just might MIGHT convince Republican Tom Coburn to come on aboard his bill. What made Ted Kennedy a lion of the Senate was that he had influence with his Democratic colleagues (if he was backing something, they had cover to get on board) but also the ability to reach across the aisle. And so it’s worth asking: Is Chuck Schumer the closest thing to that right now? And we haven’t even touched on how relentless (and effective) Schumer has been the Senate Democrats’ de facto political director. Is there anyone better at candidate recruiting and clearly primary fields right now than Schumer?

*** Senate set to confirm Kerry: In non-immigration news, U.S. Senate today is expected to vote on John Kerry’s nomination to be secretary of state, and he’s a sure bet to win an easy confirmation. As one of us reported yesterday, if Kerry is confirmed and if his letter of resignation is received tomorrow, Massachusetts will set the special general election for June 25 -- with the primaries to take place on April 30. Also, Gov. Deval Patrick (D) is expected to announce his pick of an interim senator to fill the seat until the 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

The Senate Monday night passed a $50.5 billion emergency spending bill to aid people in New York and New Jersey who are trying to rebuild their homes and businesses after last October’s devastation from super-storm Sandy.

The vote was 62 to 36, with 60 votes needed for passage.

Before approving the spending bill, the Senate defeated, 62 to 35, an amendment by Sen. Mike Lee, R- Utah, that would have offset the new Sandy outlays by reducing discretionary spending (including defense) by 0.5 percent over the next nine years.

The House had passed the Sandy spending bill two weeks ago. But the House action had come only after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and House members from the Northeast harshly criticized Speaker John Boehner for not allowing a vote on a Sandy relief bill on New Years’ Eve.

Congress has already passed $9.7 billion in additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program to help pay Sandy claims from homeowners in New York and New Jersey. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated, Monday 1/28 at 3:10 pm ET: Massachusetts officials expect Sen. John Kerry's resignation letter Tuesday after he is confirmed to be secretary of state, as expected.

If he is confirmed and the letter of resignation is received tomorrow, state elections officials will set the date of the special election to replace Kerry as June 25th with a primary on April 30th, said Brian McNiff, spokesman for the Massachusetts Secretary of State Elections Division.

Kerry's resignation is expected to be effective Friday. But state law indicates that the date needs to be set not from the effective date of the resignation, but from the date it is received, McNiff said.

Gov. Deval Patrick (D) said Monday he would appoint a temporary replacement Wednesday.

"If the senate votes tomorrow, and the Senator is confirmed and he submits his resignation tomorrow, then I expect to make the announcement on Wednesday," Patrick said earlier Monday, according to Patrick's office.

Patrick added that he has "pretty much" made a final decision, but didn't indicate who it would be.

"I told you we’re going to have someone that I am convinced will be a wise steward of the interest of the people of the Commonwealth while we wait for the people to elect a senator in a special election," Patrick said. "And I continue to believe that the main event is the special election."

Ex-Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has publicly expressed interest in becoming the temporary senator, but it's not clear that he is the pick.

Meeting with law enforcement officials hailing from communities affected by high-profile shootings, President Barack Obama on Monday stressed the importance of reaching consensus with Congress to advance his gun violence proposals.

"As we've indicated before, the only way that we're going to be able to do everything that needs to be done is with the cooperation of Congress," Obama said, ticking off some of the heftiest provisions in his gun-violence plan.

Jason Reed / Reuters

President Barack Obama meets with police chiefs from three communities scarred by mass shootings last year to talk about the administration's push to reduce gun violence, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Jan. 28, 2013.

Among the law enforcement officials at the meeting, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, were the police chiefs from Aurora, Colo.; Oak Creek, Wis. and Newtown, Conn., the sites of the most recent high-profile mass shootings.

Obama said that mobilizing police officers and sheriffs behind his agenda will help spur Congress to consider and pass the legislation he is pushing for.

“No group is more important for us to listen to than our law enforcement officials. They're where rubber hits the road,” he said. “And hopefully if law enforcement officials who are dealing with this stuff every single day can come to some basic consensus in terms of steps that we need to take, Congress is going to be paying attention to them and we'll be able to make progress.”

And although few key lawmakers have voiced support for the measure in Obama's package to ban assault weapons, the president re-iterated his support for that provision.

“That means passing serious laws that restrict the access and availability of assault weapons and magazine clips that aren't necessary for hunters and sportsmen and those who -- responsible gun owners who are out there," he said. "It means that we are serious about universal background checks. It means that we take seriously issues of mental health and school safety.”

Update, Tues. Jan. 29: Police Chief J. Thomas Manger of Montgomery County, Maryland, one of the 13 officials who met with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden Monday, said that both leaders “did a lot more listening than they did talking” and that the conversation gravitated to issues of mental health, including a national database of individuals whose history of mental health issues would prevent them from being able to purchase a firearm.

“Everybody agrees that we want to keep firearms out of the hands of folks that have mental health issues, but how do you identify who those folks are?” said Menger.

Hennepin County, Minnesota Sheriff Richard Stanek said that while he would enforce any laws Congress passed as a result of the president’s gun safety push, an all-out ban on assault weapons would simply motivate gun manufacturers to come up with new models to which the ban did not apply. 

“If you’re going to do this, that’s fine, we’ll enforce the laws, but understand where some of the loopholes are that people are slipping through,” Stanek said.

Stanek said the officials also met Monday with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the author of an assault-weapons ban bill, and told her of their concerns. 

“Every day they modify weapons so where do you start? Where do you end?” Stanek asked.

Immigration takes center stage… But passage won’t be easy… Obama thanks Hillary Clinton… Rreading the 2016 tea leaves from the interview… Hagel and the outside groups trying to defeat his nomination… Breaking down the Chambliss and Harkin retirements… And McDonnell and Cuccinelli oppose Virginia’s electoral-vote change.

*** Immigration takes center stage: Exactly seven days since President Obama’s inauguration, a series of events this week suggests that immigration has the best shot at being the first big legislative action -- and potential battle -- of 2013 (outside of the budget, of course). Today, a bipartisan group of eight senators (Democrats Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Bob Menendez, and Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake) are laying out four agreed-on principles to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. Also today, at 11:00 am ET, several organizations pushing immigration reform are holding a press conference at the National Press Club to issue a “call to action” on the subject. And tomorrow, Obama heads to Las Vegas to deliver his own remarks on immigration. The bipartisan group of senators, in particular, is a big deal. Indeed, this appears to be the first time that McCain has signed on to a top Obama legislative priority since the presidential first took office. And here are their four principles: 1) create a “tough but fair path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants that’s contingent on border security; 2) reform the system in a way that helps build the economy; 3) establish an effective employment verification program; and 4) reform the system of admitting future workers. Five of the eight senators (Rubio, McCain, Schumer, Durbin, and Menendez) will appear together today in DC at 2:30 pm to officially unveil their agreement; the other three have scheduling conflicts in their home states.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., questions Senator John Kerry (Not Pictured) during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing on Kerry's nomination to be secretary of state, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 24, 2013.

*** But its passage won’t be easy: On paper, passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill should be more than doable. After all, it’s now in both parties’ interest to do so -- for Democrats, it’s delivering on a campaign promise; for Republicans, it’s to avoid again losing the Latino vote by a 71%-27% margin. But remember this: Nothing is ever easy in Washington. For one thing, the devil is in the details, even with these bipartisan principles. How do you create this “tough but fair path” to citizenship? What’s the punishment for undocumented immigrants? How long do these immigrants have to wait to become citizens (and potential voters)? The other obstacle to passage is the House of Representatives. Does Speaker John Boehner -- once again -- allow legislation that might not have the backing of a majority of his GOP caucus to reach the floor? That said, it was notable that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan on “Meet the Press” yesterday embraced Rubio’s work on immigration reform. “I support and agree with the principles that he laid out about earned legalization. Making sure that you're not rewarding people for having cut in line, but making sure that we can fix this problem.” Ryan added, “Look, immigration's a good thing.”

*** And selling it Republicans won’t be easy, either: The big challenge, in the short term, is going to be for McCain, Rubio, and Graham to sell this compromise as “not amnesty.” (And that’s exactly what Rubio has been doing in conservative-media circles in the past few weeks.) When you read the bipartisan agreement, there is a lot of detail and promise on this issue, including: making sure these folks pay back taxes and fines, making sure they are in the back of the line behind those folks playing by the rules now, and an agreement that these 11 million undocumented immigrants DON’T get a shot at citizenship until certain border security “metrics” are met. Of course, define “metrics” -- that’s among the detail devils.

*** Obama thanks Hillary: For those of you, like us, who followed every twist and turn during the 2008 presidential race, last night's joint Obama-Hillary Clinton interview on “60 Minutes” was extraordinary. And we understand that the interview was all Obama’s idea -- and it was more about thanking Clinton for being his secretary of state these past four years (and keeping the party united) than about 2016. Here’s a thought exercise: Imagine what Obama’s presidency would have been like had Clinton stayed in the U.S. Senate. During the tough times (health care, the debt-ceiling debate), everyone would have looked for any kind of daylight between the two politicians, and Hillary potentially launching a primary challenge would have been a constant story, even if she had no plans on such a move. But what’s been extraordinary is how loyal Obama and Clinton have been to each other. And this line from Clinton explaining why she accepted Obama’s offer to be secretary of state struck us: “I thought, ‘You know, if the roles had been reversed. And I had ended up winning. I would have desperately wanted him to be in my cabinet. So if I'm saying I would have wanted him to say yes to me, how am I going to justify saying no to my president?’ And it was a great decision, despite my hesitancy about it.”

*** Reading the 2016 tea leaves: Still, the interview did provide some tea leaves to read about 2016. After all, here was the president conducting his first joint media interview with someone other than his wife. It was an affirmation of Clinton’s work, especially after her contentious testimony last week on Capitol Hill. “Well, the main thing is I just wanted to have a chance to publicly say thank you, because I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we've had,” Obama said. It was a reminder that Vice President Joe Biden isn’t the heir apparent, if Clinton decides she wants to run for president four years from now. And lastly, it was evidence that the Democratic Party -- at least right now -- is more united than ever. We were disappointed that so little time was devoted to some of the key foreign policy decisions this tandem made together, including the decision to oust Hosni Mubarak, among other issues.

*** Hagel and the outside groups trying to defeat his nomination: On Thursday at the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chuck Hagel has his confirmation hearing to be Obama’s next defense secretary. And yesterday, the New York Times noted that Hagel’s confirmation battle is the first to be fought in the Super PAC/post-Citizens United era. “The media campaign to scuttle Mr. Hagel’s appointment, unmatched in the annals of modern presidential cabinet appointments, reflects the continuing effects of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which loosened campaign finance restrictions and was a major reason for the record spending by outside groups in the 2012 election... While the campaign against Mr. Hagel, a Republican, is not expected to cost more than a few million dollars, it suggests that the operatives running the independent groups and the donors that finance them — many of whom are millionaires and billionaires with ideological drive and business agendas that did not go away after the election — are ready to fight again.”

*** Breaking down the Chambliss and Harkin retirements: In the past 72 hours, two U.S. senators -- Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa -- announced they wouldn’t be seeking re-election in 2014. That means we now have four retirements (John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Chambliss, and Harkin), and other ones potentially in the works (Frank Lautenberg, Tim Johnson, maybe Thad Cochran or Mike Enzi). Politically, perhaps the most significant story we’ll be following after these retirements is to see how the GOP primaries in Georgia and Iowa play out (West Virginia, too, for that matter). Do Republicans coalesce around the more electable candidate, or does the most conservative candidate win? One other thing to watch: Chambliss has the ability to be a wild card on legislation -- his retirement statement criticized both Obama and Congress -- and Harkin might be a little more free to vote on contentious legislation (like gun control) than he would have if running for re-election next year.

*** Obama’s day: Besides all of today’s immigration news, President Obama and Vice President Biden are holding a meeting this morning with police chiefs from around the country -- including from Aurora, CO, Oak Creek, WI, and Newtown, CT -- to discuss reducing gun violence. Also today, at 1:40 pm ET, Obama will welcome the Miami Heat to the White House to celebrate their NBA championship from last season.

*** McDonnell, Cuccinelli oppose electoral-vote change: Lastly, both Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) and GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli have come out in opposition of the Republican effort in the state to change how Virginia’s electoral votes are awarded. Folks, the effort in Virginia is dead. The question is whether Republicans in other states -- like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- are still thinking about pursuing the change. As Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told Newsmax, per NBC's Sarah Blackwill: “It's an interesting idea. I haven't committed one way or the other to it. For me, and I think any other state considering this, you should really look at not just the short-term but the long-term implications. Is it better or worse for the electorate?”

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