The first place for news and analysis from the NBC News Political Unit. Follow us on Twitter.

Negotiators say they are close to a deal to strengthen border security provisions in the Senate immigration bill, an agreement designed to draw more Republican votes and significantly strengthen the bill’s prospects of becoming law.

"There's still work to do but we've had a really good day," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who's been helping to lead talks on the strengthened border measures.

"I don't know what happens if we fail,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an original member of the Gang of Eight. “I know this is a key moment in the effort to pass this bill. This is sort of the defining 24-36 hours.”

The talks are aimed at winning enough Republican votes to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill with an overwhelming majority of senators – enough to pressure the House of Representatives to take action on immigration legislation.

Gregory Bull / AP

A U.S. Border Patrol agent monitors the border structures separating Tijuana, Mexico, from San Diego. Illegal immigration into the United States would decrease by only 25 percent under a far-reaching Senate immigration bill, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that also finds the measure reduces federal deficits by billions.

"You know look, we have some people in our caucus that are never going to vote for an immigration bill, OK, I don't care if you – it's just never going to happen," Corker told reporters. "And so we realize that. And yet there are people who, with the right provisions, would, and so that's our target audience, right."

So far, the talks have centered on how to measure whether the border is secure, and how those measurements would trigger the opening of the path to citizenship, as well as whether Congress or the Department of Homeland Security would be responsible for the plan to secure the border.

Democrats have so far been reluctant to accept any changes that they believe could jeopardize the path to citizenship – including plans that would require what they call overly stringent security goals to be met before undocumented immigrants can progress to legal status or apply for green cards.

But on Wednesday, Corker pointed to a Congressional Budget Office analysis released Tuesday that showed illegal immigration would drop by only 25 percent under the bill.

"I think this added some momentum to our discussions about doing something very substantial when it comes to border security," Corker said.

Corker refused to offer details of the proposal that he's been working on with Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. They've been discussing the plan with Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.  The provisions are intended to be more palatable to Democrats than a border security amendment being offered by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called a “poison pill.”

Corker said that the outline of the agreement was being discussed among both the Republican and Democratic caucuses on Wednesday afternoon and that negotiators could reach a final deal as soon as Thursday.

Graham described the effort as doing "something dramatic" to fix the border.

"What we're trying to do is put in place measures that to any reasonable person would be an overwhelming effort to secure our border," Graham told reporters, "short of shooting anybody who comes across the border."

NBC's Carrie Dann contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:47 PM EDT

After supporters of the Senate immigration reform bill got a boost from a new report estimating that the bill would substantially decrease the federal budget deficit over the next two decades, conservative opponents of the legislation pushed back Wednesday, saying the legislation would fail to stop illegal immigration, decrease American wages and hurt the Republican Party.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in a report Tuesday night that the bill would decrease federal budget deficits by $197 billion between 2014 and 2023 and by an additional $700 billion from 2024 to 2033.

But opponents of the bill questioned the CBO’s credibility and pointed out other less favorable data in the agency’s findings. 

“CBO doesn’t exactly have the best track record,” said Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation analyst who authored a report on the legislation’s impact earlier this spring. “CBO is the institution that told us that Obamacare wouldn’t cost us any money, and it used the same kind of tricks it’s using today.”

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas concurred in an appearance on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. “If there’s one thing Washington knows how to do, it’s to come up with bogus cost estimates,” he said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, another leading GOP critic of the bill, seized on the CBO’s admission that the bill would result in depressed wages and slightly higher unemployment in the short term as the labor supply increased with an influx of new workers. (The report indicated that those effects would abate by about 2025.)

“It's going to raise unemployment and push down wages," Sessions said Tuesday. “The impact will be harshest for today's low-income Americans. Meanwhile, the 21 million Americans who can't find full-time work will have an even harder time getting a job and supporting their families."

And opponents pointed out that the CBO report also estimated that, under the Senate bill, “the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to what would occur under current law.”

That’s not nearly enough for border security advocates who want assurances that illegal immigration will effectively end after passage of reform legislation.

A group of GOP senators are currently in talks to develop an amendment to the Gang of Eight bill that could appease Republicans on border security while retaining sufficient support from bill drafters and the Democratic majority in the upper chamber. But, with those negotiations ongoing, conservatives staunchly opposed to the immigration bill have continued making their case and directed constituents to lobby against the measure.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted down an amendment from Sen. Rand Paul that would have required Congress to certify that border security measures are being met before allowing undocumented immigrants to begin the legalization process.  The vote was 61-37. 

Cruz, during the Limbaugh interview, urged the conservative host’s listeners to contact their representatives in Congress about the Gang of Eight legislation, which he called “a disaster.”  

The Cuban-American senator from Texas also disputed the idea that Republicans must work towards comprehensive immigration reform to repair damage done to the party’s brand with the growing bloc of Latino voters, who overwhelmingly supported President Barack Obama in the 2012 election.

“After 2012, all of the Washington political consultants and all of the mainstream media came to Republicans and said ‘You’ve got to do better with Hispanics, and the way to do better with Hispanics is to embrace amnesty,'” Cruz said. “And, look, a lot of Republicans in Washington are scared.

“I think that political argument is complete nonsense,” he added.

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:00 PM EDT

Rush Holt’s polling 40-plus points behind better-known Newark Mayor Cory Booker for the Senate special election to replace the late-Sen. Frank Lautenberg, but that's not stopping the brainy Holt from taking the fight right to Booker.

"I’m Rush Holt. And I’ll be the first to admit – I’m no Cory Booker," Holt says in a video released Wednesday. "I don’t have a million Twitter followers, I’ve never run into a burning building, and I’m not friends with Mark Zuckerberg, though I did like him on Facebook."

But the congressman with the bumper sticker, "My congressman IS a rocket scientist," follows up with this:

"I’m a teacher, a scientist, and my most famous moment was beating a computer in Jeopardy."

The famous Jeopardy computer "Watson," then appears to make something of an endorsement.

 “Who is Rush Holt," Watson chimes in.

“So, why would I run for the Senate against Cory Booker?" Holt asks. "Well, in Congress, I’ve always done what I think is right for New Jersey, like fighting to get more funding for science and math in our public schools and universal pre-kindergarten for every child because a good education means everything. I voted against the war in Iraq, against unwarranted spying on Americans, and I led the fight to repeal the Patriot Act because part of being the strongest nation on Earth is standing by our values.”

He closes with this: 

“I hope you’ll agree I’m the best choice for Senate. And if you have any questions, just send me an email, and I’ll get back to you, because I’m going to beat Cory Booker and win this campaign the same way I beat Watson in Jeopardy – one answer at a time.”

H/T to NBC's Carrie Dann for the headline.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said Wednesday that she supports legalizing same-sex marriage, becoming the third GOP member of the Senate to endorse the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Days before the Supreme Court is set to issue decisions regarding the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Murkowski joined Republican Sens. Rob Portman, Ohio, and Mark Kirk, Ill., in supporting same-sex marriage.

"I am a life-long Republican because I believe in promoting freedom and limiting the reach of government," Murkowski wrote in an op-ed explaining her decision. "When government does act, I believe it should encourage family values.  I support the right of all Americans to marry the person they love and choose because I believe doing so promotes both values:  it keeps politicians out of the most private and personal aspects of peoples’ lives – while also encouraging more families to form and more adults to make a lifetime commitment to one another."

The president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights group, hailed the decision.

“We hope other fair-minded conservatives like Senator Murkowski stand up and join her,” HRC President Chad Griffin said in a statement. “Alaska may be nicknamed ‘the Last Frontier,’ but we’ve got to make sure that LGBT Alaskans don’t have to wait to find justice.”

Murkowski had previously said her views on same-sex marriage were “evolving,” using the language President Barack Obama had once used to describe his own views before endorsing marriage rights. She had been one of the few Republicans to support the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

A veteran GOP senator, Murkowski has become somewhat unmoored from the rest of the Republican conference in the Senate following her re-election in 2010. After having lost the Republican nomination in Alaska to Tea Party favorite Joe Miller, Murkowski waged an unusual, independent write-in campaign, which she rode to re-election – a rare feat in politics. Since returning to the Senate, she has conferenced with the rest of the GOP.

Most other Republicans remain on record as opposing same-sex marriage, though activists who support same-sex marriage hope that the steady trickle of prominent Republicans who have endorsed the rights of gays and lesbians to marry may break the conservative logjam on the issue. An ABC News/Washington Post poll earlier this month found that 33 percent of Republicans support allowing gays to marry, while 65 percent of Republicans oppose it.

At the same time, activists have also ratcheted up pressure on high-profile Democrats – including a number of centrist senators – to endorse same-sex marriage.

Obama’s repeat performance in Berlin… President talks Afghanistan, NSA surveillance, and Syria in press conference with Germany’s Merkel… House passes abortion-ban measure… CBO says “Gang of Eight” immigration bill will lower deficit by nearly $1 trillion over 20 years… Boehner: “I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans”… And Markey, Gomez spar in final debate. 

Odd Andersen / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama gives a speech on a podium in front of Berlin's landmark the Brandenburg Gate near the U.S. embassy on June 19, 2013.

*** Obama’s repeat performance in Berlin: Repeat performances of a winning act are never easy; just ask any sports team or musical group. The explanation is pretty simple: It’s difficult to replicate a smashing success, because circumstances always change after the passage of time. And that was President Obama’s challenge as he spoke in Berlin, Germany almost five years after his memorable speech in the city during the ’08 presidential campaign. (The speech also comes almost 50 years after John F. Kennedy’s famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” address.) Obama began his remarks saying, “Today, I’m proud to return as president of the United States.” Then he said: “For all the power of militaries, for all the power of governments, it is citizens who choose whether to be defined by a wall or whether to tear it down.” He emphasized curbing nuclear arms -- a subject that’s always been more popular in Europe than the United States, for obvious reasons. “So long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe,” Obama said, adding: “We can ensure the security of America and our allies … by [further] reducing [our arsenal] by up to one third.” And he once again called for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. “We must move beyond the mindset of perpetual war.”

*** Then vs. now: Of course, so much of the attention of Obama’s speech is comparing it with the one five years ago. Back then, he was an inspirational presidential candidate; now he has a record with its ups and downs. Back then, he addressed hundreds of thousands of Germans; now the audience is smaller (due to German Chancellor Merkel trying not to overly politicize it since she’s up for re-election). And back then, German elites adored him; now they’re more skeptical (though a Pew poll shows a whopping 88% of Germans say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs). The hope for the Obama White House is that, hours from now, more are focused on what he said TODAY rather than what he said FIVE YEARS ago.

***Obama talks Afghanistan, NSA surveillance, and Syria: Before Obama’s speech, he held a bilateral news conference with German Chancellor Merkel, where the American president made his first remarks after the Taliban had announced peace talks but also after an upset Afghan government broke off negotiations with the U.S. regarding military cooperation. Obama said the friction/conflict isn’t surprising given that the Taliban and Afghan government have been fighting for a long time and there’s an enormous amount of mistrust. On NSA surveillance (especially on those abroad under the PRISM program), Obama said, “This applies very narrowly to leads we have obtained on issues of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction… This is not a situation where we are rifling thru the emails of German citizens or American citizens… Lives have been saved and the encroachment on privacy has been restricted.” (It’s important to note that while Merkel is sensitive to how this program has been received domestically, the Germans have their own related programs.) And on Syria, Obama wouldn’t comment on what kind of arms the U.S. has given to Syrian rebels, but he added: “What I can say is we have had a steady, consistent policy -- which is we want a Syria that is peaceful, not sectarian, legitimate, tolerant, and that is our overriding goal.” More: “We want to end the bloodshed… The best way to get there is through a political transition.”

*** House passes abortion-ban measure: By a 228-196 vote last night, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives passed a measure that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. (The bill would allow an exception if the pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the mother, or if it's the result of a case of reported rape or incest.) Per NBC’s Frank Thorp, the vote was mostly along partisan lines, with just six Democrats voting in favor (Cuellar of Texas, Lipinski of Illinois, Matheson of Utah, McIntyre of North Carolina, Peterson of Minnesota, and Rahall of West Virginia. And six Republicans voted against the legislation: Broun of Georgia, Dent of Pennsylvania, Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Hanna of New York, Runyan of New Jersey, and Woodall of Georgia.

*** CBO says Senate immigration will lower deficit by nearly $1 trillion over 20 years: Also yesterday, supporters of the “Gang of Eight” immigration legislation celebrated the Congressional Budget Office scoring of the bill, as it said the legislation would reduce federal budget deficits by $197 billion over the next 10 years (2014-2023) and an additional $700 billion over the 10 years after that (2024-2033), NBC’s Carrie Dann reports. Said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "This report is a huge momentum boost for immigration reform. This debunks the idea that immigration reform is anything other than a boon to our economy, and robs the bill's opponents of one of their last remaining arguments.” Added Marco Rubio: "The CBO has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers.” And be careful what you ask for: “Conservatives had expected that an analysis of the second decade — when immigrants would begin to qualify for federal benefits — would bolster their argument that the costs of an immigration overhaul were unwieldy, but that turned out not to be the case in the economic analysis,” the New York Times says.  

*** Boehner: “I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans”:  That was the good news for supporters of immigration reform; the bad news came from comments by House Speaker John Boehner, who suggested that he wouldn’t bring any legislation to the floor without the support from a majority of House Republicans. “I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans,” Boehner said during a press briefing yesterday, per NBC’s Luke Russert and Carrie Dann. He went on to say, “I frankly think the Senate bill is weak on border security, I think the internal enforcement mechanisms are weak and the triggers are almost laughable.” If you read Boehner’s comments carefully, he left himself SOME wiggle room (“I don’t see any way…”). But there’s another way to read his remarks: It’s very possible that he believes a majority of his GOP conference COULD vote for the legislation, especially if it gets sizable support in the Senate.

*** All about midterm politics? At his news conference yesterday, Boehner also argued that Democrats really don’t want to pass comprehensive immigration reform quickly because they’d rather have it as a midterm issue. "I'm increasingly concerned that the White House and Senate Democrats would rather have this as an issue in the 2014 election rather than a result,” he said. That might be more believable if this were 2015 and we were talking about a general presidential election coming up, but not as much in a midterm. Why? One, Latino turnout in midterms is lower than in a presidential, where they can make and have made a significant impact. And two, redistricting has led to fewer swing seats and solidified many Republican districts. “I don't think it makes much sense, either,” said David Wasserman, who covers House races for the Cook Political Report. “There are only 24 House Republicans in districts where Latinos make up more than 25% of the population, and only two of them -- David Valadao (CA-21) and Gary Miller (CA-31) -- sit in districts that are remotely competitive. So Boehner's contention that Democrats aren't negotiating in good faith is more an attempt to explain why those in his party fearful of a primary are causing delay.”

*** Markey, Gomez spar in final debate: Finally, one week out before the special Senate election in Massachusetts, Democrat Ed Markey and Republican Gabriel Gomez clashed in their third and final debate last night. Per the Boston Globe, Gomez continued to hit Markey as a Washington insider. “Nothing’s going to change if Mr. Markey wins this election,” he said. “We’re going to have the same D.C. down there and the same dysfunction. The only thing we’re going to have is him moving from one building to the next.” And Markey tied Gomez to the GOP and its political priorities. The two candidates, the Globe adds, also sparred “over Gomez’s decision to campaign with John McCain, a five-term senator, despite Gomez’s support for term limits for senators. ‘Did you ask John McCain to leave the Senate?’ Markey said. ‘No, Mr. Gomez, you did not.’ But Gomez argued that he did, in fact, tell McCain he should be barred from running for another term.” Yet if you want to know how difficult it is a for a Republican to run for the Senate in the Northeast, just check out this comment that Gomez gave to ABC: “I'm ashamed that only four Republicans voted for the expanded background check.”

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

*** Wednesday’s “The Daily Rundown” line-up: The program offers full coverage of Obama’s speech in Berlin.

*** Wednesday’s “Jansing & Co.” line-up: Guests include Rep. Raul Grijalva/(D) Arizona on Immigration reform bill in Congress, Karen Tumulty/Washington Post and Jim Warren/NY Daily News with reaction to President Obama’s Germany speech and the latest NSA revelations, PJ Crowley/Former Asst. Secretary of State on U.S. agreeing to negotiate with the Taliban and the latest Taliban attack that killed 4 American soldiers, John Feehery and Emily Tisch Sussman on the House Abortion ban vote, Mark Glaze/Director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns on VP Biden’s renewed effort for gun control legislation and Nicole Lamoureaux/Executive Director of National Association of Free and Charitable Clinics on the decision to declare Obesity a disease as well as next week’s MSNBC sponsored free clinic event

*** Wednesday’s “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” line-up: MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts interviews Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) on whether border security demands will block immigration reform and his call for stronger action in Syria… Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) joins to discuss his call for colleagues to stop mischaracterizing national security programs…  Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) will talk about his meeting with Boehner on immigration reform…  National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill will discuss the GOP obsession with abortion…  And Today’s Agenda Panel includes:  Mother Jones’ Washington Bureau Chief David Corn and The American Prospect’s Jamelle Bouie. 

*** Wednesday’s “NOW with Alex Wagner” line-up: Alex Wagner’s guests include National Journal’s Ron Fournier, Politico’s Maggie Haberman, Democratic strategist Bill Burton, the New York Times Magazine’s Hugo Lindgren, and MSNBC’s Al Sharpton.

*** Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” line-up: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), “Dead Man Walking” author Sister Helen Prejean, BBC’s Kim Ghattas, the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza and Retired FDNY Lieutenant Joe Torrillo joins us from Cuba to discuss this week’s pretrial  for the 9/11 mastermind suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

*** Wednesday’s “News Nation with Tamron Hall” line-up: MSNBC’s Tamron Hall interviews USA Today columnist and NBC Latino contributor Raul Reyes, the Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut, the New York Times’ Brazil Bureau Chief Simon Romero, and Dan Moldea, author of “The Hoffa Wars.”

The New York Times: “The last time President Obama paid a visit here, as a candidate in 2008, he was cheered on by 200,000 Germans eager to see the back of George W. Bush and, as one member of that crowd recalled Tuesday, ‘full of wholly unrealistic expectations of what kind of miracles Obama could work.’ When he arrived here on Tuesday evening ahead of a full day of talks — capped by a speech at the Brandenburg Gate — the reception was far more restrained.”

Reasons for the change: The continuation of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, American drone use, and surveillance of foreigners.

USA Today: “As a candidate, Barack Obama was greeted here five years ago by massive crowds and media adulation for his strident criticism of the wartime policies of President George W. Bush. But when President Obama speaks here Wednesday, he may find a different reception due to controversy over his government's surveillance program and his decision to maintain many of the anti-terrorism policies of Bush so loathed by the German left that swooned for Obama.”

And: “President Barack Obama is expected to use his speech at the iconic Brandenburg Gate on Wednesday to renew calls for a reduction in nuclear weapons. It is not the first time the president has called for a reduction in stockpiles, but by addressing the issue in a major foreign speech, Obama is hoping to rekindle the issue, which was at the center of his early first-term agenda. Obama will address a crowd of 5,000 invited guests at the historic landmark in the center of Berlin almost 50 years after John F. Kennedy made his famous speech at what was then West Berlin at the Rathaus Schoeneberg (town hall).”

Obama’s on the front pages of German newspapers:

- The tabloid Bild, wondering what Obama will say,
- Der Taggesspiegel (with this subhead, translated from German: “The U.S. president is in Berlin - he travels directly from the G-8 meeting, which ends with no clear line on Syria,”
- Die Tageszeitung: In English so Obama can read it: “Mr. Obama, open this gate!” over a picture of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and
- Die Welt: Over a photo of G-8 leaders (translated from German): “Syria - G-8 states require transition regime.”

Speaking of Syria, Jeffrey Goldberg reports that Secretary of State John Kerry wanted to bomb Syrian airfields controlled by Assad: “At a principals meeting in the White House situation room [Wednesday], Secretary of State John Kerry began arguing, vociferously, for immediate U.S. airstrikes against airfields under the control of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime -- specifically, those fields it has used to launch chemical weapons raids against rebel forces.

“It was at this point that the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the usually mild-mannered Army General Martin Dempsey, spoke up, loudly. According to several sources, Dempsey threw a series of brushback pitches at Kerry, demanding to know just exactly what the post-strike plan would be and pointing out that the State Department didn’t fully grasp the complexity of such an operation. Dempsey informed Kerry that the Air Force could not simply drop a few bombs, or fire a few missiles, at targets inside Syria: To be safe, the U.S. would have to neutralize Syria’s integrated air-defense system, an operation that would require 700 or more sorties. At a time when the U.S. military is exhausted, and when sequestration is ripping into the Pentagon budget, Dempsey is said to have argued that a demand by the State Department for precipitous military action in a murky civil war wasn’t welcome.”

The New York Times: “The Taliban signaled a breakthrough in efforts to start Afghan peace negotiations on Tuesday, announcing the opening of a political office in Qatar and a new readiness to talk with American and Afghan officials, who said in turn that they would travel to meet insurgent negotiators there within days.”

So much for that? AP: “Afghanistan's president says he will not pursue peace talks with the Taliban unless the United States steps out of the negotiations and the militant group stops its violent attacks on the ground.”

The Hill: “Domestic intelligence programs run by the National Security Agency (NSA) have ‘disrupted’ more than 50 potential terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies, NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander told Congress on Tuesday.

The plots included a previously undisclosed plan to blow up the New York Stock Exchange, Alexander said.”

Scandal? USA Today: “John Shafer, a manager in the IRS' Cincinnati field office, has told congressional investigators that the scrutiny of tea party bases started as ‘normal business’ in early 2010 when one of his agents came to him with a difficult case, according to a transcript released by Democrats on a key House committee Tuesday.”

Pallin’ around? “Bill Ayers believes President Obama should be put on trial for war crimes at The Hague, the Weather Underground co-founder told Real Clear Politics in a [video] interview posted Tuesday,” The Hill writes. “Ayers told the website he ‘absolutely’ believed the president was engaged in terrorism for his use of drone strikes in fighting the war on terror. ‘Absolutely. Every president in this century should be put on trial, every one of them,’ Ayers said. ‘For war crimes. Absolutely.’”

John Harwood notes that Obama skips over many red states.

AP: “The Republican-led House passed a far-reaching antiabortion bill Tuesday that conservatives saw as a milestone in their 40-year campaign against legalized abortion and Democrats condemned as yet another example of the GOP war on women.”

NBC’s Carrie Dann: “The vote was 228-196, with six Democrats and all but six Republicans voting for the measure. But the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, has virtually no chance of becoming law, with the Democratic-led Senate certain to ignore it and the White House threatening in scathing language to veto it.”

Politico: “Opposing it, Democrats supporting abortion rights are stoking liberal anger over the ‘war on women’ and chiding the GOP for spending its time on a divisive social agenda instead of focusing on jobs. They said the bill is unconstitutional and distracting.”

Trent Franks was absent from the debate over his own bill. Roll Call: “The sidelining of bill sponsor Trent Franks, R-Ariz., was a clear signal of the extent to which Republican leadership found itself forced to undertake significant damage control after last week’s Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, when Franks kicked off a firestorm by saying ‘the instance of rape resulting in pregnancy is very low.’”

This abortion comment was, um, interesting… “The [abortion] debate was marked by graphic descriptions of abortion procedures and medical claims. Representative Michael C. Burgess, a Texas Republican who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, appeared to suggest that male fetuses are capable of fondling themselves,” the New York Times says. “‘They have movements that are purposeful,’ Mr. Burgess said during a debate of the bill during the House Rules Committee meeting on Monday. ‘They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. I mean, they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to think that they could feel pain?’” 

Politico notes, as many others have written immediately after the 2010 elections: “Democrats fell far short of winning the House in 2012, an otherwise banner year for the party, and many are privately glum about taking back the chamber in 2014. But that grim immediate outlook raises a far more troubling longer-term prospect for Democrats: that the newly drawn congressional lines have tilted the electoral playing field so decisively in the GOP’s favor that the party could control the House through 2020. That this, in other words, could be the Democrats’ Lost Decade.”

Politico: “Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) says Speaker John Boehner should be ousted if he rams through an immigration bill without majority Republican support. ‘If Speaker Boehner moves forward and permits this to come to a vote even though the majority of the Republicans in the House—and that’s if they do—oppose whatever it is that’s coming to a vote, he should be removed as Speaker,’ Rohrabacher said on World Net Daily radio on Monday.”

Roll Call’s Dennis and Dumain go deeper: “Speaker John A. Boehner looked to cut off a budding revolt Tuesday when he told his fellow Republicans that he couldn’t see a way to bring a bill to the floor without majority GOP support — a move that alarmed Democrats and appeared to shrink the chances of a bill reaching the president’s desk. Boehner’s move was just one of many scenes from a day fraught with peril and promise for an immigration overhaul — from a vote to make illegal immigrants criminals in the House Judiciary Committee to a Congressional Budget Office score that found the Senate bill would cut the deficit by about $900 billion over the next 20 years.”

Meanwhile, the Political Moneyline blog notes while Boehner was being criticized, Eric Cantor’s PAC was handing out checks to members of $5,000 apiece.

NBC’s Dann reports that a Congressional Budget Office analysis shows the immigration bill would reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.

“Partisan lines are hardening over the Senate’s immigration reform bill, downgrading hopes a 70-plus majority of senators will back it in an up-or-down vote next week,” The Hill writes, adding, “Yet hopes the bill could win 70 or 80 votes are fading along with the chances that a key amendment sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) will be approved.”

Ron Brownstein: “Most Americans say illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in the country, but the public divides evenly on whether citizenship should be linked to stiff progress in securing the border, as many Senate Republicans are demanding, the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll has found. … On the most fundamental question of how to handle the estimated 11 million immigrants now in the U.S. illegally, just 25 percent of those surveyed said illegal immigrants ‘should not be allowed to stay in the country legally.’ But the remainder divided over what form legalization should take. The largest group, 45 percent, said those here illegally  ‘should be able to apply for US citizenship,’ the approach taken in the bipartisan ‘Gang of Eight’ immigration reform bill now on the Senate floor. The remaining 22 percent said they should be allowed to seek ‘permanent residency’ but not citizenship, as some House Republicans prefer.”

National Journal on House Republicans’ immigration strategy: “House Republicans are ready to play ball on immigration—aggressively. They are taking the strategy they attribute to President Obama—pushing for legislation and taking political credit, win or lose—and using it for themselves. They are asking for big-time enforcement, much of it highly offensive to Democrats. If the final negotiations don’t work out, they can always say they tried and Democrats rejected their overtures.”

AP: “The Republican-led House passed a far-reaching antiabortion bill Tuesday that conservatives saw as a milestone in their 40-year campaign against legalized abortion and Democrats condemned as yet another example of the GOP war on women.”

NBC’s Carrie Dann: “The vote was 228-196, with six Democrats and all but six Republicans voting for the measure. But the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, has virtually no chance of becoming law, with the Democratic-led Senate certain to ignore it and the White House threatening in scathing language to veto it.”

Politico: “Opposing it, Democrats supporting abortion rights are stoking liberal anger over the ‘war on women’ and chiding the GOP for spending its time on a divisive social agenda instead of focusing on jobs. They said the bill is unconstitutional and distracting.”

Trent Franks was absent from the debate over his own bill. Roll Call: “The sidelining of bill sponsor Trent Franks, R-Ariz., was a clear signal of the extent to which Republican leadership found itself forced to undertake significant damage control after last week’s Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, when Franks kicked off a firestorm by saying ‘the instance of rape resulting in pregnancy is very low.’”

This abortion comment was, um, interesting… “The [abortion] debate was marked by graphic descriptions of abortion procedures and medical claims. Representative Michael C. Burgess, a Texas Republican who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, appeared to suggest that male fetuses are capable of fondling themselves,” the New York Times says. “‘They have movements that are purposeful,’ Mr. Burgess said during a debate of the bill during the House Rules Committee meeting on Monday. ‘They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. I mean, they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to think that they could feel pain?’” 

Politico notes, as many others have written immediately after the 2010 elections: “Democrats fell far short of winning the House in 2012, an otherwise banner year for the party, and many are privately glum about taking back the chamber in 2014. But that grim immediate outlook raises a far more troubling longer-term prospect for Democrats: that the newly drawn congressional lines have tilted the electoral playing field so decisively in the GOP’s favor that the party could control the House through 2020. That this, in other words, could be the Democrats’ Lost Decade.”

Politico: “Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) says Speaker John Boehner should be ousted if he rams through an immigration bill without majority Republican support. ‘If Speaker Boehner moves forward and permits this to come to a vote even though the majority of the Republicans in the House—and that’s if they do—oppose whatever it is that’s coming to a vote, he should be removed as Speaker,’ Rohrabacher said on World Net Daily radio on Monday.”

Roll Call’s Dennis and Dumain go deeper: “Speaker John A. Boehner looked to cut off a budding revolt Tuesday when he told his fellow Republicans that he couldn’t see a way to bring a bill to the floor without majority GOP support — a move that alarmed Democrats and appeared to shrink the chances of a bill reaching the president’s desk. Boehner’s move was just one of many scenes from a day fraught with peril and promise for an immigration overhaul — from a vote to make illegal immigrants criminals in the House Judiciary Committee to a Congressional Budget Office score that found the Senate bill would cut the deficit by about $900 billion over the next 20 years.”

Meanwhile, the Political Moneyline blog notes while Boehner was being criticized, Eric Cantor’s PAC was handing out checks to members of $5,000 apiece.

NBC’s Dann reports that a Congressional Budget Office analysis shows the immigration bill would reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.

“Partisan lines are hardening over the Senate’s immigration reform bill, downgrading hopes a 70-plus majority of senators will back it in an up-or-down vote next week,” The Hill writes, adding, “Yet hopes the bill could win 70 or 80 votes are fading along with the chances that a key amendment sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) will be approved.”

Ron Brownstein: “Most Americans say illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in the country, but the public divides evenly on whether citizenship should be linked to stiff progress in securing the border, as many Senate Republicans are demanding, the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll has found. … On the most fundamental question of how to handle the estimated 11 million immigrants now in the U.S. illegally, just 25 percent of those surveyed said illegal immigrants ‘should not be allowed to stay in the country legally.’ But the remainder divided over what form legalization should take. The largest group, 45 percent, said those here illegally  ‘should be able to apply for US citizenship,’ the approach taken in the bipartisan ‘Gang of Eight’ immigration reform bill now on the Senate floor. The remaining 22 percent said they should be allowed to seek ‘permanent residency’ but not citizenship, as some House Republicans prefer.”

National Journal on House Republicans’ immigration strategy: “House Republicans are ready to play ball on immigration—aggressively. They are taking the strategy they attribute to President Obama—pushing for legislation and taking political credit, win or lose—and using it for themselves. They are asking for big-time enforcement, much of it highly offensive to Democrats. If the final negotiations don’t work out, they can always say they tried and Democrats rejected their overtures.”

Quinnipiac shows Hillary Clinton topping Jeb Bush (50%-43%) and Marco Rubio (53%-41%) in Florida. Vice President Biden, however, trails both – Bush 47%-43% and Rubio 45%-43%.

ALASKA: “Alaska Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell (R) on Tuesday announced he'll seek the Republican nomination for Senate — setting up a primary fight against failed 2010 GOP nominee Joe Miller,” The Hill reports.

MASSACHUSETTS: NBC’s Jessica Taylor: “One week before the vote, Republicans are arguing that the Massachusetts Senate special election is within their grasp, even as polls and outside spending tell a very different story.” More: “The biggest flashpoint between the two came when Markey questioned whether Gomez, who has supported term-limits, told Arizona Sen. John McCain, the only big-name Republican to come campaign for the GOP nominee, he should have quit after his last term. ‘No, you did not,’ Markey said, challenging Gomez. ‘Are you calling him a liar,’ the moderator R.D. Sahl asked Markey. ‘I’m saying that did not happen,’ the Democrat pushed back.”

The Boston Globe: “With only a week left before voters go to the polls, the two candidates for US Senate let loose tonight with their full arsenals in a heated third and final debate, driving home arguments that have resonated throughout the compressed special election calendar.”

AP: “Massachusetts’s special U.S. Senate election heads into its final stretch after Republican Gabriel Gomez and Democratic U.S. Rep. Edward Markey engaged in some testy exchanges during their final debate.”

In a boost for proponents of comprehensive immigration reform, a new report from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the immigration bill currently being debated in the Senate would increase the U.S. population by 10.4 million and would decrease federal budget deficits by $197 billion between 2014 and 2023.

The much-anticipated report indicates that enacting the legislation would create new federal outlays of about $262 billion in the first decade but would increase revenues – largely from new income and payroll taxes – by $459 billion.

It also estimates that about 8 million undocumented immigrants would initially gain legal status under the bill’s provisions.

While the CBO does not typically provide estimates beyond the first decade of enactment, the report tackled estimates for the time period of 2024-2033, estimating that the federal budget deficits would decrease by an additional $700 billion over that time. By 2033, the net increase to the U.S. population as a result of the bill's enactment would be about 16 million, CBO says. 

The positive estimates are a boon for proponents of the reform effort, who argue that immigration is an economic imperative for the country as well as a moral and political one.

Bill sponsor Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the report "a huge momentum boost for immigration reform." 

The White House also lauded the CBO report, saying the numbers are "more proof that bipartisan commonsense immigration reform will be good for economic growth and deficit reduction."

And Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican who has worked to woo conservative support for the bill, said in a statement that the report "further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers." 

Opponents of the bill argue the influx of new foreign workers would hurt Americans still affected by joblessness. 

The Senate is currently debating the legislative language of the bill offered by the bipartisan "Gang of Eight."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he wants a final vote on the bill in the upper chamber by the July 4 recess. 

But lawmakers are still making amendments to the legislation, which many Republicans say cannot survive to the president's desk without substantial changes to its border security provisions. 

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:08 PM EDT