House Republicans are scheduled to vote Wednesday to formalize their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. And behind closed doors, the Hill will wait and see if Hunter Biden appears at a deposition central to the House’s probe.

The impeachment inquiry vote is an attempt by House Republicans to give their probe stronger legal standing as they demand information from the White House and enforce subpoenas.

“We’re not making a political decision. It’s a legal decision,” Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Tuesday.

Earlier this year then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy was trying to have it both ways, announcing an impeachment probe to satisfy the conference’s right flank, but not holding a vote as Republicans in swing districts squirmed.

But many of those swing district Republicans, some in districts Biden won handily, are behind the effort now. And as of Tuesday evening, it appears Johnson will have the votes to make the Biden probe official.

Colorado’s Ken Buck is the only House Republican on the record opposing Wednesday’s vote to formalize the Biden probe and give the House more authority to seek documents and testimony.

As for Hunter’s deposition, it isn’t yet clear if he will show up. His lawyers have told the House Oversight Committee that he would cooperate, but that he also wanted to testify publicly. If he no-shows Wednesday, he is expected to face an effort to hold him in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena.

Supplemental state of play: On Tuesday night, Senate leaders Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell met with negotiating senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), along with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and White House officials, including deputy chief of staff Natalie Quillian.

The meeting, which marked some of the most robust and visible involvement from the administration so far, followed comments from McConnell saying it would be “practically impossible” for Congress to pass legislation to boost aid to Ukraine and make significant border policy changes by the end of the year.

The meeting is unlikely to change the calculus on getting a deal by the end of this week when the House is set to leave for the year, but signals the eagerness by the White House to make progress and cut a deal.

Josh Hawley said in an interview he’s endorsing former President Donald Trump in the 2024 GOP primary, becoming the 18th Senate GOP backer of the former president.

The Missouri Repubican has already said he believed Trump’s renomination by the GOP was inevitable but had not made it official. Then, over the weekend, Trump said Hawley and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) should be “very careful” in their reelection races: “Stranger things have happened.”

“President Trump doesn’t need to worry. I’m with him. He’s asked me several times to support him. I said yes. And I’ve been saying for a year that I think he’s gonna be the nominee. I support him. I’m gonna vote for him,” Hawley said. “Don’t worry — you can put me down as support, endorsed, stand with.”

House Republicans almost certainly have the votes needed to formally launch an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden this week.

Nearly all GOP members either plan to or lean towards supporting a vote to formalize their investigation into the Democratic president and his family’s business dealings, according to a POLITICO whip count, while all House Democrats are expected to unanimously oppose.

It was a tricky whip operation for Speaker Mike Johnson, who can only afford to lose three GOP votes assuming full House attendance. The Louisiana Republican, top investigators and his leadership team worked to win over Republicans in battleground districts who for months had been loath to support such a vote but, so far, only one GOP lawmaker seems likely to oppose the resolution to greenlight the inquiry on Wednesday.

Of course, the inquiry itself has actually been going on for months. And while Republicans have poked holes in the president’s previous statements, they haven’t found direct evidence that Joe Biden took actions as vice president or president to benefit his family’s business deals. But a new argument — which has swayed many centrists — has cropped up for formalizing the inquiry: The GOP needs such a vote to give more legal weight to their subpoenas and demands for records.

Some centrists pointed to a variety of factors that have shifted their thinking:

They believe investigators have found enough evidentiary string that is worth following.
They note the White House issued a letter arguing GOP subpoenas for documents and interviews are invalid without a vote (based on a Trump-era opinion). 
Some acknowledge that they didn’t want to be the members blocking the GOP from taking this step. 

“When the White House attorneys basically said they were no longer going to cooperate with us, unless we actually raised our status, what did they think was going to happen?” said Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), who represents a district Biden won in 2020, adding that he would have been “more contemplative” about his vote if they had not been so “in your face” with the letter.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), another battleground Republican, added that he was previously a “no” vote but “the White House gives us no other option.”

The White House has defended its position, arguing it has cooperated with a tranche of Republicans’ document and interview requests. But Biden administration officials also argued, in a recent letter to GOP investigators last month, that the inquiry lacked legitimacy without a vote — basing that on a Justice Department memo from the Trump years. At the time, the memo was pushing back on then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) decision to launch an impeachment inquiry against Trump without initially holding a vote for it.

It wasn’t just Biden-district Republicans who were on the fence as recently as last week.

Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio), who hadn’t made a decision as of last week, said Tuesday that he would support formalizing the inquiry and that it would allow Republicans to make “intelligent decisions” about any next steps.

“This allows the process to continue to move forward — allows evidence one way or another,” he said.

And the White House’s stance appears to have frustrated even the House Republican viewed as most likely to oppose the inquiry resolution: Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.).

“It’s nonsense. It’s not a valid reason,” he said on Tuesday about the White House letter, while adding that he is still a “lean no” in terms of formalizing the probe.

“So on one hand I’m frustrated,” added the retiring Colorado gadfly. “But on the other hand I still don’t see evidence that links Joe Biden to Hunter Biden.”

The House has passed legislation, 403-20, to allow hunters to show their duck stamps, which effectively permit them to hunt migratory birds, on their phones, sending the bill to President Joe Biden’s desk for his signature.

It comes as consumers increasingly use their phones to show proof of purchase for all sorts of items, like concert and airline tickets. But it’s hardly the first time the U.S. government has failed to adapt in real-time to evolving technology, like smart phones.

The legislation, led by Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), cleared the Senate unanimously in late July. Funds generated through the sales of the stamps go directly toward wildlife conservation.

House Republicans are reeling after punting yet another high-priority bill until next year, wracked by bicameral and intraparty divisions over how to rein in controversial government surveillance powers.

Speaker Mike Johnson has officially delayed votes on competing proposals to reauthorize and overhaul a foreign intelligence surveillance authority known as Section 702, as POLITICO first reported on Monday night.

The Louisiana Republican now has to hope that more time will help the party find a path forward after the GOP chairs of the Intelligence and Judiciary panels openly clashed over their disparate visions for changing the surveillance program.

Section 702 allows the government to monitor foreign targets as part of its intelligence data collecting but has become a political flashpoint because of its potential to sweep up communications of U.S. citizens. House Republicans have added an extension of the existing program until mid-April to their sweeping defense policy bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, which is set for a floor vote this week.

“I don’t think we can make a mistake. I think we’ve got to do it right. And so we’re going to allow the time to do that,” Johnson told reporters of the impasse over surveillance powers.

“Democracy is messy sometimes, but we have to get it right … sometimes it takes more time than we would like,” he added.

He had been expected to tee up dueling bills for Tuesday, but that plan unraveled after his right flank threatened to bottle up any debate on them. The tension boiled over on Monday night, when Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) sparred over their proposals.

Turner charged that the Judiciary bill was laden with provisions from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) — who helped Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) craft it —and that it would make it harder to investigate human trafficking and related activities.

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), an ally of Jordan, pushed back hard on that argument.

“The purpose of [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is to spy on foreigners. So you can spy on foreigners without limitations, the limitation is for American citizens if you get a warrant. They basically want to be like a police state where you keep not getting a warrant,” Davidson told reporters as he left the Monday night meeting.

During Tuesday’s closed-door conference meeting, Johnson said he would create a group of members to help iron out differences between the two bills — with the chairs of both warring committees expected to participate — according to one lawmaker in attendance, granted anonymity to talk about the private discussions.

This lawmaker added that Johnson’s idea was not universally well-received.

Johnson also told fellow Republicans that delaying the surveillance debate until April gives them space to tackle other upcoming deadlines, like government funding that expires in January and February.

Jordan, Turner and three Republicans on both of their panels negotiated behind the scenes for months to try to reach agreement. But their bills ultimately diverged significantly, including over when a warrant should be required for searching data that the program collects for information on Americans.

And Johnson did not insert himself into the raging debate, which fueled frustrations among colleagues who suspected he was trying to avoid political blowback rather than making a firm decision. Republicans are already urging him to take a more assertive approach if the two committees aren’t able to work out a deal next year

Some GOP lawmakers who support the Intelligence panel’s bill even discussed various ways to make trouble for leadership in response to the stalled surveillance debate, including blocking the Judiciary bill from the floor or even opposing this week’s impeachment inquiry resolution, according to two Republicans familiar with the discussions who were also granted anonymity.

But Republican critics of Johnson’s handling of the matter have since abandoned that talk.

Katherine Tully McManus contributed reporting.

The southern border has become a third rail of congressional politics, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy isn’t touching it.

Speaking to all senators during a closed-door Tuesday morning meeting, Zelenskyy made his case for more Ukraine aid before a bloc of skeptical Republicans. But he didn’t touch the biggest obstacle to getting a national security aid package done before the end of the year.

In fact, he seemingly tried to avoid it when lawmakers brought it up. Multiple senators indicated that Republicans raised border security in questions to the war-time leader, but said that Zelenskyy didn’t directly address it.

“The inability to address our open southern border is a huge sticking point, no matter where you stand on Ukraine,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.). “We’ve also been told in previous briefings that they might need another $100 billion next year. I just don’t know how you go back home and explain that to people when again, they’re paying more every time they go to the grocery store.”

The Missouri Republican added: “There is a massive disconnect between the conversations that are happening in Washington, D.C. and the conversations that are happening in real America. And that, obviously, was apparent today.”

Both Senate leaders — Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell — escorted Zelenskyy in and out of the meeting, a show of unity amid a Congress often defined by partisan squabbling. Though McConnell, despite being a consistent advocate for Ukraine, has said Republicans won’t consider more aid without significant border policy changes.

“If he gets the help he needs, he will win,” Schumer told reporters following the meeting. “If we lose, Putin wins — and this will be very, very dangerous for the United States.”

Schumer said Zelenskyy underscored a key point: “He needs the aid quickly.”

Even as border talks have stagnated, multiple Democrats indicated they want to get something done to address border security while recognizing the need to act swiftly to aid Ukraine.

“I want to do something at the border,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a member of Democratic leadership. “We want to do something at the border. And so I want to get an agreement.”

Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) added of the border talks in the context of Zelenskyy’s visit: “He totally understands that’s our issue.”

The Senate gathering came before Zelenskyy headed to the House side for separate meetings with Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The House Democratic leader said Zelenskyy did not discuss border measures in the meeting with him, either: “We did not discuss domestic political considerations.”

The Ukrainian president will also meet with President Joe Biden later on Tuesday.

Daniella Diaz contributed to this report.

With the House prepared to formally launch its impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, Republican senators are suggesting it’ll face a chilly reception in their chamber if it gets that far.

Even as they vow to keep an open mind if new, compelling evidence comes forward, GOP senators fear the move will only take away energy from other priorities and exacerbate already high partisan tensions on Capitol Hill.

“I think they’re a long way from coming to a conclusion there,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), a member of Republican leadership. “I don’t see the grounds for this yet.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), one of the most moderate Senate Republicans who voted to convict former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, questioned whether impeachment was becoming an overused tool.

“You’re not going to have this president impeached based on the evidence that we’ve seen come to light,” she told POLITICO in an interview. “Impeachment used to be taken pretty seriously. It should be taken pretty seriously. It’s like the biggest consequence possible for a sitting president.”

However, Murkowski was quick to add: “Will it drag down the president as he goes into an election year? I don’t think that that’s good for any sitting president.”

The House investigation has yet to find any direct evidence that Biden exerted improper influence to help his family members’ businesses.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who twice voted to convict Trump during his two impeachment trials, said: “There may be of course evidence — I don’t know — but there’s been no evidence provided to the public yet or certainly to me to suggest an impeachment inquiry or impeachment itself is justified.”

Added Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted to convict Trump in his second trial: “I’m focused on if there’s any hope in getting the [national security] supplemental through.”

House leaders are prepared to vote this week before breaking for the holidays to formally authorize an impeachment inquiry, and they’re expressing confidence in the vote count after steadily convincing GOP House members in seats carried by Biden to back the move. Still, the vibes in the Senate appear largely unchanged from the collective shrug many expressed when then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy first dangled the prospect several months ago.

Other GOP lawmakers expressed openness to formalizing the inquiry if its true intent is to gain information the House believes the White House has withheld from it.

“If it’s being done for the purpose of investigation and congressional oversight, and they won’t get the information they’ve asked for? I think it’s the right thing to do,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who himself has been involved in probes of Biden and his family. “But I want to make sure that that goes with the word inquiry and not with the word impeachment.”

Many senators declined to comment on the actual substance of the allegations against Biden, saying they’d yet to review the evidence that’s been revealed and the fact they could be jurors if articles eventually do reach the Senate.

Republican senators urged their House counterparts to ensure they have the strongest argument ready before they advance their inquiry.

“They should be able to make a strong case before they actually do an impeachment inquiry,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). “Otherwise, what they can do is be seen as crying wolf, and that would hinder future abilities to actually get the job done.”