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.”

Conservatives are throwing a curveball into Speaker Mike Johnson’s strategy for navigating a bitter spy powers fight.

The Louisiana Republican had been expected to bring two competing bills — one each from the Judiciary and Intelligence committees — to the floor Tuesday, with an unusual procedural gambit where the proposal that got the most votes would ultimately be sent to the Senate.

But now he’s facing significant hurdles within his own conference that forced Republicans to scuttle plans to tee up the dueling votes on Monday evening — throwing the immediate fate of a long term reauthorization of Section 702 into temporary limbo. The authority is meant to target foreigners abroad but has come under scrutiny because of its ability to sweep in Americans.

Three aides involved in the debate are now privately predicting there will be no standalone votes on the competing surveillance bills this week — the last scheduled week in the House until it returns in January. And Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said Republicans should punt the debate into next year to try to work out a compromise between the two competing factions.

“We need one bill. We need more time,” Norman said in a brief interview, noting that lawmakers technically have more time with a short-term extension expected to be passed later this week as part of a sweeping defense bill.

Johnson hasn’t yet weighed in publicly about what his next steps are.

But some within his ranks are urging their leader to take a one he has been reluctant to so far: Picking one of the two bills to come to the floor, instead of both, a move that would likely alienate factions within his already narrow majority.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Monday that “of course” Johnson needs to decide which bill would be the starting point for the House’s surveillance debate.

“It’s chaotic,” he added about the current strategy of letting the bills face off in real time on the House floor.

Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), the chair of the business-oriented Main Street Caucus, credited Johnson with being willing to listen to his members, but “I think we’re getting close to the time when the speaker is going to need to make a decision.”

The standoff comes after both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees passed competing bills last week, after Republicans on the two panels talked behind the scenes for months attempting to figure out a path forward.

Both bills propose changes to the shadowy surveillance court, new auditing and reporting requirements aimed at increasing transparency and new penalties for surveillance violations. But the two bills are starkly different on what was long expected to be the major point of contention: When a warrant should be required for searching 702-collected data for Americans’ information.

The Judiciary bill would require a warrant for nearly all U.S. person searches, though it has some built-in exceptions, in addition to making sweeping changes that stretch well beyond just the 702 authority. Meanwhile, the Intelligence Committee bill forbids the FBI from conducting “evidence of a crime” searches, which aren’t related to foreign intelligence and are a small subset of searches involving Americans.

Republicans had expected Johnson to bring the bills up under what is known as “Queen of the Hill” on Tuesday, meaning that both bills would get a vote, without the ability to change them on the floor, and whichever got the most support would ultimately head to the Senate.

But there were signs of trouble earlier Monday when conservatives poured cold water on the plan, suggesting they could prevent the bills from getting to the floor at all. One potential alternative could be bringing the surveillance bills up under suspension, which would require a higher threshold to pass.

But Johnson’s right flank is already signaling it’s not supportive of that step.

“If we keep suspending the rules, then why and the hell are we even here?” asked Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).

The leading GOP negotiator on border negotiations warned on Monday that essentially “there’s no time” to finish a deal and send it to the president’s desk this month.

Further, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) charged that while he was trying to ask questions of the White House and lay out a timeline for action, congressional Democrats and the Biden administration “spent all weekend talking to each other.” It’s the most bleak sign yet for border talks that have seemed severely stalled for more than a week, injecting fresh doubt into whether senators can pass any sort of bill that marries Ukraine aid with border restrictions.

And if the House leaves before the Senate clinches a deal, it could be an even bigger setback.

“It looks like the House is leaving on Thursday. If they’re leaving on Thursday or Friday, there’s no time,” Lankford said in a brief interview. “There may be, you know, a day to be able to finish writing to be able to get it done. But we have very little time here. Otherwise it slips into January.”

The warning from Lankford is either going to create a lot of urgency on Capitol Hill this week — or foreshadows a disappointing December for his talks with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.). What’s more, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is set to speak to the Senate on Tuesday morning and make an urgent plea for more aid.

Murphy said he hoped Zelenskyy’s visit “can help convince Republicans to get this done.” Last week, the GOP blocked President Joe Biden’s foreign aid request because it lacks border security measures they demanded in exchange for greenlighting more money to Ukraine.

The three senators have been trying to find a set of new asylum, parole and detention policies both parties can live with, but so far have not been able to clinch an agreement. Murphy said on Monday that the White House is getting “more involved in these discussions” but conceded that with Congress slated to leave at the end of the week the hourglass only has a few grains of sand left.

“You don’t have the benefit of time,” he says. “If we can get a deal done, hopefully the House is willing to stay.”

Still, Murphy said they had not ended their discussions. He declined to forecast when they could finish a deal or when it could pass Congress. Amid that backdrop, multiple senators expressed frustration over the state of play.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the GOP price of border restrictions for Ukraine aid “is unserious. Again, Republicans — and only Republicans — are holding everything up because of unrealistic, maximalist demands on the border.” And several progressive senators panned the GOP’s latest border offer over the weekend.

“There are politicians here in Congress with a limited attention span that are ready to turn the channel to another channel away from Ukraine — I think that’s unfair and unrealistic,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

Schumer said Democrats are “serious” about the negotiations, but Republicans contend his party is not bending enough on border restrictions. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said Schumer’s remarks indicate he “thinks it will not be done this year and he’s doing what he can lay the groundwork for blaming Republicans.”

The Ohio Senate GOP primary is getting tighter.

A second poll in as many weeks showed business executive Bernie Moreno narrowly leading a three-way contest for the right to take on Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. Both internal surveys showed a heated primary — a stark departure from previous polling that showed Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose with an advantage.

The latest poll, conducted in early December for the Moreno campaign by Fabrizio, Lee & Associates, found Moreno with 23 percent of the vote, compared to LaRose with 19 percent and state Sen. Matt Dolan with 18 percent.

Forty percent of the 600 likely primary voters surveyed were undecided. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Moreno has been on TV airing ads over the past month to boost his name ID and his surveys indicate the strategy may be working.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is remaining neutral in the March primary in Ohio, home to one of the most consequential 2024 Senate races. The Senate seat is in one of three red states with a Democratic-held Senate seat up for grabs. Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) decision to retire made the spotlight on Ohio and Montana even brighter.

LaRose, a statewide elected officeholder, had an early lead in some initial polling. But he has trailed Dolan and Moreno, who are both personally wealthy, in fundraising. Dolan and Moreno have been airing TV ads in recent weeks.

A March survey by Fabrizio, Lee & Associates found Moreno in a distant third place with just 6 percent. (LaRose got 23 percent and Dolan received 16 percent.)

Since then, Moreno has spent more than $2 million on TV, boosting his statewide profile. His spot features footage of former President Donald Trump praising Moreno. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) has endorsed Moreno.

Moreno plans to air TV ads in the Youngstown, Cincinnati and Toledo markets this week. Previously he was airing ads in Cleveland, Columbus and Dayton.

An internal Moreno poll conducted in late November by the firm co/efficient found a statistical tie: Moreno with 15 percent, LaRose with 14 percent and Dolan with 13 percent.

Both LaRose and Moreno are angling for Trump’s endorsement. The former president has been cautious about wading into down-ballot contests this cycle. Any candidate with a consistent lead in polling could make a stronger case for an endorsement.

A Democratic lawmaker is accusing Rep. Elise Stefanik of ripping off her draft of a letter condemning university presidents for their evasive comments about antisemitism, alleging that the New York Republican lifted whole passages of text and used them in another message calling on the campus bosses to resign.

Rep. Kathy Manning, a North Carolina Democrat, was originally working with Stefanik on a joint message denouncing the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania for their testimony in Congress last week, after the two Harvard graduates spoke on the House floor. They’re both members of the Education and Workforce committee, and their offices collaborated on a draft letter, according to Manning spokesperson Gia Scirrotto and an email chain between the offices that was reviewed by POLITICO.

But the partnership fell apart when Stefanik insisted on using the message to demand that the university presidents quit their posts — a step too far for Manning, according to the emails reviewed by POLITICO.

Stefanik went ahead and used language drafted by Manning’s staff anyway, according to Scirrotto, and published the letter Friday without Manning’s signature. Scirrotto called it “unfortunate” that “Rep. Stefanik chose to take our language and use it as her own.”

In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, published after POLITICO approached Stefanik’s office for comment, Stefanik said her office had gone in “different directions with two separate versions of the letter when Rep. Manning did not want to call for the firing of the presidents among other significant edits she refused to accept. This is something that happens everyday on Capitol Hill.”

The two letters differ in their demands of the university boards of trustees but feature nearly identical language in the first few paragraphs of the letters and in certain sections. The Manning-led letter, which was signed by Democrats and sent earlier Friday, expresses concern about the presidents’ testimony and asks for the universities to revise their codes of conduct. The Stefanik-led one, which was signed by Republicans and a handful of Democrats, called for the presidents’ removal.

For example, they both begin: “On October 7th we witnessed Hamas terrorists perpetrate the deadliest attack against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. In the weeks since, there has been an explosion of antisemitic incidents in the United States and around the world. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has recorded 1,481 antisemitic incidents — 292 of which occurred on college and university campuses — a nearly 300% increase relative to the same period last year.”

A paragraph later in the Manning-led letter also bears similarities.

“There is no context in which calls for the genocide of Jews is acceptable rhetoric. While Harvard and Penn subsequently issued clarifying statements which were appreciated, their failure to unequivocally condemn calls for the systematic murder of Jews during the public hearing is deeply alarming and stands in stark contrast to the principles we expect leaders of top academic institutions to uphold. It is hard to imagine any Jewish or Israeli student, faculty, or staff, feeling safe when your presidents could not say that calls for the genocide of Jews would have clear consequences on your campus.”

Speaker Mike Johnson is rolling the dice as he prepares to bring his conference’s increasingly bitter spy fight to the floor. It’s anybody’s guess how it plays out.

The House is expected to vote Tuesday on two competing proposals from the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee to reauthorize Section 702, a surveillance authority that’s meant to target foreigners abroad but has come under criticism because of its ability to sweep in Americans. Unlike the Intelligence panel version, the Judiciary bill includes a broad warrant mandate, which security hawks have said would essentially hamstring the program.

Typically, the speaker would greenlight one bill to head to the floor and whip his conference to get in line. But Johnson, rather than pick between two influential committee chairs, is using a rare procedural gambit known as “Queen of the Hill” to settle the fight — which means whichever bill can get the most votes on the floor will be passed and sent to the Senate. Because of how the battle lines break down, they’ll need help from Democrats either way.

And it’s not the only spy battle on Johnson’s plate this week. After he attached a short-term extension of the surveillance authority to the sweeping defense bill Congress is looking to pass by the end of the week, conservatives increasingly urged their colleagues to sink the must-pass legislation.

The spy fight comes with familiar warning signs for Johnson, sandwiching him between two sides of the House GOP. On one hand he’s got the intelligence community and its allies on Capitol Hill, warning against defanging what they view as a crucial national security tool. On the other, some right-flank leadership gadflys — who have become increasingly willing to criticize the speaker they helped elect less than two months ago — are some of the loudest voices pushing for a sweeping overhaul of the surveillance authority

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), who backs the Judiciary bill, had a recent warning for Republicans who are OK with repeatedly working with Democrats to leapfrog over the concerns of conservatives like him. They “will be asking for the consequences in terms of an absence of Republican unity and the political implications,” he said.

“I think some people need to be primaried out of their seats,” he added, when asked about what those political consequences would be.

The GOP debate is likely to come to a head on Monday night, when members will huddle for a special closed-door meeting on proposed changes to the surveillance law. Some in the conference are hoping they can find an 11th-hour off-ramp that would represent a compromise between the two sides. But given the steep differences between the House Intelligence and Judiciary bills, that appears unlikely.

Intelligence and Judiciary Committee Republicans worked behind the scenes for months to try to find a way forward that could unify the conference. They both are proposing changes to the shadowy surveillance court, new auditing and reporting requirements aimed at increasing transparency and new penalties for surveillance violations. But the two bills are starkly different on what was long expected to be the major point of contention: When a warrant should be required for searching 702-collected data for Americans’ information.

The Judiciary bill would require a warrant for nearly all U.S. person searches, though it has some built-in exceptions. Meanwhile, the Intelligence Committee bill forbids the FBI from conducting so-called “evidence of a crime” searches, which aren’t related to foreign intelligence and are a small subset of searches involving Americans.

The two sides are both preparing for a fight in Monday night’s private conference meeting, knowing it’s likely their closing pitch.

In a preview of what Intelligence Committee members are likely to say to GOP members, Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) warned that the Judiciary bill would would make 702 information inadmissible for “horrific crimes such as child pornography, human trafficking, murder, and even money laundering” because of how it changes how 702-collected information can be used in cases and investigations of non-national security crimes.

“These are provisions of their bill that they’re going to have to explain,” he added during an Intelligence Committee meeting late last week.

Meanwhile, supporters of the Judiciary Committee bill and privacy advocates off of Capitol Hill have been sounding an alarm over what they warn would be a dramatic expansion of businesses required to provide the government with communications data under the Intelligence Committee bill. That was first flagged on Friday by two lawyers, including one who serves on a group of outside advisers to the secretive surveillance court.

Intelligence Committee staffers called that interpretation “wildly off,” and that the section is meant to be narrowly tailored to a “high-priority foreign intelligence targets overseas, with no impact on Americans.” But it’s fired up privacy hawks both in and out of Congress, with Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), who backs the Judiciary bill, warning: “Just what the Biden Admin needs, more surveillance authorities to spy on US citizens.”

Johnson hasn’t yet taken a public side in the debate — and isn’t expected to before Tuesday’s votes. But Johnson’s been quietly involved behind-the-scenes, keeping in touch with both Turner and Jordan, and members of their committees, in the lead up to Tuesday’s votes.

Jordan had initially been expected to hold a committee vote on his bill the week of Nov. 27. But the Ohio Republican said that he delayed because Johnson wanted to first have a meeting with Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and Republican members of the two committees so they could talk through 702. That request, plus a full committee calendar for the rest of the week, punted the panel’s vote until last Wednesday, according to Jordan.

At the same time, Johnson’s kept conservatives guessing in the surveillance fight, who have urged him to de-link it to the defense bill. His right flank appeared to think last week that they had succeeded, including publicly congratulating him on the decision, only to have to backtrack after it was ultimately added. Meanwhile, Johnson held off pressure from intelligence community allies to attach a full reauthorization to the defense bill.

And while Republican aides believe Johnson’s natural inclination leans more toward the Judiciary side of the debate, they acknowledge his calculus could have changed now that he’s in leadership and has access to a wider range of intelligence information.

“We are focused on the policy. We’re not focused on slogans you can fit on a bumper sticker,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) “We’ve met with him and he’s been a great listener. … He’s not disagreed with anything we’ve said.”

Two leading Democratic immigration reform advocates strongly criticized Republicans’ newest offer on border security, the latest challenge for a hypothetical year-end deal marrying border restrictions with aid to Ukraine and Israel.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) said Monday morning it is “unconscionable” for President Joe Biden to consider new parole and detention restrictions in exchange for GOP support for foreign aid funding.

“We are deeply concerned that the president would consider advancing Trump-era immigration policies that Democrats fought so hard against — and that he himself campaigned against — in exchange for aid to our allies that Republicans already support,” the two said. Making those changes for a one-time emergency spending bill would set “a dangerous precedent,” they added.

Republicans say they won’t move forward with tens of billions for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan without new border restrictions, blocking Biden’s aid request last week because it lacked those policy changes. Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) are still negotiating, though Murphy said the GOP’s latest offer was unrealistic.

Even with spending not on the December menu, Congress has left itself with a full plate before breaking for the holidays. Here are some things to watch out for as lawmakers aim to finish their work before leaving for the holidays.

1. The annual defense policy bill: The Senate will try first to pass their negotiated compromise legislation, with the House then aiming to clear it under suspension of the rules, an expedited process requiring the support of two-thirds of members.

2. Ukraine and Israel funding: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy heads to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, when he’ll address all senators at a morning meeting and meet with Speaker Mike Johnson. Congress has been considering a package to provide aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan — but has struggled to reach anything approaching consensus on border security provisions that Republicans have insisted upon as part of any agreement.

3. Biden impeachment inquiry: Look for the House to move forward with a resolution authorizing a formal impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden at some point this week. Senior Republicans have been steadily winning over previously resistant members in seats won by Biden in 2020, arguing formalizing the inquiry will strengthen their hand in obtaining information. The Rules Committee will meet on the resolution Tuesday at 10 a.m.

4. Expiring surveillance authorities: A temporary extension through April is included in the defense bill, but the House will consider dueling proposals to revamp and reauthorize a controversial surveillance program known formally as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. House Democrats will get a classified briefing on the program ahead of those floor votes where officials are expected to express “grave concerns” with the Judiciary Committee proposal, according to a source familiar. House Republicans will hold their own conference meeting on this topic on Monday night.

5. FAA extension: The House intends to consider under suspension of the rules, which again requires two-thirds support, a bill that would extend most Federal Aviation Administration programs through March 8. We’ll see then if the Senate can move it quickly.

Jordain Carney contributed.