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.

Speaker Mike Johnson doesn’t plan to hold the House in session close to Christmas, despite dissatisfaction with how plans to tie together border security support and aid to Ukraine are shaping up.

“I think the American people agree with us that national security begins at our own borders,” Johnson told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday. “We have to maintain our own sovereignty, so that we can project peace through strength and help our friends. And so I don’t think that’s an outrageous request.”

There is increasing doubt that lawmakers can reach a compromise on the dual Ukraine funding and border policy issues by the end of the year.

“Here we are on the eve, virtually, of Christmas and the end of the year, and the White House, as we talk this morning, has not moved in our direction on that issue,” Johnson said. “And I’ve told them very clearly where we stand.”

Johnson said Tuesday morning that he wanted more oversight of the aid to Ukraine and a stronger policy framework and objectives for the financial backing of the fight against Russia’s Vladimir Putin. He also wants the White House and Democrats to agree to “transformational” policy changes on the southern border.

Without significant progress, Johnson said he doesn’t plan to extend the House’s session into next week.

“I don’t know what else to do. I’m not going to have everybody sit here through Christmas twiddling their thumbs.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he asked Johnson on Monday to consider the House staying for another week. “Last night, I got on the phone with Speaker Johnson and urged him to keep the House in session to give a supplemental a chance to come together,” Schumer said.

“You know, we’re willing to work,” Johnson said. “The House members will work. We’ve shown that over and over and over, but we’re not getting any cooperation from the White House and the Senate Democrats at all.”

Anthony Adragna contributed.

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.”

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.