The second time’s the charm: The Senate approved José Javier Rodríguez, 50-48, for a senior Labor Department role after previously voting against confirming the former Florida Democratic politician last November.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) joined with all Republicans in voting no, but Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) flipped his vote in favor of the nominee for assistant Labor secretary for employment and training, a break from the prior vote.

Sens. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) did not vote, meaning Vice President Kamala Harris was not needed to break a tie.

“It was never about the nominee,” Menendez, who faces multiple federal charges of corruption, told POLITICO in a brief interview. “It was about issues with the White House.”

Senators previously voted down the nomination by a 44-51 tally last year with four Democrats and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) absent. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer changed his vote to no for procedural reasons.

House Republicans are suing in a bid to force testimony from two Justice Department attorneys — part of the GOP’s sweeping impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

Judiciary Committee Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) filed a lawsuit on Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to enforce subpoenas that compel closed-door testimony from two DOJ tax division attorneys: Mark Daly and Jack Morgan. They were both first subpoenaed last year as Republicans probed the years-long federal investigation into Hunter Biden.

“The failure of Daly and Morgan to comply with their respective subpoenas is impeding the Committee’s impeachment inquiry and its oversight of DOJ’s handling of the Hunter Biden investigation, matters of significant public concern,” attorneys for the House wrote in the 59-page complaint.

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.

Speaker Mike Johnson is plowing forward with his plan to fund the government — at a cost.

House conservatives have renewed their threats that any actions against the Louisiana Republican are on the table, incensed over the latest spending deal that Johnson reached with Democrats and how quickly he’s pushing the legislation to the floor.

In the past, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, had broadly defended Johnson and dismissed talk of taking direct action against him, such as calling a vote to remove him from the speakership. But after leadership released legislative text for the massive spending bill in the middle of the night, Norman fired a direct warning shot on Thursday morning.

“We’ll just see,” Norman said when asked if calling for a vote to oust Johnson is an option. “I like Mike as a person. He’s honest. I just don’t know if it’s in his DNA to fight. … This is just sad.”

Still, the persistent question for conservatives this Congress has been if — or when — their frustration will evolve from saber rattling to actual action. Given the three weeks of limbo after the right flank pushed Kevin McCarthy out of the speakership last fall, many Republicans believe another ejection would be unconscionable, particularly in a heated election year. Even Democrats have little appetite for ejecting a GOP speaker right now.

Burchett, who helped oust McCarthy, seemed to dismiss taking action against Johnson, saying Thursday that “if he has the votes he has the votes.” But Burchett warned that Republicans could face backlash from their base in November “if we don’t keep our word.”

“We just fold,” Burchett said. “The Republican Party needs to decide who we are and what we’re about.”

Ahead of the deal becoming public, Johnson sought to steady expectations with the MAGA-aligned group during a private meeting on Tuesday night. Johnson argued in the closed-door meeting, which was described as cordial by people who attended, that the funding package isn’t perfect, but it had many policies House Republicans could be proud of, according to people familiar with the discussion. Johnson also spent a private Wednesday conference meeting highlighting what he saw as Republican wins.

Clearly, the messaging attempt didn’t quell conservative anger.

Rep. Chip Roy, a Freedom Caucus member who has floated a vote to oust Johnson before, didn’t address a so-called motion to vacate in a Bannon War Room interview Thursday morning. But he railed against the speaker, saying: “Johnson blew it.”

“It’s total lack of backbone, total lack of leadership, and a total failure by Republican leadership, there’s no other way to describe this bill. It is an abomination,” the Texas Republican added.

Absent trying to oust Johnson this year, his right flank’s options for taking revenge on leadership is limited. Their most reliable play call, dating back to McCarthy’s speakership, is to paralyze the House floor — voting against so-called rules so leaders can’t pass any legislation, whether it’s related to their concerns or not.

Many are open to continuing that tactic in protest of the sweeping funding deal. But it’s also a limited option: When Johnson cuts deals with Democrats, as he did this week, he can leapfrog his own hard-liners. That means the bills they end up tanking are party-line GOP priorities.

Absent a quick ouster threat, the bigger test for Johnson could come after the 2024 election, when he’ll have to decide if he’s going to remain in leadership. If Republicans lose their paper-thin majority, some in his conference have already predicted he’ll be swept out of the top office.

But if they keep the majority, many Republicans predict he’s more likely to hang on. He would need 218 votes on the House floor, which could be a difficult prospect if he still faces opposition from the band of conservative rebels that helped elect him in October. Unless the GOP significantly grows its majority, he could still be in trouble.

“I promise you I will not be going out and supporting any Republican who votes for this bill for any position, ever again,” Roy said.

Senate conservatives are angry about the $1.2 trillion government funding deal — but they’re stopping short of any threats to slow its eventual passage in their chamber.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a perennial thorn in the side of leadership given his tendency to object to speedy passage of legislation, told POLITICO that “I’m going to continue to talk about how bad it is to have a $35 trillion debt.” When asked if he’d slow senators from approving the funding package, though, he said only “we’ll see.”

“To have a reasonable expectation that you can have amendment votes and take the time to review a bill is not being unrealistic,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said, declining to say whether he’d insist on specific amendments of his own. “This is a crazy way to run a country.”

Both parties have been negotiating potential amendment votes throughout the week, even before the spending bill’s text got released — an escape hatch designed to give conservatives airtime for the issues they care about most while not impeding quicker passage of the legislation.

“Amendments are coming,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), adding the process would “hopefully” not result in a shutdown. Funding for parts of the government lapse after Friday.

The legislation came out shortly after 2 a.m. on Thursday, with House members expected to vote on passage on Friday. The six-bill package emerged following days of heated negotiations on border security and immigration provisions.

Many Senate conservatives expressed frustration with Speaker Mike Johnson’s handling of the situation, even as the Louisiana Republican contends with the narrowest of GOP majorities — just two votes and further shrinking at the end of this week. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said he was “disappointed” with how the speaker conducted the negotiations.

“The whole process has been a total disaster,” he said.

Other conservatives, such as Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), also told POLITICO in interviews they were unlikely to slow the bill’s eventual passage.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), another staunch conservative, spoke on the floor to ask until April 12 to review the legislation prior to its passage. That would, of course, then entail a continuing resolution in order to keep the government fully open. Conservatives typically detest those sort of stopgap bills, too.

“We must dismantle this corrupt process,” the Utah Republican said on the floor.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not yet indicated whether he intends to allow amendments. But he bemoaned delays in government funding on Thursday morning, quipping that “some folks here in the Capitol are past the point of exhaustion.”

Senate Democrats are still keeping their weekends flexible — but insist work could be done rather quickly, if Paul and other conservatives dispense with their typical threats to force delays.

“They may want amendments,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). “If we really want to get something done, we’ve shown the ability to [have] everybody sit in their seat, we’re gonna do amendments, we can do one every 10 minutes.”

It’s possible that the government might go through a brief weekend shutdown, if wrenches are thrown in the Senate’s gears, before opening on Monday once the Senate’s internal clock is exhausted. Kaine framed it all as a delay, however, rather than an actual risk of a real closure.

“We know the votes are there, we’ll avoid a shutdown,” he said.

Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester is picking a public fight with President Joe Biden over beef as he battles for reelection in his deep red state.

The Senate is poised to vote Thursday afternoon on Tester’s measure to override the Biden administration’s recent decision to lift a ban on beef imports from Paraguay. Two other vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection this fall, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jacky Rosen of Nevada, are co-sponsoring the proposal, which is headed by Tester and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).

They argue it will hurt cattle ranchers and consumers in their states.

But the vote also gives the trio of Democrats a clear policy break with Biden — who is unpopular in their states — on a low-stakes, populist issue. Tester’s office is highlighting the fact that it will mark the first time a Senate Democrat has directly challenged Biden in such a way.

Before the vote, the Montana Democrat plans to argue on the Senate floor that Biden and his administration “butchered” the decision, according to a spokesperson. The measure is slated to get a floor vote around 2:45 p.m. and is expected to clear the 50-vote threshold required to pass.

Details: Biden’s Agriculture Department last year allowed the small South American nation of Paraguay to import beef into the U.S. after a decadeslong ban, after Paraguay faced economic blowback for recognizing Taiwan and lost market access in Russia after denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The administration said access to the U.S. market is critical to Paraguay to recover exports lost to Russia and withstand pressure from China to drop its recognition of Taiwan. When USDA issued a final rule allowing beef imports from Paraguay, the department said a risk analysis concluded beef could safely be imported from the country under certain conditions.

“We are confident that we have a system that will ensure protection,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told lawmakers during a House Agriculture Committee hearing last month.

Tester has argued against that decision, noting that Paraguay has a recent history of foot-and-mouth disease that could infect the U.S. cattle herd.

“It’s bad policy,” Tester said in a brief hallway interview. Paraguay has “foot-and-mouth disease, and foot-and-mouth disease goes through cattle like a hot knife through butter.”

Brown said Wednesday he has heard from Ohio voters who are concerned about the move.

“I think that Tester’s right, so that’s why I’m voting for it,” he said in a brief interview.

Past pushes: Tester made a push in 2021 to ban Brazilian beef imports, which the Biden administration rejected. Paraguay, a much smaller player in the world beef market than Brazil, is an easier target.

The White House this week issued a statement opposing Tester’s measure, but has not threatened a presidential veto. It could be one of Tester and Brown’s few legislative wins on agriculture policy before November, given the dim prospects for a new farm bill reauthorization, which has been stalled by deep partisan divisions.

“I think the people that will vote against my [measure] are doing it because they want to have Paraguay as our friend in South America, and I’m gonna tell you I think that’s important,” Tester said in the interview. “I just think the risk is too high for our beef industry and our food security.”

Marco Rubio hasn’t spoken with former President Donald Trump about being his vice president, the senator said in a brief Thursday interview, following reports that the Florida Republican was on Trump’s shortlist.

And Rubio sounds open to the idea.

“If anybody has been offered the chance to be vice president, they should consider that an honor and an incredible opportunity to serve our country. But that hasn’t happened, I haven’t spoken to anybody on his campaign about it,” Rubio said. “Never once have I talked to [Trump] about vice presidency.”

The two had a tense relationship back in the 2016 presidential race, trading barbs when they were vying for the GOP nomination. Rubio made comments about Trump’s “small hands,” and the former president talked about Rubio’s boots having “big heels” and called him “little Marco.” But Rubio said they’re on good terms now.

“We’ve had a great working relationship — we ran against each other, so at one point we were competitors — but since 2016, especially when he was president, we worked really well together,” Rubio said.

If Trump did pick Rubio as his running mate, one of them would have to change his Florida residency. The Constitution states that a president and vice president cannot be from the same state.

There are other rumors circulating about Rubio’s future, too. Senate Republicans have said Rubio’s name continues to surface in conversations about conference leadership, though he’s taken no concrete steps to mount a bid and has denied interest.

“No, I have never talked to anyone about running for leader, either,” Rubio said. “That’s something I’ve never been interested in doing.”

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

Speaker Mike Johnson said he’ll invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress, a move that comes a week after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s speech criticizing the Israeli leader’s handling of the war in Gaza.

“We will certainly extend that invitation,” the speaker said in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “What Chuck Schumer did was just almost staggering, just unbelievable.”

“I wish Schumer would keep his comments to himself on all that,” Johnson added, saying “if we just have the House [for that speech], that’s fine too.”

Johnson told reporters Wednesday that he’d had a “lengthy” conversation with Netanyahu, indicating his interest in inviting the prime minister to speak to Congress.

Schumer’s speech has drawn fierce pushback from Republicans, but support, even among fierce Democratic defenders of Israel, who are frustrated with Netanyahu’s handling of the war.

A Schumer spokesperson did not immediately respond to request for comment. Any joint address to Congress would require his signoff.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told POLITICO he had no reaction to Johnson’s planned invite. Democratic leadership has not formally heard from Johnson on the planned invitation, according to a Jeffries aide.

Johnson indicated his plan is to turn to Israel and Ukraine funding “immediately” upon the completion of the appropriations process for fiscal 2024.

Ursula Perano contributed to this report.

Congressional leaders are one step closer to closing out a particularly chaotic government funding season, releasing a massive, $1.2 trillion spending package early Thursday morning that they aim to pass through both chambers by week’s end.

Lawmakers are again racing against a partial government shutdown that would hit just after midnight Saturday morning, after a fight over border-related funding delayed legislative text. The new package leaders unveiled overnight would boost budgets for the military through the end of September, while keeping funding for most non-defense agencies about even with current spending levels.

The six-measure bundle is the most substantial bipartisan legislation Speaker Mike Johnson has negotiated during his nearly five months leading the House, representing a much more controversial package than the one Congress cleared earlier this month. The latest bill would wrap up the government funding work that vexed former Speaker Kevin McCarthy throughout his tumultuous nine-month run leading the House last year.

Johnson called the newly unveiled legislation a “serious commitment” to “strengthening our national defense” by moving the military toward its “core mission.”

The cross-party compromise is also a conclusive defeat for House conservatives. The Freedom Caucus has continuously pressured leadership to cut federal funding — even at the cost of a shutdown — and pass the 12 regular spending bills individually. After some in the right flank ousted McCarthy for defying those demands and averting a shutdown with Democratic help in September, members of the group have made similar asks of Johnson, who has instead pursued bipartisan spending levels that nearly mimic a deal McCarthy reached with Biden last year.

Democrats are lauding a new $1 billion infusion for child care and Head Start programs, alongside more Title I resources for schools that serve low-income students. They’re also celebrating $120 million for cancer research, $100 million for Alzheimer’s research, $1 billion for the Pentagon’s climate change activities, funding for a new FBI headquarters that a number of Republicans opposed and more.

Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) praised the $1 billion investment in child care and Head Start, calling it “a critical investment to help tackle the child care crisis that is holding families and our economy back.”

“This package will give families some extra breathing room — and help continue America’s historic economic recovery,” she said in a statement.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democratic appropriator in the House, said Democrats were successful in blocking Republican attempts to limit women’s access to reproductive health care, stopping GOP efforts to eliminate Title X family planning and teen pregnancy prevention grants.

The legislation also includes a yearlong extension of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR — an authorization Republicans had resisted, raising concerns about the program’s funds flowing to abortion providers overseas.

The breakthrough on the six-bill package follows days of fervid negotiations between the White House and Republican leaders over budgets for border security and immigration efforts. As final negotiations were concluding over the weekend, the Biden administration demanded that talks pivot from a stopgap spending bill that could have saddled the Department of Homeland Security with a largely stagnant budget for the rest of the fiscal year.

After reopening talks on a full funding bill for DHS, negotiators agreed to increase immigration detention capacity to 42,000 people Immigration and Customs Enforcement can hold at one time. That increase amounts to about a 24 percent bump over the current detention-bed capacity of 34,000 and is among the top deal-making victories Johnson has touted.

The speaker is also celebrating funding for 22,000 Border Patrol agents, the same number House Republicans included in H.R. 2, the immigration and border security measure they passed last year and have pressed the Senate to take up, to no avail. Funding for border technology would also increase by 25 percent over current spending levels.

Republicans boast that they successfully shifted border security funding toward “enforcement,” rather than DHS management budgets and funding for non-profit groups that provide shelter and other resources to undocumented immigrants crossing the border into the U.S.

“While these changes are welcome, only a significant reversal in policy by the president to enforce the law can ultimately secure our border,” Johnson said in a statement.

The bill would also prohibit funds for UNRWA through March 2025 following allegations that members of the organization, which is aimed at helping Palestinian refugees, were involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. And the package would also grant 12,000 new visas for a program that allows Afghan allies who assisted in the U.S. war effort to immigrate to the U.S.

House Appropriations Chair Kay Granger (R-Texas) said the package “funds our highest national security priorities — it invests in a more modern, innovative, and ready fighting force, continues our strong support for our great ally Israel, and provides key border enforcement resources.”

“At the same time, we made cuts to programs that have nothing to do with our national security and pulled back billions from the administration,” she said.

The package also continues to block an oft-controversial cost-of-living salary increase for members of Congress, who haven’t seen a pay bump since 2009.

Besides the military and DHS, the funding package released Thursday covers budgets for federal education, health and labor programs, along with the IRS and foreign operations. It would also fund congressional operations, as well as the departments of State, Treasury and Homeland Security.

House Republicans are setting a lofty goal for a next step in their sweeping impeachment inquiry: Interviewing Joe Biden himself.

At the end of an hours-long hearing with two former Hunter Biden business associates, Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said that he would invite Joe Biden to testify in front of the committee.

“In the coming days I will invite President Biden to the Oversight Committee to provide his testimony and explain why his family received tens of millions of dollars. … We need to hear from the president himself,” Comer said.

An Oversight Committee aide confirmed to POLITICO that the invitation to the president will be for a public hearing.

Comer made the announcement just before he wrapped up a Wednesday hearing with former Hunter Biden associates Tony Bobulinski and Jason Galanis. Both men reiterated claims they have previously made privately to the panel: That Joe Biden discussed business with Hunter Biden, an allegation both Bidens have denied, and spoke with his son’s associates.

Comer explained that he wanted to invite Joe Biden because there was a “major discrepancy” between the testimony from the two men and Hunter Biden’s private testimony last month. Hunter Biden has reiterated, both publicly and privately, that his father was not involved in his business deals. Republicans also invited Hunter Biden to testify publicly on Wednesday, but he declined the invitation.

In addition to Hunter Biden, multiple former business associates of the president’s son have told the committee privately that Joe Biden was not involved in their business deals.

One of those former associates, Devon Archer, told the committee behind closed doors that Hunter Biden would put his father on speakerphone while at dinners with business associates, but Archer said the conversations were limited to pleasantries. Rob Walker, another former Hunter Biden associate, previously told investigators that Joe Biden wasn’t involved in their business deals and also characterized his appearance at the lunch as an exchange of pleasantries.

Republicans are months into their impeachment inquiry that has largely focused on the business deals of Joe Biden’s family members, as they’ve struggled to find a clear link between actions Joe Biden took as vice president or president to those financial arrangements.

Joe Manchin has a new rule when it comes to President Joe Biden’s judicial picks: If they don’t have Republican backing, he won’t vote for them.

The retiring West Virginia Democrat has quietly voted against several judicial picks this week, making for some close — though still ultimately successful — votes on the Senate floor. Manchin said there’s a method to his opposition.

“Just one Republican. That’s all I’m asking for. Give me something bipartisan. This is my own little filibuster. If they can’t get one Republican, I vote for none. I’ve told [Democrats] that. I said, ‘I’m sick and tired of it, I can’t take it anymore,’” Manchin said in an interview Wednesday.

Manchin’s stance makes party-line nominees even trickier as the election nears, requiring total unanimity among the rest of the 51-member caucus unless a nominee has bipartisan support. At the moment, that might be enough to stop the nomination of Adeel Mangi to an appeals court; Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) came out in opposition to his nomination on Tuesday evening and he has no Republican support at the moment.

Bipartisan support for Biden’s judicial picks can vary widely: Some get dozens of GOP votes, particularly if they are in red states where home-state senators approved the pick beforehand, while others get a total Republican blockade. And several GOP senators, like Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, are often inclined to cross party lines.

But Manchin said he needs to see more of an effort to get GOP votes.

“If they don’t have a Republican, I’m opposing. That’s my way of saying: ‘I’m leaving this place, I’ve tried everything I can. Don’t tell me you can’t get one.’ If you’ve got a decent person you can at least get one. Just go ask Lisa, go ask Susan, even Lindsey,” Manchin said. “Lisa and Susan both are not controlled by just voting party line, I know that. But you’ve got to ask them.”

Manchin also said he’s doing a little work on the side to preserve the legislative filibuster, even as its two strongest Democrat-aligned advocates — him and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) head for the exits. He said he’s telling donors to ask candidates “if they will commit to supporting and keeping the filibuster. If they don’t, you ought to think twice about it.”