Even by the standards of the often chaotic House Oversight Committee, its Thursday night meeting was a mess.

Members of the panel ultimately advanced a contempt of Congress resolution against Attorney General Merrick Garland on a party-line vote, but the far more striking takeaway was the personal attacks and theatrics lobbed between lawmakers in both parties — as Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) struggled unsuccessfully to gain control for more than an hour.

By far the most contentious moment happened early on, after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) insulted what she called “fake eyelashes” worn by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). That prompted outrage and yells from Democrats — Greene eventually agreed to strike those words from the record but refused to apologize.

“I don’t think you know what you’re here for,” Greene said to Crockett. “I think your fake eyelashes are messing up what you’re reading.”

But that wasn’t the end of the jabs. Crockett then, under the guise of a parliamentary inquiry, asked Comer if referring to another member as having “a bleach-blonde, bad-built, butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?” — a not-so-subtle jab at Greene.

Comer seemed confused as ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) appeared to try and stifle a laugh. “Uh, what now?” Comer asked. “I have no idea what you just said.”

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) clapped back that the freshman Democrat was “out of control” and told her to “calm down.”

“Don’t tell me to calm down,” Crockett said. “If I come and talk shit about her, y’all gonna have a problem.”

At another point in the heated back-and-forth, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called Greene’s comment to Crockett “absolutely unacceptable — how dare you attack the physical appearance of another person?”

“Are your feelings hurt? Awww,” Greene replied. “Why don’t you debate me?”

Ocasio-Cortez then replied: “I think it’s pretty self-evident.” And Greene responded: “Yeah, you don’t have enough intelligence,” prompting another request to take the formal step of taking down a record of the personal attack.

When the committee voted to let Greene keep speaking after the lengthy verbal scuffle, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) — who has her own rocky relationship with the Georgian — voted with Democrats.

It wasn’t the only surreal moment from the hearing. At another moment, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) dramatically read from a Comer fundraising email referencing former President Donald Trump’s ongoing criminal trial in New York — as Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) smiled.

He also offered to do a dramatic reading of President Joe Biden’s interview with former special counsel Robert Hur while wearing a Biden mask that, he noted after prompting from a GOP colleague, he could get off Etsy.

“Stand with Comer,” Moskowitz said, reading from the email and prompting cries of “yay” from the GOP side of the room.

The Florida Democrat responded: “You sure about that?”

That wasn’t all. After Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) displayed a picture of Trump with his eyes closed amid reports of the former president repeatedly falling asleep during his New York trial, Boebert defended the GOP’s presumptive nominee. She was among a group of House Republicans who attended the trial earlier in the day, delaying the hearing.

“I think he’s praying, but if he is sleeping, [he] certainly looks pretty as he sleeps,” Boebert said. “I know when I fall asleep on airplanes my mouth kind of drops open. His mouth is kind of tight-lipped, so maybe it’s just a somber moment of thought.”

Even lawmakers who aren’t in the committee got in on the action, calling out from the audience. That got pushback from one member of the panel, who alleged that “we have some members in the room who are drinking inside the hearing room, who are not members of this hearing.”

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Speaker Mike Johnson has two open seats to fill on the House Intelligence Committee. But he’s dragging his feet as he faces conflicting pressures — from conservatives, Donald Trump and current panel membership — over potential replacements.

The House Freedom Caucus is pushing Johnson to pick their former leader, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), according to five Republicans tied to the committee who are familiar with the discussions, all of whom were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. And those same Republicans, which include several lawmakers, believe Trump is also lobbying the GOP leader to tap Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), his former White House medical adviser.

Since it’s a select committee, Johnson can name anyone he wants to the panel unilaterally. But the speaker is obviously in a politically vulnerable position given his paper-thin margin and a challenge to his leadership last week that was only defeated due to Democratic support. He can’t simply ignore the demands of either his right flank or Trump, who just supported him during that dethroning effort.

The idea of Perry coming onto the panel gives those GOP Intelligence Committee members debilitating heartburn.Those Republicans argue the former Freedom Caucus chair is all but ineligible, noting there is a conflict since he is involved in a federal investigation into efforts to subvert the 2020 election by Trump and his allies.

The panel has oversight powers over the FBI, which seized Perry’s cell phone in August 2022. And Perry sought to litigate what the federal investigators would be able to access on his phone, which the Republicans say makes picking him for Intel out of the equation.

And Perry’s allies are open about their push. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus board, dismissed the idea of a conflict of interest.

“The FBI investigation has offered us B.S. over January 6 … which is part of the problems we have at the FBI. So if there’s more oversight of the FBI, that is a good thing. Not a bad thing,” Donalds said, adding: “I didn’t didn’t realize that the Intel Committee is the end-all-be-all of what happens in Congress. These guys are pissing me off.”

Perry, for his part, wouldn’t directly comment on the pushback. “I’ve not been asked to do anything. And I’d be honored to serve,” he said.

Jackson is a more palatable option for the panel Republicans. That’s partly because the Texan serves on the House Armed Services Committee, which one Republican noted that he has used to build a pre-existing relationship with the Intel panel. And Jackson has voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a litmus test in many of their minds since they played a major role in crafting the final package.

“If you notice, members [of the panel] are typically not bomb throwers,” said Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), who is on the committee and spoke broadly about membership expectations. “It’s the difference between being a show horse and a workhorse. And so I think those are the considerations. Everybody wants to be on there.”

Lawmakers have raised two other potential options: either Johnson leaves the seats open until next year to avoid blowback or appoints placeholders to fill at least one of the seats.

“It is too much effort and political capital, so better to leave them open and start in January,” one of the Republicans, granted anonymity, said.

It’s possible that’s the speaker’s plan, given one of the seats has sat empty for eight months. That opening dates back to mid-September and the retirement of former Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), while a second opened up after Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) left the House last month.

Three of the Republicans said it wouldn’t impact their ability to get committee work done if they don’t fill it for the rest of the term. Republicans currently have a one seat majority on the panel, though much of its work has been bipartisan under the tenure of Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio.) and ranking member Jim Himes (D-Conn.).

But if they do fill it, one Republican predicted that one spot would go to Jackson, a retired Navy Rear Admiral who has made his interest clear.

“I’ve been interested in it since my first year here. You don’t get it your freshman year, generally, but I made it well known to [former Speaker Kevin] McCarthy that I wanted it and I worked it up and put the packages together. And I’ve been doing that since day one. So the answer is yes,” Jackson said. He has also expressed his interest to Johnson, he added.

Asked if Trump is lobbying for him, Jackson said he wasn’t sure.

There are also discussions about putting in placeholders to temporarily fill the seat. Two of the Republicans pointed to retiring Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), who they said is a serious contender and a former Freedom Caucus member. Plus, there is a broader desire to have another GOP woman on the panel to join Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.).

Still, at least one Republican shared some broader frustration that politics is boxing out lawmakers who they say truly deserve a seat on the panel. Some members pointed to Reps. August Pfluger (R-Texas) and Julia Letlow (R-La.) as examples.

“I know Trump is weighing in heavily for Ronny, but I think that is unfair,” this Republican said, citing how other members have sought to be on the panel for years.

Other Republicans were afraid the politicization of the appointment process was going to drag the panel back into partisan fighting — a regularity during the chairship of both Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that members are eager to avoid. A lot of that animosity was driven by a split over Trump, who was closely allied with Nunes and despised Schiff, who led the first impeachment inquiry into the former president.

But with new leadership on both sides, members have patched up their differences and are fighting to protect the equilibrium they have built.

“Scott, I know, does want to be on Intel. He’s wanted to be on for quite some time. There are other members that want to be on. I think the speaker needs to make a decision, but it’s the speaker’s decision. It is not a decision of the Intelligence Committee. … And he has to make that independent of what everybody else thinks,” Donalds said.

The House has delivered a bipartisan rebuke of the Biden administration’s pledge to withhold certain heavy bombs from Israel amid its ongoing conflict in Gaza, passing a bill designed to compel delivery of the weapons.

But Democrats largely held the line amid heavy lobbying against the GOP-led bill from the White House and their party’s leadership against what many deemed a poorly crafted, political ploy to divide them. Only 16 Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the legislation, which the Biden administration has threatened to veto.

Ultimately, the measure passed 224-187.

President Joe Biden’s pause on shipments of heavy bombs to Israel’s conservative government, made on CNN last week, has divided Democrats – causing particular agita among vulnerable and staunchly pro-Israel members. Even so, senior Democrats in and out of the administration tamped down on defections through a concerted pressure campaign throughout the week.

“This administration wants to dictate how Israel executes the war that they were thrust into,” House Foreign Affairs Chair Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said on the floor as he advocated for the measure. “[Israel] did not ask for this war. They did not start this war. Hamas started this war.”

The legislation would slash budgets for the offices of the defense secretary, secretary of state and National Security Council if Biden doesn’t deliver the stalled heavy bombs. It also includes language that would condemn “the Biden administration’s decision to pause certain arms transfers to Israel.”

Three conservatives joined most Democrats in voting no: Reps. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

Prior to passage, the full House GOP leadership team pressured Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to take up the legislation for an up-or-down vote, something the New York Democrat indicated his chamber has no plans to do.

“They are clearly making this decision to appeal to a small subset and element in their party,” Speaker Mike Johnson said of Democrats. “The president himself and Leader Schumer both within just the last several weeks were saying that we should stand with Israel. They were using the right language and now they are doing a complete about-face. Why?”

Even if the Senate were to take up the measure, which Schumer indicated Wednesday won’t become law — “the president has already said he’d veto it, so it’s not going anywhere” — Democratic leaders said they would be able to sustain a presidential veto.

“We will sustain the President’s veto, as we have done consistently throughout the 118th Congress,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Thursday.

Bipartisan support for the key U.S. ally has been apparent throughout the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. Almost all House members backed a resolution expressing support for Israel in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 attack last fall, while lawmakers came together to provide billions of dollars in aid as part of a package that included support for Ukraine and Taiwan, as well.

Many of Israel’s fiercest advocates of Israel blasted the bill. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) called it “pseudo pro-Israel” legislation.

“This is just a communicative act,” he said on the floor. “This resolution has poison pills, including condemning Biden by name, in a clear effort to get as little Democratic support as possible.”

The California Democrat added he was working with McCaul on a “much better response” that would be considered through the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Nicholas Wu contributed.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Thursday faulted Republicans for a delay in installing a plaque commemorating the officers who protected the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot.

“It simply awaits a decision by the Republican majority to have an appropriate ceremony of recognition and have it placed in a location of honor here,” Jeffries said at a press conference, adding the plaque is on Capitol grounds already and just waiting to be installed.

The office of Speaker Mike Johnson responded: “The Speaker’s office is working with [the Architect of the Capitol] to get the plaque mounted.”

The recognition was approved as part of a spending bill in 2022 and is expected to list the names of all law enforcement officers who responded to the violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The deadline set for its installation on the western side of the building was March 2023.

The plaque for officers responding on Jan. 6 would join an existing plaque that honors Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut, who were fatally shot in 1998 by a gunman attempting to reach the majority whip’s office.

Nicholas Wu contributed to this report. 

Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego’s Arizona Senate bid is getting a boost from a group of donors who previously backed Republicans like the late Sen. John McCain and the independent incumbent he hopes to replace, Kyrsten Sinema.

The donors will host a fundraiser Saturday for Gallego, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO. The event signals Gallego is making inroads in two areas GOP opponent Kari Lake is sharply focused on: money and moderates.

In their key Senate contest, Gallego and Lake are both openly courting a small but important bloc of voters who identify as independents or centrist Republicans.

Among the dozen hosts of Gallego’s Saturday fundraiser: Chuck Coughlin, a longtime Republican political consultant who left the party in the Trump era; Don Budinger, who donated to Sinema, McCain and Pennsylvania GOP Senate nominee Dave McCormick; and David Reese, a longtime GOP donor.

Both candidates have tried to drift toward the center. But Lake has thus far struggled to win over moderate voters despite an attempted pivot from her fiery 2022 campaign for governor.

That’s given Gallego an opening. His successful courtship of GOP donors is a sign that his efforts to shy away from his roots in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are paying off.

Several of the hosts have donated to McCain, former GOP Sen. Martha McSally, current Rep. Juan Ciscomani, who represents a swing seat in Tucson, and former Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, a Trump critic.

Also on the host list: Phil Francis, a former PetSmart CEO who supported Sinema, and his wife, Nita; and former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson Jr., an ally of McCain.

Gallego has posted massive fundraising numbers, ending March with $9.6 million in the bank, compared to Lake’s $2.5 million. And he has used that funding to build an early TV ad advantage, running positive spots to define himself.

Democrats feel optimistic about Arizona because of Gallego’s financial advantage and Lake’s ties to the MAGA wing of the party that may harm her with independents. She’s endorsed by former President Donald Trump.

After telling McCain Republicans to “get the hell out” during her 2022 campaign, Lake has made an attempt to court them in her Senate run. But she has so far gotten few endorsements out of it and Republicans have begun to sound unsure whether they will fully support Lake financially in the fall.

House Republicans took the first step toward holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress — dramatically escalating their standoff with the Justice Department.

The Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Thursday to recommend that the full House hold Garland in contempt. The Oversight Committee is expected to take a similar step on Thursday night. The referral still requires a majority on the House floor before it goes to a U.S. attorney, which means it needs to win over more than a dozen politically vulnerable Republican centrists who have expressed unease about their party’s growing antagonism toward the DOJ.

The move stems from the Justice Department defying House Republican subpoenas for audio of then-special counsel Robert Hur’s interview with President Joe Biden. The White House informed GOP lawmakers on Thursday morning that the president had asserted executive privilege over the recordings.

Biden’s effort effectively precludes any criminal prosecution of Garland for failing to comply with the Hill subpoenas. But Republicans vowed to move forward with the contempt recommendation anyway — taking a symbolic shot at an administration official who has become their frequent rhetorical targets. And Republicans aren’t ruling out a lawsuit to try to get the recordings.

“We think it’s important we, as an oversight body, see all the evidence,” Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told reporters about the decision to move forward with the contempt proceedings.

Republicans have homed in on Hur’s investigation of Biden’s handling of classified documents as part of a sweeping impeachment inquiry into the president, which has largely focused on the business deals of his family members. Though the impeachment effort has essentially stalled, as Republicans lack the clear evidence centrists have said they need to vote for removing the president, GOP investigators are continuing their probe behind the scenes.

Hur warned in his report released by the Justice Department earlier this year that Biden could be perceived by jurors as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” — a description that sparked fierce criticism from Biden and congressional Democrats.

But Republicans have seized on the phrase, and requested the transcript of Hur’s interview with Biden, as well as the audio and other documents referenced in the former special counsel’s report. While the Justice Department provided access to the requested documents, and handed over the transcript, it has pushed back strongly against releasing the audio.

“This is an impeachment inquiry. … We are investigating very legitimate questions,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas). “It is critically important for the purposes of this body to determine where we’re going to go with an impeachment inquiry, or any legislative inquiry, to determine what the president’s demeanor was during that interview.”

If a majority of the House did vote to hold Garland in contempt, the matter would then be referred to U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves, who is under the umbrella of the DOJ. Graves would determine whether to pursue criminal charges or set it aside, and would take executive privilege into account.

Democrats accused Republicans of focusing on Hur’s findings to try to revive a politically motivated impeachment effort. And they believe the GOP wants the audio so that it can be used by the Trump campaign in ads heading into the November election.

House Democrats also tried, and failed, to amend the GOP’s Garland contempt resolution, including to note that the committee has “serious concerns about the competency of Donald Trump.” Republicans, who run the panel, rejected those amendments.

“Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: Why do my Republican colleagues need this audio file at all? …They think they can manipulate President Biden’s voice to make it to the next Trump for president ad,” Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) said on Thursday.

Thursday’s back-and-forth comes after a weeks-long battle between Republicans and the Justice Department for the Hur audio. Both Jordan and Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) subpoenaed the audio, and warned that they would initiate contempt proceedings against Garland unless the Justice Department complied.

But the DOJ raised a myriad of concerns about giving the audio to Congress, including that it could negatively impact cooperation with future investigations. Officials also said Republicans hadn’t made an adequate case for what they would get from the audio that they couldn’t get from the transcript.

“The Committees’ needs are plainly insufficient to outweigh the deleterious effects that productions of the recordings would have on the integrity and effectiveness of similar law enforcement investigations in the future,” Garland wrote in a letter to Biden on Wednesday.

The Navy’s top civilian leader came under fire Thursday from Republicans who argued the service isn’t doing enough to fix shipbuilding programs plagued by delays, with one senator even suggesting he should be fired over it.

Republicans at a Senate Armed Services Committee accused Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro of prioritizing climate change over Navy shipbuilding. Del Toro flatly rejected the criticism, arguing that he’s made progress to rein in over-budget and past-schedule ship programs.

The fireworks began with Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who criticized Navy plans that keep the fleet under 300 warships through the end of the decade while China far outpaces the U.S. in shipbuilding. Sullivan argued Del Toro is more focused on climate change and asked the Navy leader if he should resign or be fired over ship delays.

“I feel compelled to ask, if a Marine platoon commander gets relieved because one of his Marines loses a rifle and a Navy captain gets relieved because his crew hits another ship while the captain is asleep, should the secretary of the Navy be relieved or resign for failing on his number one mission — shipbuilding — particularly when he is spending so much time on issues that are not even part of his [legal] responsibilities?” Sullivan asked.

Del Toro told Sullivan that he spends “75 percent of my time on shipbuilding,” yet called fighting the effects of climate change a major issue for Navy readiness.

“Actually, a good leader, what they do is to actually take assessment of the conditions that exist when one comes in. And you know well, senator, that the acquisition issues we’re dealing with go back decades,” Del Toro said. “What I’m trying to do, and have been doing from the day that I became secretary, was to be honest, transparent and deeply committed to turning things around. And that’s exactly what I’ve done.”

The session was unusually acrimonious for the traditionally bipartisan committee. After several rounds of tense questioning that saw Republicans interrupt Del Toro, Armed Services Chair Jack Reed (D-R.I.) made a plea for civility from committee rank-and-file.

“This committee has operated for many years based on a mutual respect for the witnesses and the senators,” Reed told senators. “The level of argumentation at this point, I think, is something we haven’t seen in a long time.”

Del Toro faced intense backlash from GOP senators over his focus on climate change, though concerns about shipbuilding delays — and whether the service’s budget for ships is enough — are bipartisan. A recent Navy review found delays of up to several years in the service’s top programs, including construction of aircraft carriers, submarines and a new frigate.

Del Toro argued that decades of Navy policy have led to this point and has highlighted the impacts of the pandemic and worker shortages as major recent hurdles. He also dinged defense contractors for using profits to repurchase stock, arguing some companies are putting shareholder interests over the needs of their customer, the Navy.

But Republicans aimed to put the onus on Del Toro, pointing to his emphasis on climate change. The Pentagon has noted that extreme weather and rising sea levels will harm military readiness and has sought to mitigate those effects. But some Republicans argue those efforts and other Biden-era policies — such as efforts to promote diversity and country extremism in the ranks — are distracting the military from its main mission of deterring China and Russia.

North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer, the top Republican on the Armed Services Seapower panel, pointed to China’s rapid naval buildup.

“I see a really big problem that’s not being addressed nearly as enthusiastically as climate change is with the Navy,” Cramer said.

Del Toro argued that climate policies are not “interfering with the things that we’re doing actually to deterring China.” He also pointed to Navy operations in the Middle East since the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas in October, which included protecting commercial shipping in the Red Sea and defeating drone and missile attacks by Iran and its proxies.

“For the past six and a half months, our Navy and Marine Corps has proved to the world how capable we are. We are the very best,” he said. “But that also includes worrying in the future about the impact that climate has on our installation readiness.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) piled on, criticizing Del Toro and Pentagon leadership over diversity, equity and inclusion policies that he argued hurt recruiting. He also pressed Del Toro on Covid vaccine mandates, which have since been overturned but forced out several thousand personnel who refused the shot.

“You have recruitment challenges. You refused to admit that DEI’s a part of this. You’re firing qualified people who are well trained,” Schmitt told Del Toro. “And you sit here so smugly to act like none of that has any impact on the readiness of our Navy.”

Schmitt then asked Del Toro if he believed “that climate change is a bigger threat to the American people than a nuclear holocaust.”

“Of course not,” Del Toro shot back. Schmitt concluded that “Teddy Roosevelt in Admiral Nimitz would be rolling in their grave” over his equivocation on the issues.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer joined 10 other Democrats in defying Joe Biden and passed a measure that would undo SEC guidance on cryptocurrency accounting, sending the measure to the president’s desk on Thursday with stronger-than-expected bipartisan support.

The Senate voted 60-38 to back the effort, which would undo a rule that directs companies to mark digital assets as liabilities on their balance sheets. The White House has already said Biden would veto it, his first axing of a standalone crypto measure.

Critics, including banking groups and crypto executives, say the guidance could discourage banks from holding those digital assets. They contend that it should have gone through the SEC’s rulemaking process instead of being issued as guidance, which involves less public input.

“New York State already has a strong law on the books, and they weren’t consulted on this regulation,” Schumer said in a statement after the vote.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), who led the effort in the Senate to kill the guidance, said it “puts consumers at risk.”

The rollback drew support from 11 Democrats: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Gary Peters of Michigan, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, Jon Tester of Montana, John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Mark Kelly of Arizona, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Schumer. Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who aligns with Democrats, also backed the effort.

The SEC guidance “will limit options for consumers and leave them with less, not more consumer protection in cases of bankruptcy,” Gillibrand said.

Most Democrats and investor protection groups say the guidance safeguards consumers and the broader financial system. They also point to a Government Accountability Office report that found the SEC should have sent the guidance to Congress for review, but did not need to subject it to notice and comment.

“Today’s vote — coming more than two years after the SEC wrote the bulletin and applying to a staff bulletin, rather than a rule — is far outside the scope of the CRA,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a top crypto critic, said on the Senate floor Thursday. “We should not be holding this vote, and all by itself that is a good enough reason to vote no.”

Warren added that the guidance “simply clarifies how companies should account” in their financial disclosures for the “unique risks of crypto.”

The House approved the measure last week with the help of 21 Democrats. Members, aides and lobbyists have eyed the tallies as possible bellwethers for a vote next week on House Republicans’ flagship crypto package.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) has a rare feat in modern congressional terms: Forcing floor consideration of legislation — on this occasion, a bill he crafted that would provide tax relief for losses due to federally declared disasters.

He invoked a rarely successful procedural tool, the so-called discharge petition, to compel a floor vote on his legislation aimed at helping victims of hurricanes, wildfires and the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment. The Florida Republican hit 218 signatories — a majority of the House — of supporters on Wednesday, according to the chamber clerk.

Discharge petitions rarely succeed. The last one to hit the necessary number of signatures to force floor consideration concerned the Export-Import Bank, back in 2015. Steube called for the Senate to act swiftly once it passes the House.

Democratic Whip Katherine Clark called on Democrats to sign onto the discharge petition in a meeting Wednesday, a person familiar told POLITICO. More Democrats have signed onto the petition than Republicans.

“I am grateful for the motivation and support of 217 of my bipartisan colleagues as we join forces to deliver tax relief for Americans all across the country,” Steube said in a statement. “That’s a testament to how important this issue is for ALL of our constituents.”

Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately comment, though he is currently not among the signatories of the petition.

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole handed out funding caps Thursday for each of his 12 subcommittees, with overall totals that undercut bipartisan agreements struck last year during debt limit negotiations.

The levels would boost defense budgets by about 1 percent in the fiscal year that begins in October, while cutting non-defense funding by roughly 6 percent, Cole said. Those allocations are far lower than Senate leaders in both parties are seeking, foreshadowing yet another multi-month funding clash expected to drag beyond the November election.

With markups of appropriations bills planned for next week, House Republicans are working under spending caps set in the debt limit deal President Joe Biden reached last year with then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy. But they are ignoring other pieces of the agreement.

“I wish I could do better,” Cole told reporters after meeting privately with GOP appropriators Thursday morning. “These are not phony numbers. These are the numbers of the law, first of all.”

The new chair is expected to publicly announce each of the dozen totals Thursday, along with a markup agenda.

The totals Cole divulged Thursday are expected to change, as the Congressional Budget Office releases information on how housing receipts will affect federal cash and the cost of veteran health services, among other things.

“This is where we’re going to start,” Cole said. “We’re going to start with what’s written in the law.”

House appropriators are expected to begin fiscal 2025 markups next week with the measure that would fund military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs going first in subcommittee Tuesday, followed by a full committee markup Thursday. Cole said appropriators also hope to approve their slate of funding totals next week.

Top Senate appropriators are already discussing whether they need to exceed the funding limit set by last year’s debt deal for the Pentagon, arguing that it’s too low to keep pace with inflation and military readiness needs.