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.

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.”

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.

The House could hold Hunter Biden in contempt if he refuses to appear behind closed doors as part of a sweeping investigation into President Joe Biden, Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) warned on Wednesday.

“He’s been subpoenaed. We expect him to show up. They don’t get to make the rules,” Comer said in a brief interview with POLITICO.

Asked what the next step would be if Hunter Biden does not meet with his panel, Comer added: “I would expect Congress to hold the president’s son in contempt.”

And Comer and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) formalized that contempt threat in a letter to Hunter Biden's legal team on Wednesday afternoon, writing that if Hunter Biden does not appear on Dec. 13 for a deposition, "the Committees will initiate contempt of Congress proceedings."

Comer and Hunter Biden’s legal team are locked in a standoff over the latter’s requested appearance before the Oversight Committee. While the Oversight chief subpoenaed Hunter Biden to appear for a closed-door deposition, Abbe Lowell, an attorney for the president’s son, instead offered public testimony.

House Republicans rejected that offer; Comer hasn’t ruled out eventual public testimony by Hunter Biden, however, as long as he meets with the committee privately first.

Typically, House panels insist on a private deposition before allowing a public appearance. The Jan. 6 select committee denied several requests by high-profile potential witnesses to testify publicly, including one from Donald Trump ally Rudy Giuliani.

Lowell, in a letter to Comer sent on Wednesday, doubled down on his offer that Hunter Biden would appear before the committee for a public hearing – arguing that a meeting behind closed doors would run the risk of details getting selectively leaked.

“He is making this choice because the Committee has demonstrated time and again it uses closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort, the facts and misinform the American public — a hearing would ensure transparency and truth in these proceedings,” Lowell wrote on Wednesday.

The committee can publicly release deposition transcripts. Comer and Jordan previously pledged that they would do so for a closed-door Hunter Biden interview "soon after its completion."

Hunter Biden is one of several targets of House GOP impeachment inquiry subpoenas or interview requests made as Republicans enter the final stage of their months-long investigation. They are looking to make a decision early next year on whether or not to pursue impeachment articles against the president.

Republicans have found examples of Hunter Biden involving his father to try to boost his own profile, in addition to poking holes in some of Joe Biden’s and the White House’s previous statements, but they’ve yet to find a direct link that shows Joe Biden took official actions as president or vice president to benefit his family’s businesses.

House Republicans are asking Hunter Biden’s legal team to confirm if the president’s son will appear for a closed-door deposition later this month.

Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent a letter Friday to Abbe Lowell, Hunter Biden’s counsel, asking for confirmation by Monday that he will appear, as subpoenaed, for a deposition on Dec. 13.

It’s the latest back and forth between Hunter Biden’s legal team and the House GOP investigators over the appearance.

Lowell, in a letter last week, said Hunter Biden was willing to appear on Dec. 13, or any other date this month that they could agree to, but wanted it to be a public hearing, not a closed-door deposition.

“A public proceeding would prevent selective leaks, manipulated transcripts, doctored exhibits, or one-sided press statements,” Lowell wrote at the time.

But Comer immediately poured cold water on the request, saying Hunter Biden had to first appear for the closed-door deposition.

“We appreciate your confirmation that Mr. Biden is available and willing to testify on December 13. Pursuant to the terms of the subpoenas … this testimony will occur initially in a deposition setting,” Comer and Jordan reiterated in their Friday letter, adding they looked forward to also having a public hearing “at the appropriate time.”

Pointing back to Lowell’s concerns about a closed-door interview, Comer and Jordan added they would videotape the deposition and release a transcript “soon after its completion.”

House Republicans view Hunter Biden as their top potential witness in the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, which has largely focused on the business deals of Hunter and other family members. Republicans haven’t yet found a smoking gun that links actions taken by Joe Biden as president or vice president to those arrangements.

But they could vote as soon as next week to formalize that inquiry, which they believe will give them more legal teeth in potential court battles over subpoenaed witnesses and documents. They’ve issued several subpoenas over the past month, including to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s brother James Biden and Rob Walker, a Hunter Biden business associate.

House Republicans are preparing to vote as soon as next week to formalize their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

The emerging consensus around a speedy vote, which could help strengthen their hand in likely legal battles over subpoenas related to the probe, comes after Republicans huddled behind closed doors on Friday morning to update members on their investigation. After months of focusing largely on business deals by Hunter Biden and other Biden family members, GOP lawmakers have yet to uncover direct links to any decision Joe Biden made as president or vice president.

Even so, Republicans plan to press ahead on formalizing an inquiry that was started without a vote in September by then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy. They are under pressure from their base to show progress, even if it's incremental, toward their ultimate goal of impeaching the president.

“That’s the plan,” said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) about wanting a vote next week on formalizing the inquiry.

No one stood up during Friday’s closed-door conference to speak against the proposed vote, according to GOP lawmakers in the meeting — a sign that past resistance from centrist members is fading. Republicans will need near-unanimous support on their side of the aisle to vote in favor of an inquiry, given that near-universal Democratic opposition is expected.

And several Biden-district Republicans now appear ready to support an inquiry, pointing to arguments from investigators that otherwise their requests for interviews and documents will be stonewalled. The White House recently used a Trump-era Justice Department opinion to rebuff interview requests, arguing investigative steps and subpoenas initiated so far aren’t valid because Republicans never held a formal vote to start the inquiry .

“They said we’ll only give you documents if you have a vote on an inquiry, so I feel like we have to vote yes, and it’s different than an impeachment itself,” said centrist Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.).

But there also wasn’t full attendance at Friday’s meeting, which means party leadership will still need to take the pulse of their full membership, with some members indicating they still aren't sold. And the majority got even thinner on Friday after Republicans helped expel now-former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.).

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who has been one of his party’s most vocal impeachment critics, indicated this week he hadn’t yet seen something that would bring him on board. And Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said he wanted to talk to Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) before making a decision.

“I’ll talk to Jim and Jamie and hear them out,” Fitzpatrick said, adding that he wants to make sure that the rules are “consistent.”

Republicans who predicted a quick vote next week also cautioned that it would only go forward if they had the votes and could slide closer to 2024 if they need to iron out any remaining sticking points.

“I think we’ll have one by the end of the year, whether it’s this week or the week after,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Top Republicans haven’t officially said they will bring a resolution formalizing the inquiry to the floor next week. Comer said that the inquiry resolution was currently being drafted, though, in a clear signal that it’s poised to move forward,

Rules Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said he expected his committee, which preps bills for the floor, could take up the matter by Wednesday.

“That’s what I would anticipate,” Cole said about the timeline, while adding that the ultimate decision rests with leadership.

Republicans are months into a sweeping investigation aimed at the president as his reelection campaign kicks into gear. In addition to his family’s business deals, they are investigating the years-long federal investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s handling of classified records, which is also the subject of a special counsel investigation.

While Republicans have poked holes in previous statements by Joe Biden and the White House, in addition to finding evidence of Hunter Biden trying to use his last name to burnish his own clout, they haven’t yet found clear evidence that the president has been improperly influenced.

Both the White House and House Democrats are preparing for Republicans to try to advance their impeachment inquiry, circulating memos on Friday morning that blast the GOP investigation.

The White House memo specifically seeks to counter claims of obstruction, writing that Republicans are “trying to invent claims of ‘obstruction’ and ‘stonewalling’ to rationalize their illegitimate so-called ‘impeachment inquiry.’”

Republicans also cautioned that, even if they formalize their impeachment inquiry, it doesn't mean they will ultimately recommend booting Biden from office.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), when asked if they would have the votes to actually impeach Biden, said that was “getting ahead of where we are.” And Bacon doesn't think supporting an inquiry makes an impeachment vote more likely, saying: “I think they’re two different things.”

“I think the voters should know the facts. And they’re going to decide next November,” Bacon said. “Unless there is something really stunning that comes out of all of this."

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene withdrew a second attempt to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas on Thursday, saying she had received guarantees a House committee would "move forward" on impeaching the Homeland Security secretary.

“I have been guaranteed that we'll move forward with impeaching Mayorkas. The good thing is, is that my articles of impeachment are in the Homeland [Security] Committee, where we can move forward," Greene said.

The Georgia Republican first triggered a vote on impeaching Mayorkas roughly two weeks ago, leapfrogging over GOP leadership. At the time, eight Republicans voted with Democrats to send the articles to committee, and Greene acknowledged ahead of Thursday’s vote that she hadn’t spoken to the holdouts to see if they had changed their position.

At least one made it clear they hadn’t — Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), who called Greene’s impeachment attempt “manifestly unserious” and the idea that two-thirds of the Senate would remove him a “delusional fantasy.”

“What is the practical effect of impeaching Mayorkas, other than assuring that Republicans will have no defense when a future Democrat majority turns this new definition against them?” he added, accusing Greene of trying to expand what qualifies as an impeachable offense.

Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.), who is conducting a sweeping investigation into Mayorkas and the border, hasn’t said publicly if he will ultimately make a referral to the Judiciary Committee, which would handle an impeachment. But Greene indicated she had received assurances, without specifying from who, that the committee would advance impeachment. She said she’d spoken to Speaker Mike Johnson and Green.

Greene indicated earlier this week that she had also heard little from the top ranks of her conference, contrasting the silence from Speaker Mike Johnson to how she believes ex-GOP leader Kevin McCarthy would have handled it if the Californian were still speaker. Johnson, unlike McCarthy, has backed impeaching Mayorkas. But McCarthy had a closer relationship and was in more frequent contact with Greene.

“It’s something that should be a priority for him as speaker of the House,” Greene said, adding that she believes McCarthy would have reached out to her about the effort.

Greene added that she would “just keep reintroducing” the impeachment articles, predicting that “the American people will not tolerate Republicans continuing to vote it down.”

Mayorkas was once viewed as the House GOP majority’s most likely impeachment target, with frustration over the Biden administration’s handling of the border a unifying through line for a conference that frequently finds itself at odds.

But impeachment advocates have struggled to lock down the votes needed to recommend booting him from office, amid skepticism from a swath of their GOP colleagues that his actions meet the bar for impeachment, rather than just a policy disagreement.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, in a statement, said that Congress should “stop wasting time and do its job by reforming our broken immigration system, reauthorizing vital tools for DHS, and passing the Administration’s supplemental request.”

Meanwhile, House Republicans are nearing the end of a broad impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, and are under pressure from their right flank to show progress on that front. They are expected to hold a conference meeting on Friday to discuss the Biden investigation.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is pushing her colleagues to impeach Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — again.

The Georgia firebrand on Wednesday introduced her second Mayorkas impeachment resolution in one month, which she's aiming to force a vote on within two legislative days. Greene’s last attempt to eject Mayorkas failed, with the vote instead sending her impeachment resolution to the Homeland Security Committee, which has been investigating the senior Biden administration official for his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border for months.

All House Democrats voted to send her last motion to the panel, along with eight House Republicans. It’s unlikely that the math has changed enough for the vote to succeed this time. There’s still a larger swath within the conference that isn't yet on board with what would be a historic step to boot a Cabinet official.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), one of the eight, teed off on Greene shortly before she made her motion on Wednesday. While McClintock said he agreed with the actions Greene is accusing Mayorkas of, he doesn’t believe they meet the bar of an impeachment offense.

“If Ms. Greene is successful in redefining impeachment, then the next time Democrats have the majority we can expect this new definition to be turned against the conservatives on the Supreme Court and any future Republican administration,” McClintock said.

Greene’s move comes after Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) told Republicans behind closed doors on Wednesday that Republicans could soon vote to formalize the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

McClintock added that Greene was “tainting this serious impeachment inquiry with a shoot-from-the-hip stunt.”

House Republicans are preparing to take a formal vote on their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden in the coming weeks, Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) told GOP lawmakers on Wednesday morning.

Emmer addressed House Republicans as they prepare for a make-or-break decision on how far to take their probe of the president's connections to his son Hunter's overseas business dealings — which, so far, has failed to yield any tangible proof that the First Son influenced his father's decisions, as president or vice president.

Republicans are pressing for a closed-door interview with Hunter Biden sometime next month, though they rejected an offer by his counsel to appear at a public hearing instead. Conservatives who want an impeachment vote are hopeful that there will be sufficient GOP buy-in by January for articles of impeachment against Joe Biden, though centrists and Republicans who represent districts that he won in 2020 remain skeptical.

Generally speaking, a House vote on an impeachment inquiry — a separate, preliminary step before a formal impeachment vote — would also appear to help Republicans work around a Trump-era order that bars any administration from engaging in such an inquiry if the full chamber has not voted for one. That order dates back to 2019, when House Democrats delayed for months before voting to authorize the inquiry that led to Donald Trump's first impeachment.

Kyle Cheney contributed.

Hunter Biden’s legal team demanded that he be allowed to testify publicly in response to a House GOP subpoena. James Comer quickly shot it down.

A Biden lawyer sent a letter to the House Oversight Chair Tuesday morning, saying the president’s son would appear publicly before the committee on Dec. 13. That ran counter to a stipulation of the subpoena, which called for a private deposition with lawmakers and aides.

“A public proceeding would prevent selective leaks, manipulated transcripts, doctored exhibits, or one-sided press statements,” Abbe Lowell, Hunter Biden’s attorney, wrote in the letter. He added that they were also amenable to any other date next month the two sides could agree on.

Comer denied the request in a statement Tuesday, saying it “won’t stand with House Republicans.”

“Our lawfully issued subpoena to Hunter Biden requires him to appear for a deposition on December 13,” Comer continued. “We expect full cooperation with our subpoena for a deposition but also agree that Hunter Biden should have the opportunity to testify in a public setting at a future date.”

Typically, House panels insist on a private deposition before allowing a public appearance. The Jan. 6 select committee denied several requests to testify publicly, including one from Rudy Giuliani.

The demand from Biden’s lawyers to testify publicly marks the latest salvo in an increasingly public back-and-forth between the president’s son and House Republicans, who view him as their top witness in a sprawling impeachment investigation focused on President Joe Biden. It has primarily focused on the business deals of Hunter Biden and other family members.

Lowell had initially indicated, in the immediate wake of Comer’s subpoena last month, that Hunter Biden was willing to speak with the committee “in a public forum and at the right time.”

The president’s son is just one of several targets of House GOP impeachment inquiry subpoenas or interview requests made in the last month. Comer also subpoenaed James Biden, Joe Biden’s brother, to appear for a deposition next month and Rob Walker, a Hunter Biden business associate, to appear for a deposition on Wednesday. Several other Biden family members received requests to voluntarily appear before the panel for questioning.

House Republicans are months deep into their multi-pronged investigation, with Republicans looking to make a decision early next year on whether or not to pursue impeachment articles against Joe Biden.

And while Republicans have found examples of Hunter Biden involving his father to try to boost his own profile and poked holes in some of Joe Biden’s and the White House’s previous statements, they’ve struggled to find a direct link that shows Joe Biden took official actions as president or vice president to benefit his family’s business deals.

At the same time, impeachment advocates are still facing skepticism from a coalition of centrists and old-school conservatives who support the investigations but don’t believe they’ve met the bar for impeachment, at least not yet. Given that no House Democrats are likely to back impeaching Biden, Republicans will need almost near unity in their conference.

In addition to Biden family business deals, Republicans are probing other avenues, including the years-long federal investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents, which is also the subject of a special counsel investigation.

Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.