House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote in an op-ed published Tuesday that the evidence against President Biden is solid as he outlined the accusations and the next steps of an impeachment inquiry.

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.

Fifty-two percent of respondents to the recent poll say the impeachment inquiry is a partisan political stunt.

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.”

CNN KFILE's Andrew Kaczynski shows how House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA)'s views on impeachment seemed to change after President Joe Biden won the White House from former president Donald Trump.