Over tiktok taking place now. The house voting on a bill to force the chinese owner to sell the app or be banned in the United States. Welcome to a brandnew hour of americas newsroom. Im dana perino. Always a quick turn around. Bill im bill hemmer. Good morning at home. Some lawmakers say the chinesebased company is a threat to National Security. Others say tiktok ban would limit free speech online. That bipartisan bill expected to pass but faces an uncertain future once it hits the senate. Jim jordan on stand by. Chad pergram has the news live from the hill. Hello to you. Theyre coming to the closing moments of this debate. One vote coming up in this series taking about 20, 25 minutes here but they believe they have the votes to pass this bill. It will take a 2 three vote. If all 432 members of the house vote that will be 288. But they expect to be well alove that threshold. Look to see, though, if some of the concern that former President Trump has expressed suppresses the gop vote a
Are going to be some hardliners that are going to be happy with this because they did want some of that border funding implements of that borderfunding implements it here. i would say they are probably going to do, leadership is probably going to do some magic and throw it in a suspension bill that would override the rules portion so it cannot be blocked on the floor or before it comes to the floor. just so they can get it passed. and to avoid the government from shutting down. just a few days left for some congressional magic. january 19 the first deadline, fabbri second the second deadline. we have the conflicts in ukraine and gaza, the white house pressing for congressional aid package for more military funding for both ukraine and israel. i want to believe you, this is republican house speaker mikejohnson early on speaker mike johnson early on sunday. speaker mikejohnson early on sunday. take a lesson. we speaker mike johnson early on sunday. take a lesson. we have to insist upon
Some hardliners are not going to be happy with this because they wanted the funding levels to be lower but i would say it is a win for, overall, congress because i think they can get this passed. or at least pass it on the floor. you think this could actually pass? because it has been going back and forth. we saw the previous speaker kevin mccarthy essentially ousted over some previous agreements over funding. do you think this will lay a solid framework now for republicans and democrats to work together and get the funding for the government passed? i think i am cautiously optimistic. probably the better way to put it. there are going to be some hardliners that aren t going to be happy because they did want some of that borderfunding implemented here. i would say they are probably going to do, leadership is probably going to do some magic and throw it in a suspension bill that would override
Be in the air. chad pergram has been all over this story. so what is the latest? i just talked to a senior house democratic source. he said they re trying to run some traps. they don t have a final version of the resolution yet. the tentative plan is to move tomorrow. it s not on the official schedule yet. here s the problem, charles. they re going to move this under what they call a suspension bill. meaning they waive the rules but in exchange for that, you need a 2/3 super majority. if you have a lot of pro jewish democrats that want a beef for this and they don t like the language, which you can t get to the 2/3s threshold, that s a problem. i m going to read some of the language here. it rejects anti-semitism as hateful expressions of tolerance and so far the latest version of this that i saw just a few
Talking about cutting benefits. the republicans wanted to support the sting but the democrats were under a suspension bill that does not allow the offset of the $12 million in new spending. that is what the voters said, we want spending under control so we will spend $12 billion and we need to account for it elsewhere but that flies in the face of extending bush tax cuts that will cost over $700 billion, where is that offset? i argue it costs nothing not to resolution taxes on american public. you are talking about money that the government is acting as if they own. it is in the membership s paychecks so it is theirs to start with and we are asking them not to take more. what about the point we don t have the money to pay for it? where does the money come from to extend the benefits? the way we get the budget under control and get this economy balance sheet back is to have jobs and unemployment