someone might need an extra hug or encouragement. we have one minute left here on the east coast, go to it. most watched, trusts, most grateful you spent the evening with us. good night from washington. i'm shannon bream. ♪ >> brian: hi, everybody, i'm brian kilmeade. this is "tucker carlson tonight." tucker will be with you in about 5 minutes, we do have some breaking news we want to share with you. dominated by many stories. one of which was the bipartisan budget bill for borders and big number is that the number president was not happened with is 1.375 presidential to build a barrier. he could do anything he wanted with it. the question was would the president add something with that.. we declare a national emergency? i just got off the phone with mic mulvane the chief of staff the answer is resounding yes. for the first time you will g hear how much it is and where the money is coming from. w it's going to be about $8 billion. he had the 1.3 and 600 million will come from the treasury. the treasury t forfeiture front. 2.5 billion out of dod.

they consulted with the mick mulvaney and the white house over the last few months on what they could actually doov and use some money they feel they can spare on the drug interdiction account. then they came across with 3.5 billion for the military, the military construction budget. they feel they can help in that respect. and then, of course, they have additional money and all adds up to $8 billion. the 1.375 not enough for the president. he wanted 5.7. he walks away at the end of the day with $8 billion and, of course, the democrats and some republicans are upset about that. now, let's go to capitol hill. earlier today we understand david spunt that the senate voted 83 yeses to pass this bipartisan bill. what could you tell us about the house tonight? >> yeah, brian, 83 to 16. it has been a very busy day here on capitol hill. the house is getting ready to vote on this final passage here sometime in the next hour and a half, two hours. we are expecting this to be a resounding yes, if you talk to democrats. that's what house speaker nancy pelosi says.

now, after the house votes on, this it's going to go over to the white house. you mentioned you spoke to chief of staff mick mulvaney, president trump, the rest of his team ready, anxiously awaiting to see the final tally and to see this final legislation. now, senator mitch mcconnell, he is the majority leader, he made sure that he had assurances from the white house today that president trump would indeed declare a national emergency for that 1.37 billion-dollar border barrier enough for 55 miles of fencing along the5 texas-mexico border. now, there were several provisions. one of them brian out of the many provisions is that the department of homeland security they have to discuss any construction with local leaders before that construction takes place. but the big news here right now is the house. house speaker nancy pelosi said she is confident that this will pass in theil house. we will stand by and bring you any other updates, brian. >> brian: we will go back tol you especially in that vote takes place and some people change their vote when they hear about the president's

declaration of a national emergency which is official, be signed tomorrow. i would like to now go out to you congressman chip roy the republican is on the floor getting some of this news.he now, congressman, i understand you are not thrilled with the additional funds that the president ishe going to be declaring tomorrow. why? >> well, hi, brian, thanks for having me on. look, my primary concern here is that the congress hasn't done its job. they have left the president figuring out how to handle and this secure the border o of the united states which is fundamentally our duty as a sovereign nation.an he shouldn't be in that position. if the president signs this bill, this very bad bill, then i believe he might actually undermine the very emergency that he is trying to declare. congress has not done its duty. we have now sent him up a bill which actually makes it impossible to build fencing along the rio grande valley and public land. impossible to build fencing where think there might be objections from local officials.ns mcallen is where we have 400,000 people screaming across our border and bringing fentanyl in our country. and bringing children into our country used as hostages by the cartels.

this has a provision in it section 224 which will empower the cartels to his children and make sure they are protecting people here were here illegally as their sponsors as the bill says. that is unconscionable. i'm really frustrated this is what congress is sending to the president. i hope he will reject it and veto it. >> brian: there are some provisions in a thousand place plus bill that you didn't have 72 hours to review. you nixed that.ve as people read it they are starting to see some poison pills which make me wonder how anyone republican could be upset that the presidentho is going to get an extrant $8 billion in emergency funds. congressman, interesting vote, we will see how it goes. we will check back with you. >> thanks, brian. appreciate it. b >> brian: all right, let's go out to kansas.>> kris kobach former kansas secretary of state ran forob senate, almost won that --se governor, excuse me. chris, we spoke on "fox & friends" this morning and you said i have got to look at these thousand pages to see if poison pills.s" you heard the congressman.. do you see some provisions in here that the president is not going to be happy about?ou >> yes, i do.

i agree with congressman roy completely. section 224 is a de facto amnesty. anybody who can claim to bee a potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien minor and we have about 223,000 such individuals who have been let into this country. potential sponsor can be a distant relative. you know, so you played out the numbers. it's probably going to be upwards of a million people who are going to claim this protection from removal. they can't be deported according to this bill, even if they are even in a household of a potential sponsor of a unaccompanied alien child. it's a disastrous provision. there is also a provision that says the president can't impose any border fees on crossings. that's one way he is going to make mexico pay for the wall is impose a fee on people coming in from mexico. the bill doesn't allow him to do it. i blame the republican negotiators for putting him in this really bad position. he needs the 1.3 million to build the wall but he has these poison pills attached to it. they really shouldn't have

put the president in this position. >> brian: that's true. you have the bill and then tomorrow the president is going to be signing into -- is he going to actually declare a national emergency. it's been done 58 times since the law went into effect. and giving the president power since 1976. so, will that solve a lot of these problems? >> well, yes and no. the national emergency will the president to free up additional funds to spend on building the badly needed border wall. and i just came last week from the arizona border where it's wide open in many places. we absolutely need it and we need to be building immediately. but the what happens those funds become available immediately there is a a chance when the democratsll and their allies take this to court the national emergency, that if they get -- they draw lucky and get a judge who is an activist and wants to see the president wall project stopped, that judge might enjoin the use of the additionalst funds.

they come from the national emergency. he needs 1.3 billion to gety, started immediately. we will see. obviously, the president is looking for money everywhere to make good on his number one promise that he made to the american people to build that wall. i know where is he coming from here.nn he wants to stay faithful to that promise and he sees the incredible emergency we have on our southern border and, like i say, just coming from the border recently, it's happening every day and it is a big problem. >> brian: you know, keep in mind, president obama 12 of these national state emergencies. he did same thing with daca and so far the supreme court has not even taken that up yet. maybe this will be on a fast track. in the meantime the president could possibly spend the money. kris kobach, you are all over this. thanks so much for reading pages.usand we will see if it passes the house. >> my pleasure. almost my pleasure. >> chris: almost your pleasure, right. let's go out to mark steyn for some deep thoughts. mark, after the president made it clear today that he is going to be declaring using emergency funds, immediately nancy pelosi

came out and said okay, maybe a democratic president will decide guns, there is too many guns in this country and declare a safety emergency that would not apply to this provision. but what do you think thet. ramifications are of the president doing this? >> well, i think it's difficult with guns because guns are in the constitution. i'm not sure it would be so much more difficult if she wanted to do something on, say, climate change and the green new deal and that kind of thing. so i do share concerns about having to actually police one's national front here for an emergency measure. and i think actually just to go back to what kris kobach was saying, brian. i think we all know the first judge the democrats lay this in front of whichever rinky dink district court judge in the ninth circuit they decide to give the gift of this emergency, national emergency, too is he going to order a stay on it. and, then we get to the stuff that's in the bill,

this hideous bill where it actually gives a veto to municipalities as to whether any border wall can be constructed. there are a lot of huge problems here and most of them arise because the republicans, when they control congress, didn't get this done in the first two years.he >> brian: right it is strange. they only gave 1.6 and they only offered him that even on the second year when paul ryan was in charge. it was put screen, mark for very good reason. i know you usually like your face on the whole screen. we are doing if for a good reason to believe. we are watching the vote and speeches coming out of the house. normally the house would vote first but because of the funeral today they asked for the senate to go first. in the big picture, the president sits there and negotiates in a bipartisan way.nd many people feel as though democrats got more than the republicans, fine. but this $8 billion should keep many conservatives happy knowing that the president continues to fight and trying to fulfill a promise. would you buy that? >> well, i think we needed

some clarity on what the bill actually says. because, some of this stuff about, again, the language that chip roy was talking about, potential sponsors. that appears to incentivize human trafficking. i don't know why the democrats are in favor of that.he but, the republicans certainly shouldn't be. >> brian: all right. mark, thanks so much. >> thanks a lot, brian. >> brian: you got it. 600 million come from treasury, 2.5 dod drug interdiction. 3.5 military construction budget and that will get to you 8 billion that will build a lot of wall and bring a lot of security. let's see what happens over the next 24 to 48 hours as we continue to watch that vote in the house. in the meantime, while we watch that coming up next, in a couple of minutes, tucker carlson takes on the issues like andrew mccabe new book and accusations. later on china, marco rubio, his greatest concerns as we try to reconfigure our trade relationship. don't miss a minute.

♪ place, the xfinity xfi gateway.

and it's strengthened by xfi pods, which plug in to extend the wifi even farther, past anything that stands in its way. ...well almost anything. leave no room behind with xfi pods. simple. easy. awesome. click or visit a retail store today. ♪ >> tucker: people that seem a little paranoid to be honest talk about a coup, now they don't seem quite as crazy. new interview andy mccabe admitted that justice department officials discussed launching an administrative coup d'etat against the president of the united states. the official says mccabe considered acting the president's cabinet to invoke the never invoke 25th

amendment to the constitution as a way to remove trump from power. obviously without anel election or an impeachment hearing. she has details for us tonight. >> thank you. he went on the record confirming a report that he believed the justice department second ing command of a serious but recording the president and evoking the 25th amendment. the timing matters because may 2017 is a pivotal month in the rush of probe. deputy attorney general rob rubenstein, two weeks in the job when president trump fired james comey. eight days later appointed the spencer counsel. tell cbs news that after he was fired the fbi launched an obstruction of justice case in addition to the fbi's ongoing investigation intota alleged russian inclusion. in a statement the justice department seemed to stop short of denying removing the president. the deputy general never authorize any recording that mr. mccabe references basin as personal dealings with the

president. there is no basis to invoke the 25th amendment. in a tweet, president trump hit back disgrace you had acting director andrew mccabe pretends to be a poor little angel when in fact he was a big part of the crooked hillary scandal and the russia hoax. a puppet for lying james comey. he was fired last year to lying to federal investigators. tucker? >> tucker: catherine honorable for us. thanke you. >> you are welcome. >> tucker: i appreciate it john somers a former communications director for senator harry reid of ned and he joins us tonight. john, thank you very much for coming on. >> you bet. >> tucker: take the party ids off the players in this. here you have federal law enforcement discussing removing theg president without an impeachment or an election. that sounds like something that happens in a third world country. doesn't it? >> it's something and i'm not going to defend any one individual in this situation because these are very serious conversations that they were having. c c

they are based off theme constitution. does act as a safeguard should be ever run into that situation. >> tucker: run into what situation?n?tu >> run into a situation. >> tucker: where youou don't like the president or rah agree with his policy. >> where you don't feel the president can do his job. i don't have a problem that they had these discussions at the end of the day they landed at no. i think that's the important thing too. remember. so the system worked the way it was supposed to. as it relates to whether or not to remove the president. >> tucker: no. no.. because if you find yourself as an executive branchve employee, disagreeing the policies of the person for whom you work, you leave. you quit. and you can state so publicly if you want. you have the right to do it. what you are not allowed to do is try to take power from the one elected guy in the entire branch of government because that's not democratic. it's the opposite of democratic. but that's what they tried to do. >> agreed. what you are saying is they were considering it because they didn't like the policies.

i don't think that's the case att all. >> tucker: why were they considering it? >> there was a genuine concern how russia was involved. >> tucker: the amendment was written after woodrow wilson suffered a stroke in office and his wife wound up running the country. i guess she was a fine president.t. we didn't want to repeat that, this was specifically written and every lawyer knows. a this including the ones at the fbi for a president who is incapacitated. not for a president whose policies you find repugnant or disagree with just because he is not a neocon doesn't mean can you remove him from power. >> a. agree.he again, i don't think that's what they were thinking about.n, there was big concern, again, when you look at the timing of mccabe going into office and again, he is obviously a flawed messenger in many ways. when you look at the time that he was elevated to his position was right after james comey was fired. and why was james comey fired as the president said himself because he wanted the investigation to end. clearly there was a concern. >> tucker: there was a concern because the guy they liked who was their boss got g fired which was absolutely

the prerogative of thisre or any president to fire his own employees if he wants. for whatever reasons he wants. if you don't like him impeach it or vote against him. >> unless viewed as obstruction of justice. >> tucker: under no plausible scenario could it be because, of course, the fbi director is free to say whatever he wanted. the congressional committees or the mueller investigation or write a book which, indeed he did. it's not obstruction of justice. it's not to prevent justice from working it way to its conclusion. i just wonder why are he liberals all of a sudden defending this radically empowered federal law enforcement agency? you don't see this as a threat to the kamala harris administration two years from now?? for real. >> and i get the question. i don't see liberals defending. this i think what we are defending is the -- is protecting the investigation. so we have a good understanding of exactly what russia was doing in the 2016 election and whether they were aided by anyone here in the united states.

>> part of that question centers on the president of the united states and some of its closest. >> tucker: we spent two years looking into that and the conclusion of the senate committee that looks into it is there is no conclusion. >> that's not true.nt that's what the chair of that committee said. that wasn't a statement from the committee as a whole. that's what the chair said. >> tucker: is there a point at which. >> ranking member, just to be fair, the ranking member said he disagreed. >> tucker: no, the ranking member did not say. >> an official core documents have come to the conclusion that there was some collusion. o we saw that in the manafort documents and we have also seen it in the roger stone documents. -- >> tucker: just for the record there is no quote collusion with russia in the roger stone indictments. no one has been indicted for colluding with anybody so far. >> acting as a liaison between wikileaks on behalf of the russia. >> tucker: that's not a crime and not collusion. but leaving that aside, i just want to end on this. does it really honestly as a citizen not bother you that a federal lawha enforcement agency discussed removing the president of the unitedss

states by nondemocratic means for basically disagreeing with them and firing their boss. that doesn't bother you at asall. >> the premise off your question if that was the case would bother me. that's not what that was about.f >> tucker: let's leave the last part off. whatever it was about. >> fine they have the discussion as provided by the 25th amendment and landed on no. >> tucker: that's like saying i talked about killing my wife, i didn't do alit. do you know what i mean? there is a difference i'm not a murderer but, oh, yeah, you discussed that what does that say about you? something ominous, no? >> what it says is less about the people and more about the concerns they have about the president who isho trying to stop an investigation into his campaign.st >> tucker: 25th amendment. >> if he has nothing to hide he should have nothing to fear.me >> tucker: give me your email pass ward if you have nothing tofe hide. we will talk about it off air.d >> thank you. >> tucker: in interview he admits his attempt to undermine after his boss jim comey was firedts and it was, of course, due to russia.

>> i was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage and that was something that troubled me greatly. >> how long was it after that that you decided to start the obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations involving the president? >> i think the next day i met with the team investigating the russia cases and i asked the team to go back and conduct an assessment to determine where are we with these efforts and what steps do we need to take going forward? >> tucker: alan dershowitz is a retired harvard law professor the author of the book the case against the democraticso house impeaching trump and he joins us tonight. professor, thanks very much for coming on.

so now the suspicions to many are confirmed by one of the players in it the department of justice discussed trying to remove the president using the 25th amendment. what's your reaction to that? >> well, if that's true, it is clearly an attempt coup d'etat.. relating to what your former guest said. let's take the worst case scenario. let's assume the president of the united states was in bed with the russians, committed treason and obstruction of justice. the 25th amendment simply is irrelevant to that. that's why have you impeachment provision.st the 25th amendment is about woodrow wilson having a stroke. it's about a president being shot and not being able to perform his office. it's not about the most fundamental disagreements and's impeachable offenses. any justice department official who even mentionedof the 25th amendment in the context of president trump has committed a grievous offense against the constitution.

the framers of the 25th amendment had in mind something very specific and trying to use the 25th amendment to circumvent the impeachment provisions or to circumvent an election is a despicable acts of unconstitutional power grabbing. and you were right when you said it reminds me of what happens in third world countries. r look, these people may have been h well-intentioned. they may have believed they were serving the interest of the united states, but you have to obey the law and the law is the constitution. and the 25th amendment is as clear as could be incapacity. unable to perform office. that's what you need. that's why you need two thirds of the house and twowo thirds of the senate agreeing and it has to be on the basis of a medical or psychological incapacity.ap not on the basis of even the most extreme crimes which there is no evidence were committed. but even if they were, that would not be a basis for invoking the 25th amendment. i challenge any left wing

person to get on television and to defender the use of the 25th amendment. i challenge any of my colleagues who are in the get trump at any cost camp to come on television and justify the use of the 25th amendment other than for physical or psychiatric incapacity. >> i bet they are doing that now. this is an attack on our system not just the president. alan dershowitz thank you very much. >> it is an attack on the constitution. >> tucker: scary. we have update on language in the borders bill. one part of that bill says essentially that illegal immigrant families can pick up illegal immigrant children from federal custody and the dhs will not be notified of that. any language added to the billing is there for a reason and the reason here is very clear. it will make it easier for children coming from centralal america to be aided by illegal immigrants here in the united states. now, this may be motivated by goodwill. we can debate it but, in effect it creates a harmful incentive it will encourage more children to make the

long and dangerous trek up through central america to the united states. we will continue to stay on top of the details of this bill because they arehi worth paying attention to.

>> tucker: for generations everybody in america knew what the stereotypes were for the political parties. democrats were the party of the working class, coal minors, factory workers local beat cop. republicans were the party of lawyers and doctors and spent a lot of time at country clubs. remember?

things have changed a lot. now democrats have become the party of the elite professional class, consultants, i bankers, social lites, eager to lecture you about open borders and global warming from their gated communities. nobody has seen that change better than the author better than the hillbilly elegy. j.d. vance. >> tucker: i want to ask you a broader question, the parties have realigned they don't represent the same people they thoughty they represented or that they have represented for the last 70 years. i'm not sure their leaders understand this. but you do. who do the parties represent as of right now. >> well, at a big level, the democratic party increasingly represents professional class elites. >> tucker: yes. >> republicanske represent middle and working class wage earns in the middle of the country.ep i think democratic leaders kind of get this.

if you look at the big proposals from the 2020 democratic presidential y candidates, universal child care, debt free college. even medicare for all which is framed as this lurch to the left big handout to doctors, physicians pharmaceutical companies and hospitals. they sort of get they are the party of the professional class and a lotet of their policies are geared towards making life easier for professional class americans. the problem i have is that my party, the republican party hasn't quite figured out that we basically inherited a big chunk of the old fdr coalition the middle of the country working and middle class blue collar folks sort of people who work, pay their taxes, send their kids to military. that's increasingly the base of the republican party. but the republican donor elites are actually not aligned with those folks in a lot of ways. so there is this really big mismatch, big picture within the republican party. >> tucker: i'm completely fascinated what you just said. never thought about in my life medicare for all is actually a sop to the professional class. that's a whole separate

segment i hope you will come back and unpack that all. >> sure. >> tucker: more broadly what you are saying,ll i think is, that the democratic party understands what it isoc and who it represents and affirmativelyy represents them. they do things for their voters. but the republican party doesn't actually represent its own voters very well that's exactlyn' right. of look at who thee democratic party is and i don't like their policies, most of the time i disagree with them. least admire who their voters are and raw cynical politic does a lot of things to serve those voters. look at who republican voters increasinglyot are. they are people who disproportionately serve in the military but republican foreign policy has been a disaster for a lot of veterans. they are disproportionately folks who want to have more children. they are people who want to have more single earner families. they are people who don't necessarily want to go to college but they want to work in an economy where if you play by the rules can you actually support a family on one income. >> tucker:rt yes. >> have republicans done

anything for those people really in the last 15 or 20 years. i think can you point to some policies of the trump administration.ti certainly instinctively the president gets who his voters are and what he has to do to service those folks. at the end of the day, h the broad elite of they party, the folks who really call ithe shots, the think tank intellectuals and people who write the policy i just don't think they realize who their own voters are the slightly more worrying implication is maybe some of them do realize who their voters are they just don't actually like those voters. >> tucker: that's it. i watch the democratic party and i notice if there is a substantial block within it, this unstable coalition all those groups have nothing in common. one thing they have common n. common the democratic party will protect them. criticize a block of democratic voters they are on you like a wounded wombat. they will bite you. the republicans watch their voters come under attack and nod in agreement those people should be attacked. >> that's absolutely right. if you talk to people who spent their lives in d.c. i know you live in d.c. >> tucker: yes. >> i spent a lot of my life

here. the people who spend their time in d.c. who work on republican campaigns, who work at conservative think tanks, now this isn't true of everybody, but a lot of them actually don't like the people who are voting for republican candidates these days. >> tucker: yes. >> if you ultimately boil down the never trump-while is the never trump phenomenon. i was very critical of the president in the campaign. >> tucker: yes. >> never trump phenomenon is primarily not about the president or people who are most excited about somebody who was antielitist, effectively taking over the republican party. they recognized that trump was whatever his faults, a person who instinctively understood who republicans needed to be for. and at the end of the day, i think they don't necessarily want the republican party to be for those folks. they don't like the policies that will come from it they don't likenessly the country that will come from it, so there is a lot of vitriol directed at people who voted for donald trump whether excitedly or not. >> tucker: if the republican

party has a future, it will be organized around the ideas you just laid out. maybe lid by you or someone who thinks like you, i'm serious. that's what i t. means, i think. j.d. vance. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: time for final exam remarkable lauren blanchard going for eighth win in a row. the question is have you paid closer attention than she has to this week's news? find out after the break. ♪ lie. (charlie) no drain, no pain. just tear, eat... and go! try all of my tuna, salmon and chicken pouches.

♪ >> we want to cover the breaking news. we understand, normal procedure would be the senate would bow to second when you have a bipartisan bill like this budget bill to extend funding of the governmental december 30th. because of the funeral, the house said chemically vote they tonight? 83 votes and it passes. this very moment is beginning to vote and they're going to vote for the next 15 minutes.

on the passage of the bill. now, it's expected to pass as we bring in mark steyn. mark, the one thing i'm wondering is being that it's become clear and we reported at the top of the hour that the president is going to take the 1.375 billion and all the provisions that are with it, to build the barrier and there is more money, there is about $49 billion in here for other things. but it's going to take that but the being that he is getting about 8 billion total in emergency funds, national emergency funds, which he can declare constitutionally, i'm wondering if some liberals are going to defect from that. what do you think? >> so, the theory would be that if they think he is serious about doing it, then they would object to this bill because he does need the starting money. he needs that additional -- he needs that billion and change just so he can get going before as we were talking about before. some district court judge in the ninth circuit somewhere decides to strike it down. i think what will be

interesting about this is the dynamic, the dynamic between the freedom caucus, which in the house which has felt it does not actually have any meaningful leverage on this and president president's own inclinations. the language of this bill, this is an appallingly written bill. as you say it's very weird for it to be starting in the senate. funding bills normally start in the house. there is a great sense that a lot of this is being kind of made up as it goes along there are things in that bill that are poorly drafted and that of huge implication and legislators owe that to their constituents beyond anything else. all this wording that nothing in this bill or any other bills, for example, what does or any other bills mean in there? you can't ever build a wall in the rio grande valley, no way, no how, not now, not never? i mean, this isn't the way -- this isn't the way

republics draft legislation. >> brian: right. we are watching this tally go right now. the in charge of appropriations chairperson one the who really part of the -- led the 17 person bipartisan bicameral committee. she just spoke before we got on just while we were in the break, mark. and she was saying okay, let the voting start. it's going to be electronic and we have right now it looks pretty -- it looks 122 to 22. so it looks pretty overwhelming. if you missed it at the top of the hour. we did speak to mick mulvaney, he broke down where he is getting the additional money that the president will officially sign in the executive order and national emergency. is he getting 600 million for the treasury forfeiture fund. is he going to get 2.5 billion from the dod drug interdiction account. 3.5 billion for the military construction budget. now, over the last three month, he has been asking

people come up with some money, you think that will help it's all in the name of national security. but, i want to go now, yeah. and this is the money how it breaks down. obviously, nancy pelosi is going to just a matter of time before she challenges this or somebody challenges this in court. david spunt is actually on the house floor covering all of this as the vote develops. it's 129 to 28. david, any surprises so far? >> well, hey, brian, that's the vote total right now. the actual final number is 217. that would be the magic number i should say. once it gets to 217, then you can officially say that they have the votes needed to actually pass that bill, combine that with the senate version and then go ahead and send it over to the white house. nancy pelosi, the house speaker said today she has been confident from the beginning that this was not going to be a problem. she said this was going to pass. also, brian, she mentioned that there may be some legal challenges if the president declares a national emergency.

she said that it could cause some type of precedent issues, meaning that if a democrat gets elected next time they could declare a national emergency for what they feel would constitute a national emergency. so right now it's a 15-minute vote. we should know, according i'm looking right now from some emails from our house producer chad pergram, the final tally should come somewhere around the top of the hour in about 15 minutes. and the magic number in the house is 217 as we watch those votes tally now and then at that point there will be a ceremony. nancy pelosi the house speaker will sign it and then send it over to the white house where you have been speaking to the chief of staff and the president's team will review it before he signs it. brian? >> brian: david, real quick, 10 seconds, anybody say something of note in their remarks before the vote took place that our viewers should know about? >> we do know that alexandria ocasio-cortez, she is a liberal democrat from new york, and as she was walking in somebody spoke to her off camera and she said she would be voting no because the actual bill gives money to homeland security. she says she wants to defund ice and parts of homeland security, brian. >> brian: right.

she is definitely -- she is definitely different. always trying to stand out on every vote at every moment. david spunt. thanks so much. mark steyn, thank you so much. back in a moment we're covering tucker carlson live and covering all the breaking events in washington. don't move. ♪ you control your blood sugar around the clock. and with a $0 copay, that's something to groove about. ♪let's groove tonight. toujeo® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. it contains 3 times as much insulin in 1 milliliter as standard insulin. don't use toujeo® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you're allergic to insulin. get medical help right away if you have a serious allergic reaction such as body rash, or trouble breathing. don't reuse needles, or share insulin pens. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which can be life-threatening. it may cause shaking, sweating, fast heartbeat, and blurred vision.

check your blood sugar levels daily. injection site reactions may occur. don't change your dose of insulin without talking to your doctor. tell your doctor about all your medicines and medical conditions. check insulin label each time you inject. taking tzds with insulins like toujeo® may cause heart failure that can lead to death. toujeo®, ask your doctor. ♪let's groove tonight.

that can lead to death. - ( phone ringing )es offers - big button,lized phones... and volume-enhanced phones. get details on this state program. visit right now or call during business hours.

and accessoriesphones for your mobile phone. like this device to increase volume on your cell phone. - ( phone ringing ) - get details on this state program visit right now or call during business hours. >> tucker: there has been a significant development today in amazon.com's planned takeover in everything in american life. announced plans to open two new headquarters one in northern virginia and new york city. those cities won the sweep states provide the biggest corporate give aways to amazon. in new york that plan met resistance from locals who said the city ought to focus on helping its own residents. improving its own

infrastructure rather than giving billions to the world's richest man. apparently those protests succeeded today amazon announced canceling planned headquarters in new york, virginia. no such luck. they are still coming. china has risen rapidly to become the chief economic and political rival of the united states. no one in washington recognizes that. but it's clearly true. but china is not content to be the equal of this country. china wants to be our superior. it's communist government is pursuing an initiative called made in china 2025. it seeks to make china the dominant player in 10 advanced industries including robotics, artificial intelligence and aerospace. and they are getting a major assist from the united states where many in our ruling class view outsourcing as a boon to corporate profits. what can be done to stop this? we spoke recently to marco rubio, senator from florida about it. and here's what he said. >> senator rubio, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you.

thank you. >> tucker: so have you said in very clear language china is growing at the expense of america. what does that mean? >> it means they are trying to take over all the industries that are going to dominate the 21st century. and they are not outinnovating us to do it. they are cheating. i mean, they are stealing our secrets. they are forcing our companies to transfer technology. they are funding their company so their companies can go out and bid against ours. undercut us because they don't have to make a profit. the chinese government is backing them. and then when they do enough places they put us out of business and they control that industry. for years we were told don't worry, the chinese are doing a lower end manufacturing stuff but the big stuff is still being made in america. well now they are going -- they are coming for the big stuff. we are going to have nothing left. >> tucker: so if you sought an advantage in trade against another country and you were able to raise their energy prices far above current market, that would give you a huge advantage, wouldn't it? >> absolutely.

and if did you it to yourself as some are suggesting it's self- inflicted damage. there is going to be no green new deal in china. they do all the stuff where they go around the world and talk about how they are going to get carbon emissions they say that will be later by the way once we become a rich and prosperous country they already are. bottom line is one of the areas where the united states has been bless with the resources to be globally competitive and we shouldn't be surrendering that. >> tucker: why would we ever sign up for a program that in effect is unilateral disarmament against china so we are not going to use any fossil fuels. we're going to shut down our energy sector and our nuclear sector but china doesn't have to to say why would we ever do something like that? >> because i think there are people who think america is a planet. america is a country. the rest of these countries are going to do what they are going to do. look, that's fine. i want the air to be cleaner. i want us to be more energy

efficient. i think you get there by allowing the innovations to get you there and other practices. you don't get there by destroying and gutting your economy. ultimately the people who are proposing that will have to defend it and why they are offering it it's a ridiculous idea. you can see that a lot of democrats are hiding from it and some are flat out saying it's crazy. others are very proud of what they are putting out there. bottom line is this. it's unilateral disarmament economically. it's worse than that it's actually self-inflicted damage that we would do to ourselves. implemented. >> tucker: if you really believe that carbon dioxide with a deadly pollutant destroying the earth and you look at the numbers in china emits twice, more than twice what the united states does. >> right. >> tucker: why wouldn't you be protesting outside the chinese embassy? >> again, these are people that think america is a planet. they think somehow if we do it don't matter the rest of the world will eat up the difference because of their rate of growth it's not just china it's india and a bunch of other places. the second thing i ask is fine let's do more nuclear

energy and make it easier to access natural gas. that's much cleaner than some of the other fuels. they are against those tool. the idea is that we're going to power this country into the 21st country with solar panels and wind mills that's not going to work. consistent sort of revenue and do it in a way that doesn't destroy or gut your economy. they are against those things as well. nuclear energy is nearly impossible now to build any plant in america. >> tucker: i am sensing a theme here. senator rubio thank you very much for that great to see you. >> thank you. >> brian: while we talk about something so important as our china deal and the new trade relationship, it's now time to go back to the house floor where we believe we have hit that magic number and it looks like we are going to at least the house and senate is now voted to fund the government until september 30th. david spunt is there. and we got across the threshold. am i right, david? >> that's correct. the threshold was 217 votes. the vote technically still open.

we are waiting to get the final number. democrats did pass that threshold. even republican ifs republicans did vote for it will get the final tally in a moment. we did pass that 217 threshold. we are told, brian in about 35 minutes house speaker nancy pelosi will have a photo opportunity signing this legislation before it goes off to the white house. that's where the president and his team will be reviewing it before he signs it. you have spoken with the chief of staff mulvaney who said president trump will go ahead and sign it. it passed today in the house 83-16. and we know right now that in the house passed in the senate 83-16 excuse me, brian. we know right now in the house it has has passed that magic number of 217. contentious issue for republicans and democrats and the deadline, brian, was midnight in just a few hours from now. this is really down to the 11th hour here but it looks like the government will be funded and there will not be another government shutdown. brian? >> brian: you know, and, david, i assume that the president is going to sign it tomorrow. but with the three-day weekend on presidents' day

on monday and the weekend come up, he might want to sit on it while he or he simultaneously could sign this and declare the national emergency and get those funds from the different categories that we spoke of. so, the president is getting his 1.375 as we bring in mark steyn. mark, we find out and david, stick around, but we find out there is a lot of provisions with that and some of the mayors might be able to give a thumbs up or thumb's down in these border cities whether this money could be spent on the border, right? >> yeah. basically, every border municipality will have a veto on whether a physical barrier can be built. and those borders along the rio grande, those border towns are overwhelmingly democratic towns. what's interesting about this vote, brian, right now as it stands, it looks like far more republicans have voted against it than have voted for it and so there is a real split on the g.o.p. side on this.

and it's a question of where the president feels his base is. and my view, obviously, is that the base is with the congressman who voted no to this bill. but it makes an interesting point. the last few days, we have all been talking about how the democrats are tearing themselves apart. they are getting overwoke with alexandria ocasio-cortez and ilhan omar and a big split between that side of the party and the chuck schumer and nancy pelosi side. but you look at these house totals, when it counts, the house democrats stay united and it's the g.o.p. that's split right down the middle on this. >> brian: good point. and, of course, the majority with the democrats. let's go out to david spunt, we are starting to see who voted for what. once again alexandria ocasio-cortez is making news by what she didn't vote for, right? >> well, brian, yeah. republicans may be split but democrats are also split. new york congresswoman

alexandria ocasio-cortez a producer spoke to her as she was actually heading to the floor to vote. she said i don't think this deal is a victory for anyone. these are her words. it's a republican bill just to keep the government funded. now, she has in the past said that she wanted to defund ice, immigration and customs enforcement. that's part of the department of homeland security. also important to point out that many democrats who voted for this such as speaker pelosi, she said that this was a good deal. she voted for it. if president trump declares that national emergency which we are fully expecting him to do. she said there could be some legal challenges in the white house press secretary sarah sanders said earlier today essentially bring it on if there is. brian. >> brian: you know what's interesting, david, thank you for that update. mark, when i was speaking to mick mulvaney 30 minutes ago. he said we have been preparing and digging out money for the past three months. we have been getting the legal arguments ready for the past three months. mitch mcconnell is firmly in support of this and said so publicly. so the white house who is bulked up for legal

challenges this is one they might indeed be ready for. >> yeah. i hope so. there is certainly enough money in the budget to actually build a wall across the entire southern border. under the stimulus thing that obama did in his first few months in office, he spent huge sums of money, $800 million i think in total upgrading northern border stations on little bits of two lane blacktop in the great northwoods between vermont and quebec that nobody goes through. so we need to get the southern border, some similar action there. >> hey, mark, thanks so much for being there. david spunt great job on capitol hill. in case you do not know it has now passed through the senate and house. the bipartisan bill now goes to president trump's desk at which time he is going to be signing executive order to declare a national emergency to get the money up to $8 billion.

keep in mind, tucker is rarely on tape. we wanted to bring you as much as him as possible at the same time covering the breaking news. now it's time for hannity. so don't miss a minute as the news continues to break throughout the night. i'm brian kilmeade u >> sean: welcome to "hannity." we start with a fox news alert as you can see in the corner of your screen. big breaking news tonight. we are tracking several bombshell stories. william barr has been sworn in as the new attorney general. we can only hope he dual his job, equal justice, equal application of our laws. big announcement, everybody, you see that vote, needs to s calm down. it's a horrific, garbage bill as i have been telling you, they are just voting. it's already passed in the house and senate. the house still voting on the spending package to avoid a government shutdown, has the votes. both houses. it's passed. it will head to the president's desk. a garbage compromise swamp border security bill will make its way to