now i've seen a little but only at a distance of the working in iraq case of the united states national security council and that is a much more organized powerful forum than certainly our cabinet system in modern times has been able to replicate. now it is a presidential system not a prime ministerial one so it's ultimately different but nonetheless i think there could be lessons to be taken from there. >> thank you very much, sir john. >> sir john, given the scale of the failures that you've set out with mechanisms of government itself with somebody as psychologically dominant, as you've termed, do you think there are mechanisms outside government, perhaps with parliament or select committees that should be playing a greater role and had could you set out how you would envision that happening? >> there is i think -- i'm aware of work that your channel has published on this theme not least. i think there is a lot of room for parliament and its different ways whether on the floor of the chambers or in select committees meetings and other respect to exert more influence on government and the hone governm

now i've seen a little but only at a distance of the working in iraq case of the united states national security council and that is a much more organized powerful forum than certainly our cabinet system in modern times has been able to replicate. now it is a presidential system not a prime ministerial one so it's ultimately different but nonetheless i think there could be lessons to be taken from there. >> thank you very much, sir john. >> sir john, given the scale of the failures that you've set out with mechanisms of government itself with somebody as psychologically dominant, as you've determined it, do you think there are mechanisms outside government, perhaps with parliament or select committees that should be playing a greater role and could you set out how you would envisage that happening? >> there is i think -- i'm aware of work that your channel has published on this theme not least. i think there is a lot of room for parliament and its different ways whether on the floor of the chambers or in select committees meetings and other respect to exert more influence on government and the hone gove

i've seen a little but only at a distance, often working in the iraq case of the united states national security council and that i is a much the organized d powerful forum. certainly are cabinet committee system in modern times has been able to replicate.et it's a presidential system not a prime minister erdogan so it ise ultimately very different. but nontheless, i think it could be lessons to be taken. >> thank you very much, sir john.be >> sir john, given the skill ofr the failures that you've set out in the mechanisms of government itself in the face of some of these psychological dominant, as you term it, do you think that thr mechanisms outside government perhaps in parliament our select committees thatrn should be putting a greater role? could you set out how you wouldd envision that happening?u woul >> i'm aware of work that your chairman has published on this theme, i think there is a lot of room for parliament in itsnk giveaways, whether on the floor of the chamber or in select committee or in other respects to exert more influence on government and hold government more effectively to account

united states is playing with fire. at a special session of the united nations security council, the united states, cuba and russia offeredtions and traded bitter charges. >> do you, ambassador, deny to the ussr has placed and is placing medium and intermediate range missiles and sites in cuba? yes or no? don't wait for the translation. yes or no? >> i am not in an american court room, sir. therefore, i do not wish to answer a question that's put to me in the fashion in which prosecutor does. in due course, sir, you will have your replay. >> i'm prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over if that's your decision. >> each side didn't know what the other side was doing and there was a lot of room for miscalculation. >> we believe there are about 25 soviet ships moving toward cuba. if the vessel does not stop, refuses to heed the instructions, force will be applied to assure that it does stop. >> nikita khrushchev says soviet ships will never submit to the united states blockade. >> the next few days are critical. who is going to blink first? ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ how else do you think he gets around so fast? take the reins thi

shoulder-to-shoulder with israel and we hope the united nations and the united nations security council will veto any efforts by the united nations to try to unilaterally you pu a state hood in there for the palestinians. a true peace can only happen through the bilateral negotiations. mr. speaker, i stand in strong support of mr. royce and mr. engel's legislation. the resolution, and i hope my colleagues will stand together in bipartisan support to make sure this administration does not take steps that will weaken israel's hand going forward and i hope administration after administration that this body will stand as we do today in bipartisan support. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. sherman: mr. chairman, this resolution reaffirms long standing american policy that can be summarized in five points. talks must be direct and bilateral. a solution cannot be imposed on the parties. both sides must be willing to make important compromises. disagreements should be resolved privately. and the united states should work closely with the state of israel. this resolution deserves the s

when you think about the united nations, whether you like the institution or not, nikki haley will be the person representing the united states of america on the security councilthere are a lot of nuances exist inside of united nations different than a governmental entity. i served at state level and i spent time in the united nations organization. it is a very differ animal. david: have to spend a lot of time getting up to speed there. >> there is no time. david: too much time doing that before you change things. noelle, capri,. melissa: great comments the very smart. another cabinet pick in. the president-elect is picking betsy devos, i hope i said that right, advocate for charter schools to to education secretary. devos tweeted i'm honored to work with the president-elect on his vision to make american education great again. the status quo in education is not acceptable. devos. devos. betsy devos. david: supporter of charter schools. she has done a lot for charter schools in the country. melissa: absolutely. david: presidential conflict of interest, blurred lines between donald trump's white house and his own business empire. coming up next university of ma

reaffirming longstanding united states policy in support of a direct bilaterally negotiated settlement of the israeli-palestinian conflict and opposition to united nations security council a solution imposing to the conflict. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, will each control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, and thank mr. brad sherman of california as well, for working with me in a bipartisan manner to bring this important resolution to the floor today. there is a growing concern in congress. it is a concern felt on both sides of the aisle that despite established bipartisan united s

united states. >> strong words from a former president george w. bush. today the united nations security council new sanctions against north korea for its fifth and largest nuclear test. alex? >>> when we come back, a look at the stories happening in the day ahead. the first rule of being a viking. is that teamwork is important. remember to do the little things. help each other out. and the second rule of being a viking. there's more than one way to win. vikings: war of clans play free now. [burke] hot dog. seen it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ >>> so, before we tosds it over to "morning joe," a check on the stories in the day ahead. vice president mike pence will be in washington meeting with top congressional republicans. pence will sit down with house speaker ryan and senate majority leader mcconnell this afternoon. incoming white house chief of staff reince priebus will also attend the meeting, but not before talking with "morning joe" first. >>> house democrats to vote on whether nancy pelosi will hold on to her po

united states. connell: adding to that, president-elect donald trump saying that the suspect should not have been in the united states in the first place. we're joined by gillian turner, formerly white house national security council an fox news contributor. good to see you, gillian. >> thank you, connell. connell: he comes through ohio state as you heard there. comes from overseas. the president-elect's contention he shouldn't have been here to begin with. let's begin with that. what do you say to that? >> sure. in hindsight president-elect trump is absolutely right. knowing what we know today about his proclivity towards radicalism, the fact he was going to try to carry out mass murder on the streets, absolutely he should not have been there. connell: if we knew that about everybody we, that would solve all the -- >> would be no problem. connell: solve every kind of a problem. knowing that we don't have that 20/20 hindsight and we didn't know, what do you say? >> according to law enforcement and, intelligence officials now, the problem is that going back to two years ago, when he to the united states from pakistan, well from somali by way of pakistan there were no red flags. so for the most part i think, the law

remember, that was a deal among five nations and iran so it china, great britain, russia, the united states and france and ended with a security council resolution. there is some debate about would internationalg law if we tore up the deal and us. would it mean for there are things iran could do a response to that, that span variety of scenarios, including split us, playe, us against europe, or cut ideals russia and china so it's not as easy as with a stroke of a dead,e iran deal is iran's nuclear program starts again. i think that's true of a lot of has saids that trump about foreign policy on the campaign trail. implementation, they're more complicated than he said they were and we don't know he'll followthrough on and if he tries, whether he'll be able to and how it will play out. we've almost never seen ambiguity like this on foreign policy. pete: things happen that he'll have to respond to. i'm wondering about syria. he have to make big decisions about what we'll do there? michael: sure, but that's an example about american engagement around the world. beingot interested in us a party in the syrian civil war. he does not share th

least right off the bat that when you look at it it's -- the un security council, lots of other nations, four others besides the united states but what can a president trump do? >> well, this was, you know, an executive agreement. this wasn't a treaty so he could in theory revoke that executive agreement and try to walk away. he appears to be trying to box president obama rather appears to be box for the president elect in with this move and it would involve according to an anonymous administration official who talked to the journal, not just these additional licenses but also lifting additional sanctions against iran. these moves could make it for difficult for the president elect to roll back the deal by getting companies on the president -- president obama's side on it, of course, now, the moves come as the president elect appoints hard-liners on iran including mike pompeo, last week mr. trump named him pick for cia director, that day pompeo tweeted, i look forward rolling back disaster deal with the world's sponsor of terrorism. president obama defended the deal once again. >> to unravel a deal that's working and prevent

of state john kerry, deputy secretary state wendy sherman and secretary of energy, earnest moniz, as part of the members of the security council of the united nations. the permanent members of the u.n. security council plus germany did the negotiations on this agreement. i think this is a great mistake in the united states that we undermine it and we have the ability to do that. but it is very unlikely in any event that should be this under minded and this treaty bill be overturned we could turn this back with the same people that put this together in the first place. and it will put our aircraft manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors, something i'm very much surprised that the majority would even contemplate. the legislation would also continue their attacks on the export-import bank, an economic driver that's helped create jobs and to grow our economy by expanding american businesses' access to foreign markets. the -- it stands in stark context of the long history of bipartisan support, including from presidents all the way back to john kennedy and bill clinton to republican presidents like ronald reagan and ge

the united states is related to illegality of settlement activities. 14elieve that, of course, members of the security council, they use the language illegal. the secretary-general of the united nations uses it. alsoew secretary-general used illegal. we are not yet at the final language. what we need from the united states of america is to accept the concept that the security council has a role to play and have to legislate a new resolution. then weare on board, will begin the exercise of the language. but, we need to get commitment from them that, yes, they will allow the security council to show its responsibility and adopt a resolution. for example, if you translate both of them, the amount to the same thing. maybe in other languages, but in english, it appears there are differences. thery are too close to each they, but i do think are synonymous with each other. there is no need for us to engage in a linguistic discussion. we need to reach at the moment of a political decision. yes, the security council has a role to play and it has to legislate a resolution on continuing on this path. oft is part of the sequences israel continuing its illegal behavior. if we are all on board, in

faith but the united states breaking its faith not with just iran but with the european union and germany and britain and france and china and russia and the united nations security councilch has endorsed this deal. so we will be isolated. the ability for us to influence iran thereafter will be gone. they will not have the constraints of this agreement so they could resume their nuclear program unabated. it may be that if they do that, we contemplate the force to create an outcome that we have accomplished peacefully through the nuclear deal and we would find ourselves without the sanctions regime that put the sufficient pressure on iran that we were able to achieve the deal. so it's a win-win for iran. they are out from under. we are isolated. their nuclear program can proceed unabated. it doesn't serve our interest. when people contemplate the realities, this is not rhetoric anymore. this is, in fact, our -- the responsibility of those governing to examine the alternatives, a rational determination would be that it is manifestly in the united states' interest to maintain the iran deal. >> susan rice, pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. >>> next on "gps," a billionai

national council of churches and the naacp unamerican. >> my opinion is they have not, they may have taken positions that i consider to be adverse to the security interests of the united states >> does that make them unamerican? >> no, sir, it does not. >> does that make the positions unamerican? >> no. >> reporter: sessions also denied a statement that he thought klan members were okay until he learned they smoked marijuana. >> this is ludicrous. i de test the klan. >> reporter: he went on to testify that, i am loose with my tongue on occasion, and i may have said something similar to that, or could be interpreted to that. his seat on the court was denied, but ten years later, he was elected to the senate and went on to become the judiciary committee's top republican member. he told cnn's dana bash in 2009 that the allegations of racism were heart breaking. >> that was not fair. that was not accurate. those were false charges and distortion of anything i did. it really was not. i never had those kind of views. and i was caricatured in a way that was not me. >> reporter: today, gerald heber said he stands by his testimony from 30 years ago. >> the allegations that i made aga

united states. u.s. ambassador to the world bank. that is not exactly his title but that is the concept. john brown usaid, national security council. two stints in u.s. government and two stints now at the world food program. thank you for being here john. and my new friend. ni a neot. mastercard humanitarian solutions branch leader. so thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. >> i will start first with dr. mcguire. think about how the world bank is thinking of this refugee crisis. thanks for being here. >> thank you very much. let me pick up on what the challenge is from a development perspective. from a world bank or development perspective is part of the huge shifts we have seen the last 30 years have included a decrease in people living in extreme poverty around the world. a accident command. low incomes. selling to those in the markets. and the point is -- >> we're having a technical difficulty. >> okay. the point of that is that. >>> getting out of extreme poverty is the end point. clearly we have a lot more to do. the types of solutions have to get a bit more focus. this goes to my colleagues who are up here. o

united nations security council resolutions and culminated in resolution 1441. the other strand i think in mr. blair's objective in influencing the united states was to avoid unilateral united states military action for a variety of reasons, which he would explain and has. was that attempt to exert influence successful in the event? the answer is no. >> do you think he should have played, demanded a higher price for british support? and should have demanded more -- the fact it too so long for sir jeremy greenstein to get a hearing in iraq, by which serious mistakes had been made by the occupation forces. >> i suppose a touch too hypothetical but it's difficult to avoid a conclusion but had mr. blair stated clear conditions for participating in and supporting united states military action and if those conditions had been reasonable, there might have been more influence particularly i think on the timing of any united states-led action. as it was, and discussed at length in the our inquiry report, mr. blair was determined to say that his conditions were conditions for success, not conditions for british participation and support. >> in 2010, the

united nations, ban ki-moon. and gutierrez also use illegal. we are not yet at the final language of the text. what we need from the united states of america is to accept the concept that the security council has a role to play. and it has to legislate a new resolution on settlements. if they are on board we need to get the security council to show it's responsibility. if you translate both of them. they amount to the same thing, perhaps maybe in other languages. in english, it appears there are differences. they are too close to each other, i don't think they are synonymous with each other. again, as i said that is no need for us to engage in a linguistic discussion. it has a role to play and it needs to deter israel from continuing on this path, it's part of the consequences of israel continuing this illegal behavior. and if we are all on board. including the united states of america, then we need to find the appropriate language that would address that issue. >> phyllis, you put your finger on something very important. we wanted as palestine to go to the security council from the beginning of the year on the question of settlements in fact, i have a tedious exercise through the -- some

united nations, ban ki-moon. and gutierrez also use illegal. we are not yet at the final language of the text. what we need from the united states of america is to accept the concept that the security council has a role to play. and it has to legislate a new resolution on settlements. if they are on board we need to get the security council to show it's responsibility. if you translate both of them. they amount to the same thing, perhaps maybe in other languages. in english, it appears there are differences. they are too close to each other, i don't think they are synonymous with each other. again, as i said that is no need for us to engage in a linguistic discussion. it has a role to play and it needs to deter israel from continuing on this path, it's part of the consequences of israel continuing this illegal behavior. and if we are all on board. including the united states of america, then we need to find the appropriate language that would address that issue. >> phyllis, you put your finger on something very important. we wanted as palestine to go to the security council from the beginning of the year on the question of settlements in fact, i have a tedious exercise through the -- some