mr. panetta: he is going to have a challenge.s chief of staff, i am a believer in what i call the jim baker role. there is only one chief of staff and everybody should be responsive to that chief of staff. i also believe in a strong chain of command, where people have specific duties and a report to keep people. they are not wondering on their own. the danger i see is that the president is appointing a number of advisors, he is appointing a number of consuls, these people have broad titles. i'm not sure what their responsibilities are. if these people are just wondering around the white house, going to meetings but having no responsibility, it is going to become quite a challenge to be able to discipline the staff to work specifically for the president. responsibilities are. david: leon panetta, thank you so much for joining us today. now we go back to caroline hyde in san francisco. caroline: a fascinating conversation. so timely. thank you. deutsche bank is telling its employs to put down their phones. the bank is battling text

mr. panetta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. panetta: thank you. i rise in opposition to h.r. 7, a bill which brings permanency to the hyde amendment a bill which attempts to take away low--- a low-income woman's reproductive rights. therefore i submit to you that it is a bill more about divisive politics than decent policy. this past saturday, i joined hundreds of my constituents on the national mall. we demonstrate our support for reproductive rights and for woman's health care across our nation. in my district, on the central coast of california, we have an organization that administers those types of essential ervices. maramone planned parenthood provides over 600,000 wellness care visits each year. for some that's the only health care they can get or they can afford. madam speaker, the hyde amendment isn't going anywhere. whether we like it or not. so i submit to you that it is these types of bills that do nothing to bring congress together and everything to drive us apart. because it is bills like h.r. 7 that can harm the m

you heard mr panetta there, and there is a big split in the administration because you have the new director pompeo and the secretary of defence james matters, both saying they do not think torture works and this is the way america should go. so how is donald trump going to square those things? we are still waiting for donald trump to speak at the department of homeland security. there is the audience waiting. let's just talk a bit about executive orders. we spoke a lot about them in the past 23 days. he is finding a number of them. what can force do they have, are they typed typed in terms of law? -- tight. as president you can either get congress to go along with you and get congressional approval which then becomes law, or you have the power of the pen and you have the power of the pen and you can sign an executive order or executive action. every president does this, you can see donald trump putting his signature on the bottom ofan putting his signature on the bottom of an executive order. he has been doing that all week. but for a present the problem is an executive order is not as broa

mr. panetta talking to wolf blitzer. >> trump is going to be the next president of the united states. he's going to be worn in as our 45th president. there's no question that that's going to happen. but as the president-elect, and as the future president of the united states, he's got to be very concerned about a country like russia taking this kind of aggressive effort to interfere in our election. and i think that's the one thing in the statement that he should have acknowledged, that whether you're a republican or a democrat, we are not going to tolerate a country like russia trying to interfere in our election process. that is unacceptable, and we have to do everything possible to stop it happening in the future. >> earlier in the day before his briefing from the intelligence communities' leadership he suggested that the intelligence agencies were actually involved in what he called a political witch-hunt against him in that brief interview, he granted a phone interview to the "new york times." do you believe the relationship between the president-elect and the intelligence commun

mr. panetta have all served with distinction and set an extremely high bar and set a good example for all those who follow. a good example of how a director should interact with and serve the president, congress and american people. if confirmed, i will use those as role models. you deserve the truth. as to the american public and director responsibility to tell you and the president the truth even when that might be hard to hear. part of the thing that's hard it hear is for the first time in our history there's a chance that the next generation is less prosperous than that that proceeded it. to me and the people in this room i know that is completely unacceptable. we can turn this economy around. we can turn this country around but it will take decisions in , order to avoid possible -- making nearly impossible decisions tomorrow. our gross national debt is roughly $20 trillion. that is number is so large it is hard for me people, myself included, to grasp. i prefer to look at it another way. if you convert in that amount of money we make are taken to the , ordinary american family that m

mr. trump and his intelligence chief, we turn the leon panetta of the panetta institute. he's a former secretary of defense who was director of the c.i.a. when osama bin killed. mr. secretary, what's at stake in this feud between trump and the intelligence community? >> i think what's at stake is the security of the united states of america. the first duty of a president is to protect our country, and he cannot protect our country without the ability to get good intelligence on what our adversaries are up to. that demands a relationship of trust, and unfortunately, i think, i see a relationship in which that trust doesn't exist right now. >> pelley: what's the harm in airing this in public? >> i think what happens is it damages the credibility of not only the intelligence that's being provided, but more importantly it undermines the morale of those who are involved in our intelligence services. these are people who are committed to getting the best intelligence possible for the president of the united states. that invol r the line. they're going to hesitate to do that if t

i'm joined by leon panetta, former secretary of defense under president obama. mr. director, mr. secretary i should say as well, what do you think of the decision by the intelligence community, the cia and the others, to distribute to all eight members of the gang of eight, the ranking members, but also the political leadership of both sides of the aisle and both sides of the hill to distribute that widely, this two-page attachment which was not intelligence but was some kind of information gathered by a research operation about trump, was that wise to distribute it that widely? >> well, chris, i think the standard that usually is followed here is that based on the briefing that they gave the president of the united states, and then the briefing that they gave to the president-elect, the intelligence community is obligated to then present that briefing to the key leadership capitol hill, both republican and democrat. so it is -- it's a standard procedure to present whatever briefing was presented to the president and to the president-elect, to that group of leadership on capitol

this, and other key issues, the former cia director, the former defense secretary, leon panetta is joining us. mrcretary, thank you for joining us. >> thanks, wolf. nice to be with you. >> so, what is your initial reaction to this report we just heard from jim sciutto? >> well, i think it's in line with the fbi investigation into the contacts between the various people in the trump campaign and the russians. this is part of, obviously, trying to determine what it was that got the russians to play such a large role in the election and try to influence our election here in this country. so, i think it's appropriate for the fbi to be able to look at all possible evidence to determine exactly what happened here. >> you believe it's appropriate, it's the -- that general flynn could effectively do his job as the president's national security adviser, even if he's under this kind of investigation? >> well, i think we ought to, obviously, give him the opportunity to do his job while this investigation is going on. nothing definitive has been determined here. i'm sure the fbi is also talking to other memb

. >> leon panetta says if mr. trump needs to question intelligence agencies, he should do it in the oval office. >> senators grilled the president-elect pick for secretary of state as mr. trump's news conference unfolded. former exxonmobil ceo rex tillerson has been asked to comment on his own ties. nan scy cordes is at the capita where that could bring about discussion. >> good morning. given all the talk of russian surprising that russia was a big focus of the questions at tillerson's hearing, and it's unclear whether the former exxon ceo said enough to satisfy some key republican holdouts. >> is vladimir putin a war criminal? >> i would not use that term. >> florida senator marco rubio was looking for tough language from tillerson, but he didn't get it. >> mr. tillerson, do you believe that vladimir putin and his cronies are responsible for ordering the murder of countless dissidents, journalists, and opponents? >> i do not make that claim. >> it also became clear he has never discussed russia with his would-be

mr. trump and his intelligence chief, we turn to leon panetta of the panetta institute. former secretary of defense who was director of the cia when osama bin laden was killed. mr. secretary, what's at stake the intelligence community? >> i think what's at stake is the security of the united states of america. the first duty of a president is to protect our country, and he cannot protect our country without the ability to get good intelligence on what our adversaries are up to. that demands a relationship of trust, and unfortunately, i think, i see a relationship in which that trust doesn't exist right now. >> what's the harm in airing this out in public? >> i think what happens is it damages the credibility of not only the intelligence that's being provided, but more importantly it undermines the morale of those who are involved in our intelligence services. these are people who are committed to getting the best intelligence possible for the president of the united states. that involves risks. they have to put their lives on the li they're going to hesitate to do that i