in food stamps and other programs. you seem to agree with the opposition. yet they're doing, the republicans have a package laid out that you said you wanted, basically. can you square a little bit? why are you opposed at the legislation? >> look, i've said this time and time and time again and i'll say it one more time. in my experience in the congress as chairman of the house budget committee and later as director of the office of management and budget, there's only one way to deal with deficits this size. these kinds of record deficits that we, we've never seen in the history of our country. and that is to address every area. every area of federal spending, as well as revenues. every -- every major budget summit that i was a part of going back to the reagan years, to the bush years and to the plan that we developed in the clinton years, every one of

those budgets focused on entitlement spending. focused on discretionary spending and revenues. those the pieces that have to be part of an effective plan to reduce the deficit, and when one party decides to go after one area as opposed to others and the other parties does the same thing, that's the kind of gridlock that prevents the kind of necessary action that this country has to take to reduce the deficit. >> one follow-up. would you be one of the senior aides that would recommend that legislation be vetoed, because it's one-sided? the white house put out a staff to that effect. >> look, i don't think -- i don't think there's a chance that this president is going to follow the priorities that the house is taking in this matter by basically going after all of these domestic programs in order to provide increases in defense, and to deal with sequestration on the defense side. it's not balanced.

it's not fair, and ultimately the senate isn't going to accept it, either. all we're headed for right now is further gridlock and that's what boothers mere. >> mr. panetta, this week the family of sergeant bergdahl spoke out calling for a swap or transfer exchange to the made to send taliban prisoners to afghanistan, start peace talks and get their son home. have you reconsidered your -- has there been any change in your concerns with the transfer of guantanamo detainees to qatar? do you think there's any possibility at restarting these talks with the taliban on -- on confidence building measures? >> well, look. first and foremost, our heart goes out to the bergdahl family. we certainly understand the concerns of the family, and we

share the concerns about bergdahl and the importance of getting him returned. and we're doing everything possible to try to see if we can make that happen. and -- but on the issue related to guantanamo transfers, my position hasn't changed. i would only take those steps in accordance with the law, and the requirements of the law, and at this stage, frankly, there are no decisions that have been made with regards to that. >> mr. secretary, can you both respond, as follow-up to the budget issue. the house has added $100 million for missile defense into the budget. do you think that the east coast needs a missile defense system? do they need to do this survey that will cost $100 million that

the pentagon didn't request or is this politically motivated? and the secretary question related to the intelligence leaks related to the revelations about the underwear bomb this week. do you think that we need a investigation into that leak, or are you concerned that it actually may turn out that that leak came from this building, therefore, was it helpful, was it hurtful that the information came out about that plot? >> i'll address the last question. >> okay. then let marty speak to the first question. as a former director of the cia, i have to tell you that those kinds of leaks are very harmful. to the efforts of the intelligence community. our whole effort is to try to be able to get individuals that can provide intelligence and that can work with us, and to be able

to do that and do that effectively, you have to protect these people and you have to protect the confidence that -- and the classification and the covert nature of this kind of work, and when these leaks take place, i can't tell you how much they damage our ability to be able to pursue our intelligence efforts, and so i am fully in favor of a full and thorough investigation of this matter and i understand that the director of the dmi will do that. >> on the ballistic missile defense, as you know, we went through a strategic review back in the fall and then we mapped our budget to it, and what i can tell you, jennifer is, in my military judgment, the program of record for ballistic missile defense for the homeland as we've submitted it, is adequate and sufficient to the task, and that's a suite of ground based and sea based interceptors. so i don't see a need beyond what we've submitted in the last budget.

>> question on yemen. by any measure, anyone you speak to will tell thaw al qaeda in yemen is now stronger since 2009. more fighters, controls more territory, has more capability. so how is it, number one that al qaeda is facing strategic defeat when they seem to be growing stronger especially in yemen? my other question is to follow on to bergdahl. can i ask whether either of you since you've taken these jobs have spoken to the bergdahl family? why has the president not called them? and fundamentally, are you doing as much to find bergdahl as you did to find osama bin laden? >> how about if i take the latter? >> i forget what the former was. >> all in memory. >> yes. i've had the bergdahls in my office. i've corresponded with them several times. i understand their concerns, and i can assure you that we are doing everything in our power

using our intelligence resources across the government to try to find, locate him, and that -- i mean, i'll give you one vignette. if you go to the centcom command center where, you know, there's a conference room. there's about a 4x6 foot poster of bergdahl sitting in front of the podium to remind them and, therefore, us, every day that he remains missing in action. i can assure you of that. >> with regards to yemen, our efforts have been directed at the leadership of al qaeda, and those that have been involved in trying to plan attacks on the united states, and with regards to our, you know, our efforts and our operations, we have been very successful at going after the leadership, and those that are directly involved with regards to trying to make those

kinds of plans. and i think -- i think the fact that, you know, we continue to be successful with regards to these kinds of threats is an indication of the effectiveness of the operations that we have there. there is a -- a larger tribal operation called aga pch gchled operation called aga pch gchle yemenese are dealing with them. i will say that they do represent a threat in yemen and the yemenese are the ones that are pursuing the, that tribe, the aqap, and trying to make efforts to reduce their influence as well, but you know, they are a threat. no one in anyway under estimates the fact that all of them represent a concern for the united states in terms of our national security, but i do believe that we are making effective progress at going after those specific targets

that represent real threats to the united states. >> my apologies. can you clarify one thing, sir? you talked about aqap right now as a tribe. i want to make sure i didn't misunderstand you. you are talking about al qaeda arabian peninsula in, al qaeda in yemen? not a separate tribal organization? >> that's correct. >> from syria. and assessing the current situation in syria, how do you assess that? attacks took place this morning in damascus. do you have any indications if al qaeda could be behind those attacks? >> i have no information to that effect. as to whether or not they're involved there. obviously, the situation in syria remains of grave concern. this is, you know, the cease-fire does not appear to be working, and annan himself has

indicated concerns about whether or not parties are abiding by the cease-fire. we continue to -- to urge assad to step down. if -- there must be a change there. they've lost their legitimacy by a huge number of deaths that are taking place in syria. and, again, we are working with the international community to try to make sure we take all steps necessary to try to do what we can to implement the necessary political reforms to have assad step down, and to try to return syria to the syrian people. this is not easy. there are no easy courses here, but i think the most important thing we can do now is to continue to work with the international community to bring pressure on syria to do the right thing. >> i -- >> follow-up to this? >> yeah. joe asked me.

i haven't seen any intel to suggest that aqap was responsible for those attacks, although we do know there have been extremist elements trying to make in-roads in syria. that is to be distinct from the oppositioni opposition. i'm not trying to tie those together. whenever those situations occur there will be violent organizations trying to take advantage of it. one thing. two weeks ago i was in jordan. today my turkish counterpart is in the building and we're trying to gain a common understanding of where we think we are and where we think we might want to go. >> if i could follow-up on syria. in addition to the comment you had, senator kerry talked about u.s. involvement in helps to create humanitarian no-fly zones or humanitarian corridors about arming the syrian opposition and arming the rebels. have either of your positions changed supporting with arms and if they haven't, indicated, the

plan doesn't seem to be working. why shouldn't the u.s. do more than diplomacy? >> i think as we've expressed before, that the most effective way to deal with the situation in syria is not unilateral, but working with all of our international partners. to work together to bring as much pressure as we can diplomatically, economically and every other way, to try to get syria to do the right thing. that that is the, you know -- we believe the most effective way to address that situation. as far as what we do beyond that, as i've made clear, we at the department of defense continue to make all kinds of plans with regards to you know, possible approaches in syria, and the president of the united states asked us to respond in particular ways, we're prepared to do that let me just say, i don't provide positions. i provide options.

>> do you expect in your conversations with your turkish counterpart, since they've spoeshgen about this themselves do you expect these specific ideas to come up? >> absolutely. and it's because that each of the countries in the region have a different concern or a different set of their own interests, and some cases, for example, jordan is very concerned about the potential for increased refugees, and, you know, 400,000 palestinian refugees in and around damascus. so that's a concern an individual country might have that wouldn't necessarily be ours but it's important to understand the complexity of the situation. >> uh-huh. >> if i may follow-up from bob's question regarding the joint forces staff college. can i confirm that there's an investigation, that individual lick ch lecture is in place currently holding his position and does it seem surprising that can speak to a room of 05s and 06s,

regarding civilian populations yet it took a while to come out? he taught this course for several years. >> there is an investigation ongoing. the individual instructor is not longer in a teaching status. he is not in a teaching status. and are you asking me, am i surprised? yeah. i'm surprised. and i was actually quite thankful that the young man who did find the course material offensive spoke up. >> a few more questions. >> just a follow-up. >> sure. >> so should we understand that this elective course is not being taught anymore at -- >> that's correct. >> and the second question which is on secretary panetta if i may, on syria and al qaeda. you said we don't have any indication of al qaeda, that those double explosions that took place in da mace kis, but what kind of assessment do you

have on al qaeda activity in syria, because the syrian government confirms that al qaeda is active in syria. do you have an indication to soy that al qaeda is actually active, how big it is and is it a concern for you? >> al qaeda anywhere is a concern for us. and we do -- we do have intelligence that indicates that there is an al qaeda presence in syria. but, frankly, we don't have very good intelligence as to just exactly what their activities are, and that's the reason we can't really indicate specifically what they are or are not doing, but they are a concern, and, frankly, we need to continue to do everything we can to determine what kind of influence they're trying to exert there. >> last question here. secretary? >> last question. >> this is actually to you both. president obama recently gave his personal opinion on gay marriage. in your personal opinion, should

gay service members were allowed to get married on military bases in those states where gay marriage is legal? >> you know, i'm not going to render a personal opinion on that. as secretary of defense, i'm responsible for enforcing the law. and for giving the best defense advice we can to the president of the united states. so i think that's true for both mardy dempsey and myself. there are laws we are enforcing in this area now that are of note. one is the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. we just got report i received yesterday that indicates that that's going very well and it's going pursuant to all of the planning that was done before that went into effect. it is -- it's not impacting on morale. it's not impacting on unit cohesion. it is not impacting on readiness, and so because it was

prepared, and i give tremendous credit to the military for having laid the groundwork for that going into effect, as a result of that kind of effective planning, this is working well, and very frankly, my view is that the military has kind of moved beyond it. it's become part and parcel of what they've accepted within the military. the other law that we do have is the doma law. the defense of marriage act. and the defense of marriage act obviously does have some impact with regards to the benefits that are provided to same-sex couples, and so we continue to review the benefits, but those have to be provided consistency doma, and until -- until doma is either rejected by the courts or changed by the congress, that's the law we abide by. >> yeah. personally, i follow the rule of law that governs the issue you

just described. when asked for my military advice to the secretary of defense and the president, i form it with the joint chiefs, and we provide it privately. >> on the marriage -- >> yeah. is a military officer and the idea that everyone in the service is to be treated equally, does it concern you that some service members are allowed to get married, say on military bases, other service members do not have that right? >> if i could, sir, there's, so there's three bins of things -- this sunder review. has been since don't ask, don't tell. three bins into which these privileges and as you described it rights fit. one is self-declared. so a young man or woman can self-declare, for example, who's going to get their insurance benefits. then there's policies. and we control that, the secretary. the secretary controls it. those are under review. then there's the law, and we don't control that. so those three bins, if you

will, are each rather clear in hour we approach it. >> and with regards to you know, the question on marriage, in that instance it's very clear that that state will control that situation. so you know, where state law provides for that, then obviously, that kind of marriage can take place. and if the law prohibits that, then it cannot take place on a military base. >> and general dempsey -- have you discovered any negative impact as the result -- discipline as a repeal of don't ask, don't tell, and if not, what was everybody so afraid of all of these years? >> to the first part of your question, no. i have not found any negative effect on good order discipline. the second what were we afraid of? we didn't know. the way we were given a year to make this assessment to educate ourselves to collaborate, to build the sense of trust on this issue, and given that time to do

it, i think it worked out well. a little later today on c-span3, a conversation on u.s.-russian relations. president obama shoefting a g-8 summit at camp david next week and russia's newly sworn-in president vladimir putin is skipping the meeting saying he's busy finalizing his new cabinet

and he'll send russian prime minister dmitry medvedev in his place. for the center for strategic international studies is live here on c-span3 at 5:00 p.m. eastern. on saturday on our companion network c-span, mitt romney driv delivers the commencement address at liberty university in lynchburg, virginia, the school founded by jerry falwell and introduced by jerry falwell jr. that's live on c-span on saturday at 10:20 a.m. eastern. these men go through things, and have scars that no one can understand, except each other. >> the first thing that startled us was the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover, who were two such personally and politically different men, and who ended up forming this alliance that neither of them

would have anticipated and it ended up being enormously productive and formed the foundation, a very deep friendship. the letters between them about how important they'd become to one another are really extraordinary. >> it may be the most exclusive club in the world. co-authors on the private and public relationships of the american presidents, from truman and hoover to george h.w. bush and bill clinton. sunday at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." next week, nato leaders meet for a summit in chicago. earlier this week in washington, the u.s. ambassador to nato ivo daalder spoke. he was introduced as the ombudsman for pbs. >> good morning, everyone. i'm jim duff here at the museum and it's my tdistinct pleasure o

weking you all here. wonder follow event, 50th anniversary celebration you're all participating in at the columbia journalism review and it just gives us all the more credibility in what we're doing here to host wonderful events like this. it's also my great honor to introduce to you victor, you all know him so very well. he's had such a distinguished career. if i went through the of his accomplishments i'd consume all the time you have for more interesting things than a recitation of everything that he's done, but obviously, as you know, he's a publisher emeritus of the nation, the magazine's editor from 1978 to 1995. he was a publisher and editorial director from '95 to 2005. he was an editor at the "new york times" magazine, he's been an author, he's been a lecturer and visiting scholar, and with that brief introduction from a

magnificent career i will turn it over to victor. >> thank you. well, i'm one of only 20 introducers, so i just want to say about x years ago, nick lemmon, the dean of the columbia journalists school did me the honor of asking if i would chair cjr. that's the oldest media monitor in the country and maybe around the globe. i'm not sure of that. but it has this legacy of trying to uphold standards in journalism and now a new trying to figure out what can make a business model work so it's a great pleasure to be here at the museum and with everybody else here. we have just at cjr complete add new search for a new editor-in-chief and it's a countrywide, worldwide search and ended up with a marvelous person, cindy stiver, and cindy,

i'm going to let her speak for herself. so -- >> thank you. well i'll not going to tell you about me because this isn't about me, but thank very much, victor. thank you. this is the latest in our road show of our 50th anniversary celebration. thanks to kristy hefner who you will fleetingly meet later. an exciting time for cjr because of what victor said and now more than ever journalists need help figuring out how to survive the hamster wheel of what we do. what is working, what isn't working and we're trying to, at of this past week a new home page that makes it easier to come in, if you only have three seconds to see what's new, what's everybody talking about in our world and also as of the past week we are now available on the apple newsstands and shortly on the nook is that right, dennis? and anyway, so all platforms, wherever you want us, you can

get us. part of the reason this is possible is due to amazing partners, and people who help us fund our work, like, thank you, museum, a beautiful place. and google. i'm about to introduce the latest in the one, two, three, punch, director of public policy bobs orton. >> thank you verdict, cindy and thanks to kristy and victor for getting us involved in this. the only place worse to be in washington is between people on alcohol and between people that came to see. so i'm going to be very brief here. i will do a very brief plug for this topic of interfreedom. i spend my days doing this for google. we work on it around the world, and if anybody here is interested more on the topic we'll be having our own two-day conference about this in a week. please, come to talk to me

afterwards. my job is to get off the stage and introduce robert siegal, our moderator for today. he is the recipient of the john chancellor award from the journalism school and with that the most distinguished dropout the school has ever had. he is, however, recipient of an undergrad degree from columbia, in 1960 -- >> 8. >> 8. >> yes. >> sorry to date you. i apologize. and i will let robert take it away with the panel. >> bob, thank you. thank you very much for -- [ applause ] -- for getting my academic credentials out there front and center. to say that we live in a time of great change in the news media should be self-evident, because the more i think about it, we always live in a time of significant change, some of our panelists have worked, for quite a while for cnn.

cable news was a revolution that permitted 9 single channel the that could be devoted to rock videos or news as it happened. i've been working or an fm radio network primarily the past 25, 35 years. when i came there, fm radio was not in the majority of american automobiles. we benefited enormously from the grange change in the media landscape. we have someone here who used to edit the newspaper that jumps the ocean every day and published simultaneously on both shores of the atlantic. that would have been an editor's pipe dream not too long ago. so times change and now we face changing that raise questions unlike any that i can recall, questions such as, who gets to control whose articles pop up in the search eng whn you plaug a word in? who gets to monitor digital communications? who figures out how to continue to make money from the enterprise of journalism in a culture of getting things for free and making perfect digital

copies of whatever is out there? these are are al questions which i think fit under the broad room break of freedom of expression in a digital and globalized age and we have an extraordinary panel to address these questions and others, starting from the far end, david ensor ex-director of "voice of america." doctor that a career in television, with abc and cnn and a reporter for mpr for a while and a very good one. he took time out to run communications for the u.s. embassy in kabul. and now he is running the voice. a job held by john chancellor whose name has been mentioned as well as edward r. murrow. and krista freeland is now -- let me get the title correct. global editor at large for reuters. which is a highly, the