there is a prolonged absence of international priority and investors, and it is creating anxiety among citizens who were hoping to see economic growth at this point in time. with the exception of the occasional traffic control, there's a perception of a total void in law-enforcement, and a rule of law. this is pretty much true. generally, local people from tripoli make up 20% of the population because it is the economic and political center of libya. there is immigration from other immigration. there are a lot of citizens who live in tripoli. they are not from aaa. this affects the social nine and make. within civil society, challenges are extremely limited.

how to develop a team, how to execute on projects. we see a recurring theme is to have ideas of what they want to do. usually large and elaborate, but little experience on how to execute on a project, or create a proposal. 90% of ideas will not be taken into implementation phase for that reason. civil society is effective on the local level. not very affected on a national level. locally the have access to decision-makers. they are present citizens. they carry the voice of the average citizen. they are able to have an impact with local councils. on a national level, you do not

see anywhere nearly as effective. there is a deep distrust of unknown groups and people within civil society, as well as the gmc within civil society. no coronation methods for movement. there are the difficulties that existing governments. expectations can be misaligned. most decision-makers to match the have an office locally. they do not have a staff. there is no official website you can talk to your rivers in the tens. after elections, citizens felt there was a representation process. indeed, there is not. special interest groups are more effective at impacting decision- makers. there is a presidents for government and collaboration on

an apple -- national level towards policy. there are initiatives like the initiatives in the civil society law. they are not -- they have not created a precedent of adopting such legislation. also, there is a one-year initiative to guarantee that 35% of the constitutional commission is comprised of women. it does not consider that in the making of the electoral law. women do not have a special interest group, or arms. it is a matter how organized you

are. that was a blow to civil society. in general, the challenge is we see the shortsighted vision for what libya can do. despite the resources, and the manpower, and the position, their leadership is not created a vision that citizens can work towards. the culture inherently goes against an institutional mindset. there must be reformed towards building a stable democratic institutions, and deliver lay -- and deliver tightly -- deliberately. very emergency, a constant state of emergency, because you don't have the stability. there is no strategy towards communication and public

education. one of the things that civil societies are working towards is the promotion of legislation that would guarantee inclusiveness and transparency in the constitution drafting process. one thing that they are looking at positively is the national public. it would engage citizen starting with their rights, starting education on with the constitution is, what representation looks like. how soon they can take part in the process. essentially, more supports. also, looking at society on a national level. what is required for society to engage. had you create precedents for civil society to become a legitimate means for impacting

decision-makers? >> joyce? >> thank you. it is humbling to be on a panel with all of you. i heard about you long before i met you. i have been grateful to work with you since january. just to throw that out for everyone, the familiar faces i am seeing in the audience, i would like to focus on the organizational capacity outside of civil society. i think that we have heard already that civil society is comprised of a lot of vibrant act ears. there is a culture of a revolutionary spirits. the spirit of volunteerism. you have everyday citizens that are involved in multiple organizations, and excited about contributing positively and holistically to the transition in libya.

finding ways to take ownership of that. i think that finding a way to bring that excitement together, to coalesce around certain issues, to understand the power advocacy, to understand the structures in the decision- making processes that already exist, that will be a challenge. in addition to having this spirit and passion, there are significant gaps in for good -- civil society. just in the daily news we hear about the importance of building security institutions, i think that often we are forgetting that civil society as institution needs to be built as well.

that happens on it -- that happens on an organizational level. international community is helping to make huge gains in that way. we need to re-shift our focus to focus on organizational development. a few general observations about this, which i have to say in those many countries i've worked in, i have never witnessed a more empowered group. a more excited group of activists. young people to women, those that are willing to drop everything they are doing to go out and organize a campaign. this examinee is to be harnessed and put a positive use. what we saw after the initial end of the revolution was lots of these programs taking place. they may have this return to normalcy. people back in school. there was a large number of organizations that were registered.

those remained active in met the compliance requirements of the ministry of culture dropped off. that is natural in conflict transitioning countries. i would say for my point of view, at this point, there's a tremendous amount of frustration over the donor strategy of engaging civil society. they heard time and time again that there is a commitment to funding projects. there is a strong commitment to building up the structures that would make them operate more efficiently. financial management, program management, good governance. all of these things. there is a lack in dedicating to that.

there is support from that on different projects. a second observation will be that we have a lot of civil society that are very early on, and we have seen there is a focus to been from project to project out of the scope of their mission. that can be a result of the donor strategy. this of woman commitment to make libya better means that an organization might -- this is a trend. we know this happens. i would highlight engagement with more grassroots organizations. a lot of feedback that i received on a daily basis, sometimes more, there is a

frustration in providing training for workshops, but this missing piece of mentoring and technical reach back following those immediate events. some partners have expressed this feeling of the international community setting up society to fail when they train on conduct -- content analysis. all things are very important,

and there is in the knowledge meant of how important those things are. but there may come to a point of implementation and trying to move those skills. it means getting out of project cycles, and focusing on long- term strategies. it is difficult. security situations, scarce resources. better coronation and ensuring that we have geographical representation. lessons learned and make ghazi can be applied elsewhere. there is the national institutional level of civil

society. it is going to be requiring more on the regional level that is what is happening right now. there is no national coordination mechanism. if it is happening right now, it is happening through personal connections. i would also say that a key observation is frustration for grassroots shouldn't -- organizations that do not have english and their ability to provide proposals and make pitches to international communities. we have to get more creative in how we work around the language barrier issue.

it is easier to go to this one if language is a barrier. figuring out how to engage everyone if we are building the institution, not building those easiest to access. either geographically or language. to move forward with a few recommendations that outline the organizational development side of things, we are at a point where training and workshops need to be applied. there needs to be a technical reach back that i was alluding

to earlier. i can speak specifically to the fact that they are not iraq, nato comparisons. but they have made success in leveraging our investments, and the capacities that some do initial training and mentoring of the libyan facilitators. it is a way to ensure that the information is being shared our tarn a way that is regionally relevant and accessible. things that people can connect to. things that people can understand. the more creative we can be in figuring out how to leverage our other investments throughout the region, i think the better. i wanted to talk a little bit about the civil side in libya.

we get set in our ways and we consider it at this point in geos. what i'm hearing on the huge area is bridge leisure sector. while many of those people who are engaged in some way with civil society, figuring out how to empower them in a way to expand the definition and expand the engagement to include a much larger cross-section that has also direct access to decision makers are usually influential. to speak to civil society in transition, we have heard about the flurry of registrations that took place with the culture

following the revolution. one of the key areas that we -- remains an issue is the legal framework for governing civil society. it doesn't exist. organizations are doing tremendous work to ensure that the law in its final form is exactly what libya needs. yet, also not having that legal framework creating room for fear. not understanding what is a role for civil society. for my government perspective, civil society actors not understanding where they have power, where can they leverage, where do authorities exist? the closer we can get to formalizing a law, clarifying what will civil society actual play, there will be a much more openness on a national level. civil society activists change

right now. they have local connections. there is a culture of mistrust and fear. i would say that in terms of creating a space to develop organizations, a few gaps are glaring. financial management and monitoring. good governance, do you have a charter and a mission? a board and executive director? who is accountable for spending, to making sure you are in compliance with the ministry of culture? if we are committed to building the institution of civil society, requires indymac -- the requires a direct commitment. that requires a shift away from mere focus on projects. let's thank you. we are opening it up for questions. i'm going to ask the first one. first of all, i enjoyed your presentations.

all three of you, there are common threads. there was one i like to highlight. the voids that exist in libya today. organizations, voids in the national level. what we have seen, and what we would have you mentioned at this point specifically, you find the militias filling these voice. what can be done to fill these roles? their need for financing, technical assistance, is there something that is missing to help them be more effective players on the national level? can we realistically expect that if they are, they can begin to challenge the armed groups for

political evidence? and they brought in their appeal to fill that role? >> i would take a shot at that. the question is really defining the role of civil society in libya. if you look at the coalition of groups that are brought together in the political coalition, civil society is part of it.

there is not a distinction between working for the civil society, and working for other society. that is something that has not been marketed in the culture. can they play a role? absolutely they can. it was a large role meant to clear benghazi for the military groups. clear that from the center. the same thing which organizations are working to create a nonmilitary city. that is something that is not made by public demand. both are filled with these people.

there was a murky relationship. people of civil society worked for the political i delay should and -- and many people think that there is an impact of this occupation of the ministry to the speeding of the military. it could be. no one can deny the fact that the pressure was effective in doing that.

the question for us in libya, don't just judge what goes in benghazi and aaa. there other places that have worked out the issues without having to go to arms. arms and killings, and detentions that happened in the western mountains between the tribes, and in the south. in the east, known to be the tribal basin, it hasn't happened. it just shows that it is not the tribes. the animosity that can be created. who feeds it? who ignites a? there are millions of speculations. to conclude, the civil society

organizations can and have shown they can stand up to the arms groups. >> anybody? >> i would agree. i would see a few things. civil society is a much better place than i would say tunisian civil society at this point, when it comes to this blurred line of political party versus civil society. you see resistance to becoming more political, where is in tunisia it is so blurred that it is difficult to tell. i would say anything huge positive, civil society is very clear on what they want. they want to accountable government. as a happening at the pace they would let?

definitely not. if you look at the recent polling, it organizations in this room sponsored them, there is optimism that while things are worthing -- moving slowly, there's an appreciation the democracies went take an insanely long time. to your question, i think the little framework question is key. how can they operate on the national level ones that legal framework is in place? it makes it easier for them to go and take larger national level actions. advocacy is a huge issue. there is a lot of civil society issues that are passionate. they want to influence the decision, and the immediate response is we will protests. systematically, understanding where decisions are made, who are the influencers, what are the structures that we need to work through to impact a larger scale decision, that is missing. hunting a way to get civil society as a whole to understand their role of advocacy, and the mapping of the whole thing to get that national level change. >> thank you.

we will open our floor to questions. my colleague has a microphone. please with the microphone -- please wait for the microphone. >> what is the responsiveness of the libyans to do action? i'm afraid they are relying on the foreigners. sooner or later, there is not a response from the libyans to work out. how is the new responsiveness? >> can you guys hear me? i'm under the believe that in

approaching the civil society support center under the ministry of culture, the answer usually is because civil society's capacity is limited. there are sufficient needs for funding international bodies. to the extent that the funding usually at the end of the year isn't used. in libya, there is a concern with correction. it goes hand-in-hand with the institutions that can monitor the spending of funding.

in the absence of institutions, and the absence of civil society to execute on programs, the understanding is that currently it is working ok. the funding as it stands. we do have one of our largest grants from the libyan national telecommunications company, a local libyan company. our spirits with them is that while they offer us cash in a bag essentially, which is any dream country, the capacity to support is limited. the oversight took them nine months ended the grant issued to us. some of the items in the contract are not necessarily following through. they just change the board of directors because of the political isolation law.

the people we signed with initially have been replaced. doesn't situation is -- because the situation is not more stable, they're becoming more fluid, we believe there will be a reliance on foreign funding for the more time to come. therefore, a transition plan a couple of years from now is probably more appropriate than trying to develop a local funding mechanism at this point. >> thank you. >> i want to let my friend question. there are two sides to that. as for activities that are run within civil groups of civil society, i have seen it personally. there is an attitude by the private sector, even though it is nascent to help, programs? not yet. even the ministry of culture and civil society, they have not stepped up to the plate and organize themselves. i suggested creating delivery -- libyan endowment. support programs. else -- let some of the programs the active.

your supporting people who have just have a lot of money. support for civil society proves they can build. and it will not be wasted. they are not convinced. the mechanism of supporting has not yet been made from the official site. the private sector is in a

nation stage. it has not been strong enough to support the organizations and programs. events, i've seen them support 3many events. >> let me throw out a question. in the -- the legal framework for the civil society organizations. i agree they are important. we have seen when it is a less than fully free legal framework in which civil society organizations can operate in egypt, which has undergone be foreign funding trials. there is such a law under consideration in libya now, an initial reading suggesting it is fairly liberal. i'm curious, how you see that going forward. what is the political context for it. what is the attitude towards it?

i made the assertion that it is fairly open. on the other hand, there is suspicion that was nurtured under 42 years of the gadhafi regime to be suspicious of foreign agendas. how is that playing out in the development of the legal framework? >> i have done 50 workshops in libya. whenever i started the workshop, i tell people my organization is funded by the national endowment by the democracy. it is an american organization. if you do not feel comfortable, you can leave. and none will leave. 1800 people have dissipated. this aside, the civil society legislation, there are many drafts. we have studied them. the edit nations program is working. we are working on creating the

best modal for legislation we can present to the gnc. we engage this together. i think we are hopeful that that process will bring about the best minds contributing. as for in general, in the mainstream, there isn't much in the culture. in libya, we see -- there is no phobia against the other. there are some elements that want it. the general culture, the transparency is important. so people feel there is no

cheating. they are very transparent attitudes. >> i would just echo what you said. often, what we're finding is organizations are open to any kind of exchanges where there are cautionary but not direct handover of funds. not wanting to be seen both within their community or their family as pushing a political or foreign agenda, and therefore you as an international organization, you provide technical experts.

seeing that, taking on those funds, to not want the perception of being pushing the foreign agenda. >> the other question here? could you identify yourself? >> thank you. my name is chuck with the libya business association. it is great to see you back here. i sincerely -- i've been back to libya only a couple of times since the revolution. most recently, in june, one of

the things that struck me was the libyan private sector and this role in civil society. a -- i see a dichotomy where the rabbit sector serves a role in accomplishing things that need to be done a big government is not in a position to do at the moment. an example we saw in june, a businessman was underwriting the publication of critics, books, and pamphlets explaining how civics work, and distributing them to mosques.

there is less of a role of the libyan private sector as a legitimate civil society stakeholder, trying to relate their views in providing input into private policy. whether that being transparency and corruption, to encouraging the libyan government to engage in international global trading system, or engaging in various forms of the united states government. i'm interested in many of your

opinions on what -- whether the private sector is viewed generally, and if they view themselves as a needed and relevant stakeholder in the civil society, and what is being done to increase and challenge

them to develop their own capacity to serve responsibly. >> not to speak of something that is in the making, but the center for international enterprise is working with the

public sector and private sector in developing a vision of the role of the private sector in developing not just the infrastructure for the country and the business, but in their own democracy building. that is something that the initial stage of it, we have done it with them. people are excited about it. it is in the making. as we said, technical resources are needed. you can help in that side for programs. >> there is legislation on the books before the revolution requiring that corporations give 33% of profits to social responsive romance. if you corporations have taken it upon themselves to do that. there are many corporations not paying the tax. as far as the involvement, there are great relationships on the local level. there isn't a lot of collaboration on a national level between businessmen and civil society. tripoli is an example of that. although it is a town, it is a national button -- and the economic center is tripoli. those relationships don't exist between civil society and the economic factor and decision- makers. that collaboration doesn't exist. they do have a much closer relationship.

civil society operates along practical lines of how can we build our city, how can we contribute to education and healthcare. that is the role of civil society. not very much engages civil society. with the money being a aaa -- tripoli, i think that the primary source for success in libya is coordination. and communication. it is about building capacity for instance, a coordinating group for the constitution writing process. how civil societies can work together to advocate for major issues. one of the needs identified is because the trust is missing, to build with different players when you're coordinating with a group. the real psychology libyan set face on a daily basis. teambuilding coordinating, when it comes down to what everyone here probably does as part of their organizational

developments, people building. it is trust. it begins with the individual believing in their own capacity and the community. the highest level of trust in the state. one a most fundamental levels doesn't really exist. bring it down to the most basic block of civil society. >> i am with freedom house. the discussion so far is largely focused on the challenges of

civil society in libya. but i have also seen a lot of enthusiasm and passion from some organizations, and they're finding relatively more success on a local level than on a national level. and you share specific examples of organizations or and initiatives that have stood out for being particularly effective? and are there any lessons that can be drawn from them? especially since international donor attitudes can change in the short-term. thank you. >> the question was, specific examples of organizations that have really stood out and been successful in pushing a public agenda, and what are the lessons to be learned from those examples? >> i think the first example will be the coordinating groups for the law. it was a national campaign all over the country, and it has really worked out and a and night for months until they have achieved the law. this shows the strength of the civil society when they bring their forces together, that they can achieve something. this is marked with the military

groups that divide the ministries. many people forget that it was not just the two military groups. the two military groups, but are the coordinating group for the political isolation. they have worked a and night and have contacted members of the gnc, contacted the media. they used the tv quite often. they have really made it a national campaign. that is an example of success of civil society organizations working to achieve something with the advocacy of the higher- level. that is my take. >> i agree, although i do think the way the political party that led the isolation law, basically the position -- i think there was a lot more politics probably

to that law then there was just grassroots civil society activism. and in the interest of citizenship versus a political interest of any sort. but that was a very successful campaign, and it was a campaign that leveraged all the tools on the table when the time was appropriate, including the threat of violence towards the end of the campaign. but on a local level, there have been just a selection of counsel heads, for example, that have been done very much in consultation with citizens and with civil society. for instance, the local municipality election laws are being determined very much with the collaboration of civil society. the national civic education --

the national council for human rights and civil liberties has a section for civil society, and they are working with civil society on how to draw up the local municipality election laws and how to guarantee maximum citizen participation in municipality legislation. on a local level, cleaning campaigns. healthcare campaigns. local education campaigns. there is a really fantastic anti-smoking campaign that citizens have led here at local legislation has been passed about not smoking indoors. the something like that on a national level would be very difficult. >> i would add this civil society constitutional initiative, which rob has been a very active member in leading

and supporting. the fact that you had civil society from across the country come together to develop the manifesto of principles that should be enshrined in a constitutional process and reach agreement on those principles, and then nominate members within their own communities to coordinate and start feeding these principles back and start arranging dialogue sessions to get input on the manifesto and feed the recommendations back through a civil society working

group that got those recommendations to decision- makers across the board. i think that is a huge success in the fact that civil society, you know, over 900 organizations are registered. that is hugely successful. i would also say that the work of civil society in benghazi with some of the shuttle diplomacy discussions and negotiations going on, civil society takes an active role in engaging with moi, moj, police, or other security officials. sharing information, negotiating cease-fire agreements am a pulling people to the table to make sure everybody is on the to demonstrate and embrace that the citizens of benghazi are for the rule of law. these initiatives are powerful. civil society is not a front, even when there is a lack of national level government response. and when there is that lack of response, civil society is demanding it, and that is a huge success.

>> thank you. >> hi, i am from freedom house. i am a libyan american. i want to get the sense from the panel -- first of all, thank you for the uplifting remarks on the fact that as grim as it may appear, there is a lot of momentum on the ground. when you talk about civil society, how widespread is the activism or the participation of citizens and civil society? there are a number of organizations, maybe about 1500 that are written on the books, but what is your sense of greater citizen participation? is it a minority of people that are part of these organizations? a lot of libyans involved in this? talk a little bit about that. >> i would like to add sort of an adjunct to that question.

in terms of advocacy, reaching people, getting people's participation, what is the role of social media in libya? fairly limited internet penetration there, but how is it being used and how could it be used more effectively to engage more people in civic participation? >> as far as citizen participation, i think benghazi and tripoli are very different. you would have different results. but i think initially people wanted to participate. but in the absence of any results, participation in tripoli waned off. as a result, you have a handful of organizations, probably not with very strong grassroots outreach, and then you have

groups that kind of already exist in the outskirts of tripoli but that are not necessarily doing civil society activities better just organizing community activities and keeping their communities safe on a daily basis. depending on your definition of civil society, i suppose, but there are active citizens. there is no rule of law in libya. i hate to say it, but it is a state of anarchy. but it has always been that way, even before the revolution.

so citizens have learned to manage their affairs and they have learned to really kind of create the piece and go about their business day-to-day. so they are actively working towards keeping the safety, keeping the order, by virtue of the practice of libyan citizens. but civil society working towards a specific cause and advocating, very limited in that regard. >> i will take a shot at the two issues. first of all, cso's activities are ups and downs. there are issues that really engage and heat the relationship, like the issue -- the most dire issue now in the two major metropolis is business. in those two cities, it has shown that the people of the two cities are very much in line of trying to work out and push the government to cleanse the cities from armed groups. it is an ongoing process. all available means have been used. as far as social media advocacy,

i have seen it in benghazi. i am sure that benghazi is still the hub of the revolution, regardless of many of the problems. the center of activities in benghazi -- for example, there was the assassination and it reverberates all over the country. many people from the south and the east came to benghazi to participate in the demonstrations against the killing and also giving support for the people and for the family. and just to say, it is not yet the absence of the rule of law,

we are not the wild west, by the way. >> we have always kind of managed ourselves. >> but there is a hidden factor. 32 million pieces of weapons are in libya, which means almost every libyan is armed. that has created, by the way, some kind of ability, because if they are to attack your home -- they know that even policemen cannot give you a ticket because they know you have a gun or something. it is a silver lining situation. in a way that you can look at it, there is a benghazi group i have dealt with a lot that uses the facebook methodology a lot. it is creating movement. benghazi has almost not seen a week without a demonstration. in many ways, regardless of the absence of the security presence, i have met with a lot

of people in benghazi, from civil society, from local government, from the security and the military to create what is called the chamber of security in benghazi. their oath is to work together. so there is an effort of civil society to engage in the security and the safety of the city. what they can bring to the plate is that they can bring the street which is a very important factor that has never been played before. >> thank you. anybody have any comment on the social media aspect of this and how it has been used and how it can be used more effectively in the future? >> and the internet is still weak. that is a problem in libya. >> exactly. >> during the revolution among

facebook you have a lot of closed groups, private groups, invite-only groups. what we have seen over the last two years is that a lot of those groups are coming out into the open. they are creating an online platform where they are purposely trying to engage across the country. i think that is a really positive step where people at first were afraid to be as open on facebook, and now you can find anything literally on facebook. people are mobilizing on facebook. they are sharing very different opinions. they are engaging in discussion

and dialogue. even if that is just on facebook, i think that is translating in other ways to your daily dinner conversation, to civil society working group meetings that you are attending, these sorts of things. that is a really positive step. a lot of these close groups have come out into the open. >> when i was in libya, i did a consultancy with irx to explore the presence of media and how people in government and civil society and business use media. the discovery was that almost everybody agreed that the most legitimate source of media for most libyans was facebook. because it was that people- driven content and you could check out various different groups to see how they reflect it on the news. basically a one-stop shop for investigating what is happening. it was wonderful that a resource like that was available.

even members of congress said that often times they got their news from facebook before they got it from any official speaker, because the speaker was limited to a lot of bureaucracy within the gnc. there are many ways to leverage that, because there has not been any real facebook campaigns leveraged around civil society movements or causes. i think americans have a wonderful idea of how to create online campaigns. campaigning in general, how to get people involved. but creating up portal and text that people want to share on facebook. creating news and uploading videos on youtube. that area of social activism has not been tapped into. there is a lot of potential considering how many young people use facebook. but the internet is limited. where it is available, facebook tends to be the most popular source for social media and for >> if you had advice for the international community for how to support a democratic transition in libya.

what would that advice be? to theuld go back remarks that i made in the beginning. building an institution of civil society requires a real investment in organizational development. is away from a working project. finding a way to couple this when we are doing these projects. spending a lot of time mentoring and providing technical support to build these institutions. that the first is to take it easy on libya. -- considering the history of libya and the circumstances, i really do think that they are holding it together quite swell. out andthat news comes expected.

limited education on how democracy works and and on empowered people. they're waiting for people to come in. people to build the country and create change. we are in the process of empowering them and creating institutions. creating armies. creating a police force. great health care system. create in you and education system. , from the left, we look at progress on a four-year term. on myable to put this resume or not?

>> you start us off. >> thank you for being here this morning. i will put you on the spot right away. we talk a lot about complexity. beyondwing need to look the authorities in jurisdictions and abilities of one particular agency to solve complex problems and the need to network and collaborate. you guys produce the incurable data that led us to some of these conclusions. can you make general comments about the state of the world government is operating in? >> there are at least two main drivers what i think it is important to focus on the enterprise level. if you look at our high-risk two, which we produce every years, we have been doing this since 1990, but after 2000, most of the areas we have added have been areas and weaknesses that

crossed agency boundaries. whether it is modernizing the financial regulatory system, managing and sharing of terrorist-related information, the food safety program, modernizing disability programs, most recently we added limiting the federal government's exposure to -- by better managing climate change risk -- all of these areas require multiple agencies. what we found as we look across the federal government, there really is not effective means to be able to manage these programs. we have been trying to highlight these areas of vulnerability. we need multiple agencies to solve very complex problems. we need partnerships beyond the federal level with state and local levels and international cooperation and many of these areas. i think we have been trying to highlight this. acthe budget control

are met, we will be at the lowest share of growth domestic product in years. these pressures call for a change in paradigm. >> when we take the level of complexity in the current fiscal environment, i would be interested in what bass and rafael think about that. autonomously. i look forward to your views. >> thank you. we appreciate you all coming here today and the sponsorship by the partnership for bringing this conversation together. i have been in the federal government now for 25 years and

i have not only seen the movie but then in the movie for all of that time. i do think it is incredibly important to have the right approach toon the these very challenging opportunities that we have. i think the strategy, clarity on strategy is probably the most important thing. oftalk a lot about the silos excellence. the department of defense certainly has many different components within it, each with its own mission. at the end of the day, the department really does act as an enterprise. the active guard and reserve with our military weponent and our civilians, are just over 3 million people. if you take all of our numbers are around thel world, we are the 16th largest country in the world.

and you talk about the enterprise from a defense perspective, it is massive. add the rest of the federal government and say, what is the best way to manage an approach, trying to hit some of the strategic outcomes? thatally is a heavy lift starts with the strategy and clarity of outcome. what outcome are you trying to achieve? how do you do it? simply put, that is what we are talking about. i think we focus too much around the organizational aspects of it and not around the outcomes to read you might lose the perspective. you get too caught up in the organizational dialogue. which is why things like the high risk list are very helpful, because they highlight areas -- what outcome are you trying to achieve? benefiting the strategic alignment associated with that. i know we will have a lot more opportunity for me to expand

upon the approach we take within the defense department, but certainly on the support side, we do take an enterprise perspective so we look both horizontally and vertically. we execute in a very horizontal way. , -- end tod to and end. we cannot just look at the stovepipes. we have to look at what we do, what outcome we are trying to achieve, and what means and mechanisms we use to get there. i appreciate that comment. ,o pick up on a related point it is important to start with a focus on, what are the outcomes you want to generate? i think it is really according to have a good perspective on how one looks at the enterprise. say that oftentimes we fall into the trap -- i do as well -- when we talk about enterprise, we only talk about

the headquarters view, a very washington-centric view of what -- of organizations. at dhs, i often tell people, how do you look at us? what we do at headquarters and extrapolate from that? or do you look at us from the field, the point of contact with the delivery of our services, and look at that and extrapolate from that? if you look at us from the outside in, you see a much better integrated organization and we are given credit for? the men and women of the coast etc. work, fema, extremely well, not only with each other, but with other federal partners in their local environment. not work well together is here in washington at headquarters. i think you've got to define the problem. where is the problem that is inhibiting us to act in an enterprise way?

when i travel out to the field -- i have told the story before -- most people do not understand what an undersecretary is. that is ok. they say, budget and all of that often-- the question i get is, why is it so difficult for us to do things here in the field? why is it that the coast guard and ice and fema, if we want to share resources or if we want to find innovative ways so i spend money at coast guard and i can share that with ice and fema and vice versa, and they always say, who gets in our way is you. it is headquarters. and you fix that? -- can you fix that? first we have to identify, what is the enterprise we are talking about? if it is just here in washington, those of us who sit capital,he nation's then we've got a number of challenges. we have a very fragmented management structure throughout all of the cabinet agencies.

none of us look like. i think that is a tremendous challenge in trying to find a harmonious way to do business at the federal or enterprise level. can it be done? absolutely. i think we are doing things that homeland security quite frankly do not often get a lot of attention, but are beginning to knit the organization together. is important to set timelines and expectations clearly. you cannot do this overnight. you probably cannot do it in a year or two. it takes time. one of the things we've got to have is a temporal sense. how long is it going to take to do these things? what are the right things to be looking at year end, year out that demonstrate progress? there is a tendency to look at -- to look at this report and say, if you cannot do it in six months, it is not worth it. you have to have a longview. it takes time. it takes effort.

what we find that many federal agencies. we get along and cooperate much better than we are griffin credit for. -- given credit for. you may get a couple of questions thrown your way. raphael, i think it is a great jumping out point. -- jumping off point. are there one or two things that you find as bright spots inside dhs that might have broader applicability across government? >> two things come to mind. my name is rafael. you gave me a handheld microphone. i cannot talk with one hand. [laughter] this is really hard. here we go. can you hear me? with really hard to talk just one hand. two things i would .2. this is the first time i have seen jean daher laugh. i am italian.

i'm having the same problem. [laughter] >> two things i would point out. -- us, one of the key clearly i borrowed a lot of this from my experience in the private sector -- was to create thenterprise risk view of way we conduct business at dhs. we have created an organization ithelp us do that, but really was about creating an environment within all of dhs to get people to recognize that we needed to be focused on risk. we needed to look at our acquisition program with investments. a very important just fiction because these are investments that distinction because these are investments taxpayers -- a very important distinction because these are investments taxpayers pay for. we created this enterprise risk

view, being able to speak about the -- the factors that contribute to an elevated risk scenario, and what can you do to mitigate and manage that? also, how do you drive the probability of success up? that is part of our nomenclature now. we talked about investments. based on our programs a risk matrix. we have value to risk ratios. we have all of these tools we have been building out. very quietly, but what it serves to do is to create now a common language in the department where we all talk now about acquisition programs in the same way. we use similar tools departmentwide. are they perfect? of course not. it will take time to build these out. are they useful? absolutely. go to a morean specific example of that. i think this is a very intriguing line we are onto. we talked in our deliberations leading up to this report about carrots and sticks. how do you manage autonomous

components? i was reminded during the conversation of the recent intelligence community and efficiency program, it seeks to collapse a number of domains, data interfaces for peoples laptops, but that was accompanied with some pretty certain -- severe budget reductions to say on personnel costs. i am interested in your collective opinions on how you manage that dynamic. >> i think having the right balance of both carrots and sticks is important, but i also think that transparency is key. so often people think they are being penalized, and i think we need to break that cultural stigma. it really is about, how do we optimize the investment of the

organization to accomplish the mission that we are asked to come bush? -- to accomplish? a great way of putting everything on the table is putting everything on the table in a transparent way. you have a leadership forum that says, what do we as an organization need to accomplish, and how are we going to get there? what investments are we going to make? it will mean that we need to shed some of the stuff we already have. the nomenclature we used in defense, at least on the business side, is to establish a more simplified business environment. i want to invest in the future, but in order to do that, i need to shed some of the status quo and tell people, they will not be left without capability. we are replacing this antiquated with the new. establishing sunset dates, taking the budgets for those legacy systems to push the organization to a more modern state.

there is a trust factor that must be established or overcome because we are so accustomed culturally to holding on and information is power and my information is mine and not yours. we have to get over that. each of the respective organizations, but also at the federal level. reload everything in a common tool and allow everyone to see it. navy, air force, this is about us, not us versus them. it is about the collective enterprise stepping forward. he cannot afford to each have our own -- pick something -- it might be the right thing to do to establish an enterprise solution for a particular business area or may be data standards are the way to change the outcome. it really depends on, where do you want to go, how fast you it all starts with transparency

and trust. >> in addition to that, i would say a very key component of this is discipline. one of the things that we lack is organizational discipline. trust and transparency, absolute prerequisites. in order to be successful, you need to be able to establish discipline to be able to execute in a way that is repeatable and sustainable. that is an area where gao is very helpful. i think all federal agencies -- they point out not just obvious missteps, but they also provide recommendations that say, here is a course of action. there are steps you can take. what is needed is discipline to be able to execute against that. that takes time. sticks, that is an interesting question. what do you do to influence behavior, to control or target or focus behavior? the incentives are important

because in our case, meaning in the federal government, we are living in a very constrained time right now. let me say one thing about -- the cliché we often use is, we need to be able to do more with less could i do not buy that -- with less. i do not buy that at all. we need to do the right thing with less. absolutely wrong way to think about it in my mind. we've got to be able to dig in and make those choices which require discipline and say, what is the value added? where is the risk associated? where do you have a very low value, high risk? dump it. stop doing it. it is not just in our case within dhs. this is where i think in enterprise view is very helpful.

there are things that we do across the enterprise and federal government that we got to look at and say, it is over. it is time to do something else. >> to use one of my favorite words, transparency -- i used to have a motto when i was working -- transparency breeds self- correcting behavior. two areas. we recently convened a meeting to talk about fiscal liabilities that are not included in the budget or on our balance sheet that are pending out there that do not have a lot of transparency associated with them. i thought maybe you could summarize that. aggravating circumstance with the current fiscal environment. for our two managers that are here, i would like to talk about transparency of data and how ,hat is an enabler to do right including data can -- data center consolidation, clout centers, etc. >> in terms of transparency on

fiscal exposures to the federal government, it is something we have been working on for a long time now. we have worked to include more information in the consolidated financial statements of the federal government to show those fiscal exposures long-term. most of them are not highlighted long-term in the budget. there's only a limited time we can look at. he has been looking long-term. even with the recent changes in the budget control act and the american taxpayer relief act, the federal government is still on a long-term fiscally unsustainable path. those financial statements have shown the long-term obligations for medicare and social security and social insurance programs, but there is still a lot more that needs to be done to flesh out exposures to the federal government, both on the budgeting five as well as on the financial reporting side. on the budgeting side, one classic example is the only

budget for emergencies and disasters that will be $500 million or less. that the number of disasters and the amount of money has not been there. it means it does not been budgeted for. it comes in supplemental .ppropriations that adds to the deficit. there is not enough transparency in making a decision upfront. the budgetary process and long- term consequences of some of those decisions -- the financial reporting has gotten a lot better. i am pleased about that, but there is still continued evolution needed some policymakers understand both the short-term and long-term consequences. >> we are still dealing with the fiscal liabilities from the shortfalls of the national flood insurance program from hurricane katrina. transparency and data. >> i love them both. especially when they are together.

i mentioned both on the major defense acquisition programs, major weapons systems, over time we have gotten more transparency, not only on cost scheduling and performance of those programs, but also on vendor performance. that is also a very interesting discussion because i think if we all in government and contractors have data on the table and clarity of outcomes, performance objectives, those kinds of things, we collectively are very much stronger. working together to achieve the delivery of those capabilities. side, the i.t. on the business side is about $7 billion annually, which is small compared to the overall defense budget, but still a very big number. in order to achieve both the transparency of investments and to go after the stovepipe nature

and parochialism associated with the business environment -- those tend to be not necessarily at the forefront of everybody's mind, yet those are the things that eat our lunch at the end of the day. if vendors are not paid, or payments are not right, or we are paying interest penalties, the back office is not the most exciting place to be, but we spend a bunch of money there. i get to see it every day. we have done is created and integrated business environment so that we are looking at all of it together. it is our strategy from a business perspective. how does it align to the national security mission that the defense department has? how do we make sure that we have the right number of financial systems, learning management, hr systems? you can really achieve process optimization and efficiency and effectiveness so that when our military members are devoid overseas, they are paid right.

they are right every time. there is a thoughtful process that has to happen. what we do is ensure that we have the data transparent to everybody. it is not that -- i mentioned the army and air force -- everybody can see everybody's stuff. it is not because i'm looking to play the gotcha game. it is about, how do we as an enterprise move forward in a way that makes sense and optimize the tax payers investments? that is what this is all about. it is a cultural challenge. to expose all the data. i say, it is not about, i'm going to highlight where you do that. there say, is there zero -- a space there were we ought to take action? it is establishing coalitions across the enterprise, aimed at a particular outcome. i think i said it 10 times.

clarity of outcomes, clarity of mentioned baseball, using the nationals -- i like basketball a lot better, fewer players that you have to keep track of -- it is an active game. everybody has a role on the court. everybody understands what their contribution is supposed to be. that is what a team sport is about. what is the outcome? what is the role of each individual organizational component? then you have a disciplined approach to accountability. if you are supposed to achieve ask, are you doing it? if yes, great. if not, why not? what needs to happen? progress inu enable a transparent, accountable way. >> yes. >> i love working with rossdale. -- with rafael. >> it is really hard work to be

able to get to the states. thatl have organizations have questionable integrity. we know that. the question is the chicken and egg thing -- when you have sufficient clarity and data before you can start using it? oftentimes what we do is we say, it is not clean, so let's not use it. maybe --id, which is a which is maybe progressive, is we recognize the data was 30. we built systems to capture the data. if you expose the data, that would be the greatest incentive for people to begin to clean up their data. put it in the sunlight. let people see it. once they started complaining, that does not reflect the performance of my program, why is that? the data is wrong. then you say, actually it is your data. weyou clean up your data, force them by putting -- using

the transparency, the sharing of data -- it created a tremendous incentive over time. three years ago, maybe the fidelity of the data was roughly 30%. that is not good. today we are probably closer to about 80% or so because of the effort that has been undertaken to clean up data. not perfect, not 100%, but useful enough to be able to start making decisions. at will to help us make decisions. let me comment very quickly on these tools. we havehe things that to control our impulses around are these statistics. have asoon we will statistic meeting to judge the relevancy of stats. i like this notion of some sort of enterprise view, rather than siloing us off all the time, looking at stats around the acquisition community, stats

around -- so what? it gives you a very narrow view of the enterprise. we need to start integrating data to come together and to be able to manage that. anything that expands the notion of enterprise, i'm definitely all four. >> this is perfect. i want to turn it over to questions from the audience. on quick one for you -- a statement that laura may which have an enterprise government in crises. you may look at hurricane sandy or the work that you did with katrina. --comes back to some things clarity of objectives and maybe more transparency, but i'm curious, what are the other elements that make government work well as an integrated whole , as an enterprise in a crisis environment which we need to see translated into normal? business

>> the right way to run government is the right way to run government. crisis operations has to do with time compression, scale, media coverage, all the things that create pressure that conduct a ace response or make governmental response mandatory so government has no recourse but to get their act together. we should not have to do it with a gun to our heads. that can be a media gun or whatever. it ought to be something we institutionalize on a day-to-day basis. the tenants of unity of effort, transparency contribute not only towards an effective crisis response, but are excellent principles for day-to-day operations. the two best examples i can give you from the oil spill or the decision to show the video live from the well. that was painful to watch. it was necessary for the emerging public to understand

the gravity of the situation that we were dealing with. an uncontrolled well, no human access, closer to apollo 13 than hurricane katrina. that weso necessary make everything transparent as possible. we took a common operating picture with the global information system. one of the projections gave [indiscernible] those work in a crisis. they can work on a day-to-day environment. you've got to create the infrastructure that makes that happen rather than mobilizing troops. that looks at inoperable systems where data can be shared. taking a look at not only stovepipe systems, but systems where you have proprietary software that handcuffs or data. this comes back to things like scale and shared services, having common sense standards for when you acquire the data, you can make liquid and get return on investment from that data when you need it. second,compile on for a

can pile on for a second, in you can galvanize and overcome policy barriers so quickly. i often wonder, why does it take so long for us to break through the policy barriers that exist day-to-day when i know we can do it? we demonstrate we can. we can break through the policy barriers that exist. we are highly regulated government. it is a government of checks and balances, which is intended to be a good thing, but at the end of the day, it does slow us down and our ability to execute. i do think clarity of purpose -- i wanth a time box to get to this by this timeframe -- it really helps identify those barriers.

there are so many policy barriers that exist across government. i'm not saying it is malice of forethought. onple locally decided either the standards they are going to which makesicies, the whole of government transparency initiative that much more challenging. if i look in defense, we have so many things in the defense department. it is not because someone said, let's figure out how to make his organization as complex as we let's localize every decision. it is just how things happened over time. it really is about looking at your total environment, understanding what you have, and then challenging the status quo. constantly, tenaciously, transparently. how do we move forward in our quest for the outcome we are trying to achieve? i think how we can mobilize and move in times of crisis really should be the benchmark that we

then measure ourselves day-to- day. the art of the possible exists. we have proven we can do it. it is just applying it to other areas. >> you are doing it within agencies as well. in addition to clarity of objective, i think the leadership focus, the senior leadership focus is another critical element in terms of driving the organization. we start in our report today with the notion that you need that when, which is clarity of purpose that is backed by the top leadership. that is where you begin. the points you made about transparency has been powerful. i want to make sure that we hear from anybody here who has a question. believerd for me to that we have one right here -- sir? >> we talk about crisis management. it is a great point.

whenng back to the report, we are looking at setting up an approach toide government, what is the crisis that will get us to that point? we heard how things work well during katrina. is it the budget situation? isn't competing against china? is it climate change? i am wondering what will be the tipping point for us to take on what you outlined in the report. pitcht is a good slow over the plate. >> i played basketball. -- play basketball. [laughter] i will start. the physical environment -- fiscal environment, to say it cannot be ignored cannot even come close. impact of feeling the the furloughs within the defense department.

and maintenance budget, the things we cannot afford to do any longer i think really has put the focus on assessing not only how we do what we do, but the things we are doing to the point that -- wel made earlier cannot afford to do everything we have been doing. we really have to assess all the things we are asked to do. what can we afford to do in the budget environment? if things flee out the way they looking, ity tightens our ability even more. , think it is important to say with the top line projections and omissionsre that we respectively have across the government for national security, what can we do within those topline effectively? what can we no longer afford to do? i think the physical environment

-- fiscal environment has been and is a trick opportunity to be the galvanizing -- a trick opportunity to be the gaza mining -- the galvanizing effect to bring the agency together. why shouldn't take one of those events to prompt this action? the cfr is the sum of all market failures. -- the code of federal regulations is the sum of all market failures. we ought to be about organizational wellness. you can do it on your own terms or somebody can dictate it to you. >> i think there are a lot of factors, but the fiscal picture is the overriding backdrop that will create the pressure necessary to do this. thatu realize right now the percent of those domestic

-- in the last 30 years, it has only been about 39%. we are highly leveraged right now. going into a time when we have a democratic --, graphic wave owing to hit the medicare and social security systems. 2029, 1000 and people will turn 65 in the united states. the percentage of people 65 or older will almost double during this time. that will create enormous pressures beyond a more immediate fiscal pressures down the road. that will be with us over the next several decades. i believe that constant fiscal pressure will create the imperative for changes that would not have otherwise occurred. the other factor is that the government performance modernization act of 2010 requires now performance information to be made available

to the public quarterly on the website. it is a lot more information being made available. this transparency that we have all been talking about today is becoming more evident. there are pushes congress to require more transparency on federal spending, to take off on the examples that were in place on the recovery act, transparency that occurred there, recovery.gov. i think the push will continue. fiscal pressures are going to be tremendous. i think those two factors will be the overriding imperative. >> here is a point i would like to make. i will use a medical analogy. you go to the doctor and you're diagnosed with high cholesterol. what will be your approach to get well? will you take a medication? or will you get well? will you change your diet and exercise, etc.? my concern sometimes with focusing on very limited -- all

we will do is look for the magic pill. if we are going to be successful, we've got to get well. that means changing the way we behave, changing our diets, changing our attitude. we've got to change the climate. we've got to move away from the current climate, which continues to demoralize public service, not just in this community but run the country where it is ok to bash civil servants and lump them all together. it is incredibly demoralizing. at the same time, we are asking our public institutions to do more, to be responsive to the needs. we are trashing them at every moment we get. that has to stop. people have to step up and say, i'm not. stop it. >> i cannot resist. you offered a lot of compelling reasons. not happening fast enough. that is the reason why we have done this work. there are a lot of really good reasons. there are a lot of good things

that are happening. it needs to accelerate dramatically. we do face all kinds of issues from the fiscal pressures as well as the demands that we see in our own position globally. there is a lot of competition we face at the level we have never had to address before. it requires our infrastructure to step up to the game. that is why enterprises so important. some other questions? what else is on your mind? we have an incredible panel? -- an incredible panel. up front here. let us know who you are and where you work from. i met the federal motor carrier safety ministration. it mentionedsued, the idea of sharing funding across agencies for cost-cutting purposes, which sounds very good. but we have a certain accountability force in the

congress which appropriate dollars to the department and to the sub agencies for very specific purposes. addressed thet need to bring congress into this so that if we are sharing funds from our agency, the federal highway administration, for some shared issues, that we would not get caught up in the wheels of ada matters? >> let me jump in on that one. it is specific to the report. we are actually not advocating for a sharing of funds across agencies. what we are suggesting is that of can, with the leadership an individual looking across a portfolio that continue to exist within their architecture, you can have a better coordinating, collaborative approach to trying to achieve those objectives.

it is not that we see funds being moved from one account to another, it obviously you cannot too. by and large, every recommendation we make in this report is within the control of the executive branch as opposed to the larger civil service package that we have, which is more legislative focus. this is, how do we do within the executive branch what we need to do across the organization and maximize that collaboration? we hope we will deliver information about what is working and what is not in a way that can influence congress to make funding decisions that will actually direct resources to where they will be most effective. congress obviously postures is. we are careful about ada issues. what are things that can be done now? this is all based on things that are happening. we're are talking about building it across the whole enterprise. please. >> i recognize the reports parameters. the concepts,

embodied in the report cannot be effectively implemented without better consultation and communication with the congress. we just released most recently our study about the initial lamentation of the government performance modernization act of 2010. our conclusion was there was little meaningful evidence of collaboration with the congress. there were explicit requirements added in the 2010 legislation to require more consultation and have that be reflected in the plans. in 1990 three original act contemplated consultations with congress -- the 1993 original act have completed consultations with congress. i think it is very important. beth talked about outcomes. you have to have common outcomes that include the congress. thatrms of making sure

these are common objectives that we are all trying to achieve as a government. that is the only way you will get them funded properly over time. andhave effective oversight meaningful achievements of everybody pulling together for a common objective and national priorities. speak -- know before i one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission that has not been acted upon yet is the organization of congressional oversight, how you deal with these complex situations. that remains out there. that said, i think there are certain issues related to the economy. it guides how money is exchanged where you might be able to tweak that. defense business operating funds , capital working funds, industrial funds, there are mechanisms whereby the funds can be allocated to achieve a greater scale. as max said,

there is no in addition to doing that right now. i was going to ask the mother is an initiative within the department of homeland security which has had a couple of starts and stops. that does not impact the source of funds. it is how you acquire it. >> it is a great question. ago, the planears the department of homeland security was to build a large, completely integrated financial management system, covering procurement, all of the functions. metaphor -- itt collapsed under its own weight. too big. it could not be financed. it could not even be organized in a way that made sense. what is the new strategy? i have been here three and half years. i remember going to omb and saying, look, i do not want to build an end to end system.

there are good financial systems. call ato be able to play. help me do that. if you do, i can refashion this strategy to implement a financial management system in the department using both existing systems that are certified and target systems and repair those that need to be repaired. three and a half years later, the strategy has not changed. i'm glad that everybody is talking about shared services. wayill do not have a quick -- to use a metaphor -- to call a plate and just go. -- play and just go. there are any number of roadblocks and restrictions. knit that together with this analytical tool we are building out anyway. that will tie these systems together. we are still waiting. [laughter] federal motor for

carriers. you can just cooperate. i know ports of entry between the united states and mexico, regulations are carried out by department of homeland security folks who do dual inspections at the same time. >> last question? couldet the last question jason miller, federal news radio. i'm glad the issue of congress came up. i wanted to pull the string little bit on what was said about not doing more with less because it is a silly cliché. i happen to agree with that. congress is the problem. i can say that because i do not have to answer to them like you all do. [laughter] how do you get congress to act? we haveance, the report all talked about, overlapping federal programs -- senator coburn puts out his tweaks and his report says, we could get

rid of sequestration if we did this, but nobody seems to be listening. is anybody listening on the hill? guys, taking congress out of the equation, how do you deal with the overlap? i know you have been dealing with overlap and i.t. systems. that has been a bear to get systems consolidated little bit. >> first of all, i would say clearly people are listening to the reports. we have included every year in our overlapping duplication report scorecard of how well both the executive branch and the congress have acted on recommendations we have made to both branches. -- apast year, we reported notable example for congress, they allowed one of the ethanol tax credits to expire that we said duplicated the renewable fuel standard. over $5 credit was

billion in revenue lost. they acted. act consolidated over 100 transportation programs and set more performance goals for the federal and state and local levels. our report demonstrates those actions that have been taken both by congress and the executive branch, but there is a lot more that needs to be done clearly. bills have been introduced. to consolidate the employment training programs, both in the house and senate. we have had a lot more inquiries and involvement with issues going forward. i think clearly people are listening. i think the fiscal pressures are requiring people to pay more attention to these issues. with the budget control act cap scum and into place, i have noticed -- caps coming into place, i have noticed a wider interest on a wider range of committees in congress than we have seen in the first couple of areas.

i am encouraged by that. i think there is a long way to go in order to deal effectively with these issues. a good place to start in many cases -- i have sent this -- --d this before committees there is a lot of commonality between the 14 crosscutting priorities that the understration put forward the modernization act and our overlapping duplication report. for example, the scientific, technical, engineering, and math programs, strategic sourcing -- those areas are where both the gao reports and the administration have said that changes need to be made. i am encouraged by more hearings. i'm not sure i would encourage more hearings. [laughter]

that i think there is a lot of interest. thing from everybody, to be i think fromou -- everybody, to be honest with you. the executive branch, the legislative branch -- i can speak specifically to defense -- we have been looking at efficiency initiatives, various things over the last few years, but to do a salami slice cut to me is not the most effective way to really strategically go at effective reductions. doing isave been really saying from a strategic perspective, what do we have? reduce the best way to spending, increase or optimize a particular area? it is much more strategic in

nature. i think it all starts with knowing what you have. there is a lot of unknown unknowns. and weo does reports bring everything together in a transparent way, it really educates the population into, what do we have? where do opportunities exist to reduce duplications or redundancies across the enterprise, either at the federal government or within a component? we have found in the business space that transparency -- thank you for mentioning the i.t. systems. some of it is understanding what we have. using tools like an enterprise architecture and data standards -- if you are not using standard data across your organization, you can only get so far. these practices that have been in existence for a long time take some time to then move from very flexible data to more standard data. that requires investment in strategy.

-- and strategy. we have been using tools like architecture to say, why do we need 10 learning management systems and the department of defense? surely we could use fewer. the answer is probably yes. then it is getting at, how do we all defined those things? i can tell you we have 10. they are all different. it is really getting the a rationalized, simplify business environment. it really is starting with an understanding of what you have. put your arms around it. i think there is a ton of interest. pick a place. either at the agency level. i think we are all trying to figure out, how do we optimize in a way that does not just break things? i think we are all to the point where we have done cuts across the board. to do more across-the-board cuts , you then break things.

you have to be much more strategic, much more thoughtful about these decisions around what you do and what you do not do. a lot of these reports are very complex and very difficult to understand. if they are taken too quickly or easily, what can happen is members of congress will draw conclusions that are very limited. then create a set of expectations that are often times inconsistent with the conclusions reached by gao. what i have tried to do, what i have done -- i cannot remember how may times we have done it -- we have gone up after either report, like the high risk report, with gao, we go together and bridge the congressional committee staff so they can hear from the both of us at the same time.

it is certainly not an argument. it is a clearing of expectations, understanding, so the staff gets a really good sense of where we agree, and oftentimes we agree with almost all the recommendations, and where we either have a different point of view or we would like additional clarity from gao. the staff has an opportunity to hear that real-time. i think that is a wonderful example. i do not know how many other agencies and departments do that, but i'm very proud of that. pleased and proud that gao sits there with us. oftentimes it is breaking the expectations. if we cannot talk together or sit together, we have to be viewed as adversaries. we walk in arm in arm. we are all dedicated to exactly the same thing. it is really simple. there are practices and things you can do. we talked about oversight.

we were on a panel couple of months ago with the chairman of general motors. he was talking about all the things he did to be able to turn gm around. one of the things he mentioned 29 committees and subcommittees of the board of directors, and when he became chairman and ceo, he wiped them out. i said, we have about 100 committees and subcommittees at homeland security, and all i could do was shut my eyes. [laughter] >> jason, i'm going to resist the urge to answer you with negative synergy between finance reform and redistricting. [laughter] let's talk about transparency for a minute. a lot of people do not realize this. i am recovering budget officer. there is an asymmetry rainout between the amount of people and data and congressional justifications that are generated either for authorization bills or budgets, and the amount of staff that can

absorb that. i have had personal conversations with appropriations clerks that say, have a certain amount of time to andrb this material position ourselves either for an authorization bill or an appropriations bill. it into the transparency situation, i will give you an nevere -- we have rationalized the preparation structure between the components moved over from departments in 2003. there is a general lack of comparability between operating capital and personnel costs across components, which would lead you to be able to do the things that rossdale wants to do. if you go to the hill, they would say, we know that needs to be done. we will not be able to proffer an answer to that. that has to be done by the components grade -- components. look, this has been a fabulous conversation. i very much appreciate all of you.

thank you. if we could get a great round of applause -- [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] "q&a" nikita stewart. then your calls and comments on "washington journal." today, virginia congressman bobby scott will host an information session on the affordable care act in richmond virginia. he will be joined by virginia state secretary of health and human resources, life beginning at 6:30 p.m. eastern here on c- span. life beginning at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> all the handsome young officers surrounding my grandmother who was 23 years old at the time, but very beautiful -- my grandfather was trying to get to talk to her but could not because of the handsome young officers.

they all rush to go upstairs to do what they had to do good -- do. they left her standing there. fell behind her going up the steps to the deck. when she heard it, my grandmother fainted right back into the arms of the president. he caught her tenderly and gently. >> this week, the encore presentation of our original series "first ladies: influence and image," looking at the public and private lives of our nation's first ladies. --s week, a liza harrison anna harrison to a liza johnson. >> this week on "q&a," "washington post" reporter nikita stewart discusses her

recent front-page profile of washington d.c. businessman jeffrey thompson titled "the governor of d.c. -- the rise of jeffrey thompson and the fall that has rattled district politics." >> nikita stewart, as a reporter for "the washington post," on july 13, you wrote a huge piece, front-page, on a man named jeffrey thompson. why? >> jeffrey thompson had been in the news. he is a local businessman at the center of major federal investigation and no one really knew who we was. so i basically told my editor i want to write the definitive profile of jeffrey thompson. when people want to know about him, i want them to refer back to this article. >> why do we want to know about him? >> right now, he is the center of d.c. politics and some folks say he is actually at the center

of d.c. politics basically falling apart. for years, behind-the-scenes, he had been giving to candidates. he had several contracts, huge contracts with the city, one -- three2 million year. and $22 million a year. -- $322 million a year. and no one really knew who he was until things came to light in 2011 over problems with current mayor vincent c. gray's campaign for mayor in 2010. >> right now if you lived here, you see we have one former city councilmember in prison, one that copped a plea and didn't have to go to prison, but had to pay back some money -- he was a city councilmember. we have one former city councilmember, michael brown, the son of ron brown, the former head of the democratic national committee, and we have marion barry who was in and out of prison and all of that stuff. is this a more corrupt town than any other?

>> no, i personally don't think so. i have been covering politics for a long time. i actually covered politics in new jersey before i came to the district of columbia. so i don't think any more corrupt than any other place. but the interesting thing about d.c., remember, it is not a state. it is a city and the council and the mayor still have functions that are very much like both city and state. so i think there's more room for scrutinizing them and it is very noticeable when you have three out of 13 councilmembers getting into some very serious legal trouble in the span of two years. >> how did you go about covering jeffrey thompson? >> i used to cover the mayor, the mayor's office, and i covered the 2010 mayoral campaign.