Friday, May 16, 2005

Arlington, Virginia

Mr. Lawrence: Good morning and welcome to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, partner in charge of The IBM Center for The Business of Government. We created the Center in 1998 to encourage discussion and research into new approaches to improving government effectiveness. You can find out more about the Center by visiting us on the web at www.businessofgovernment.org.

Mr. Basham: Good morning. Good morning, Paul.

Mr. Lawrence: And also joining us in our conversation from IBM is Dave Abel.

Mr. Basham: Yes, I'd be happy to. As a matter of fact, I suppose most people are familiar with the Secret Service's mission with regard to the protection of the President of the United States, the Vice President, and members of their families and others, but what many people don't realize and know is that the Secret Service actually had its origins for a totally different purpose. Back following the Civil War, 1865, approximately one third to one half of all of the currency in circulation at that time was believed to be counterfeit, and the Secretary of Treasury at the time, Secretary Hugh McColloch, approached the President, and advised the President that the counterfeiting problem was so significant that it was actually threatening the financial stability of the United States, and that as a matter of fact, the whole reconstruction effort of the South was being threatened.

So the Secretary asked the President if he would authorize the creation of an organization within the Treasury Department to combat this counterfeiting problem, and that day, the President did in fact authorize the creation of a law enforcement component within Treasury to do that. Ironically, that was April 14, 1865. That night, of course, those of who know history, Abraham Lincoln went to Ford's Theatre and was assassinated. So therefore one of the last acts of one this country's greatest presidents was to in fact create an organization that would protect the financial integrity and financial infrastructure of the United States. And we continue to do that today.

Another sort of an interesting fact is that the first chief of the Secret Service, by name of William Wood; at the time, he was the Director of Corrections for the D.C. jail system, and his first three employees were in fact inmates from the D.C. jail system. But I can tell you, we have done a better job since then of recruiting and hiring our agents and officers, but the idea that the first chief had, as well as the Department of Treasury, was if they were in fact going to establish the credibility of the currency of this country, they had to suppress the counterfeit currency from getting into the hands of the public. And the way they did that was through undercover operations. And of course these inmates who were in the D.C. jail were in fact master counterfeiters. And so he used their knowledge and expertise in order to infiltrate those various operations out there that were in fact counterfeiting U.S. currency. And the idea, again, was to suppress it, and to prevent it from getting it into the hands of the public.

All of the operatives at the time were undercover, and in fact, the Service was in fact a secret service within the Department of Treasury to deal with this problem of counterfeiting, and therefore, that's how the name was derived, and we continue to this day to be the United States Secret Service. And not until 1901, after this country saw in a period of 35 years the assassination of three of our presidents: Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley, and we were tasked with the responsibility in 1901 to protect Teddy Roosevelt, and was our first actual presidential protection responsibility. And of course, that's been expanded, now that we protect not just the president, but vice president, members of their family, heads of state, heads of government that visit this country.

And then in 1922, the White House police was established to protect the actual physical building that the president was housed in, and other buildings around Washington, D.C., and they are now the Uniformed Division of the United States Secret Service. So that's a little bit of a glimpse of the history and how we came to be charged with the dual responsibilities of investigations and protection. But I can tell you that that early philosophy and methodology of suppressing and preventing crimes from occurring before they hit the public has been one that we have embraced and continue to embrace to this day. We still approach our investigations and protective responsibilities with that idea in mind. We don't want to investigate the assassination of a president, we want to prevent it.

Mr. Lawrence: Tell us about the size of your team. How do you think about the Secret Service, in terms of the size, and in particular, given the story you told about the first employees, the skill sets of the team?

Mr. Basham: Well, we're made up of a number of different entities, not only special agents but Uniformed Division officers, technicians, attorneys, scientists; the normal components that go into an organization such as investigative protective agencies, such as the Secret Service. You know, many people ask me today what's the difference between when I came on the job and what we're looking for in people who are coming on the job today, and I tell them when I came on the job, they issued me a gun, a badge and a horse, and today it's a gun, a badge and a computer. They now have a whole different arena that they are dealing in.

The skill sets we are interested in today are people who are comfortable in cyberspace, with computers, and dealing in the financial sector, and looking at it from that perspective, versus heretofore, you had an investigator, as you would typically look at an investigator's skill sets as being someone who's out there plodding away knocking on doors. And today, that's changed. Someone sitting thousands of miles away can attack our financial infrastructure with merely a key stroke. And so we're looking for people who have analytical skills, who have computer skills -- that's not to say that we still don't rely upon basic investigative tools and skills that you develop over time. So it's really changed a great deal over the past ten or fifteen years, and we're recognizing that, and not only are we recruiting from that set of skill sets, we're also training individuals in those kinds of skill sets.

Mr. Abel: You highlighted that the Secret Service started in the Department of Treasury, but we also know that it transitioned into the Department of Homeland Security recently. How has that transition impacted the operation of the Service?

Mr. Basham: Well, the one factor that I think is unique to the Secret Service, whenever we were moved from the Department of Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security, we went intact. Our mission and our resources were all intact when we moved. Others were broken up in some respects, which did have an effect, and it's had an effect on trying to bring the Department together from those 22 different agencies, but we didn't have to deal with the same sorts of problems that others who migrated to the Department of Homeland Security had to face.

Our mission literally has not changed. Our focus has not changed. Now, what I think we bring to the Department is a model, in many respects, as to what the Department's mission is today is very, very similar to the Secret Service's mission, and that is about prevention; that is about putting the resources in place; building the partnerships which we've had to rely upon for so many years, because we are a relatively small agency. We've always had to rely upon state, local, and other federal assets in order for us to accomplish our mission. The Department, I think, recognizes that for them to be successful, those same sorts of partnerships with state, local, and other federal agencies have to be there in order for us to able to accomplish to incredibly critical mission that the Department is facing today.

Mr. Abel: When you mentioned partnerships, it seems like one of the organizations with whom you have to have the most extensive partnership is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. What type of relationship does the Secret Service have with the FBI?

Mr. Basham: I feel that our relationship with the FBI continues to improve. I think since 9/11, I think everyone in law enforcement, in the intelligence community, recognizes that we need to do a better job of sharing information, sharing resources, and sharing commitment that we will do whatever is necessary in order to prevent another occurrence such as what happened on 9/11. And the way we do that is by constantly -- the communications between those various agencies out there.

You know, the time when keeping a secret from others that could provide some opportunity to prevent something from happening, I don't believe the American public is going to be patient or understanding if something occurs, and the reason that it occurred was because there were turf battles or turf issues -- we have just got to figure out a way to get around those, and to push that idea down through the agencies, through the organizations.

You know, the Director of the FBI, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and NSA, all of us understand the need for that cooperation, that sharing, and now it's our responsibility to drive that down through the various agencies and components to make sure that everyone understands that that's a necessity and a requirement if we're going to be successful.

Mr. Lawrence: That's an interesting point about sharing.

Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, and this morning's conversation is with Ralph Basham, Director of the U.S. Secret Service.

Mr. Basham: Dave, my role is not unlike the role of any chief executive, in that I have the overall responsibility for managing the day-to-day sort of global affairs of the United States Secret Service, but I also see my role as being there to support the mission of the organization, and whether that means getting them the resources or getting them the training or working through Congress and the administration to ensure that that funding is there to provide them with those tools to get the job done. It's also to keep the organization focused, focused on the mission of the organization. And as we've discussed, it's a dual mission of both investigations and protection, and to make sure that we maintain a balance between those two functions. On the one hand, it is the strength of our organization to have the dual mission. On the other hand, it also at times can be the Achilles' heel, in that we need to constantly be looking at shifting resources as demand requires.

And as you know, last year being an election year was an incredibly demanding year for the Service in that we had a number of special security events, plus the campaign and the conventions, but I also had to make sure that the organization was continuing to be focused on our responsibilities to the financial sector, in that we are the service provider to the financial sector for criminal activities that continue to go on regardless of whether or not there's a campaign for the presidency or not.

So it's my responsibility to make sure we keep those balanced; to make sure that our personnel have the tools that they need to get that done, and that we are constantly looking for opportunities to improve upon our mission requirements, whether it's technology or other things out there that I need to bring to bear. So it's not unlike any other CEO in government or outside of government.

Mr. Lawrence: What are the strategic goals of the Secret Service?

Mr. Basham: Well, I just hit upon one. We have got to look to technology. Technology, we recognize, is going to be the key if we are going to be successful in the future in combating the threats and challenges in both of our dual missions. The goal is to ensure that the levels of resources are appropriate to the responsibilities. I can tell you that, for instance, last year, during the campaign, as again I said, we are a relatively small organization. We put 1.7 million hours of overtime on our people in addition to the regular hours. And the goal here is to balance the workforce so that we are not putting those kinds of demands on our people on a quadrennial basis.

And so to get that balance, and to make sure that we have the ability to meet the mission requirements, and at the same time, not put our people through such a rancorous year as that we need to look at technology. So it's looking at technology, looking at the workforce and the requirements of the workforce are the goal that we're trying to work toward. And the Congress and the administration have been very, very supportive; I have to say, along those lines, but recognizing that our strategies have to be aligned with those goals and strategies of the administration as well, and the Congress.

Mr. Lawrence: Let's focus for a minute on a different piece of the mission that you handle. There are events that become designated as National Special Security Events, or NSSEs.

Mr. Basham: Right.

Mr. Lawrence: How many of those do you average a year?

Mr. Basham: Well, it's difficult to say that we have an average, because last year, for example, we had five. We had the G-8, which was the Group of Eight meetings, in Sea Island, Georgia, which was designated a National Special Security Event. On the heels of that -- literally on the heels of that -- the funeral of former President Reagan was designated as a National Special Security Event; we had the two conventions, which were the Democratic and Republican conventions in Boston and New York, and we had the inauguration. And each one of those brings with it its own challenges.

But the idea is to -- when one of these are designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as an National Special Security Event, the Secret Service is charged with a design and a plan and the implementation of an operational security plan. And that is to bring all of the elements of the federal government to the table to ensure that where you have these gatherings of large people, that a process is in place to bring whatever elements, whatever components are necessary to pull that off in a safe, secure way. The FBI is charged as the lead investigative agency for a National Special Security Event, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency is charged with the consequence management for those events, so that the three entities come together as a group and discuss all of the facets of that particular event, and make sure that the planning and the other responsibilities have been coordinated. And it's all about coordinating those federal assets.

Mr. Abel: If we look at one event, like the inauguration, we'll just use that as an example, what do you need to do to be able to design and plan and implement security with things like state and local authorities, the local police department? What are some of the things you need to do to be able to coordinate security?

Mr. Basham: Well, first of all, let me just say that none of these events could be done without the support and cooperation of state, local, and other federal law -- as well as public safety first responders begin brought together. Now, the one advantage of an inauguration is we know that it's going to happen every four years. Now, this was the first inauguration following the 9/11 attacks. But the planning of the inauguration had been going on for some time. Clearly, it was an elevated threat situation when you have that number of people coming together, but we have been doing this for many years.

In fact, we go back to -- I believe the first one that we were involved in was in 1886 or something. So we know that the various elements that go into the planning are fairly basic. We know the sites that have to be secured; we know how those sites should be secured. The challenge is being able to bring the resources in and find the resources. And without the Metropolitan Police Department, without the Capitol Police, without the U.S. Park Police, without the Department of Defense, there is absolutely no way that that could have been accomplished without those partnerships that have been in place for many, many years.

But it's really -- the basics are there, and it is really expanding upon those basic -- as these challenges change -- 9/11 clearly brought about a higher level of threat, but we look at not only what we are presented with on the surface, but we look at what's under the surface, and we look at what's above the surface. So whether it's air, land, or sea, or whether it's subterranean, we have to look at every aspect of it to make sure that that package is put together, and that safe and secure package is in place for not just the President, but also the public as well. And that's quite a challenge, as you can imagine.

Mr. Lawrence: Your investigative mission also includes a Forensic Services Division. Could you tell us about the service this division provides?

Mr. Basham: Well, the Secret Service's Forensic Services Division provides forensic examination of -- whether it be documents or whether it be handwriting. So it is literally a forensic examination that has been done by experts; whether it is a letter threatening the President of the United States, or whether it's a financial instrument that's suspected of being forged. We have the capability of examining those documents, that handwriting. We have one of the largest supplies of inks in the world that we can do comparisons with. We have one of the largest files on handwriting samples that we can use to determine whether or not someone who may have shown a direction of interest toward the President has done it in the past. So it's an investigative tool that is used and presented in court by experts, based upon that forensic examination of whatever evidence they are presented.

Now, we also are in a partnership with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and we do a lot of work with them in forensic examination of evidence to help support their role in protecting our nation's children. So whether it's fingerprints or handwriting or inks, we have that capability of examining those and comparing those to known sources.

Mr. Lawrence: That's interesting, especially about the supply of ink.

Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence. This morning's conversation is with Ralph Basham, Director of the U.S. Secret Service.

Mr. Basham: Well, we recognize, first of all, that crime in the Information Age has changed from -- I guess we can best describe it as crime in the Industrial Age, recognizing, as I said before, someone can attack our systems thousands of miles away by merely use of keystrokes on a computer. So we've had to adjust our thinking. The whole globalization issue, combined with the information revolution, has really made us rethink the way we approach our responsibilities. In fact, information, as you know, which was once used as a tool to facilitate information, it is now the target. Information is basically the world's new currency; it provides access; it shows our vulnerabilities and weaknesses. And now we're looking at information itself needs to be protected, and attacks on information need to be aggressively investigated.

As you have seen in recent months, large corporations have been hacked into, and information, personal identification has been gained, and is used to acquire -- and for criminal purposes. So we've had to adjust our thinking to, again, going back to the basics of how we go about our business. And that is, we look at the threat, we assess the vulnerability, and then we try to develop countermeasures to deal with that vulnerability. This is a new vulnerability; this is a new threat in the Information Age and in cyber, because of the access that criminals have using technology. We have to get out in front of that. We have to get out in front of the technology in order to come up with countermeasures.

And we are working very closely with the financial community, the financial industry, the financial services sector, to look at vulnerabilities, and to come up with those countermeasures that are going to prevent those vulnerabilities from being exposed. So therefore, we have several initiatives. Let me give you an example of a case that we just worked recently. We dubbed it as Operation Firewall. And what that was, it was a case, an investigation, that involved, I believe, six different countries, eight cities around the United States.

These individuals were carrying on a criminal enterprise tapping in to corporations, obtaining information, credit card numbers, social security numbers, and they had an open market on the internet selling and trading that information. And literally, I think we ended up shutting it down with losses somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 or $5 million. But it was estimated that the potential loss from that criminal enterprise could have reached a billion dollars. And so we were able to work that investigation, shut that down in I think a fairly timely fashion, and be able to gain a lot of information as to how these criminal enterprises are conducted, how they work. This was literally, as far as I'm concerned, kids, who are comfortable in cyber; they understand cyber; they understand how the system works, and they were actually taking advantage of those weaknesses. It was a huge criminal enterprise. So we, along with the partners in the financial services sector, are able to now take what we learned, those best practices, and apply it to our investigations, but also building countermeasures to prevent those kinds of intrusions from occurring in the future.

Mr. Abel: Well, what's real interesting about that case is that five, six, seven years ago, that capability wouldn't have existed, before the proliferation of the internet. And Paul mentioned before, I was thinking before, what would your reaction have been 30 years ago when you started with the Secret Service, and somebody asked you what the impact of blackberries would be on crime.

Mr. Basham: Right, right, right.

Mr. Abel: So what are the things that we're going to be seeing in the next couple of years that you're concerned about? What trends and technologies do you feel start to give a rise to even more advanced crime as we move forward?

Mr. Basham: Well, again, I think it's just the expansion of the internet. I think it's the constant development of technology that not only provides services to us such as computers and Blackberries. Criminals have the same capabilities; they have the same access, and they aren't restricted by any rules or any regulations or any policies. So our concern is that unless we are able to come to some way of regulating, of controlling that access, I feel that this is going to continue to be one of the big challenges that we're going to face.

In fact, right now, identity theft is the biggest challenge from a criminal enterprise that we are seeing. And as you saw in a couple of cases just recently, Choice Point, Lexis-Nexis, were hacked into; that information was extracted and then sold. And so unless we can build some firewalls in there, for no better term, to restrict that access, then we're going to continue to see these kinds of criminal activities. And it is to me an emerging problem, one that we're absolutely going to have to use technology to fix and to address.

Mr. Abel: Well, one of the things that is most difficult about these types of crimes is the ease with which they cross local, state, and federal authorities and boundaries. How do you relate with state and local authorities on issues like cyber crime?

Mr. Basham: Well, we have a number of -- The Patriot Act actually mandated that the Secret Service establish electronic crimes task forces around the country. We currently have fifteen established electronic crime task forces, and I believe we have another eight or so working groups that -- what it does, it brings together not just the federal resources, but it brings together state and local; it brings together private sector; it brings together academia, to take a look at these kinds of criminal activities, and working together to come up with solutions to fix those vulnerabilities. So these electronic crimes task forces have been very, very successful throughout the country. And it is, again, tapping into those state, local, and federal assets to get that done.

Mr. Abel: It's interesting that you mentioned the private sector. As I was thinking through, I was thinking state, I was thinking local. What more can the private sector do to be able to help on issues like identity theft?

Mr. Basham: Well, it's interesting, because I do a lot of speaking engagements to the financial services sector, and we talk about shared responsibility. Historically, the financial services sector has been a very cloistered sector, because what happens to them affects their bottom line. But if you attack one of these institutions and attack it successfully, you literally are attacking the entire sector, because those vulnerabilities can be exposed in other institutions. So it's about the willingness to provide information to law enforcement authorities that can get in at an early stage and work with them, because after all, they are the experts. I mean, when you think about it, they know their business; they understand the business; they understand when those occurrences happen. And the financial services sector is now much, much more cooperative with the law enforcement community, realizing that without that partnership, those vulnerabilities are going to be further exposed, which means it's going to affect those bottom lines.

Mr. Lawrence: These have got to be sophisticated crimes, requiring talented people on both sides. In terms of sort of folks in the Secret Service, what type of challenges do you have recruiting and retaining people to deal with these very sophisticated crimes?

Mr. Basham: We have seen an awful lot of interest in the private sector in acquiring individuals who have the sorts of investigative, technical talents that Secret Service's employees possess. In fact, we invest an awful lot in our agents in training in the forensic examination of these crimes, and we're seeing that the private sector sees now the benefits of building a protection around their different companies and facilities from a cyber perspective. And if you combine the investigative tools that are developed with agents in the Service as well as that forensic capability, you've got quite a package there, and it's a very attractive package for the private sector to draw, and they are able to better pay for those kinds of services.

So it is a challenge. However, I have to say that we have an awful lot of committed and dedicated people in the organization. They understand how critical the mission is, and they understand that if we're going to be successful, we're going to need to maintain that talent within the agency to be able to work these types of criminal activities. Although that's not to say that we don't lose people, but I'm happy to say that we've been able to maintain our staffing at a very reasonable level.

Mr. Lawrence: Those are some tough economics, the way you laid it out.

Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, and this morning's conversation is with Ralph Basham, Director of the U.S. Secret Service.

Mr. Basham: Dave, I think that what we will see is that -- and I believe Secretary Ridge made several comments that we want security to be engrained in our daily lives. Not that it should dominate our daily lives. Look, no agency, no government entity, no matter how large, no matter how well-funded, can single-handedly deal with this problem or with this issue of security. It's going to take every single entity, whether it be federal, state, local, private citizens, in order to ensure that we have a safe, secure, open society.

And we don't want to create paranoia out there, although the Secret Service is, I suppose, paid to be paranoid, which is probably a good thing, but it has to be inculcated into the thinking of everybody in this country. And if you think about the fact that the adversary, their goal, their mission, is to attack us, to attack us in our homes and our places of work, our places of worship, to attack our nation's leaders. And it is our responsibility, my responsibility as well as everyone in this country, I believe, to ensure they don't succeed in accomplishing their goal, and we have to ensure that our citizens and our leaders are capable of living and working and worshiping and leading in a safe, secure, environment.

And so it has to become a part of the way we think. Corporations have a responsibility to protect their own assets, whether it's a nuclear power plant somewhere, or if it's a financial infrastructure, all those are subject to and susceptible to attacks. And I think what hopefully will happen is we all working together creating these partnerships, creating that sense of making sure we're looking out for one another, and that we do: if we see a problem; if we see something that concerns us, that we will notify someone. We never know when one piece of information may in fact lead to a solution that would prevent our citizens of this country from being attacked.

Mr. Abel: How much of the mission in the future of the Secret Service is going to be the promotion of security understanding by private citizens, by public corporations? How much of it will be the development of this continued thinking in the public?

Mr. Basham: I think the idea behind the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was to do just that, and that was to bring all of the various parts together, all 22 agencies that had some responsibility in the area of security and safety together, and to be able to provide one face at the border, if you will, and one face to the American public, that's charged with that responsibility of providing information, not only to our federal counterparts, but to our state and local counterparts, to American citizens; information that they can use in order to provide in many respects their own safe, secure environment.

And so therefore, I think the administration's idea of bringing these various components together and sharing that information, sharing those resources, and giving the federal government one face, is going to be the key to the future, in terms of a safe, secure America.

Mr. Abel: In the course of this morning, we've talked about more change in the Secret Service over the past five years than in many decades before that. We've seen a transition from Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security; we've seen transition to a culture in prevention of terrorism; and we've seen investigation and prevention in the world of the internet and cyber crime. Do you see major trends coming that will carry as much impact and change in the organization in the next five to ten years?

Mr. Basham: I really cannot say that I'm such a visionary that I can answer that question in an articulate fashion. I can only say that the Secret Service recognizes that we've got to be constantly looking for opportunities to better carry out this mission and its function. As I said earlier, I think technology is the key, and even within the Department of Homeland Security, we are relying upon other elements within that department to assist us in coming up with strategies and coming up with methods that we can apply to our mission. And at the same time, we're looking for opportunities to provide the Department of Homeland Security with -- whether it be expertise or resources -- to assist them in that same fashion.

So I should never be shocked at developments, although I am, but I'm afraid I probably couldn't give you a good answer as to what the future holds with respect to the challenges, and perhaps the solutions.

Mr. Lawrence: Ralph, it's clear from our conversation that you're a dedicated public servant who's spent his entire career in public sector law enforcement. What advice from that perspective would you give someone interested in a career in public service, and maybe even concentrating and focusing on law enforcement?

Mr. Basham: Well, I have to tell you that I don't know that I could imagine a more rewarding career, public service. Recognizing that it brings with it challenges; certainly personal and professional sacrifices, which all of us have had to make, particularly in law enforcement. These officers, agents, and personnel and willing to go out every day and go about their jobs, recognizing that the threat is there every day that they may not return home to their family and to their loved ones.

But having said that, a career in law enforcement is one that is incredibly exciting and challenging. Opportunities within the Secret Service are not limited to just to the gun-carrying individuals, agents and officers. We have technicians and scientists, forensic experts and analysts, and just a wide range of responsibilities and jobs that are out there that are available to individuals who do want to get involved in public service, regardless of whether it's law enforcement or whatever. Again, in my opinion, there is no more rewarding career than to be able to provide a service to this country and to its citizens.

And as I said, the mission of the Secret Service has changed over the years. The skills necessary to do the job today are different than they were when I came on the job. And I would strongly recommend, whether it's a Secret Service, or wherever it might be, that someone who's interested in law enforcement should do research on the missions and the responsibilities of those organizations that they may have an interest in.

I tell you, one of the most disappointing things that I see when individuals come in and they're looking for employment is that they don't know exactly how the agency is tasked, and the responsibilities the agencies have. You need to have an understanding of -- when you walk in to that interview or that session, what the mission is, and how you can provide a service to that mission and that responsibility.

But we are constantly recruiting and looking for individuals who are looking for a career that I consider very fast paced and rewarding, and yet at the same time can be incredibly fun. So if anyone is interested in looking at what the opportunities are within the Secret Service, they can certainly go our website, www.secretservice.gov, and that would provide them with a lot of information about the organization. But I would encourage them to not just look at the Service, but to expand across. The FBI is a wonderful agency. So is ATF. So there's a lot of opportunities, but having said that, too, looking to gain experiences in a wide range of positions that will help them as they apply for positions within government, particularly in law enforcement.

Mr. Lawrence: Ralph, that'll have to be our last question. We're out of time. Dave and I want to thank you for joining us this morning.

Mr. Basham: Well, Dave, Paul, it's been a great experience and a wonderful opportunity to tell people about the mission and the great organization that the Secret Service is. And I know you all provide a tremendous service to the public as well, so thank you very much for the opportunity, and I hope it's been informative.

Mr. Lawrence: Thank you very much, Ralph.

Arlington, Virginia

Wednesday, April 3, 2002

Mr. Lawrence: Welcome to The Business of Government Hour.   I'm Paul Lawrence, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers and the co-chair of The Endowment for The Business of Government.  We created The Endowment in 1998 to encourage discussion and research about new approaches to improving government effectiveness.  Find out more about The Endowment by visiting us on the web at endowment.pwcglobal.com.

The Business of Government Hourfeatures a conversation about management with a government executive who is changing the way government does business.  Our conversation this morning is with Major General James Jackson, Commanding General, U.S. Army, Military District of Washington.  

Good morning, General Jackson.

Gen. Jackson: Good morning, Paul.

Mr. Lawrence: And joining us in our conversation is another PwC partner, Brian Dickson. 

Good morning, Brian.

Mr. Dickson: Good morning, Paul.

Mr. Lawrence: Well, General Jackson, although most of our listeners have probably witnessed the ceremonies and events that MDW orchestrates, could you give us a sense of its roles and the responsibilities?

Gen. Jackson: I have three major missions.  The first one deals with something we saw during 9/11, which is to respond to any crises or disaster or any kind of special security operation inside what we call the National Capital Region, which is just roughly a big goose-egg in and around Washington, D.C., Arlington, and the surrounding territory. 

The second one deals with providing base operations support for five different installations that work for me, ranging as far away as Fort Hamilton, New York up in Brooklyn, and as far down south as A.P. Hill, Virginia. 

And then the last one is the thing that most listeners might be most familiar with is the official ceremonial part of our business and public events which we conduct on an annual basis.

Mr. Lawrence: How large is your MDW team?

Gen. Jackson: I have a staff that is several hundred.  And then of course the command across the board ranges -- is approximately around 7,000 people, split between military and civilian.

Mr. Lawrence: And what type of skills will these people have?  You described such a range of activities.  I'm curious.

Gen. Jackson: Well, I pretty much run the gambit of all skills.  For example, I have operators whose job it is is to plan and control operations.   Much of what you saw during 9/11 -- those people were involved with that.  I have personnel people to keep track of people, both civilian and military, and take care of them.

I have a ceremonial staff that provides oversight and guidance as far as the events we do at both the White House, and then of course anything we do for the Department of Defense in and around the city.  I have logistics personnel who deal with that part of the business.  I have personnel who look at the garrison functions, or the functions that take place on a day-to-day basis on all those five installations.

And so I pretty much run the gambit.   I've got lawyers to take care of the contractual issues and some what we call the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the legal part of our business.  And of course, I've got Arlington National Cemetery and people like that.   So it pretty much runs the gambit.    

Mr. Dickson: Can you talk a little bit about what it's like to be a commanding general?

Gen. Jackson: I guess the first thing you say, it's great.  It's good to be in charge.  Most of us spend our lifetime in this business wanting to command and to be in positions where we pretty much are the senior authority in an organization.   Of course, we temper that with understanding we all work for somebody.  So we're not necessarily always the end to the food chain.

The job is a good one.   It's fun to be part of everything that an organization does.  And so, kind of as a CEO kind of person, I have my fingers pretty much spread across a little bit of everything that goes on in the command.   While I won't be the most knowledgeable on any specific subject, I might be able to argue that I know a little bit about everything.  And my job is to find out or know where the experts are who can give me that detailed information at the right time.

Mr. Lawrence: General, can you tell us a little bit about your career in the Army, some of your highlights that have brought you to this point?

Gen. Jackson: Sure.   I come from a military family.   My father served 33 years, World War II, Korea.  And so he was -- I guess I grew up in a military family.  And I respond to people who ask me where's my hometown, that I really don't have one.  I've been all over the country. 

I've served 30 years.   Started out after graduation out of college serving in the 82^ndAirborne Division, and then continued to multiple assignments with some Special Ops units and some -- with the Airborne forces, primarily in the light infantry side, which just means we do mostly walking or jumping and that kind of thing.

And through a variety of different command and staff positions, that has ultimately brought me to here.   I've served overseas in Korea twice, across the United States in multiple different locations.   I was checking the other day, by chance, and reminded myself that in 20 years of marriage with my wife, we've moved 13 times.  So we tend to move a lot.  And I have in the meantime been able to raise three daughters that are great kids.

Mr. Lawrence: Normally, we ask what drew you to public service, but I think you answered that by virtue of your family.  But I'm wondering what kept you in public service.  I can't help but imagine you had other opportunities throughout your career.

Gen. Jackson: I'm not so sure that public service itself is what I focus or I see the military as, to be quite honest.  But the fact that I stayed in the military I think is an important one.   And the fact that dealing with people tends to be something that is interesting and exciting.  

I had it explained to me years ago that you can be in charge of things -- equipment -- and you'll see the same thing pretty much every day.  When you work with people, you are always surprised, because people do so many different things.

And I have found working with people to be a really exciting part of the job.  And so as a leader, my job is to interface with people.   So that's what I do all day long, and that's what's been bringing me back to achieve a 30-year career.

Mr. Lawrence: Which jobs in your career have given you the most interesting challenges?

Gen. Jackson: Well, I'll be honest and say any time I've been in command, be it from the company level, which is about an organization of 150, up to regimental size, which is several thousand, and then into the job I'm at now, which is multiple thousand -- any time you're in charge of something, you draw more satisfaction from the business.  

But I would tell you also that any time I've dealt with soldiers in the role of -- be it jumping out of airplanes or any kind of operations we've done, it has brought me great satisfaction, because of the things that they do and the way they operate, and the kinds of people they are.

And all you've got to do is turn on the TV any night and see the kinds of things that are going on in Afghanistan today and kind of recognize that.  These young kids are just great, and 18, 22 years old.  And the real challenge is be careful what you ask them to do, because they're going to do it.  And you need to be right. 

Mr. Lawrence: What were the positions or the events that trained you to be in command?

Gen. Jackson: Well, I think it's something that you gain by exposure and experience over time.   Obviously, you know, you go through your formative years in college, you've got four years there.   And then you start in the Army as a young second lieutenant, and you start to learn.   You're a dry sponge, soaking up everything that comes across your path. 

And you also learn by contact with other people.  I would say that I am a composite of everybody I've ever worked for or worked with.   I see things that they do that I like, and I steal them and I try and emulate those some way.   And so I am a real composite.   I couldn't really articulate any single thing that's mine; someone else's that I've taken on and decided that I think that's the right way to go about doing business.

Mr. Lawrence: Was the learning taking place at a technical level or a management level, a general management level?

Gen. Jackson: I think both.   There is a tremendous technical side to our business that most Americans who have no Service experience probably have trouble comprehending.  Many Americans, their only connection to the military is what they see on television or what they see in the movies.  And I would tell you that the complexity of the operations, just as an example, the things going on in Afghanistan are surprising.

I mean, most people would find them to be daunting when you stop and think about trying to build an event that involves multiple things to try and happen all at the same time or very close together.  And they're all mutually supportive.  It gets to be a very technically demanding business.

From a management perspective, you're growing every day.  If you aren't improving and growing and learning in everything you do, then you have no business being where you are.  And I think any major CEO or CEO of any organization would tell you the same thing: he's learning every day.

Mr. Lawrence: Let me ask you about leadership.  In your opinion, what are the top qualities of a good leader?

Gen. Jackson: Well, I think that's a very broad question.  And I could give you a litany of answers.  But I guess I would come back to things that have always stuck with me.   And first of all, as a leader, I've always carried with me -- I've got two major responsibilities.   One is to get my job done, and the other is to take care of the people who work for me, who are going to be accomplishing that work for me.  And if you think about those two things in the way you deal with people, you really can't go wrong. 

And I guess the third thing I would tell you, I label the trait, the character trait of the ability to adapt to change as being the most significant.  And that's -- even how you adapt from one job to another, how you adapt when you're working for one boss and all of a sudden you get a new boss -- how do you adapt between being in a command position versus a staff position?

And how do you adapt to just change in your environment?  9/11 brought some changes to the way we live in this country.   The question is, how do we adapt to deal with that change?  Good leaders, great leaders can do that.

Mr. Lawrence: That's a good stopping point.  Come back with us after the break as we continue our conversation with General Jackson of the Military District of Washington. 

In our next segment, we'll ask him about the events of 9/11 and how they have affected his team and the challenges it's presented. 

This is The Business of Government Hour.

(Intermission)

Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour.   I'm Paul Lawrence, a partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers.  And today's conversation is with Major General James Jackson, Commanding General, U.S. Army, Military District of Washington. 

And joining us in our conversation is another PwC partner, Brian Dickson.

Mr. Dickson: General Jackson, can you talk to us a little bit about what you were doing on the morning of September 11^th, and how your day progressed in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy of that day?

Gen. Jackson: Sure.   Actually, we were in a staff meeting, so I was sitting at the head of the table with my entire staff.   And my aide brought in a note to me, and indicated that an airplane had run into one of the Twin Towers in New York City, to which I read and discounted it as some wayward pilot who couldn't fly very well. 

So we continued with the meeting.   And then, shortly after, he came in again and said there had been a second plane, to which we indicated, or it was quickly obvious to us that coincidence didn't happen this way.   So we cancelled the meeting and went and started watching the TV to see what had happened.

Shortly thereafter, someone came into the office and indicated there was a rather large smoke plume coming up from across the river, which is where the Pentagon is.  So we walked outside the building and took a look, and sure enough recognized that this was something bad that had just happened over there.

We went back inside, talked about it a little bit, and then decided that we would change clothes, get into our go-to-business suits, the BDUs, battle dress uniform, fatigues, and take a ride over to the Pentagon.  And that pretty much started the day.  And we stayed at the Pentagon probably until about 10:00, 11:00 that night, went back to the office, got some sleep real quick, went home, got cleaned up, and went back to work about 3:00 in the morning.

Mr. Dickson: Can you describe the scene that you found upon arrival at the Pentagon? 

Gen. Jackson: Yeah, sure.   Well, obviously, we got there, and it was somewhat chaotic.  And there was a lot of people moving about.  There were obviously some people who were trying to apply some coherency to the situation.  And they were pretty much gathering up a bunch of volunteers to assist in handling any casualties if they found them. 

As we assessed the situation and linked up with the fire chief, who we were told was going to be the incident commander, I asked him what he needed and what we could do to help.   And his first response was: "I need some manpower."  Well, as it so happens, that's one of the things we can provide, and so we made some phone calls.   And within an hour, we had brought some troops down. 

The initial operations on the site was to apply some degree of coherency to what's going on, and the troops came in to backfill the volunteers.  The volunteers weren't dressed properly, and their organization was rather loose, as you might imagine.  Bringing in soldiers as part of organizations, I can line them up very quickly; I've got a chain of command I can deal with and I can control them better.  

And it allowed us to allow the volunteers to go home, see family members, call family members and then to basically get back to work doing the things that they are required to do.   An interesting note is that none of the military functions that go on in the Pentagon stopped.   And so we freed those people up to go back to doing what they're supposed to do, and allowed us to do the work we were supposed to do.  And basically was providing support to the fire chief, who was the incident commander at the site.

Mr. Dickson: Does your organization -- are you still involved in recovery efforts at this point?

Gen. Jackson: No, not as such.   The recovery operations have stopped.  As you know, the building's being repaired and fixed, and I'm being told they're ahead of schedule.  The only thing we're still doing is we have collected some personal effects, both from the building itself as we cleared it, and also stuff that has been identified as personal effects from the individual remains that were retrieved from the site.   And our job, the organization that works for me, is to identify those, catalogue them, and then make them available to family members in the event they wish to identify them and claim them.   And that process is still going on, just because it's a very painstaking and detailed process.   And we expect it to conclude somewhere this summer.

Mr. Dickson: In the aftermath of September 11^th, how have you adjusted your priorities and your organization to meet the new challenges that the country faces?

Gen. Jackson: Well, the most significant that we're dealing with right now is the added security that we've established on all our installations.  In fact, we started drifting towards that back in August, with the attempt to get back to controlling access to our installations, because they do house a lot of people, and some sensitive assets that need to be protected.

So we were well on our way.   And so, since September 11^th, we have just continued on that, and remained at the high level of alert that we're at. 

The other thing that I would offer is more of a broad-brush approach.  And that is to deal with change in itself.  Obviously, since 9/11, lots of things have changed.   And so as those things change, they cause other changes.  And we have to deal with those on a day-to-day basis.

And those kinds of things are happening.  Not just the security on bases, but other things that we've become more attuned to.   You know, cyber security.   We're talking about reviewing all our contingency plans, taking a look at them, seeing if we can improve some of our communications capabilities, and the other things that we might be able to do to make our response to something like this or something similar to this in the future, go better.  And so that eats up a lot of our time.

Mr. Dickson: What type of planning or preparation pre-September 11^th had you done for events like that? 

Gen. Jackson: Well, obviously, we've got some plans.  I mean, we go out and write some and we prepare them.  But we can't write a plan for every eventuality.   As a matter of fact, someone asked me after this if we had a plan.  I said: "Yeah, we had a plan.  But we didn't have a plan that talked about what we did if a plane flew into the Pentagon." 

The interesting thing is we didn't need a plan for that.  We took the plan we had, we modified it, and that's what senior people get paid to do, is to deal with those kinds of changes.  And we executed the modified plan.  And it worked exceptionally well.

Mr. Lawrence: Let me follow that up with another question about working together.  You talked about working with the Arlington Fire Department.    I know that the FBI and FEMA were involved.  I wonder, you know, what the lessons are working across organizations like that?

Gen. Jackson: We had a great relationship with all the people and all the organizations that came in and worked at the Pentagon.  I think the biggest lesson was that the system that's in place across the country, the Incident Command System that they have, the Federal Response Plan that is in place, is a good one.

In this case, inside the United States, the military does not take the lead.  Even though that was military land in the Pentagon, the guy in charge of the operation was in fact the fire chief out of Arlington.   And that's where I reported, and I worked for him, basically.

I asked him what he wanted me to do.   And if he asked, and if there was something I could do for him, we provided it.   It was a very collegial, cooperative kind of environment, and it works great.

As the fire chief slid out of that command role, because the fire was out and the structural damage to the building had been taken care of, the crime scene part came up, and then the FBI took over.  No problem.   I then start working for the FBI, doing the things they want me to do.

Once the FBI was done with the building, they turned it back over to us, and then we continued to do the things we had to do until we were complete, and then we gave it back to the Pentagon folks.

The value of the working across the interdepartmental and interagency work that we did was manifested by our relationship that we have established over time, because we live in the city, we work in the city, we know these people.  We talk to them, we review our plans together, and we have a relationship.

That relationship is built on trust and on capability.  We understand what each of us brings to the fray, and what things we should be able to do.   And we don't look at doing someone else's job, we do what we can do best.  And in this case, it worked out exceptionally well.   The people that we worked with on 9/11 were just wonderful folks, and great leaders and great people in their communities.

The interesting thing is the relationships that we built have just increased in significance, in that we still talk to each other, go see each other, and spend time together.   And that's what makes things work, is that interrelationships that we've built.

Mr. Lawrence: You've talked about the value of relationships.  You obviously didn't begin building those relationships on the morning of 9/11.   What were you doing before to build relationships with those groups?

Gen. Jackson: Well, interestingly, the Inaugural that we had for President Bush brought us all together, because of the significant event in Washington, D.C. and the kinds of stuff that happens there, the security aspects, the volume of people that come in, and the military participation, and the fact that we help prepare and plan the whole -- the inaugural, at least the parade portion and some of the rest of the stuff that is done.

We have to sit down and talk.   And you go through a lengthy process of building a plan, executing it on a tabletop or on a floor, and then rehearsing it.  And so throughout that event, over a period of several weeks, we become very close, and we get to understand. 

So I know pretty much or have met every police senior member throughout the District, and certainly in the surrounding counties.  Some fire chiefs, I've known.  We train periodically with their own search-and-rescue people, because I have a search-and-rescue element.  And they train together.

And so that's where we build those relationships.    

Mr. Lawrence: That's a good stopping point.  Stick with us as we continue our discussion about management with General Jackson of the Military District of Washington.  

When we come back, we'll ask him about the challenges of managing Arlington Cemetery. 

This is The Business of Government Hour.

(Intermission)

Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, a partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers.  And today's conversation is with Major General James Jackson, Commanding General, U.S. Army, Military District of Washington.

And joining us in our conversation is another PwC partner, Brian Dickson. 

Well, General Jackson, one of the things that I've always been most impressed about MDW is Arlington National Cemetery.  Could you describe the management challenges one faces in operating a cemetery, or operating the cemetery?

Gen. Jackson: The biggest challenge with Arlington is space.  We're fast running out of space. Where it sits geographically, it's bounded by a variety of different things.  And so we're concerned that at some point in time, we'll just run out of ground.

We're building plans to be able to take us well into this century, beyond 2050, and a little bit further than that to be able to do the things we have to do.  But there's going to have to be some other innovative ways to deal with it.  And that's why we're building things like columbariums for cremation and so forth.

The other aspect is that we run anywhere from about 28 funerals a day, and average about 24.   But we can go as high as up to 28.   And we inter both Army and of course all the other services.  Regardless of which service is participating, I could have elements of my own participating, depending on the level of the funeral.  Depending on the individual veteran, there are certain honors that are rendered based upon what level that individual worked.   And so we go through a fairly lengthy process to figure all that out so that we render proper honors for all of them.

But as you might expect, Arlington has a lot of emotion tied to it.  And we deal with that as best we can, because we have families that are deserving of our attention at this point in time in their lives.   As far as they're concerned, that's the most important thing that's happened at that point in time in their lives.   And we deal with that.

Overall, things operate very smoothly.   One thing I would pass on to all your listeners is that as a veteran, if you're out there, you need to make sure that your paperwork and stuff is available and properly set aside so when the time comes, your family is properly prepared.  And there is a degree of paperwork associated with everything we do.   And if you don't have that available, you can make things a little bit more difficult.  

And there are ways to deal with that.   All you've got to do is pick up the phone and call, and people can be happy to provide that information to you either through the veterans' services, or, of course, you can Arlington itself.

Mr. Lawrence:   From personal experience, as well as talking to people who have been involved at a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, the response is all very, very positive.   And so my question to you is how does it run so well?  How does everything, with 20 or 28 ceremonies, how does it all work so well?

Gen. Jackson:   Well, we've had lots of time to perfect that.  In all honesty, we have had lots of time.  And over time, the experience causes people to be able to find ways to make it better.   Additionally, I would tell you that the young people and all the folks that we have working down there are focused keenly on that one event.  And they take it very seriously.

The soldiers who participate in Arlington will tell you to a man that they are very proud to be able to provide that service to veterans who have served their country, and now they're paying their last respects.  And so every time I've witnessed a funeral, I've never seen anything but a tremendous sense of dedication and desire on the part of everybody to render those honors properly.  And it ranges from the very top down to the

lowest-ranking individual, to include family members who receive some honors.

Mr. Dickson: General, I know from my work with the Army that you personally, and also the Military District of Washington, has taken a leading role in developing innovative ways to managing your post infrastructure, including moving out into some innovative approaches in the area of privatization.  Could you talk about what you're doing in this area?

Gen. Jackson:   Basically, it's a fairly simplistic approach, but it's complicated as you get into details.   The simplistic part is that the U.S. Army is good at many things.  But some things we're not as good at as the private industry.   And so the desire is to -- let's go get the experts to do the things that they're good at, and let's let us go back to doing the things we're good at.

And so running installations and providing utilities to an installation is not something you learn about in the Army.   And maybe we ought to go out and find those experts.  And so that's what we're doing.  We're trying to bring them in -- all with the stated goal of being more efficient and effective with the dollars that the taxpayers give us.

Another example would be the Residential Community Initiative, which is RCI, in short.   But it's just a fancy way of finding out how we can build new houses, or improve the maintenance on the existing housing that we have on our installations. 

For example, the house I live in is 100 years old.  Everything you do to that house is now historically based.  And so it costs us money to be able to do that, and it costs more money than you might on a younger house.

But how do we go about fixing all this old infrastructure that in some cases we can't tear down because of the preservation and the historical requirements?  And so we took at look at that, and the Army decided the best way to do that is to partner with private firms who build houses.   And we pay for them by using the housing allowance that we receive -- if you own a house and you're living off the installation, you forfeit that when you move into government quarters.

Well, in this case, we won't forfeit it any more.  We will take that money and pay the private contractor who has built the house.   And they're contracting to do this, or building this partnership for long term.  The one up at Fort Meade is a company called Piscern Real Estate, and they're tied in for 50 years right now.

So they see -- the novel approach here is, here's an American business that is not necessarily concerned with instantaneous gratification or profit.  He is building his program to make money over 50 years.   And he's partnering with the military to do that.

And so we are going to get newer houses, better-maintained houses while he gets a

long-term return on his investment, which is kind of novel.

Mr. Lawrence: You said it was a simple concept, yet it was hard to do.  What's the hard-to-do part about?

Gen. Jackson: Well, the hard part is because it's new.  No one's done this before.  And so you're kind of groping as you go, trying to figure out how to do it.   As you break new ground, it just causes new things to occur, and things that you haven't thought of necessarily.

There were some hurdles.   There's legal hurdles; there's some political concerns.  And there's also just the issue of how do we go about maintaining a relationship for 50 years with a private entity?  You know, when was the last time the military built a partnership, a literal partnership, with a commercial entity?  And so that's the difficult part, putting together the product or the process so that it produces the product you want and at the quality you want to give our people the kind of living standards that they deserve.  

Mr. Lawrence: What are your special authorities as the commanding general of MDW?

Gen. Jackson: First of all, one of the extra functions I have is to function as the general court martial convening authority for all of the elements in and around the National Capital Region.   What that basically means is when there's an infraction or some kind of  legal problem, I'm the decisionmaker as to whether we take that to a court martial or we process it with another way.

So I will deal with all the military who work in the Pentagon and throughout the area from, again, as close as Fort Meade, Fort Belvoir and all the other agencies who, while they may not work for me, they will still fall under my jurisdiction for this.

The last time we counted, it's over 90 different organizations.  The other interesting part that falls to me is we have elements of Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard that also work in the Capital Region that have jobs similar to mine.  And so what we do is we constantly interface with them so that we all know what each other's doing to try and facilitate the jobs.

Because again, in a crisis situation, we might very well need their assets to assist us, and so we work together.

Additionally, in the area of joint ceremonies, either at the White House or dealing with the Department of Defense, my organization takes the lead and all the others follow what we do.   And they'll take instructions from us.

Mr. Dickson: As the commanding general for the Military District of Washington, you have jurisdiction over both Army soldiers and a large number of civilians.  What are the significant cultural differences between these two groups?

Gen. Jackson:   You know, that's an interesting question, because before I came here, I  might have answered it a lot differently than I will today.   I will tell you today that I find very little difference between good workers, be they civilian or military.   I mean, good workers, good employees do things well, regardless of what clothing they wear and what their background is.  They just want to strive to do well, and they'll do well. 

Now, there's those that aren't so good, and then there's lots of differences with those.   But I have not-so-good that wear uniforms sometimes, too.  So, again, there's a commonality there that I don't really think transcends culture here.  So I would offer that in my job, that the people I've worked with, both civilian and military, I've found to be very capable, able, dedicated.  And they desire to do a great job.  And therefore, there's really no difference between either one of them.  And I'm blessed.   I've got good folks who work for me, and those problems don't seem to take up much of my time.

Mr. Lawrence: That's a good stopping point.  Rejoin us after the break as we continue our discussion with General Jackson of the Military District of Washington. 

This is The Business of Government Hour.

(Intermission)

Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.  And today's conversation is with Major General James Jackson, commanding general, U.S. Army, Military District of Washington. 

Joining us in our conversation is another PwC partner, Brian Dickson.

Mr. Dickson: General Jackson, I'm aware that the Military District of Washington is also playing a leading role in helping the Army improve its technology infrastructure and to develop more standard approaches to using information technology.   Can you talk a little bit about your efforts in this area? 

Gen. Jackson: The Pentagon has decided to take the lead, and to develop a program to do all those things you mentioned.  Our part is to kind of  be the test bed, or be a laboratory to take some of their ideas and actually put them into place and see how they work.  We're a relatively small command as Army commands go.   And so we can do that with a fairly small overhead, and we can see if it works.

The whole purpose behind it is to try and make our organizations more effective, more efficient by using not only common business practices, but also technology, by re-engineering the current technologies to give us the ability to get to information that is important and critical for us to make better decisions.   And we're doing things like remoting our servicing capability for our computers.  We have that capability now to basically reach into a computer and fix a software problem without ever having to send a service member down to touch the machine.  It can be done from a remote site.

Looking at consolidating our information techniques, our ability to store information in a database so that it makes it available for more people to get to, so that you, one, know that information is available so you can go retrieve it quickly and make it go.  And it's just a matter of trying to take all these tools and make them available to the decisionmakers.

Mr. Dickson: People who are technologists often talk about the introduction of technology changes organizations.   And in many ways, they say that when they get rid of the middle managers, they flatten the structure because they're able to do the kind of things you just described.   And I'm curious.   Can you imagine that happening to the Army?  It somehow seems counterintuitive to think that a structure that has lasted so long in history would change.

Gen. Jackson: I guess what I have learned over my 30 years is don't ever say never, because you'll probably be bit after a while.   I think those kinds of changes are worth looking at and exploring.  I think the Army has got ways to improve itself, and this may be one of them.   My only caution would be we need to look at it and address it.  And if we think it's going to work, then we move ahead.

And certainly our civilian and military leaders are taking a look at these things.   I know General Shinseki is working hard to do what he's calling the transformation business, to transform the Army into a different organization that can better meet the nation's needs.  

You know, if you don't change, to adapt, or adapt to the environment you're dealing in, sooner or later, you're going to become inconsequential or superfluous, and you'll go away.

Mr. Lawrence: What might be some of those differences?  Does that mean different way that the members of the Army do their jobs, would it mean different type jobs?  What?

Gen. Jackson: I think both those, certainly.  Obviously, there's many different ways to accomplish the same role.   And we should be looking for ways that are more efficient and more effective all the time.   Some jobs will go away.  

We've got new jobs today that weren't around 30 years ago when I came in the Army.   One of the little vignettes I tell my people is just the PCs, the personal computers that we're dealing with today, there weren't in the Army 30 years ago.  And today, when I'm standing in front of a big group, I ask them: "Is there anyone here who does not have a PC on your desk?"   And no hands go up.

That has affected the way we move information.  I mean, e-mail has taken away the old buck slip, the handwritten note.  Very rarely do we do that anymore.  Now, I do some because it carries a little bit of added weight sometimes.   But the point is the routine way of transferring information now has become the computer.

Just take a look at your own organizations and ask yourself what happens when the computer goes down?  What if the system breaks?  You find out you're all of a sudden got lots of spare time on your hands.   Because a tool has been taken away that you've become very accustomed to.  And so that has changed.  And that's just one example, which is not necessarily a big one, but it's been one example that has reached out and touched almost everybody in the military.

Mr. Lawrence: There's still talk about the coming wave of retirements of individuals in government.   Is this a challenge to MDW?

Gen. Jackson:  I don't think so.   You know, we have been having people retire in the military for many, many years.   In fact, it comes to all of us sooner or later.  And we have procedures in place to deal with that.  We have incentives, and we retain the people that we want to retain and that want to stay with us.  And we have a program to do that.  I think it's just the way we do business, and it's one of the things that we deal with every day.  

Mr. Dickson: Sir, is MDW heavily involved in recruiting and the retention of soldiers?   And what are you folks doing to try to improve recruitment and retention?

Gen. Jackson: Overall, recruiting has been a good story for the Army, although I personally -- my command -- does not get involved in recruiting initial entry soldiers, the first-time people coming in.

But my understanding is the Army is doing well across the board.   And in the area of retaining soldiers, my command does do that, and we're doing very well.   At this point in time, we're about 117 percent of our stated goals up to this point in time.

And we have a variety of different ways we deal with that in the way of incentives.   Some monetary incentives; college education that can be provided through the GI bill; training choices.   And the one that seems to pop up most readily in our command is the option to re-enlist, to stay where you're at.   And about half of our re-enlistments that are retention of soldiers comes in that category, which means people are pretty much happy with what they're doing, and they're going to stay with us, or try to stay with us longer.

And so right now, that's all going pretty well for us.

Mr. Dickson: Do you focus a lot on improving or maintaining a high quality of life for the soldiers as a means for ensuring high retention rates?  And what kinds of things are you doing in that area? style="font-WEIGHT: normal">

Gen. Jackson:  We are doing things to affect the lifestyle of the soldiers.  We've got some programs in place called wellness, and a wellness program that is designed to look at how you treat the whole family as opposed to just the soldier.  We need to recognize that if the soldier's going home upset, or has a family life that's not doing too well, he's not going to be very good on duty.

Mr. Lawrence: What advice would you give a young person interested in the military?  

Gen. Jackson: I would ask him to stay in school, learn all you can, be as good a student as you can.   Remember that you're going to go through high school, like most of us, once.  Get as much as you can out of that.  And then if you have a desire to come to the Army, get yourself in good physical shape, keep yourself as morally straight as you possibly can, and step forward.  But be prepared for challenges, and be prepared to face some things new in your life.   And the Army will in fact bring those things out.

But we look forward to bringing on every young able-bodied American citizen who wants to serve.   And I think there's a value added to every life that comes in and participates with us, because there's things we can do for them that probably are fairly unique.

Mr. Lawrence: I've heard about two programs.   Perhaps you could tell me more about them, Twilight Tattoo and Spirit of America.  

Gen. Jackson: Well, Twilight Tattoo is our summer program that occurs out on the White House Ellipse.   We do it every Wednesday at 7:00.   We're going to start April 17^th, and we'll go to mid-July.  And it's about an hour, hour and a half, or a little over an hour show.  And it's intended to basically provide the viewer a snapshot of what the Army has done over time, and some of the assets that are available within MDW.   But it's an historically based show that talks a little bit about the Army over the years.   And then it also gives them an opportunity to see some of the more visible assets that are available to me and that we put on the show. 

Some music.   It's all built around music.   We try to build it with some of the more contemporary music, which is rather difficult for an old person like me.   But I've got folks who help me with that.  And so the intent is to reach out to young people and to make it both an enjoyable but an informative event.

Spirit of America is really a large musical show that is done up in the MCI Arena.  We'll be doing that 26 through 29 September.   And what it amounts to, it's a patriotic version of any kind of a show that you might see.   And it's again designed around the Army, and what kinds of things we've done or meant to the country, and what the country means to the Army.  And it's put on by all our soldiers.  I mean, there's no professional actors there.  These are our people who are taught how to do this.  

And we write the show from scratch, and then put it on.  And we were going to do it last year.  But as you know, with the 9/11 events, it was decided that we would cancel that event.   And so we're going to come back this year, and hope that the public comes out and spends an evening with us or an afternoon with us, and hope they learn something, and also hope they enjoy themselves.

Mr. Lawrence: Well, those certainly sound interesting, but I'm afraid we're out of time.  

Brian and I want to thank you very much, General Jackson, for being with us this morning.

Gen. Jackson:  My pleasure.   Thank you.

Mr. Lawrence: This has been The Business of Government Hour, featuring a conversation with Major General James Jackson, commanding general, U.S. Army, Military District of Washington. 

Be sure and visit us at the web at endowment.pwcglobal.com.  There you can learn more about our programs, and get a transcript of today's interesting conversation.  Once again, that's endowment.pwcglobal.com.

This is Paul Lawrence.   See you next week.