 Paul, I have a specific question, but I think you wanted to do it, go ahead. No, I just think we have to find the economic incentives and disincentives. This, first of all, this should not be a budget item. It seems to me what you're doing, Carl, can be, you know, a benefit. And we should cast it that way, but we've got to get to the economics of this thing. These obstacles, like this Pacer problem, you know, could be worked out. There are internal subsidies that are at work, but we have to look through the economics in order to make this thing go. And so that's the crucial factor. I think that could be studied. And then we can show the payoffs. This is public-private, so we've got the private sector involved. This is what we really want. And also, I think if you believe in active government, if you're at the ACS, you even need to believe in this more than the Federalist Society. And I'm happy they agree with it, and I'm happy this is not a controversial issue. Just one point. Ray mostly was talking about this famous case. Well, he was talking about it 75 years ago. The Federal Register was started. The reason it was started is because of Panama refining in 1935, right? That's the case where they were in the Supreme Court. The issue is whether FDR's hot oil regulations should be struck down as a violation of the Constitution because they were delegating legislative power. They get to the Supreme Court. They're in the middle of the argument. And one of the justices asked the government lawyer, well, where is the regulation? And of course, no one could find the regulation. And finally, when they found it, they found out it was repealed, the hot oil regulation. And so with that, the Supreme Court struck down the NIRA, the National Industrial Recovery Act, a whole statute. And so we have an obligation if we want statues to work, right, to make sure that people have access and that you have the regulations and that they're available, because active government, even more passive government says, well, let's not pass any laws, right? Let's just use non-delegation and that's the end of it. And I think that might be a dispute. Anyway, that's an important stage. I think a lot of people are today looking for that hot oil regulation as we speak to kind of see what happened there. Well, you wrote a book called Outsourcing Sovereignty, which was an important book that talked about things like private military contractors in Iraq, outsourcing the function of prisons, core functions. What people think of to some extent is core functions of government. And I wonder how much of this is a problem that we've outsourced the making the law available to the public has been outsourced and really should be thought of as a core governmental responsibility. It's a wonderful question. And it brings to mind, I just looked into times, I think yesterday, there was this USDA problem. This is outsourcing inspections. This is about what's organic food? Apparently a lot of our organic food is grown in China. So the USDA, this is a true story. I've just read it. The USDA outsources the inspections to a not-for-profit that's owned by manufacturers of food growers in the United States. In order to do China, this same organization outsources to the Chinese, to the Chinese government, the challenge of making sure that organic food is grown properly in organic food farms in China. So it's a total breakdown. It's the private, it's the contracting out twice of an inherent government responsibility, which is to make sure that our food is safe, right? So if you look, then it occurred to me, I'm saying, wait a second, we can maybe solve this problem, because we get so much of our food from abroad. I mean, Latin America, China, why don't we use the wisdom of the masses? Why don't we have, these are inspections. Why don't we have the public commenting about whether or not the food is grown properly? And why can't we use that as a technique to get a lead on how to make sure government is acting properly? Because you could use it as an audit function. I mean, USDA should be able to, if it went outside, said, look, what's wrong with our inspection system? Tell us where the weaknesses are. Just one example. Contracting out is an item for the administration, which is a very important thing. Have we gone too far? Should we be careful about the kind of things we contract out, and should we rethink the role of government? This does, of course, involve, and is a hard issue, perhaps bringing functions into government. There are approximately 2 million employees in government, and there may be six or eight times the number of contractors. We only count the employees. We don't count the contractors. We don't even know how many there are. Another example sticking with the theme that came out recently was the two million glasses McDonald's sold with cadmium in the Shrek promotion that one might have thought would have gotten caught before two million glasses went up into the public. I'm going to open it up. We only have about 10 more minutes left, I guess, Carol. And so I'm going to open it up to both questions, observations, but also last-minute comments on the day for people who might want to reflect both on the previous panel and keep the conversation going with Paul and Caroline. Quiet crowd. Good. Bob Burbach, I have a question regarding the, you mentioned the Paperwork Reduction Act. So in an ecosystem where we have a Paperwork Reduction Act that in a sense discourages agencies from asking as many questions as we might want them to or they might want to, how do we move forward in the digital age where it seems that most often the only official thing has to be in print, but to encourage them to ask those questions in the digital age, there almost seems to be a conflict there and I guess my question is how do we move forward in that? Right. I think the White House Open.gov folks have made some good rulings within the context of the Act with saying that maybe you can use digitized solutions without, the word is paper, right? I mean, it seems like it's pretty irrelevant to what's going on. But the Act still can be a barrier and it shows a mental attitude. You know, it's the government printing office, right? So we got to get beyond this. It seems to me that one study we would do, and I don't want to really sort of, I don't even know what the answers would be, is to take that Act apart, rethink it after 25 years or 30 years and put it back together in a way that really maybe moves in the directions we all seem to think are appropriate. I'm David Pritzker, also working with Paul for the Administrative Conference once again. The healthcare legislation recently passed is 2,000 plus pages, not because the subject is so complex, or not entirely for that reason, but because of the political processes. How is any of the analysis and the perspective ability to write law better going to overcome all of the factors that cause our legislation to be as complex as it is through political disagreements and, as someone said earlier today, a variety of different values being factored into our laws. Caroline? Well, I know, that's an interesting question. I was just trying to think of whether actually, ironically, that there might have been a lot more transparency in that because of Thomas and the greater accessibility of the federal legislation than there is of state information. But I do think, fundamentally, making it easier gets more citizens engaged. I don't know that that makes the law as simpler. I think the healthcare legislation was so inherently complex, and I think you all talked about complexity earlier. And I think there's having, I spent nine years on the Hill and have seen many bills that included thousands of pages. So it doesn't necessarily, it doesn't surprise me that that particular piece of legislation was so very long. It was touching so many parts of our economy. But what I think you have is the ability of people to actually look at that bill as it was being developed is different from what happens in a lot of contexts. You know, it was, I was just thinking about the Betsy McCawhee, I think is her name, who was the one who was alleging that there were death panels in the legislation. And she went on the Daily Show, and John Stewart pulled out the bill, and he pulled up the section, and he read it to her, and he said, where in here does it say death panel? And she tried to come up, but you know, there's a certain amount where I think that's actually perhaps an example of where it's functioning better. I mean, I'm not saying that, saying that says a lot, but it may be better than what is going on throughout the rest of the government. You know, law has always been a search for heuristics to replace case-by-case decision-making. So we are in the midst of this moment where we think we can write laws that will solve problems. We have, you know, that's an evolution of thinking. And there's a lot good about detailed laws. It takes discretion away from individuals who manage, you know, implement the laws, and we some many times think that's a good thing. It's discretion itself is problematic because it allows for bureaucrats to discriminate. But when you get into this thing and when you have as much of the economy at stake where the motivations are so clear that everyone wants a little piece of it, the public choice theory becomes very prominent in these issues. It's inevitable, I suppose. I would love to think one of our missions could be to help simplify. And I do think you should ask yourself if you're a legislator, every time, is there a better way to do it. And maybe this notion of getting all these laws up on the Internet so that you could actually say, hey, you know, they're doing it in Oregon. They don't have mental hygiene. They've got something else. And it looks, why can't we borrow that? The notion of borrowing, you know, get smarter is one we could really help encourage this way. This is just an observation if we take the premise from the last couple of panels that law is inherently complex and law is in some sense buggy. How do you debug it? I think one of the answers coming out of the law.gov movement is that you open the source code, you open the application data and you let a lot of people take a look at it. It's probably too big for any small group to take care of. Maybe even a group of small as a legislature to go back and comb through years and years of accreted legacy data. But if you open up to a lot of people to intelligent programmers, to people who have an interest in wine or juice making or whatever their particular interest is, people actually can go through and find the bugs and look at the actual application data and see what comes out the other end of the courts. Maybe you think of the statutes as source code and the opinions of judicial bodies and courts as application data on the back end. You need to look at both, right? And it just seems like if you're trying to debug something as complex and as large as that, the best way to do it is open the source code, open the application data. Let's find out. I'm going to turn things back over to Carl who goes up here in a second, but I have one last observation slash question, which is do we need to overcome the no good deed, goes unpunished issue in this world, particularly when we're dealing with public bodies and political people are making political decisions? I'm thinking specifically of recovery.gov, which was a really substantial effort to put the information up about where that recovery act money went to. And of course, there was a tremendous amount of press about the first iteration of that and all the places the data was wrong. Subsequent corrections of the data or the improvement of the site has gotten fairly little attention. Is there a point at which we can create some kind of public movement that reinforces the instincts of political people to make openness the default position rather than the one that's the kind of frightening, scary position? And how do we go about doing that? I think that's a wonderful thought, John. I'm not sure I could tell you how to do it, but I do really believe that this movement that Carl is spearheading has got to have a total groundswell. I don't know who the enemies are, but the enemy is just people don't do things. And I just think sending that message itself and building alliances is very important. The small business community, I think, is a great potential. The Chamber of Commerce, I don't know where. We can find a lot of friends for this on both sides. And I should say, you know, my agency is a bipartisan politically balanced agency. It's one of its real strengths. It's one of the few places in government where you want to talk to both, you know, make sure you're not doing something that's just polarizing. And this movement, I think, could gain from that perspective. Caroline? Well, you know, I think it requires stepping back a little from recovery.gov and looking at the broader move of the Obama administration to provide greater transparency in government. And I think that has met with a great public welcome, and people very much appreciate and think that it was their title to have that kind of access to their government. And so there may be bumps in the road, and there's certainly, there's always going to be the partisan fighting over the data that comes out. But I think in the broader context of what has been done in terms of providing greater access to government data, I think that that will continue to provide rewards to this administration and to future administrations that continue to follow that as their mission. Carl? Final thoughts? So I think the question was who would be against this? Who is the enemy? And I think the enemy is inertia. The enemy is that things are a certain way. There's maybe some people that benefit from the way things are. And when you're making a fundamental change, there has to be the kind of mass movement in which everybody buys in and says, gee, this is important. And I learned that lesson from two masters. The first was Mort Halpern in the early 1980s. I went to the ACLU office, and I looked around. I wanted to do tech policy work, and I looked around at the computers that they had at the office right next to the Supreme Court. And I told Mort Halpern, man, this is a mess. You need to do something better. And I spent a year or so volunteering helping out on tech support. And while I was there, I watched Mort Halpern organize opposition to the Bork nomination and to a variety of other issues. And it was amazing the broad tent he was able to build, of bringing in people that normally would argue with each other and getting them to agree on one particular thing. Now the Bork nomination was obviously a somewhat partisan issue. But the point is that he was able to build a very broad tent on the left that was able to go in. The second person I learned this from was John Podesta, who I worked for, for two years. And again, I came to Washington thinking I was going to do tech policy. And I came here, and I looked at the computers, and I said, you know, you really need a CTO. And I spent a couple of years working on the computer systems here and helping build out the event spaces. But again, I watched as John was able to build a really broad tent at the Center for American Progress that was able to think through issues and look at the implications of them to the point when President Obama got elected. There was a policy framework in place, and that's exactly why he created the Center for American Progress, to be ready when the political climate was ready for that change. And I think that's our challenge on law.gov, is to be ready if and when the policymakers are ready for the change so that when we get to the judicial conference and the Chief Justice, if we get through the White House bureaucracy and we've had great support from the White House, but it's been a technology crowd and people like Vivek Kundra, and the question is what happens when it gets up to the Chief of Staff and you get that five minutes with the President. Can we lay out the case at that point when that time is right, that this is a change that needs to happen? And I think the lesson is when that moment becomes right, the change can be very quickly. And I'm hoping that we're laying that groundwork so that when that moment occurs, we're in a position to say, look, here's what people think. Here's the process we went through. It was an open process. So we're going to be concluding this process in the next couple of days at Harvard, and that's just phase one. And phase one has been workshops and working groups. We've had 195 law librarians doing the national inventory. That process has to continue. It can't stop. We've gathered 650 people to begin discussing the issues of Law.gov. And again, that process is just beginning. It can't stop. There's going to be a set of core principles coming out of the Harvard workshop, which hopefully will be consensus principles. What are important and what do we really care about? There's going to be a report coming out early this fall. And again, it's not going to be drafting things out of the air. It's going to be reflecting what happens in the workshops. And then the hard work starts because in September we're going to have to take what we think is a consensus report and some consensus principles, and we're all going to have to go out and begin knocking on doors and saying, hey, this is important. Getting deans to sign off on the principles of the law schools, visiting judges, and that's got to be a national effort. It can't be one or two people knocking on the doors. It's got to be everybody going. And just demonstrating that this issue is a palatable one and one that makes sense and will have, as Chairman Verkile said, some real benefits and benefits that we can quantify and we can understand the cost of doing this. Because that's going to be the first question when you get to, like, the Chief of Staff of the White House is, okay, so what's this going to cost? Same thing in the Congress. So I really want to thank John for co-hosting this 14th workshop. I want to thank all of you. I think it's been a really valuable day and I hope you continue your involvement in the law and act of movement. Thank you. Thank you, Carl, for your leadership.