read. it's available as a hardcover or e-book through your online book

seller. tonight on c-span 3, the state department inspector general discusses the foreign policy's inner workings in a senate hearing. we'll talk to jennifer lawless about young people's engagement in politics and, later part of a summit of new hampshire republicans, including remarks by senator kelly ayotte and donald trump. the state department general testified at a senate hearing about the department's efficiency and effectiveness. his office has begun an inquiry into former secretary of state hillary clinton's use of a personal e-mail server. georgia senator david perdue chairs on the summit. this is an hour.

both of us are in order so we'll proceed. this hearing of the subcommittee on state department and usaid management international operations and bilateral international development. i'd like to begin by welcoming our witness inspector general of the state department and broadcasting board of governor steve lenick. i understand you changed your schedule to be here today and we look forward to your testimony.

the oig is dedicated to assessing the state department's programs and making recommendations to strengthen its integrity and accountability. as such, the oig is dedicated to detecting and preventing waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. today's hearing will be an important opportunity to examine state oig's mission and oversight efforts, your new initiatives and to hear about any challenges that you face in carrying out your mission. it has come to our attention that there are a number of things that we in congress can do to help you in your job. i look forward to discussing those with you this morning and to get your insights. as you may know chairman corker is drafting and passing into law the first state department reauthorization bill in 13 years. we certainly welcome your suggestions. with that, i'd like to thank and recognize senator kaine and look forward to working with you on these important issues. senator kaine.

>> thank you, mr. chair and thanks to our witness steve len nick. we do begin the hearing as part of a state of hearing about state department authorization. we haven't done this in over a decade so it's very important that we get to this work and today's hearing is part of that effort. thank you for the testimony today and testimony before other senate committees recently. and i also want to highlight your service as an assistant u.s. attorney in virginia from 1999 to 2006. you have a long and distinguished track record as a public servant. oigs serve a central and critical role in holding government agencies and officials accountable to citizens. there is a trend towards use of oigs, not just in the federal government but in state and local governments as well which is very positive. one of the newest state ig offices was created in virginia in 2011 and i look forward to your assessment of your office's

strengths and priorities and challenges based on your 19 months as service to the department of state. i know that you've highlighted a couple of issues in your testimony and i'm particularly interested in ongoing coordination of oco accounts used in iraq and afghanistan and elsewhere and i want to make sure that we can discuss what we can do together to ensure that the department of state is complying with and implementing important oig recommendations. but thanks again for your service, your testimony today as we work towards the broader state department reauthorization. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. and then we're going to hear from steve len nick. mr. len nick? >> chairman perdue, ranking member kaine, thank you for allowing me to testify. today i'll be addressing four topics. first, i'm going to stop by giving you an overview of oig's

missions and priorities. second, i'm going to describe new initiatives my staff and i have put into place as i was sworn in almost 19 months ago. and i'm going to talk about the impact of oig's work. let me start with an overview. second, i'm going to describe some new initiatives my staff and i have put into place since i was sworn in almost 19 months ago. next, i'm going to discuss some of the most significant challenges facing oig, specifically, and the department as a whole. and finally, i'm going to talk about the impact of oig's work. let me start with an overview. because oig's focus is on the operations and work of the state department and the bbg, its inspectors, auditors, investigators and evaluators focus on u.s. government

operations worldwide, involving more than 72,000 employees and 280 overseas missions along with oversight of the departments and the bbg's significant domestic operations. but our office is unique from others because oig has historically, and as required by law, served as the department of states inspection arm. let me turn to priorities. first, protecting people who work in the department is our top priority. oig has inspected physical security at overseas posts for years. however, since the september 2012 attacks on u.s. diplomatic facilities and personnel in benghazi, libya, oig has stepped up its oversight efforts related to security. there is no doubt the department has made progress in improving overseas security. nonetheless, challenges still remain. through our inspection and audit work, we continue to find notable security deficiencies, placing at risk our posts and personnel. second, oig has enhanced its efforts to oversee the department's management of contracts and grants, which total approximately $10 billion in 2014. contract and grant management deficiencies, including lack of training, weak oversight and inadequate monitoring have come to light repeatedly in oig's audits, inspections and investigations over the years. lastly, we continue to be very concerned about the department's management of i.t. security. oig's assessments of the department's efforts to secure its i.t. infrastructure have

found significant recurring weaknesses, including inadequate controls around who may access and manipulate systems. i now turn to new oig initiatives. since joining the oig, my staff and i have implemented a number of new practices intended to enhance the effectiveness of our work. we have adopted the practice of issuing management alerts and management assistance reports in order to flag high-risk issues requiring immediate attention. another new initiative has been our creation of a new office in oig, the office of evaluations and special projects, also known as esp. this office complements the work of oig's other offices by focusing on high-risk, special projects and evaluations of pressing concern to the department, the congress and to the american people. we also have enhanced our efforts to identify and refer appropriate cases to the department for suspension and debarment. next i would like to address two significant challenges facing oig that i believe impede oig's ability to conduct effective oversight. first, although the inspector general act requires oig to be

independent, my i.t. infrastructure lacks independence because it is largely controlled by the department. while we have no evidence that our data has been compromised, the fact that the contents of our network may be accessed by large numbers of department administrators puts us at unnecessary risk and does not reflect best practices on i.t. independence within the ig community. second, unlike other igs, my office is not always afforded the opportunity to investigate allegations of criminal or serious administrative misconduct by department employees. department components, including the bureau of diplomatic security, are not required to notify oig of such allegations that come to their attention. if we are not notified, we have no opportunity to investigate. this arrangement is inconsistent with the inspector general act and appears to be unique to the department. the departments of defense, justice, homeland security, the treasury and the irs,

agriculture and interior defer to their igs for the investigation of criminal or serious misconduct by their employees. their igs have the right to decide whether to conduct the investigations themselves or refer them back to the agency components. particularly where senior officials are involved, the failure to refer allegations of misconduct to an independent entity like the oig necessarily creates a perception of unfairness as management is seen to be investigating itself. finally, i would like to close by talking about the impact of our work. in my written testimony, i quantified some financial metrics demonstrating our positive return on investment to taxpayers. but financial statistics do not adequately reflect some of our most significant impacts -- the safety and security of people and the integrity of the department's operations and reputation. those are key motivators for our employees, many of whom are on the road for long periods of time or would serve for extended periods at dangerous posts.

i am honored to serve alongside and lead them. in conclusion, chairman perdue, ranking member kaine, members of the subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. i take seriously my statutory requirement to keep the congress fully and currently informed, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. linick. i appreciate your comments. we will begin -- i will begin the questioning today. we'll have seven minutes. senator kaine and i are the two members here. as the members join us, we'll have them engage as well. my first question follows some testimony that you gave about 2012 and the attacks there on u.s. diplomatic personnel in benghazi. the oig since then has stepped up its oversight efforts, as you testify. can you describe what those efforts are to improve the physical security? and also, how do you go about evaluating the security of other embassies around the world?

>> senator, we actually assess security in two ways. first of all, we've looked at security from a systemic point of view. in a 2013 report on the accountability review board process, we looked at how the department implements accountability review board recommendations across the board. the accountability review board, as you know, is convened by the secretary, where there's loss of life, substantial injury, et cetera. we found in that report that after reviewing 126 recommendations from 12 different arbs between darus alum and ben you a benghazi, 40% of the recommendations were repeat recommendations

pertaining to security, intelligence-gathering and training. and we found the reason why that occurred is because of a lack of sustained commitment over the years by department principals in making sure recommendations were implemented. in fact, we found many of the same recommendations in the accountability review board for the benghazi to be the same recommendations. >> i'm sorry, would that go back years, that practice of having recommendations like that, you know, the past decade or so? >> yes, sir. we looked at 14 years worth of recommendations over 12 accountability review boards. >> okay. >> and we found that in order to properly implement those recommendations, accountability had to be at the highest levels of the department. we've made recommendations to that effect. we also look at security on a more targeted basis. as you know, we conduct inspections of posts around the world. every single inspection we do of

an embassy involves a security inspection. we have highly qualified security inspectors who look at everything from whether or not the walls are high enough to whether or not there's a proper setback to whether their emergency action plans are properly in order. and we do that across the board, and you know, we do continue to find deficiencies when we go to various locations. the other way we do it is through our audits, and we do audits of various programs. for example, we reviewed the local guard force that protects our embassies, whether or not they're properly vetted by security contractors who hire the guards and whether they are properly overseen by our regional security officers who have responsibility for making sure that they're doing their job. so, those are the ways in which

we conduct our inspections. >> how often do you do those inspections? >> well, we do about eight -- let's see, every eight years, we're able to perform a domestic inspection, and every eleven years an overseas inspection. we try to get to as many locations as possible. but really, we use a risk-based approach. so, we do a survey and we find out if there are problems at any particular posts. we also look at a post and assess whether it's receiving a large amount of money for foreign assistance. if it's a high-threat post, we will take that into consideration as to whether or not to go to a particular facility. and now that we have responsibility for joint oversight of the operation inherent resolve, we look at posts that play a role in that effort. >> well, i just returned from a trip out there, and i can tell you that the state department people are an amazing group, dedicating their careers to multiple assignments around the world, changing every few years. i was very impressed with their morale and their effectiveness out there.

i'm encouraged by your testimony. i did have one question, though. you testified that you're having trouble with the five-year inspection requirement. help me understand what's involved in that as well. >> so, the foreign services act requires our office to conduct inspections once every five years. and i just want to just step back and make one observation about that. we are unique among the ig community in that we have a statutory requirement to conduct these inspections, because we're also doing audits and investigations. so, that, obviously, reduces our ability to do some of the other work. but on the five-year inspections, we're not able to meet that requirement. we simply don't have the staff. but i really think that a better approach, frankly, is to do it on a risk-based approach like

we're doing it now. we try to get out to posts where there are truly, you know, where there are truly issues, whether we think they are financial issues or some of the other issues that i just mentioned, but we're not able to get out every five years, and it would take an extraordinary increase in staff and resources in order to be able to do that. >> all right. let me change gears just a minute. as we work on this reauthorization bill in the full committee, what opportunities for increased effectiveness do you see? and this is a long-winded answer. i'll have time to come back. i've got about a minute left, so if you would give me just the highlights here, in terms of improving effectiveness at the state department. if you had the top two or three priorities, what would you recommend, based on all of the work that you've been doing? >> in terms of items that would help the ig perform its job? >> right, right. >> so, i would say there are two issues that come to mind. number one is our ability to get early notification of misconduct involving serious or criminal activity and our ability to investigate that, at least

decide whether we are going to investigate that and return it back to the department. so, that's sort of the number one. the second issue is what i mentioned in my oral testimony, is i.t. independence. we really need to be independent from the department. we have a lot of sensitive information on our network. so, i would say those two things would be on the top of my list. >> okay. well, thank you, mr. linick. my time is up. i'll yield to senator kaine. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think my questions are going to go significantly more than seven, so i'll just do seven and then we'll probably have second rounds. and mr. linick, i'll take them in the order that you did. i'm going to go missions and priorities, sort of new missions and then challenges. on the missions and priorities, i'm glad that your first one is protecting embassy personnel. like chairman perdue, i've been

so proud of the people that i've met. you know when you go to the facilities that we have around the world, you really are proud of the people. i went to the u.s. embassy in beirut. and when you see the memorial there to all of the folks in the state department who lost their lives in the '80s and '90s, it's very sobering, and the sacrifices are sometimes more mundane than that, but they're sacrifices of being away from family and serving in tough places. so, that's got to be number one. your written testimony suggests that you think that the focus on security improvements has not been one that is, i guess been subject to sustained oversight from the state department leadership. i think that's the word that you used, in particular with respect to arb recommendations following benghazi. but i think more generally, when there are recommendations about security improvements, it sounds as if what you're testifying is that there's sort of really sharp focus on it, but then

maybe wavering attention because of other priorities. could you elaborate on that a little bit, because that should be all of our concern. >> let me say this, i think the department has taken significant steps in addressing our security recommendations. in fact, we are currently reviewing the department's compliance with the benghazi arb recommendations. there are 29 of them. >> yep. >> so, i'm encouraged by the steps they're taking. in terms -- >> is that the kind of thing where you'll issue a report about, we've reviewed compliance with the benghazi arb recommendations and here's our assessment? is that foreseen? and when might that happen? >> yes, sir. we are actually in progress with that report, and we should be issuing something probably in the next couple of months on that. >> okay. >> but in terms of implementation of recommendations, i think you got it right when you said, what happens is, if they're not implemented from the top, they

tend to be delegated out to the bureaus, and there's a dispersion of authority. so, implementation, the responsibility is delegated down the chain. with the changes of administration, institutional shift, there tends not to be the follow-through that you would want to see, especially with the benghazi -- excuse me, the arb recommendations over the years, and there hasn't been a loop back to the principals, the deputy secretary, the secretary on the progress of implementation of those recommendations. so, what we're trying to say is, look, accountability for those recommendations needs to be at the deputy secretary level. and i know the department is working on that and we're assessing that right now. >> one of the areas that i was very concerned about in reading the arb report -- and you may just want to highlight this briefly, because if you're going

report about this, we'll get the full report later -- but is the use of private contract security at some of the embassies or consulate facilities, whether there is sufficient vetting when private contract security is used. i know in benghazi, some of the private contract security were local folks. they were on sort of a work stoppage because of debates about pay that, you know, could have led them to be less than, i mean, frankly, less than focused on doing the job because of some dispute with the state department over that. how was your review going on this question of do we appropriately vet local security when we hire them abroad? >> so, that is an area of concern to me, because all it takes is one bad actor who's guarding our embassy for something to happen. and we did do some work on vetting security guards. we looked at six of them at various posts around the world, including some high-threat posts, and we found that all of them were not thoroughly vetting security guards. and again, you know, you have to

make sure these guards don't have criminal background, criminal histories, and there's a whole panoply of qualities that you need to check. so, not only do our -- not only do the companies who hire these guards have responsibilities, but also the department does in making sure they know who's guarding their embassies. so, we found problems with that, and this is an issue which we're pursuing. we're currently looking at the employment, how vetting is going with the locally employed folks at our embassies as well. so, this is just -- this is a constant issue that i think deserves a lot of attention, because i've said, all it takes is one bad actor. >> is the responsibility for doing the vetting of local security fully on the state department's shoulders, or do the marine security guard units that are assigned to diplomatic posts have any responsibility over that role? >> no, the responsibility is really on both the contractors who are hired, but ultimately, it's the regional security officer who needs to make sure that he's satisfied with the guards that are selected.

>> it segues nicely into your second mission, which is managing contracts and grants. i mean, security contracts are just a kind of contract. i'm on the armed services committee, and we have a readiness committee hearing this afternoon where acquisition reform and managing contracts and grants is going to be the topic. so, i think this is a big-picture issue. and i notice that the next mission and priority you have of your three is maintaining i.t. security, and i would suspect that that may also tie into the managing contracts and grants, because i would imagine that some of that within the state department is done by outside contractors. am i right about that? >> i think that's right, yes. >> i've often heard it said in the northern virginia contracting community, which is pretty big, there's a lot of general concerns about sort of the acquisition and grant management workforce.

so, to what extent, you know, to the extent that you have an opinion about this, in managing contracts and grants or maintaining i.t. security to the extent that it's contracted out, are there issues kind of on the personnel side about the size, the qualifications, you know, the numbers or the qualifications of our acquisition workforce that manage these contracts and grants? >> well, i think that -- i guess there are two issues here. we have definitely identified issues with the folks who are supposed to be managing the contracts at the department. there's not enough of them. and we're doing one audit right now where we found that a contractor was submitting invoices, but the invoices -- there weren't enough contracting personnel within the state department to oversee those invoices, so they were just basically signing off without validating them and double-checking them.

so, there's that issue. there's an issue of lack of training. as well, we need contracting officers, grant officers who understand all the rules and so forth. we have a problem with the rotation. our rsos, our regional security officers at posts are also responsible for overseeing contracts and grants and they're rotating in and out, so there's a lack of continuity there. so, there's sort of a whole host. and there's also another significant issue is the maintenance of our contract files. we recently did a report where we looked at contracts over the last six years and found that there were $6 billion worth of contracts that were either incomplete or missing. now, since then, department has found some of those contracts. but you know, if you don't have the contract files, if you're a contracting officer, how do you ensure that the government is getting the goods that it's bargained for? >> i'm over time, but i'm going to come back to this when i come back. i'll pick up right there when i come back. mr. chair. >> thank you, ranking member. senator johnson, you're up. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

inspector general linick, in your testimony, you're talking about a review that your offices has conducted. i don't believe -- was that under your guidance on the arb with benghazi? >> no, the benghazi arb completed right before i got there. >> but you have reviewed the process of that arb, is that correct? >> well, since i arrived, we've undertaken work to see how the department is complying with the benghazi arb recommendations, the other 29, how are they doing, what progress have they made. >> that's what i glean from your testimony. do you have any plans whatsoever of still trying to get some answers to a number of unanswered questions that certainly i have in terms of, you know, who knew what when, whatever happened to security quests, where were those

security quests denied? where were the requests denied where security was turned down in benghazi? are you taking a look at that because the arb has not answered those questions. we've had several probes and i know there's a special committee in the house trying to get answers. but we're very frustrated. this is 2 1/2 years since the tragedy at benghazi and we still don't know some very basic answers to some very basic questions. >> well, there have been a lot of probes, as you've mentioned, on this topic. we have been forward-looking. we've taken our resources and tried to figure out whether or not the department is currently complying with security guidelines and so forth and whether they are implementing the arb recommendations. that's the direction we have been going. >> which is important. you know, obviously, we have to look forward. we need to make sure that, you know, these tragedies don't occur in the future. but from my standpoint, one of the primary functions of the inspector general's office is not only that transparency, and not only the recommendations that are forward-looking, but

also looking back and being the whole people accountable. and i'm just not aware that, you know, i think the primary actors in the benghazi instance have been held accountable. do you believe so? >> you know, we didn't look at that. obviously, the benghazi accountability review board made a number of conclusions on that. again, there have been a lot of reports, a lot of probes on that. you know, i'm happy to work with the committee if you think i should be looking at something in particular -- >> oh, i do. >> as i said, i've been trying to take our limited resources and make sure that, at least try to make sure that we don't have another tragedy again through our inspections and so forth. obviously, we'll never be able to stop them completely, but that's -- >> i guess one of the things i'd like to do is we had deputy secretary kennedy in front of our homeland security committee, subcommittee. this was in the last congress. and i took that occasion, because he refused the invitation to testify before this committee on the same day. so, i took that opportunity to ask him a series of questions, which i did not get very

forthright answers in the committee. and then we submitted those questions for the record, which we have not gotten any reply to whatsoever. so, i'm not quite sure how we can hold an administration accountable, how we can hold those officials that were at the heart of the matter, that made the key decisions that i think, you know, that were really derelict in their duty that resulted in the death of four americans, if we don't know who made the decisions. how do we actually hold people accountable? >> look, accountability is obviously part of our job, and we try to hold people accountable in the department through a variety of mechanism, through investigations, our inspections, audits. the three -- there are three areas which i think pertain to accountability. one is accountability for implementing arb recommendations over time, and that's something that we have been focusing on heavily. the other is accountability for making sure our contracts and grants are overseen properly and our contracting offices are held

accountable. the other area's making sure that there's accountability for the i.t. network, which has huge vulnerabilities. >> well, as you're aware, i'm certainly highly supportive of strengthening the office of inspector general, your ability to access information. i'd like to be able to strengthen congress's ability to actually get information from this administration. one of the things i will do is we'll submit a letter to you asking those exact same questions, and maybe you can have greater success in your role within that department as the independent auditor, the office of inspector general. maybe you can get some of these questions that not only i think you should be asking, not only should i think the administration be asking, not only do i think this congress should be asking, but i think they're questions to answers that the american people deserve. the american people deserve to know the truth. they haven't got it yet. so, i'll submit that letter to your office and i would appreciate the help of your

office in trying to get those answers for the american people. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. linick. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. linick, we're going to go start a second round. i know the ranking member's got other questions. i've got a few here. i'd like to change directions and talk about the i.t. point that you brought up in your testimony this morning. you mentioned that there have been attacks on the state department's network and that that compromises the ig's work relative to being on the same network. can you talk about that in a little bit more detail and talk about what you're doing to protect your independence and whether you need to be totally independent on a separate network? i mean, what is your recommendation there? what are you doing to protect ig's independence? >> i think that your point is well taken to the extent that the department suffers from attacks. we suffer from attacks because we're on the same network. we've taken a number of steps since i've been in office. first of all, we've asked the department to agree not to come

on to our system without asking permission. and we have finally gotten that agreement from the department. but we need more than that, because right now we are sort of in a gated community, if you will, where we rent -- our i.t. system is, we rent our i.t. system, and the i.t. folks at the department have the keys to our i.t. system. so, they really have unfettered access to the system. if they wanted to, they could read, modify, delete any of our work. we have sensitive grand jury materials, we have long -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt. how far down in the state department organization does that access -- is that access provided? is that throughout the organization or -- >> well, it's state department administrators have access to our system as well as any other system. >> so, during an investigation, your files are open to the hierarchy of the state department? >> well, they're not open, but if an administrator wanted to --

and again, we don't have evidence of this -- if an administrator wanted to, he or she could come on to our system with their access. that's the problem. they come on to our system as it is with security patching and all, for legitimate reasons. >> so, how is that done in other departments? >> well, at the very basic level, departments differ in the way they handle it. generally, you know, there's a firewall or some sort of form of protection against that type of intrusion, because an ig just can't protect confidentiality of witnesses and information if there is a possibility. now, the other way some igs do it, and this is the way i did it when i was the inspector general at the federal housing finance agency, i had a completely separate system and network with my own e-mail address. i was completely off the department's grid.

>> what keeps you from doing that here? >> well, i need money and i need the department's cooperation. i would like to be completely separate from the department to ensure the integrity of our system, but i also need the department to give us access to the same systems that we have now, and i've actually broached this topic with the secretary last friday and deputy secretary higginbottom. >> do you have evidence that the state department's network has been attacked, and does that affect you guys? >> there has been -- there's evidence that it's been attacked and it has affected us. i can't really go into details because of the nature of the information. >> i understand that completely. so, what are you doing to protect the independence and how can you, short of separating yourself on a separate network, which takes money, as you say, to protect the independence of your investigations? >> well, we've taken the first step in getting the department to agree not to come on to our

system, but the next step is developing a firewall around our network. and again, this really depends on the department's willingness to do this quickly with us. the other thing we're trying to do -- we have published four, what's called fisma reports, over the last four years, where we found recurring weaknesses in the department's system, and that's given us a lot of pause, because i'm not so sure, if we have problems in the department's system, that obviously leads to vulnerabilities in our own system. >> so, let me just be clear. are you -- don't let me put words in your mouth, but are you getting cooperation from the organization, the state department organization with regard to this particular i.t. issue, relative to independence? i think independence is critical if you're going to be objective in your evaluations. you've got to have access, but

you also have to be protected in terms of the information confidentiality, as you just said. is it a cooperative attitude that you're seeing? i mean, is this something that's moving forward? can we bank on the fact that this is going to get taken care of or do we need to talk to the other members of leadership in the state department? >> well, i know that deputy secretary higginbottom is looking into this issue and she's been very receptive and helpful to us in general. i will say the process has been very slow. it took us months just to get the bureau of diplomatic security to sign an agreement not to come on to our system without approvals. and that's only in limited circumstances. so, it's a slow process, it's a big bureaucracy. and so, i'm cautiously optimistic. >> well, good. i'm going to yield the rest of my time and allow -- or ask senator murphy to have access to his questions now at this point. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. i note that your official title

is inspector general for the u.s. department of state and the broadcasting board of governors, and so i wanted to ask you just a few questions as to the second appendage on your title. you know, the work of the bbg is perhaps more important now than ever as we're fighting very sophisticated propaganda campaigns from non-state actors like isis or boko haram, but also from state actors like russia in their efforts to try to essentially buy up press outlets all around their periphery. having an efficiently run broadcasting board of governors and all of their constituent entities is critical to the work that we do abroad. and yet, the previous reports on both the work culture and the efficiency of the operation have been damning, to say the least. i mean, you very rarely get ig reports that are as straightforward as at least the

2012 report was about the work culture at the bbg, and you had a much older report, i think from 2004-2005, that talked a little about just tremendous levels of redundancy and duplication within the organization. so, i guess my question is open-ended. i would just be interested to hear any updates that you have on what follow-up there has been at the broadcasting board of governors following that 2012 report, whether you have information to suggest that the kind of inefficiencies that were identified in earlier reports still exists and whether that's going to be a subject of further introspection or examination for your office moving forward? >> well, thank you for that question. the bbg, i would say, is a work in progress, because as you noted, we did issue some damning

reports within the last couple of years, primarily focused on leadership. it's a part-time board. there are conflicts of interest. they didn't have a ceo. we recommended that they hire a ceo. apparently, the ceo has only been in place -- there has been a new ceo, but apparently, he's left. so, it's without a ceo again. there were morale problems. i must say, in the contracting and grant area there's room for improvement. we issued a report recently on their acquisitions, and we found violations of the antideficiency act, conflicts of interest, problems with their grants. so, it continues to be a problem. i know that the new folks who are over there are trying to address these issues. and we're working with them on following through. we actually issued some recommendations on contract and grant management pertaining to the bbg, and they're actually required by the appropriations committee to respond to some of

those recommendations. so, this is a work in progress. we're on it. and we'll keep the committee briefed on this issue. >> again, i sort of, you know, read it as two different sets of problems. you've got a leadership vacuum there that continues and leadership deficiencies, and then you've identified structural issues with respect to how they contract. and also, again, an older ig report talked about tremendous redundancies, duplication. you reference it as a work in progress, which is often a way of talking about something that's slowly getting better but far too slowly. do you -- if you identify those two problems as distinct, is one getting better at a rate that's faster than the other? is one a more lingering and festering problem than the

other? >> i would say i think the leadership issue is probably getting better at a faster rate. there's a new board member since we issued our report and so forth, and i think they're really trying to address those issues. i think the contracting issue is not so much a structural problem, but just complying with the rules, the federal acquisitions regulations, just doing it right. so, i know they're working on that as well. since we have a more recent report on that, i would say that's probably the more pressing issue at the moment. >> there's a bipartisan group of us in the house and the senate working on bbg reform. be hopeful to work with you and the folks that have worked this book of business as we move forward. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i think the ranking member has a few more questions.

>> great. thank you. mr. linick, i just want to pick up where i left off. we were talking about the management of contracts, and you know, maybe some i.t. contracts. you were talking about in some instances, doesn't seem to be enough management personnel. do you reach a conclusion about that? is there any degree to which that is because of the sequester? is it because, you know, choices have been made internally not to hire -- you know to hire more of one staff and less contract acquisition folks? what's your conclusion about that? >> you know, i think it's a matter of -- i mean, we don't have any work to support an opinion one way or the other whether they're having problems hiring folks. from the work we've done, i would say it's really a cultural issue, because contracts and grants have skyrocketed in the department over the last five, ten years, and the department i think is having problems keeping up with it and they're trying to do a better job and there have been improvements and they've

accepted many of our recommendations in this area. so, i think it's an issue of priorities and where they want to put resources. i think it's a cultural issue. contract and grant management is not like diplomacy, so. >> yeah, that's not why anybody decides, i want to go to the state department. >> right. >> right. i had the same issue as governor of my department of transportation. they used to do a lot of projects and over time migrated to managing a lot of projects, but they didn't necessarily migrate their skill set from project engineers to contract managers, so there was a common mismatch. maybe there's some of that going on. on your new mission, you talked about the use of management alerts and these management

assessment reports that you do. >> i think they've responded very positively. the majority of our recommendations in our management alerts have been accepted and the department's been working on them. and the purpose of them is really two-fold. one is to stop the bleeding. you know, if we're in the middle of an audit, we don't want to wait until the end of the audit to tell the department, hey, you've got a problem because somebody is cheating you, so let's try to stop the bleeding before it happens. and then the second thing we've been trying to do is to the extent that we find issues and recommendations unimplemented over the years, the point of the management alerts is to try to repackage it and aim it at leadership, a different set of leadership, maybe a higher set of leaders, and then also repackage the recommendations so they can be more broadly applied across the department. so, for example, on the contract management, we've asked the department to sample, do a sampling of their contract files to make sure the files are in order across the board, to consider putting more resources

into it, to consider, to look at sort of how a work plan for personnel can be developed so they have enough grant officers and contracting officers. so, it has been well received. and in fact, the appropriations committee in their joint explanatory statement picked up on our recommendations and asked the department to respond to those recommendations, which they have. so, that really helped us out, having sort of congress's sort of endorsement behind the recommendations and support for complying with them. >> you did not flag this in your oral testimony in the new challenge category, but as i read your written testimony, i'd call oco a new challenge because it was kind of handed to you in 2014 along with d.o.d., and what's the other agency? >> usaid. >> so talk a little bit about the work that you guys are doing together to get a handle on the oco expenditures.

>> we have quite a stretch for our resources. we have operated united assistance for ebola and afghanistan and net resolve which is isil. we have been on the operation inherent resolve, we have been coordinating intensely for many months and we have accomplished a lot. we became official in december. the inspector general was appointed, and since then we have been coordinated very closely. we have a joint strategic plan that we published march 31st, which addresses how we're coordinating together. we are in the process of putting together a quarterly report, which is going to be published some time at the end of april, and the way we set it up is operation resolve outlined nine lines of effort in the initiative to address isil, one

being governance, another country messaging and there are others. and the way we split up our duties is to sort of -- state department is responsibility for some of the lines of effort, that would be within any wheel house. some of those lines of effort obtain to d.o.d., then they would do the audits and those. then we do them together. so we are jointly working on strategy. we are jointly working on strategy and program analysis and development and we are jointly working on publishing these reports. we meet regularly. i'm going to be on a trip to jordan and turkey to oversee how the state department is addressing isil issues in those two areas. so it's been a robust, but difficult because we're taking it out of base. we don't have -- we don't have special resources for those. >> we may give d.o.d. oco but we

haven't give you an oig oco, have we? let me switch to the third part of your testimony. challenges. the chair talked about the issue, but i want to focus on, too, the issue about not being given the same ability as other ig offices to investigate wrongdoing. i think that's an interesting one, and i know you're seeking assistance from us as we do the reauthorization. >> as i looked at a footnote in your testimony, incidents or allegations that can serve as grounds for disciplinary action or criminal prosecution will immediately be referred to the oig or the bureau of diplomatic security or comparable offices and exceptional circumstances, the undersecretary for management for state may designate an individual. so there's sort of a requirement that if there's wrongdoing that fits in the category, either or potentially somebody else will be notified. what would the norm be, like in another agency, in your previous work as an inspector general? is it a dual reporting

requirement? you know, report it to the diplomat and the oig? how would it normally -- kind of in a more normal way be structured? >> well, in those agencies that have a law enforcement component like ds so like in d.o.d. with law enforcement components and dhs and so forth their law enforcement components are required to notify them about allegations of serious or criminal misconduct. >> are required to notify the ig's office? >> correct. >> either by statute, or by regulation. and then the ig is -- has the discretion to decide whether it wants to take the cases or ship them back. and that's the norm. and the reason that is because there are certain cases that may not be appropriately investigated by the host agency. so -- >> and so your request of us

would be in a reauthorization that retry to structure that reporting language to the ig somewhat similar to the way d.o.d. would have it. >> exactly. where we're asking for what the other igs have in terms of legislation, and we would ask that if that's -- that you track that legislation, that would be what we would like. >> mr. chair, i have two more lines of questioning. can i go ahead? another change that you asked for, or actually, i'm not sure that you had this in your written testimony, but i want to make sure we understand. the congressional budget justification includes a request to change out personnel authorities can be exercised to expedite reemployment -- to support oversight of the oco operation. could you explain the rational e for that request so we understand why you're requesting that. we want to be helpful if we can. >> so we have difficulties in our shop of hiring the right people with the right skills. to meet the demands of our mission. we have a unique mission that we have the inspection requirement.

we need people to know how embassies run and securities. we have the three ocos. and we also have unanticipated special projects. like the accountability review board and numerous other projects that we have teams of people working on. so we're seeking more flexible hiring authorities generally. in terms of reemploying, annuitants, we're only able to hire part time. many are doing inspections, so they can only work half a year. which creates tremendous lack of continuity. this and we have to hire more of them to get the job done. we would like to hire full-time. similarly, special general for

iraq reconstruction, we have a special time hiring the folks. they have the skill sets, but they don't have competitive status. so we're looking for opportunities to grab them as well. >> that will be helpful to us as we tackle reauthorization. and finally the impact of your work. i found this kind of interesting. first paragraph you talk about the financial savings that you've achieved by implementation of reports. then these financial statistics don't adequately take into account assets and recommendations to improve safety of people and facilities investigations that ensure department employees conduct themselves appropriately and our work to strengthen the integrity of the programs, operations and resources at the foundation of the department's ability to help

ensure national security. ensure security. when i read that, i was kind of interested because when i was mayor of richmond, we had an auditor, and the auditor kind of looked at just the numbers. i guess the difference between the oig and the auditor is the oig is looking at the numbers, but also looking at the broader mission. as i kind of interpret that testimony, we're going to look at the numbers and find savings. but at the end of the day, there is a broader mission, and first is protecting security of the personnel, and making sure folks don't do things wrong without consequence, and also promoting national security, and that's really what determines the success of an oig's office and what the priorities are. you want to make sure the priorities are in the right order. is that a fair read of your testimony? >> and this is to protect department personnel. they are most important asset in the department. they are really heros. the folks who are at these dangerous posts. senator purdue said earlier that

they do yoem ands work. they do -- work. and we do need to protect them. and it's not just about the numbers. and we different from a lot of inspector generals in that we have the security mission, which makes the job so gratifying and great. and since benghazi, you've had to evacuate in calendar year 2014 the embassy in libya. and in calendar year 2015, have had to evacuate our embassy in yemen. these are not minor matters. when the u.s. has to evacuate an embassy because of security conditions, like this is a big, big deal. and so that demonstrates as much incident were just complete lightning strike, not likely to secure again. we have to think they're going to be very important to all of

us. correct? >> yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chair. no other questions. >> very good questions. great answers. mr. linick, i just have one quick question here. and we can wrap this up. but i want to talk about your relationship to the line management, if you will, of the state department. one of the calls is you have security. you're looking at misconduct and the effectiveness of the state department itself because that affects all of the above. how would you rate the relationship of the ig, the state department, the state department leadership? are you getting what you need? you mentioned resources twice. talk to us just a little bit about -- you said i.t. independence. you also talks about getting access to investigations to help you do a better job. i'm looking at really in this line of questioning, what have you found operationally inside a state department that we need to be aware of as we look at this reauthorization.

>> well, in terms of the relationship with the department, i mean, i have a very good working relationship with the deputy secretary, and i meet with the secretary periodically as well. i just met with him last friday. and they are open to oversight. they recognize it's important, and they recognize the unique role of the i.g. so they've been responsive to resource investment, in both of the requests that i have in my testimony. they're aware of and they've been, you know, the deputy secretary has been working on. so i think that works well, and we also try to meet regularly with other senior leaders in the department as well, so that relationship is important. to be an effective i.g. you need a good working relationship because we can't force them to

comply with recommendations. in terms of operationally, you know i would say that the secure -- the implementation of the recommendations is something that's been a problem but the department is working on ago something we are monitoring. i think that they need to step up their oversite of contracts and grants. so i would say that is probably extremely important priority. and the i.t. infrastructure, we heard about hacking in the news and so forth. this is a very serious issue. there's a lot of sensitive information on the networks. and we need to make sure the information security system is protected. to me, those are the top priorities. >> well, that's all i have. senator, do you have any questions? well, with that again, thank you for being here today. this has been very enlightening. we appreciate your insights, your experience,

your work, your dedications that went into your statements. and the effectiveness of your work. you do hero's work as well. and i want to thank you for that. the record will remain open until the close of business on thursday, april 23rd, for any future submissions, if you would like. you may receive questions for other members in that period of time as well, and i would encourage you to answer those in the same manner that you've answered the ones here. and with that, this hearing is adjourned. thank you very much, mr. linick. >> thank you.

wednesday, the senate finance committee works on a u.s. trade bill, including fast

track trade promotion authority, which would give the president leeway in negotiating international trade deals. live coverage begins at 10:45 eastern time on cspan 3. here are a few book festivals we are covering this spring on book tv. this weekend, we will be in maryland state capital foray knap list book festival. hearing from authors like alberto gonzales and james rise en. middle of may, we will cover the gaithersburg book festival. then we close out may at book expo america in new york city where the publishing industry show cases upcoming books. first week of june, live for the chicago tribune printers row lit

fest. that's this spring on cspan2's book tv. jennifer lawless is the coauthor of the book "running from office, why young americans are turned off to politics." on washington journal we talked to her about involvement of young people in politics. this is 45 minutes. >> our guest, co-author of a book "running from office why young americans are turned off to politics." jennifer lawless joins us. good morning. >> good morning. >> why is the turnoff happening? >> there are several reasons, but ultimately because politics are ugly, there's hyper partisanship stalemate young people want to go save communities think about every option rather than running for office. >> is that because they're not exposed to politics or there's not interest from them to get into politics? >> it is interesting. for a long time there was a

sense young americans were just tuned out. what we find in the book based on a survey of 4200 high school and college students is that they're tuned out for a reason because they're turned off. minimal exposure they get from families, school, media, makes them so hypersensitive to the most negative aspects of politics that they would like nothing more to do than not find it in their lives. >> in fact, you asked a question that ended up as a couple of graphs. we will have you explain it as far as giving young people choices, what they would rather do, business owner, teacher mayor of small town, both cases mayor of small town didn't turn out well. >> people are more in inclined to go go into business than be the mayor. same when we turn to elite professions, law or business

executive or member of congress, member of congress fairs worse than others young people that want a high level of career success want that outside the realm of politics. >> charts go on to say being mayor of small town to some police officer was better, military was better than that, journalist was better than that, and then salesperson, professional athlete, secretary, mechanic. >> right. the only thing less desirable had to do with specific trade interests. if you want to be plumber or mechanic, you have to go to a specific school get a trade kind of degree. basically any broad range profession we think about encouraging our kids to get involved in faired better than local, state or congressional office holder. >> in fact you talked to young people asked them what would their parents think if they entered politics. what was the reaction? >> the reaction was very politically correct, kids tended to say my parents would be

supportive of anything i want to do but wouldn't want me to do that. >> because? >> because it is ugly, because politicians lack ethics, because politics is not a way to get things done. time and time again in the surveys and when we interviewed about 115 of these young people for long periods of time, what kept coming out over and over again was the idea their parents would want more for them and want them to have a more meaningful experience, more meaningful life. >> a lot is based on perception. what's the largest shaper of that parents or other factors? >> family socialization is one of the biggest predictors of political interest, civic engagement and political ambition and running for office, but not only family. those messages are reinforced from teachers who don't encourage them to run for office, coaches that don't encourage them to run for office, and the media, and political satire or pundits reinforcing the most negative aspects of the political arena.

>> our guest will talk about young people and their perception of politics if they'll enter politics and related topics. running from office is the book, why young americans are turned off to politics. jennifer lawless. talk to her on one of four lines. those general ages you talked to when you came up with the book? >> 2100 13 to 17-year-olds and we found college students were more likely to consider running for office. 89% of the next generation has already ruled it out as an incredibly unattractive endeavor. >> when you talk to them is it a straight paper survey they're

filling, interview? how did you come up with finding the people you talked to in this book? >> it is both. the survey the 4200 high school and college students was online survey of a national random sample. we supplemented that with about 115 45 minute to one hour phone interviews with these kids. the phone interviews were geared to allow us to understand in more depth the reasons behind the overall lack of interest in running for office. >> what were some of them when you talked to them, what other things struck you as far as perception of politics, whether they would go into politics or not. >> one of the striking findings had to do with a disconnect between what they think a good leader is like and what they think politicians are like. students time and again told us they thought they were cooperative, that they were able to get along well with others that they were good problem solvers, and there was no place in the political arena for those skills. then they would reference the

gridlock, the stalemate government shutdown and highlight these are the problems that they don't think politicians are taking seriously. >> when you talk to them are they shaped by specific leaders going back to president bush, president clinton, president obama, who shapes them most and what are the reactions to leaders. >> we asked about first political memories, for some it was bill clinton but those memories were the monica lewinsky scandal and a president waving his finger saying i did not have sexual relations with that woman which turned out to be a lie. for others, george bush, tends to be misleading the american people about weapons of mass destruction. regardless of clinton or bush, first memories tend to be deeply embedded in things that aren't true. >> president obama focused a lot of earlier campaigns on young people. did he have any role in shaping perceptions? the numbers tell a different story, but what was his role as far as perception of politics are concerned? >> well, people who actually

admire political figures are more inclined to say they would be interested in running for office. numbers are still overall quite low. but ones that admire a president, for example in this case barack obama, are more likely to say they would be willing to run. there's a race out there, african-americans more than white students say they admire obama and as a result they were slightly more inclined to be interested in running for office. >> jennifer lawless co-author of running from office why young americans are turned off to politics. first call from woodstock illinois. independent line. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. thank you. i am calling because at the time when i went to school lord of the flies was required reading and i consider it to be essential reading. we had ted cruz recently refer to that book and use it as a way to describe the political venue. in my opinion, it is important

to also consider that bill clinton, considering whether or not ted cruz could be the jack mayor of politics, and ask the title of the book "lord of the flies" refers to beal is he bub. when you had him on, interviewing jessica stern asking what to do about isis the suggestion was that young people could contribute through their savvy and electronics. i wanted to ask through the venue of "lord of the flies" the translation for that name is beal se bub. >> take the idea of electronics seems like young people are receiving information particularly about politics through different means than their parents are previous generations. what are you finding? >> the irony is that accessing political information is easier now than it has ever been with

simple touch of any device, you can get any kind of political information you would be interested in getting. that means the raw material is there for young people to learn more about the political system and to engage it. the problem is what they find they don't like and then they stop looking. so i think we have an opportunity here to engage this generation in the way they like to communicate, in the way they like to access news but in doing so we have to be creative because left to their own devices, they're using devices for anything other than political news. >> best way of engagement would be what? >> we in the book propose a series of solutions we think could help generate political ambition. and one is to let people think that politics could be useful. we have a situation now where young people and adults alike tend to view politics through a national lens. they look at the functional aspects of what they see in washington and assume it translates. fact of the matter is we have

more than 500,000 elected offices, and the overwhelming majority of people that occupy those offices are not involved in gridlock not egotists not doing it out of self interest and i don't think most federal officials are either, but if we can sort of go around federal politics and let people know how to solve problems in their communities, and all the things that running for office could help them address i think we would be off to a good start. >> joe is from maryland independent line. go ahead. >> yes, miss lawless. i don't know doing your research, one of the things i keep hearing from younger people is the appearance of lack of integrity. and you've seen all of the scandals with members of congress and so forth. there was one other issue that came up a number of years ago. first of all, the president has to put when he becomes elected all of his investments in a blind trust. however, members of congress are not required to do so.

yet they probably had more influence over rules regulations and so forth than the president does and a bill was introduced by a senator to do that. and yet it was voted down one vote for it the rest voted against it. and i don't understand why we can't have members of congress be held to the same standard as the president and therefore not have the influence over making decisions or rules and regulations that will favor certain companies or industries where they then can go and invest and reep some reward from that. i am curious to your reaction to that. thank you. >> i think we reached a point in time where most people can identify problems with the way the political system works problems with the fact that it is the elected officials who are then responsible for generating the kind of reform required to change their behavior. the good news for the purposes

of young people is that their general disgust and distaste is not linked to many specific policies, it is not linked to specific actions or bills it is a general more of a sense that people that are in washington are not interested in doing good and solving the country's problems. so i think that one of the things we can do is call on elected officials to realize that there are these long term implications of their behavior. they can't sometimy everything and not pay the price. that extends to all realms of politics, doesn't matter what issue we are dealing with not getting anything done and suggesting that obstructionism is a real policy option i think is turning people off. >> east dublin georgia maurice is next. democrat line. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead. >> caller: it is entirely too hard to get on this program, trying to get on for years. but that's an aside.

i haven't read your book but hope to do so in the future i don't know the solutions you are proposing. what i come away with and the president talked about mandatory voting. that would be something that would go a significant amount of the way toward getting people involved obviously but mandatory voting in association with public financing of campaigns and other elements that would bring people to the process, get them in and get them more involved would filter down to the local level and obviously get young people more involved in the process. so what say you about those particular proposals? >> i certainly don't think there's any down side to encouraging more people to get involved in the political process, whether by voting or engaging in otherwise. what i can tell you is regardless of levels of voter turnout, it seems that the extent too much today's young people are not interested in running for office is much greater than it has been in the

past. there haven't been national surveys of young people's political ambition, so we can't do a direct comparison, but when you look at whether young people of today versus kids in the '70s and '80s talked to their parents about politics talked to friends about politics, follow the news online we see substantial decreases. they're not far less likely than they were to vote. i think it is more than encouraging people to vote i think it is making them realize they have to be invested beyond casting a ballot. >> expand on this. this point in your book, survey saying political activity with parents, other than watching election coverage next activity was went to vote with parents. >> that's good news because parents obviously are instilling the importance of casting a ballot. but that seems to be where it ends. parents tell their kids and we heard it in interviews that's the way you express your voice in a democracy but that's where

they stop short of them suggesting that their kids get involved in politics. for example only about 2% of the people we survey said their parents alike regularly encourage them to run for office. >> texas, republican line joyce up next for our guest jennifer lawless. go ahead. >> caller: yes good morning. i know that my granddaughter is not interested in politics at all. she's a freshman this year at college. she did vote so that's true they are voting, but when i try to talk to her about real issues that will effect her directly or even my grandson who is in high school, they have absolutely no interest. it is like it is not part of their life now not relative to them. she's trying to get through her exams, which she's doing very well, but being interested in

what is going to effect them in the future doesn't seem to be part of what they're trying to make them understand. what they do in the senate is going to effect them the laws that come in. they need to know. and i think we are losing them before they ever get to college because they're not being taught what they need to know about politics and about the judicial system and the executive branch and legislative branch and how important this is to them our country was founded on these things. if they don't take an interest in it they could lose it all. >> sorry caller go ahead. >> so we found about 25% of young people we surveyed and interviewed fall into the category that the caller described, whether blatantly just no interest whatsoever. the others have decided against being interested because they're so appalled by what it is that

they see. the good news is that if you take a government class in high school, if you take a political science or government class in college, you're more likely to be tuned in and more tuned in you are more likely to see the positive and negative aspects of politics. so to the extent we can encourage teachers and professors to integrate into classes even those that are not about politics some aspect of politics, that could potentially go a long way. >> we have numbers on the screen. don't forget a line for those of you ages 18 to 32. weigh in specifically on the thoughts on politics and running for politics. fort lauderdale, florida, jack go ahead. >> caller: miss lawless your book sounds very interesting but i think it is being very naive. i think you should be really pushing for the younger generation to vote in this country. i tell you why. i have traveled all over the world. do you realize the countries

that are so jealous of the united states because of the democracy type of government that we have in the united states. i was over in russia when gorbachev was in charge. i was in china and i had a driver and interpreter driver had to put his hand on the horn to move the people on bicycles. they treated me with so much respect. what's happened to focus on your book, if you're not out there pushing the young people to go out and vote then our country is going to be ready for some type of dickertateor ship. you and the young people are being so naive very, very, naive. this is a democracy, this country was set up as a democracy because we were ruled by the english. and we have been a democracy ever since and we are one of the greatest countries in the world because of that. so i think that you people

instead of being so naive should get out there and push younger people, because if they don't get involved god help the united states. and thank you very much. >> i think people should vote. i think young people should vote. the problem is that there are already a lot of civic engagement organizations and a lot of groups that are focusing on the franchise and making sure young people are taking advantage of it. now, their records are obviously mixed but there are a lot of efforts to encourage people to cast a ballot. those efforts tend to stop there. what we want to do in this book is call attention to the fact that there are a half million elected offices in this country and if we don't get the best and brightest to at least consider running for them, we are going to have additional problems as we move into the future. >> connor from pensacola, florida. >> caller: hi, jennifer. my name is connor. i just want to comment.

you talk about how you need to get young people into politics and i agree but myself being a fairly young person in well, there's general discontent with the type of people in d.c. now, seems like a lot of people don't want to touch it like plutonium. hillary clinton accepting money from foreign nationals, people we don't know. if i accepted money in the military from foreign national i would lose my security clearance, i would be fired. what kind of message does that send when we are trying to elect someone like that to lead our country. that's i think the root of the problem. people don't want to touch that. >> to some extent that's true. one of the biggest barriers we found to young people's interest in running for office had to do with their views of politicians. we found negative traits and negative characteristics were more likely than positive ones to be what they associated with elected leaders and candidates

and in part this is because that which is negative or unusual or controversial garners so much media attention that if you're only perusing channels, only looking at headlines it is unlikely you're reading much about political success. so encouraging people to be more interested in politics can go a long way. as they flip through the channels, as they turn those pages, they may come upon something that's somewhat positive. >> you make the case that aside from studies, extracurricular activities makeup a large part of a young person's time, when it comes to those activities and being ranked, you have a chart saying student government is 18% of those registered with you guys. that followed by debate team 12%, college democrats or republicans at 12%. seems like in the world of extracurricular activities politics is not winning out either. >> that's exactly right. it is not winning out no matter how you look at it talking to parents, friends, extracurricular activities websites you look at things you watch on tv. one interesting thing in that figure is that the most

prominent activity has to do with some kind of community service, which suggests that young people really do care about their communities, they really do care about the country, they do care about the world and they want to make it better, it is just that they don't think of politics as a venue by which to do that. that's the challenge we have to face. >> nathan in st. louis missouri, you're next on the line for those ages 18 to 30. go ahead. >> caller: yes, sir, i am 23. and i think this is a very serious issue that needs to be brought up more often. i know most my friends, not even younger people but a lot of older people i know don't like talking about politics. i think one of the big issues is television and entertainment and most people don't understand to have a feeling about what's

going on. as far as people not liking what's going on and not wanting to get involved, i remember a quote saying that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing so i think people really need to get involved. >> it is really difficult to find portrayals of politics as a noble profession and we don't talk only about polls suggesting parents don't feel this way orchids don't feel this way. if you look at popular culture, it is also not the norm. i grew up in the 1980s and i was obsessed with michael j. fox's character, having normal debates about politics at the kitchen table. now politics rarely makes its way into any television show not about politics. you have "house of cards" and

"scandal" and it is not an option in the mainstream. >> bloomington, illinois. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. how are you this morning? >> you're on go ahead. >> caller: i would like to make a couple of comments. i am 81 years old. i raised 12 children. i have 39 grandchildren and 9 great grandchildren. and we talk politics every election. i mean, we get together more often than not, but they're scattered all over the united states, but when they get home, it is usually politics. and i was raised a democrat. i am still a democrat. but half my family is republican, which i have no qualms with. we get a good voice between the people. what i am saying is we need term

limits. and we also need to get big money out of the politics so these people, younger generation from 18 to 32 will get a grasp of what the world is all about when it comes to politics. i don't understand why we have to spend a billion dollars to elect a president and have all of this money coming in for no reason whatsoever because if we had term limits, the younger generation could get in there and get rid of the old people that are fighting us, trying to build this country. >> william when you talk to your kids at election time, is it just during the election season or is it a long time discussion you have with them about politics? >> caller: it is yearlong. we get on the phone sometimes when they have an election like down in north carolina or something and they would call me