the president is giving you a lot of flexibility which led you to keep the 9800 there now, but at what point do you have to start taking actions for the therial drawdown to hit 2016 and of your target? we have to be weeks or months away from you putting those plans in place. general campbell: yes, sir. sir, it becomes a matter of physics. how quickly do you have to start? if the president does not make any decision, how soon do we see our troops drawdown to an embassy presence in kabul? general campbell: every day de-sscope -- every day we cope our theater. senator tillis: so -- i apologize for being short. of got a couple questions.

you are already taking steps to than 9800.r less we just know know what the number is? yes, butampbell: sir, the course of action i recommended, if we get a decision -- senator tillis: i think the administration needs to be crystal on this. this is not something that should take long and anyone who situationed this knows the president is going down a perilous path. you mention some things i have not heard you talk about. , the other funding streams that are at risk that are also an important part of the gains we made in protecting those gains, can you tell me about any progress or concerns you have with that? sir, this is al: critical year for 2016. they will meet at the warsaw conference and that will

for 2018, 2019, 2024 afghanistan -- senator tillis: but that is still an open switch if we continue to build on our games there? is that correct? general campbell: yes, it is important we do not lose -- senator tillis: thank you. something else i want to reinforce that senator graham touched on, and he was trying to make the point that there is tonterterrorism resources help us do our job in the region. what i think many of the american people do not understand is the value of the ct effort with respect to threats and other regions of the -- areas of the region and threats to the homeland. this is the birthplace of the 9/11 attacks. there are people lauding terrorist actions against americans, whether it is

american installations abroad or in the homeland. presenceo an embassy only, we have produced say we would lose all of our counterterrorism presence in that region. did i hear you correctly? general campbell: sir, we would not have the ability to conduct counterterrorism as i do today if we were just based in kabul. thetor tillis: so, based on current plan, a plan the current administration is considering -- we know it is going to be diminished, but it could almost all go away by next year based on the current plans as you understand them today? glidel campbell: sir, the slope i am on is to go to about 1000 at the end of 2016. isator tillis: i think it irresponsible and dangerous and i appreciate the work you are doing because i know you probably have a different view. i respect the fact you are going through your chain of command,

but this president needs to understand he needs to be decisive and take different action or he is putting american interest at risk. thank you all for your service. senator mccain: senator manchin. senator manchin: think you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, general. i think what we're trying to get our hands around as far as should we stay question mark if we do stay, how many will stay? what effect will that have? a goes back to the training, the money we have spent, the effort and time we've spent on the training, how many people we have to adequately carry out the training? how much money with that cost? it just goes on and on and on, as you know. do you thinks, afghanistan is more stable and better prepared to take care of itself and with our help or not our helpelp or

than iraq was? the leadership in afghanistan is a much more different mindset and determine today than when iraq was -- when we made our decision to leave. if you could give me just a little -- i just heard you say about 1000 is what you intend to recommend? is that wrong? no, sir.ampbell: 1000 is the current position we are on. senator manchin: we are on a glide path to 1000 by 2016? sir.al campbell: yes, that is to go to a normal in busy presence that president obama discussed back in 2014. senator manchin: basically that would be the same glide path we were on -- may be no difference with barak and we saw the results in iraq? general campbell: sir, afghanistan is not iraq.

you have a government that want to there. that wantsgovernment the counterterrorism capability. you have a fighting force that is very resilient or it i think there are some between iraq and afghanistan. senator manchin: do you think they will change the recommendation on the 1000, that will be up? sir, i havebell: provided courses of action to my leadership that provides senior leadership with options based on changes in the last deed of years. senator manchin: the money we have spent right now, the youning for the afghans, do expect that to continue, i was pouring money into train their people? sir, we arebell: working very hard to continue to bring that number down. senator manchin: do they have any economy at all other than the war effort? is there economy sucking off at u.s. taxpayers? to they have any ability to carry their own

load? general campbell: each year, we try to up the commitment to the national security. there economy is very, very tough. president ghani based on his background in the world bank is working very hard on a successful regional economic conference. there was just the dubai conference where they had investors come to take a look at the different airfields we would leave. but it's going to take a long time to build their economy. theywould not be able -- will be dependent on the international community for that money for years to come. lostor manchin: we soldiers and one of those was from west virginia. sergeant brian hamm. c-130 -- we fly a lot in our

guard, as you know. they are very capable aircraft. information you could share with me i could share with the parents? general campbell: sir, my thoughts and prayers are with all the families. i talked to the cruise just to gather the men and talk to them that very morning. the investigation is ongoing -- senator manchin: did the accident happen on take off? general campbell: yes, sir. i can talk to you one-on-one. senator manchin: if you could, i would appreciate it, just to give this family some relief and closure. yourank you general, for testimony. i know it is not easy to testify . i think all of us appreciate your testimony. i am going to follow up with a number of the previous questions you up and asked. first senator shaheen had asked about a you win investigation --

investigation into the hospital accident. does the u.n. usually investigate deliberate attacks on civilians when there --when they are by the taliban? general campbell: sir, i have to pass -- senator sullivan: i do not think they do. does it seem fair and balanced that the u.n. conduct an investigation on something that is clearly accidental, when they do not investigate deliberate taliban killing of civilians? do you think that would be viewed as fair, balanced, something the command needs? general campbell: -- general campbell: i cannot comment on the u.n.. i have complete confidence in the team that we have your they will be thorough and transparent. if there were mistakes made, we will make sure they come out. if people are to be held

accountable, we will make sure we will. senator sullivan: i think most of us here do as well -- i certainly do not think an additional investigation by the u.n. would be warranted or welcomed by this committee. let me ask you the issue again -- this is senator graham, senator tillis sprawl questions. you are very focused on managing risk. if we go forward with the plan, does it increase the risk we taliban could take over the government in two or three or four years out? sir, again, ill: think we have another year and a have to continue to grow the afghan security forces if we went down to 1000 around kabul. we would not have the ability to train -- senator sullivan: how about what it increase the risk the homeland would be attacked? senator tillis asked to be very good and direct question that

rct capability would basically end. with that increase the risk -- i am talking incrementally increase the risk the united states of america would be attacked? sir, when thell: decision was made by president obama and 2014, ct was not one of the variables tied into that decision. i was asullivan: lieutenant colonel in the marines a couple years ago, i was assigned to a pt in afghanistan. when they were looking at the first posture, we were looking at the first posture that would mission tom the oes the rescue support mission. it was frustrating to be working on that because we had not gotten guidance in terms of numbers from the senior military -- actually senior civilians. so, you of said you cannot talk about options, but have you actually been given a timeline by which the white house is

--ng to respond to your senator tillis mentioned the clock is ticking. have you received information you are going to be given guidance by a certain date or have you requested a certain date by which to be given guidance, given that the clock is ticking on this very important issue? sir, as we layl: out from a planning perspective, as we lay out different courses of action, we havedp's -- we have dp's were decision points. are we sullivan: approaching one pretty soon? general campbell: everybody in the dod is looking very hard at these different courses of action. as we talk about the retrograde and the time it takes, i think the senior leadership understands windows decision

points are and when they have to get those out. yes, sir. let me ask avan: final question. having spent time in afghanistan and pakistan, i know you would probably agree with this. there is a narrative in the region that in the 1980's we were very active there because of the soviet invasion and we were very helpful in terms of our assistance to people in those two different countries. and then there is the sense that in the 1990's, we "abandoned" the region. i think that's a very powerful narrative. i do not know if you have seen it. i have certainly seen it when i part of then that world. i think it's really important testimony. we are overwhelmingly welcomed, as you mention, by the civilian population, by the afghan leadership. do you think if we drive down to just the embassy for us, which is kind of what we have in the we would oncerld,

again resurrect this idea of ofndoning the region, abandoning the people there, the government there. and if that were the case, how do you think that would impact america's national security if any part of the world that is the heart of the battle against al qaeda, the part of the world that brought us 9/11, that we were viewed once again is unreliable and having abandoned the region, which is a narrative that is very powerful still in that region? do you think -- do you think that narrative would be resurrected question mark how do you think that would impact of national security? haveal campbell: sir, i been tied up with afghanistan for many years. anybody in the thetary will tell you ability to continue to train and

advise and assist our afghan partners to improve on their capability is what any military person will tell you -- again, i said the afghan people continue to want to have a coalition presence. the understand the impact that has for them. so, that's what they want. continue to want to a must we do something that dissuades them from that. we have come a long way from their. -- from there. a lot of asked to do with this new national government. they understand, different from president karzai was, we provide a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. a lot of our minimum in a paid be ultimate sector price. -- a lot of our men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice. senator sullivan: thank you, general. you to general campbell for being here. thank you for your outstanding service. as do myeciate it,

constituents. i am going to go back to a couple points we have talked about many times already, general. but going back to the sexual assaults, the sexual abuses by the afghan national security afghans, again, the particularly the young boys, it seems many of the folks i have talked to who have served in that region, it was common knowledge this was happening and i do not believe there was a dod that we turn a blind eye. in fact, since 2011 there has ,een a policy in place educational materials, classes, so forth. there may have been kind of an unofficial do-nothing policy. we are starting to see that corrected as it comes to light. but it does affect the minimum

women that serve with us -- the men and women that serve with us -- how they operates within that is an issue. a trust issue. there was a 2011 report by dr. jeffrey bourdon. he was a military behavioral scientist. commented -- and i am quoting "several u.s. soldiers reported they had served and alienated them from the civilian populace and they were numerous accounts of canadian troops complaining about the rampant sexual abuse of children they witnessed personnel commit, including the practice and raping of sodomizing of little boys." has any service member or civilian on the your command now or during your previous command

of rce reported up the chain an allegation of a sexual assault against afghan children? gen. campbell: on this current tour, i have had not any reports. i don't remember anything specifically from 2010, 2011. i can go back and look at records. i cannot stress enough that this is about discipline, discipline of our men and women understanding what right and wrong is. about treating people with dignity and respect. as i said, even the afghans, president ghani all the way down, understand how important this is. they have reiterated to me that this is serious. the people that conduct this criminal activity will be prosecuted. we have reiterated to our men and women that if you see this, you have to report this. so, what you are referring to is

2010-2011, maybe 2012 reports. i think a lot has happened in that time. i cannot comment on any particular company level, unit, withinel, that unit that the members of the unit felt it was ok to do something like that. i cannot comment. sen. ernst: do you know of any instances where an afghan soldier was held within that unit that the members of the unit felt it was ok to do something accountable or afghan leader and any disciplinary actions on their behalf? gen. campbell: i have seen some disciplinary actions over the last year in gross violations of human rights when it comes to abusing soldiers, abusing of other members of the command. i have not seen it with sexual assault of children in the last 14 months. sen. ernst: thank you. i think it is important that we stress that not only is it unacceptable in our own ranks,

but also those we are serving with. thank you for that. going back also to capabilities and conditions, rather than the timeframe, if we look at keeping 10,000 troops on ground in afghanistan, if there is a decision point where we keep 5000 or zero, is there anyway you can broadly describe the conditions thaon the ground before we get to those points? do we leave it the same? at what point can we get to 5000 and so forth? just very broadly. thank you. gen. campbell: i think based on what has happened since the president made his decision in 2014 to go down to 1000 around the embassy, we have taken a look at all the conditions. based on those, i have provided options to take a look at the

mission sense we want to do in the future. we still have to train, advise on different levels. i believe we have to have a counterterrorism capability. you need a certain amount of forces to be able to do that. those are based on what is happening in the last couple of years and as we look in the future. conditions on the ground have changed since 2014. the senior leadership, the joint staff and the white house i looking at these options, -- are looking at these options, understanding conditions on the ground have changed. we have a look at the pros and cons and go forward. sen. ernst: thank you. my time is expired. i thank you for your valuable, no bs assessment of what is going on. thank you, general. sen. mccain: senator blumenthal. sen. blumenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general, for your

extraordinary service to our nation and your present role. -- as a question about interacting with the taliban and other factional parts of our opponents there. do youl a threat regarded compared to the taliban the to elements involved -- the taliban involve any other factors with da'ish. gen. campbell: they have different names for it. everybody is looking at this to make sure they cannot grow, they cannot build to a level to do

something like you have seen in iraq and syria. daesh and taliban have different philosophies. they are fighting each other. within the ranks of the taliban, there are reconcilable's that understand the only way to end this is a political solution and they want to be a part of it. inside of the taliban, there are 20% or 30% that are irrecon cilable. i do not believe that daesh are in the reconcilable branch. they will be irreconcilable at this point in time. sen. blumenthal: are you satisfied with the efforts that have been made towards reconciliation and negotiation so far? gen. campbell: not satisfied because we have not got to it. i think there is a lot more that can be done by both afghanistan and pakistan and the taliban quite frankly. we have to continue to move towards a peace process. the first day president ghani

took office, he talked about bringing in the taliban. that you have to be a part of this peace process. you cannot continue to kill fellow afghans, fellow muslims. ess.art of the priesteace proc i think he genuinely wants that to happen and he is doing everything he can, including spending a lot of political capital on pakistan to help them reduce the violence inside of afghanistan to drive towards reconciliation. sen. blumenthal: is that goal of reconciliation one of the factors you consider in your recommendation as to what size and scope the american presence should be an over what -- and over what period of time? ist your answers suggest there is some different kind of

picture that it would look like. gen. campbell: i think there is a lot of different audiences out there that understanding a continued presence of the coalition would have an impact on president ghani, the afghan security forces, the afghan people, the taliban, pakistan and on nato. i think all of those audiences have aering levels would decision to continue to have a larger number of coalition forces, not only the u.s., but the coalition would have a huge impact. sen. blumenthal: you make reference in your testimony to two other trends that i think are concerning.

the brain drain and loss of economic resources, the drain on capital. has that increased in seriousness? gen. campbell: there has been a lot of reports of afghans trying to leave the country. a lot of the countries in that area -- the refugee issue in europe. a lot of that are afghans trying to leave. president ghani has reached out to the younger generation for them to stay in afghanistan. that has been, for lack of better term, a drain on human capital. the future of afghanistan is two things -- the afghan security forces and this younger generation of afghans that are tired of 35, 40 years of war. sen. blumenthal: one can hardly blame them given the impact on their futures, economic, social and family. is afghanistanis

as a country that is really dependent on the political factors and social and economic factors that are hopefully supported and promoted by the americans as well. thank you, mr, general. this is a very serious time for us. sen. reed: it is also the sen. sessions: it will not impact the outcome. is that correct? gen. campbell: you are talking about the afghan security forces? sen. sessions: there are some battles to be fought. military conflict is involved and will continue to be involved

for some time, is it not? gen. campbell: afghanistan will continue to be a very dangerous place and the kurdish forces will continue to be challenged. sen. sessions: the president has said he would like to negotiate with the taliban and that has been attempted for a number of years to date. is it harder or easier to negotiate with the taliban. a reasonable solution, a peaceful solution if we made it irrevocablee an commitment to leave at a certain date? gen. campbell: the reconciliation piece will be led by the afghan government. you absolutely want to operate from a position of strength. i know it is a difficult question. i would translate it to say you needed to have a military

strength, and if it is not there, we can give confidence in the taliban that if they can be successful militarily, even of the people of afghanistan do not prefer taliban domination. we are setting that up to allow that to happen and that is a very dicey things. in terms of going to 1000 troops, this is really not a military presence, is it? this is simply an embassy security force essentially. gen. campbell: sir, the goal right now were the intent is to have a security cooperation office. that would be more than embassy force protection. it would also be the ability to have oversight for military sales, the money that would go into afghanistan as well. sen. sessions: it is essentially it a fighting force and

signals we are completely out of the fight militarily, i would suggest. i think that is a dangerous signal to be sending. you talk about -- we need to train, assist and advise more. is it your recommendation that that capability extend beyond the end of 2016? gen. campbell: i have said the afghans will continue to support the many areas we have identified that they will need continued help -- aviation, logistics, intelligence. areas, it would require more time. to what extent do they have rotary aircraft helicopter capability for evacuation of wounded or resupplying remote forces or otherwise taking the battle to the end? does that remain a problem? air campbell: the close

force capability is just starting to grow. they have relied on the mi-35. they are down to two. 7's that allow them to move wounded, provide resupplys. they have hatried to put in machine guns. we have put in a little attack bird that can give them a little better close air support capability. fixed-wing capability will start in 2017, 2018. sen. sessions: i'm worried about it. in your best military judgment, what additional risks are we undertaking if our goal is to create a stable environment in iraq where people can go to school and have a chance for wesperity -- what risk are

incurring by setting a firm date of ending by the end of 2016? gen. campbell: as i mentioned many times before, whenever you put a time on something that always give somebody the ability to manipulate that, whether that is the enemy or friendly forces. i think the options we have provided to the senior leadership, weighing both -- is looking at different outcomes-based on what has changed over the last few years. sen. sessions: the president of the united states has made some very unwise decisions in this regard. complicating the life of people in afghanistan and making difficult, lot more

in my opinion. i don't want to make a partisan argument. we had a deep commitment to afghanistan. an entire international coalition on that part. bipartisan, this was a good war. i think it is possible to achieve the goal you stated. do you believe it is possible? gen. campbell: i would not be there if i did not think it was possible. sen. sessions: i agree. outink to completely move and radically reduce our presence difficult, in my opinion. riskst want risks, incredibly the gains men and women have fought so hard for and allies around the world that have helped us. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership. i think we would do well to listen to your device. we should've listened in iraq and we should listen in afghanistan. sen. mccain: thank you, senator. general, as i understand the present plan is there will be

increased reductions beginning in january. is that correct? gen. campbell: sir, to get down to -- sen. mccain: the embassy centric, you begin those withdrawals in january. gen. campbell: i would have to look back at the exact numbers. sen. mccain: roughly. we are in october and the plan now is in 2017 we are down to an embassy-centric f orce. that is the plan? gen. campbell: yes. sen. mccain: we are sitting here in october and you don't know whether to begin three months from now a rather significant withdrawal of troops which requires a lot of planning, a lot of logistics, a lot of assets.

and here we are sitting in october and you have been asked to provide the white house with a series of options. is that right? gen. campbell: i have provided options and in those options i the slope ied for have to take to get down to the required numbers. we -- inin: so, addition, you have been asked for the best option, the one option that would secure iraq succeed in a mission in the most effective and efficient fashion. instead, you will ask for "options." most of us were top to believe there is only one option for victory and success. you have been asked for options. dare i ask how many?

i'm not sure i have been asked for options. i have taken a look, since i have been on the ground the last 14 months, seen where the afghan security forces are at in different metrics we take a look at. in order to ensure they have the right capability -- sen. mccain: is there only one option to achieve the most efficient, most effective, least in danger of further casualties? i don't understand this. study of usually my warfare is you develop a strategy and you implement the strategy with a plan. you don't say, hey, we will have five or six plans, options. most commander in chiefs i have known of calder military people together -- call their military whate t together and say

are the best strategies and how do we get there? in my getting something wrong? gen. campbell: i could not comment if you are getting something wrong. i have provided -- sen. mccain: options. gen. campbell: train and assist capabilities in afghanistan post-2016. sen. mccain: you have given them "options" plural. most commander in chief will say give me the plan that it takes so we can succeed in the best and most efficient way to accomplish our goal. we all know the goal is a free, stable, democratic afghanistan. ofl, it's curious times, but course, those of us that make any criticism apparently don't know a lot of the things that

the president of the united states knows. i thank you, general. you are doing as you are ordered observed firsthand your leadership in afghanistan on several occasions. i think it is outstanding. obviously, i'm not complaining at you because you are playing the hand you are dealt. i just don't understand why this administration does not understand that if we do what is presently planned beginning three months from now that we will see the iraq movie again. there is no doubt in anybody's mind about that. now we see a burgeoning, or embryonic isis. we see the iranians providing weapons naand more for the taliban. we just saw an attack on one of the major cities in a part of afghanistan that we, up until

now, we believe was the most secure. someems to me this lends urgency to action which would reverse what is clearly a deteriorating trend. finally, general, we look forward to the results of your investigation of this terrible tragedy of the attack on the hospital. i want to emphasize -- i know i speak for all of my colleagues that we are deeply regretting this tragedy. we do point out from time to time about the fog of war. this hearing is adjourned. gen. campbell: thank you, sir. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> congressman tim ryan from ohio will talk about his concerns for the transpacific partnership agreement and the upcoming debate in congress. leadershipublic

elections on thursday. historyile simpson, the and policy fellow at the school of government at harvard. look what about his political article on the deadly hospital strike in afghanistan. journal his life every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. president obama spoke about the transpacific partnership trade agreement between the u.s. and 11 nations on tuesday at the department of agriculture. esther obama joined the agriculture secretary and members of the business community.

obama: yesterday we announced a new trade agreement that reflects american values and gives our businesses a fair shot playing field. the transpacific partnership took five years to negotiate and want to get the best possible deal done for american businesses and workers. this is what we have achieved. this agreement makes us more competitive by eliminating about tariffsaxes, that are placed on american products in other countries. japan puts a 38% tax on american beef before it reaches market. to make a puts a tax on american auto parts. tax of 70% on every car american automakers sell in

vietnam. under this agreement, all of those foreign taxes will fall. most will fall to zero. we are knocking down barriers that are currently preventing fromcan businesses profiting. they are preventing american workers from benefiting to those in the fastest-growing and most dynamic region in the world. this opens new markets for goods made in america. more thanwe exported $2 trillion worth of goods and services. the 11.7supported by million american jobs. this is the fifth straight year we have set an export record, but when 95% of the world markets are outside of our borders, we have to do better than that. especially at a time when our economy is doing better than those of other countries and they want to sell stuff here.

we have to make sure we are able to sell stuff over there. with this trade agreement, which spans 40% of the global economy, we can sell more products and for its services. american aquaculture and american manufacturing. markets andhose two the american companies that produce here and the united states. it will not be disadvantaged, relative to these markets. mind, when there are high barriers in these countries, often times, that is when a lot of american companies feel compelled that they have to produce over there to reach those markets. are down on the goods made in america, that means we are able to sell over there without a disadvantage. lookis what we should forward to an the 21st century. this agreement sets high standards for one of the fastest growing regions in the world. this agreement has the strongest

labor standards of any trade agreement in history, including setting fair hours and prohibiting child labor. it also prohibits forced labor and includes the highest environmental standards in history. makes sure wildlife -- wildlife are a world treasure. these high standards are actually enforceable. not abiding bye them, they do not get the benefits of selling to the united states under the terms of this agreement. agreement, we rather than countries like china, are writing rules for the global economy. i've said repeatedly i would only signed an agreement and presented to congress if i could be absolutely certain it was good for american workers and

good for american businesses, for american farmers, american ranchers, and american manufacturers. we have met that standard in this agreement. this week marks an important step forward. there will be a long, healthy process of discussion and consultation and debate before this ever comes to an actual vote. we have committed properly that we would post this agreement, i on avery t, dot every website so everybody can look at it. towill be talking not only members of congress, but the american public, the constituents, american governors, and mayors, about why this is good for communities. will have months before this comes up for a vote. people will have plenty of time to go over it.

somepect there will be misinformation that is propagated around this. as there usually is in these debates. i am also confident that there is a case to be made why this is good for america and what ultimately, we will get this done. it will be an enormous achievement for us to make sure that 40% of the world economy is operating under rules that don't hurt us, that instead make sure that american workers and american businesses are getting a fair shot. america will be sold in places where there will be significant demand. i want to thank everybody around this table. this is a diverse constituency. a lot of different groups are represented here. we want to thank all of them for

their work and getting us to this point. now, we will cross the finish line. thank you very much everybody. thank you, guys. you, sir. >> the agriculture sectio secretary is on capitol hill today. she is with sylvia burwell developing dietary guidelines. we have that live at 9:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span3. all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. we have unfettered access to the candidates at townhall meetings, rallies, and speeches. we are taking your comments on twitter, by facebook, and by

phone. every campaign events we cover is available on our website at www.c-span.org. and republicanr presidential candidate john kasich took part in a townhall posted by the hispanic chamber of commerce today. askedamber president governor kasich his views on immigration and economic issues. governor kasich although asked about the federal government's role in reducing gun violence. this is one hour and 15 minutes.

be. welcome to the fourth presidential question and answer session. i am javier palomarez and as president and ceo of the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce i have the honor of representing 4.1 hispanic-owned businesses that together contribute over $661 billion to the american economy. we advocate on behalf of 250 major corporations through our network of 200 local chambers and business associations worldwide. we represent the interest of business men and women who happen to be of hispanic descent, we never forget we are businesses. every product we create and service we provide goes to benefit this american economy. as an association that represents 4.1 hispanic business

owners we have an accountability to make sure our voices are heard by each candidate. not only as business leaders, but taxpayers, campaign donors and ultimately as voters. that is why this is so important. this question and answer session is the fourth in a serious. previously we hosted ted cruz, matin o'malley, and senator bernies sanders for questions about campaigns and our country. he hosted jeb bush two weeks ago on the same topics. today we are joined by ohio governor john kasich. this is our first engagement with the governor, we have been watching his campaign and are familiar with his body of work in ohio and congress. the goal is simple.

this form is met to set the record straight on a wide array of issues for hispanic americans including jobs, the economy, the border and issues that affect all of us. we will spend 45 minutes in question between myself and the governor and then take a few questions from the audience. with that i would like to welcome governor john kasich. [applause] >> let me start by commending you for keeping your word and coming to talk to the hispanic community unlike others in your party you obviously have a busy schedule especially with the third gop debate coming up so i want to thank you for taking the

time to talk to us. >> my pleasure. why wouldn't i come? this is great. >> good man. to kick it off, i want to get your take on the primary landscape. you said before no republican has every won the white house without winning ohio, so my question is would a bit of a hometown and home field advantage, what is your plan to become the nominee? >> the situation is a brilliant way in america to pick a president. you start over in iowa with the caucus that is different. and it is unpredictable what happens over here. after ohio we have new hampshire which is 1.2 million people. that is like running for congress. there you show up and very much like iowa you do a lot of these

to town halls. i have done 18 of them. they poke you, and smell you, and look at you in the eye and try to figure out who you are. and see most importantly if you understand their challenges and problems. we see a lot of national polls but we don't have a national primary. iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, you move right along and there is no surprise that we consider new hampshire to be important but not the exclusion of all other places so we are building out our infrastructure. and in the business of the primary and national poll and all of that what is most important, and i run a lot of political campaigns, if you

build a stage with no scaffolding the stage can collapse. we have seen that. as you build the stage, you have to build the scaffolding so you have a solid foundation. that is how i have done it. i am having a great time. i show up and you are like thank you for coming. why wouldn't have? someone is like you will do this and that and i said i don't care what you do. let's just have fun. >> in the republican primary there seems to be establishment candidates like yourself and out sider candidates like fiorina and carson. these outsiders have proven to be worthy opponents.

how would you as an establishment figure and some say career politician, how do you find support when many americans appear to be looking for someone that will disrupt the political norm in washington, d.c.? >> it is sort of funny. where was sitting with bob walker, trent lock, and we were sitting in the trailer out in california. and lock looks at walker and says when did he become rhinos and why question is when did where become establishment? they belly laughed at me being establishment. from the time i got into politics all the way through where i am today there is no one i can think of who has consistently shaken up the status quo more than i have. do you know what it like to be it a republican on the defense committee and start trig to limit the production of a weapon

system or perfect procurement? do you know what it is like to be a member of the house and offer budgets against your own president? do you know what it is like to fight against your own appropriation committee? do you know what it is like to go to ohio and face the problems we had and say we are not raising taxes and in the first year be the most unpopular governor in america because you are a change agent. but i know how to get it done. i not only want -- people stand on the street corner shouting from a change but if you don't get it done what is the point. i was with a congressman in virginia yesterday who was blaming the sentate from a not passing the balanced budget and i said is it the failure of the senate or the failure of the house to not convince the senate

to do it? i spent my life battling and achieving so establishment from the standpoint of i know how to move the system but you would have a lot of people laughing if you called me a member of the establishment. if you can operate in both worlds it makes you effective. >> i have seen your willingness to step up. >> one time i had a build a change corporate welfare. i said if we are going to reform welfare for poor people we ought to do it for rich people. so a business round table invited me and i got up to speak because they didn't like what i was doing and i said you know what is great is if i didn't have this provision i would be serving the dinner not eating

it. >> you have spent 17 years in congress and been credited as one of the architects and we know that that is part of your resume. i believe you are proud of it and should be. so you probably have a unique insight on this issue. but right now, as we stand for every one dollar that the u.s. spends on children, generally, we spend $3 on seniors. according to the committee for a responsible federal budget because of an aging population and you and i know about that, if we continue on this path, in about 10 years we will be spending something closer $4.50 for every one dollar we spend on a child. clearly the path is going to require some difficult decisions moving forward. my question is, if you become

president, how will you work to make sure the government is making smart long-term investments like prioritizing kids while not bankrupting the rest of us? governor kasich: you have to have experience and knowledge at a point in time when the demographics are working against us. so, the situation is you don't want to pull the rug out from under seniors who become very dependent on benefits. on the other hand, you got to think about what you are going to do to stabilize the system. back in 1999, i offered a proposal on social security that would have protected our seniors, would have started the baby boomers at a slightly lower rate in a way in which you calculate social security benefits and would have trickled down and would have given our young people a private account of 2% that would have been paid

for out of the $5 trillion projected surplus that we had when i left congress. that thing sat there for 16 years. when you go to the doctor and the doctor says you've got a problem, i would assume let's deal with it now. in this town, you have a problem, you are burying their heads in the sand and blame everyone else. when we look at social security now, the problem is a lot more severe. the consequences of delaying are going to be bigger. what i just said to you was pretty simple, would have fixed the program for many, many decades. we are now looking at -- and we will have many things to say. we have to figure out which brings the most equity to the

seniors and young people. that will probably come a little bit later but soon i will be talking about medicaid and medicare. medicare is a critical program and running out of money. we are going to have things to say about this in the next couple of weeks, but there is nobody that balanced more budgets or proposed -- i have written 18 of them. in terms of young people like in our state, we have a medicaid issue for poor people. i expanded medicaid because i wanted to make sure to help the mentally ill, addicted and working poor to be productive. we have dealt with medicaid which affects our seniors and we believe in early childhood education. so it's a question of balance. we are trying to control the costs of higher education. we invested a ton of money in k through 12 education. you can't ignore your young, we

believe in meantoring -- mentoring programs in school. it's all about balance. isn't life about balance and figuring out how to make it all work? i'm confident we can do that. and economic growth is the most important thing for everybody in this country. if you don't have economic growth, everything falls flat. with economic growth, it's amazing how much more you can do to help people. host: let me chat about medicaid and health care. as governor, you chose to expand medicaid contrary to what republican legislators in your state wished for. governor kasich: that's not really true. host: calling me a liar, governor? governor kasich: i'm not that guy. [laughter]

what happened was. let me tell you the story, i think it's a very interesting one. our head of mental health and drug rehab was in my office. and i looked at her because we had to make a decision about expanding medicaid and she's a lady and on the help line and no -- and she knows the programs that people have and she's in my office and i said tracy, what do you think i'm going to do with the medicaid? she said i pray every night that you'll do it because there are so many people in need. i said guess what, i'm going to expand medicaid. it wasn't a hard decision. she walked out of my office and she broke down and cried of joy. and we did it for a couple of reasons. we have been able to control medicaid. it went from a 10% growth to 2.5% growth without cutting one benefit or anybody off the rolls. this is the program that states

have the hardest time being able to control. it's not that i'm such a great guy but i have great people working in the medicaid area. the mentally ill, do they belong in prison? if they are bipolar or schizophrenic? i don't think so. if they are in prison, it costs $22,500 a year. if i get them on their medication and have the community work with them and not have them in jail and save money and then let them get a job where they become tax paying citizens and realizing their god-given purpose. or someone who is addicted to drugs and don't rehab them they come in and out of prison and we see them breaking into our home or maybe they die from and over types -- died from an overdose -- if we can get out of prison and the rate is less than 20%. the recidivism rate is 50% in the country.

do they become productive or working poor or spend your time in the emergency room, we all pay there any way. so we give you comprehensive care. we believe over time it's a smart issue of math, but there's another issue. how about morality? how about a country that can embrace and help people get on their feet? that may not make a headline or make people happy. i'm not in this business to have a headline but i want to make sure everyone has a chance to be lifted. it has worked in our state. if people don't want to expand medicaid, that's ok with me. but my question is, what are you going to do about the mentally ill or drug addiction? the first time it went through, the legislature didn't want to vote on it, but the leadership of the legislate you are made

sure that it happened. this time, the house and the senate both approved expansion. we have a conservative legislature. it's a long answer, but it's important to hear. host: i appreciate the compassionate conservatism approach. governor kasich: we have drug courts. we don't fool around with that. this isn't a matter of just give, give, give. you have to accept personal responsibility. my mother used to say, it's a sin not to help people who need help but equally a sin to continue to help people who need to learn how to help themselves. so with these programs, we have a large element of personal responsibility in there. host: great answer. let me ask a little bit about your private sector experience. on wall street specifically. while some candidates boast about the private sector experience and other candidates

boast about the public sector experience, you are someone who actually has both. in 2001 after about 18 years of congress, he joined lehman brothers and you worked there until the firm's collapse in 2008, which many would say was the catalyst of the financial crisis. during the 2010 ohio gubernatorial race, your opponent, ted strickland, didn't hold back on attacking you because of your experience on wall street. one of the attack ads said that you, and i quote, got rich while ohio seniors lost millions. what would you say to voters who might be wondering if you were to become the president, would you have their best interests at heart? governor kasich: the guy that was attacking me lost the election, the first time in 36 years.

i operated a two man office in columbus, ohio. and my job was to travel around the country helping companies to get stronger to create jobs. i said if i could bankrupt the organization from a two-man office in columbus, ohio, i should be pope. not this guy who is currently there. there was great experience, because i got to really understand how job creators and business leaders and board of directors make decisions. i spent time in the silicon valley with google. you think i learned anything about innovation and how america is going to move forward? i worked in financial services understanding the challenges. it worked in the industrial space with steel companies where i learned not only about the difficulties that they face on dumping from foreign companies and destroying jobs and markets,

but the challenges that they have in terms of bringing heavy industry back to america. this was fantastic. but that's not all i did. i was on some boards and i talked but one of the things you need to know, i worked at fox news where i was a giant television star. [laughter] host: i was hoping for an autograph. governor kasich: i have tapes in the car. i can give them to you. here's the situation, my father carried mail on his back. his father was a coal miner, my mother's mother could barely speak english. she came from yugoslavia. if we didn't have immigration then, i probably would be running for president of croatia or something. i understand when wind blows the wrong way that people find themselves out of work. i lived with it. i was back in my hometown with

nbc and my daughters call it, dad's great disappearing childhood. all the buildings i went to are knocked down. when you grow up like that, it's in your d.n.a. i think it's good to see all levels, all sides of society to get a real understanding of how lots of things work. host: let's talk a bit more about immigration. our association views immigration reform as an economic imperative that we believe could unleash innovation, create new businesses, attract the world's best talent to our shores. and i sense you and i probably see eye to eye on that. however, where i don't think that you and i see eye to eye is in this building of a wall and using that as a solution for fixing a broken immigration system.

we know that the u.s.-mexico border is like 2000 miles long and the "national journal" it would cost $6.4 billion and people will find a way to get around it, under it, above it, through it and very importantly, i would like to note that roughly half of our nation's undocumented immigrants are actually here by overstaying their visas and not through illegal entry. the question is, with all of that said, how do you propose we fix our broken immigration system? and best harness what is good about the immigrant community and particularly immigrant entrepreneurs and how do we make that a competitive advantage for the american community? -- the american economy? governor kasich: where do you live? host: dallas, texas and washington as well. governor kasich: do you lock your doors at night? host: yes.

governor kasich: you don't want people walking into your house. i voted for the 1986 reagan proposal. we never locked the doors. and a country that can't control its borders is a country that has a lot of chaos. the $6 billion they leave that much on the floor on capitol hill every night. it is a lot of money, but it isn't prohibitive and in terms of what we say, secure the border, build a wall, there are technologies today that that can be just as effective as a physical wall, i mean with the ability to have drones and things like that. i think it is imperative that we control our border. that being said, i believe we ought to have effective guest worker program and people ought to come in and work and go back home. without an effective guest worker program, people will

sneak back and forth. organized labor doesn't like an expanded guest worker program, but i favor it. and i have a lot of friends in organized labor but on this issue we should expand it so people are comfortable. secondly, once we have things in place, we don't want people coming over, if they come over, they have to go back. no excuses. they have to go back. and for those that are here law-abiding, god bless them, they are critical part of our society, from doctors, engineers, lawyers -- i don't know if we need more of them, but teachers, whatever. then i think they should have a path to legalization. and i think that can pass. and when you talk about the visa issue, that's something we want to deal. we don't want people overstaying their visas.

the whole immigration has to be done in a way in which we address all the different elements. but the fundamentals are this. protect the border, guest worker, people who are here that have been law-abiding get to stay. i think the american people -- i the politicians say, well, american people like they are speaking for the american people. my sense of the years that i have been involved in government is the public would accept this as a reasonable proposal and i think it could pass the congress. the idea that we are going to pick these folks up and ship them out, that is unbelievable. what are we going to do, ride through neighborhoods and say come on out now, you are going to the border. panic to our sheer families. there are families that live in fear of being divided. could you imagine being a six or seven or eight-year-old kid and being told they are going to

ship your dad out? that is not acceptable in america. and in terms of the whole immigration issue, we need to look -- should we broaden it? clean up the visas, but at the end of the day, people are here now, let them stay. host: that is in sharp contrast to your party's front runner. governor kasich: i was telling you about building a stage with the scaffolding. if you don't have the scaffolding, the stage collapses. i'm not worried about any of that. because, you know, when all is said and done people are going to pick somebody that they think is a reformer, can get the job done and can land the airplane. and somebody that understands their problems. i don't think about front runner now. cripe, i don't think that means much unless we were having a national primary tomorrow, which we're not.

host: guest worker program, build a wall, don't worry about the noise? governor kasich: let me think about what you're saying and if what you are saying makes sense, i'll consider it. if it doesn't make sense because you scream loud, how are we going to run a country like that. you run the chamber, does members sqwak, do you cave into them all the time? host: no. governor kasich: you don't? [laughter] host: that's your second question. i asked the questions. [laughter] kasich: i have been experienced in asking questions especially with my daughters. here's the thing, we are a country of immigrants.

many of us, right? what does the hispanic community do for us? god-fearing, common sense, hard-working, fantastic part of our group, part of who we are as americans and i don't care who is going to yell loud. when i go to town halls and they can yell at me, i don't have a problem here. part of the difficulty we have in this town is we don't have leaders who are willing to lead instead of reacting to yells the -- to who yells the loudest. look at medicaid expansion, you know how many people are yelling at me? i go to events where people yell at me. you know what i tell them, i said it's a book an old part and new part and put it together. it's a remarkable book. if you don't have one, i will buy one. it talks about how we treat the poor. sometimes you have to lead. it is like fighting isis. are the american people ready to

put boots on the ground in the middle east? if we don't stop isis this becomes a direct threat to the united states. it doesn't mean you don't listen, but you cannot let the yelling and the screaming determine your decision making. host: point well made. i want to ask another follow-up because i haven't had enough of you yet. during the last r.g.a. conference, you openly expressed the willingness to create a pathway to citizenship. governor kasich: i said it's not off the table. when you negotiate, you have to be careful of putting in absolutes, but i don't favor that. and the reason i don't favor it is that, i don't believe in jumping the line. you know, i don't believe that you should be rewarded for jumping in front of somebody

else who is waiting. my wife and i have a friend who has had to go back to nicaragua. she didn't want to go back, she is abiding by the law, and she is really not happy with the fact that some people jumped the line in front of her. and i just don't think you want to reward people that do the jump. so a path to legalization to me is really the appropriate way. as far as i would want to go, i just want you to know that you have to be very careful. we have people here, candidates, slams their fist on the table, this is the way it is going to be. one of the things that newt gingrich told me one time when i was arguing with somebody, he said, you know, john, maybe you ought to figure out how to use your skills to unlock them. knocking all of the pieces off the chessboard doesn't help you win the game.

you have to be careful what you do and what you say. host: just a few thoughts on birthright citizenship. where are you? >> if you are born here, you are a citizen. and of story, it is not even worth going into. that's what i favor. i'm not going to change the 14th amendment. i can't get a balanced budget amendment through, although i will when i become president. host: i want to talk about the hispanic electorate. in 2012, president obama garnered about 72% of the hispanic vote. and i had a conversation -- governor kasich: why was that? host: because he paid attention. the point i made to the

president was that never before has the electorate played a historic role and never again will an american president win without openly courting the hispanic vote. consider the following. seconds, a becomes an eligible voter. that is an eligible 58,000 brand new voters every month and that's going to be the case for the next 21 years in the row. in fairness, hispanics comprise barely 3% of ohio's overall population, i understand if you don't have an extensive track record with the hispanic community. but with all of that said, as a presidential candidate what will , you do to attract and electrify the hispanic vote? governor kasich: we just appointed a hispanic judge. we have a very sensitive issue on collaborative police in community. i have a hispanic that i asked

to serve on the subsequent board. we appoint people to the university boards. we have one on the state department of education that i just -- that is just beginning to serve there. you have to be inclusive. i not only feel this way about hispanics and african-americans and i spend a lot of effort in ohio to make sure everybody feels they have the opportunity to rise. i also don't think about this from the standpoint of segments , like there this segment and that segment but americans who have the same hopes and dreams. every mother when she holds a baby has big hopes and dreams for that baby and everybody ought to feel they are included. part of the problem in our country today is that there are

a lot of people who don't feel like they are included. as the president, i want to be able to be in the position where everybody has the opportunity to hold major posts and major positions and to me it's not even about votes. what is that? i mean that's boring, i'm going to appoint you so i can a vote. why don't we appoint people so they can rise? that doesn't mean you look for certain opportunities to make sure you have a society that everyone feels they are included. you make efforts along those lines, that it is not because i want to have a vote. it is the right thing to do. i don't know if you notice this or not. none of us are going to get out of this place alive. [laughter] remember what the pope said, incredible, wonderful visit from the holy father. there will be an accounting for

what we did on this earth. i firmly believe that. if we are offering opportunity for everyone that's really good. that's why we do it, not because we are going to get something out of it. it's just the right thing to do. host: point well made, sir. as a bit of a follow-up. i think we all know that words matter. and a few weeks ago, you made a comment about tipping the hotel maid when talking about the hispanic community that some would say feeds into stereotypes and hillary clinton tweeted -- governor kasich: she's petrified she'll run against me in november. everybody knows that. i have to get through the primary to do it. [laughter] host: and i quote, another product of the party of trump, john kasich talking about latinos doesn't mean just talking about tips.

by the way, i went on the record when i was asked and i said i believe that it was a bit awkward, i thought you were a decent man and your comment was well intentioned. so what's your take on all of this, governor, and can you clarify the role that you think hispanics play in an american economy of the future? governor kasich: this is why you can't take this business of running for president too seriously. let me tell you what happens. i'm in my hotel room and this lady writes me a beautiful note. i don't know who she is and here's what the note says. " i really care about your stay -- what a nice thing for somebody to write. and she drew a picture and

little flowers on the tree. when you run for president or when you're governor or when you're quote in one of these big positions, your life can move at about 100 miles an hour. and mine sometimes moves at 100 miles an hour. i'm grateful for the fact that for whatever reason -- i'm not telling you i got this figured out but the lord has laid on me the notion that everybody is so important and everybody matters. and so that's really what i was commenting. i was in new hampshire not long ago where i saw a woman doing -- she was russian, by the way, she was doing some unbelievable housekeeping chores and i said , you are just wonderful. what i do think about the role of hispanics? i think they can do everything and anything in this society. so people want to take things and drive divisions, but that's really -- i don't understand that. don't you have better things to do?

and me as a candidate, things that i have said about the community have been very, very inclusive, very respectful. so i think hispanics from top to bottom play enormous roles in our society. but you know what? i'm glad i slowed down to notice that lady. brother lawrence, he is a great theologian. he was a dish washer. when he washed dishes, he prayed. i suspect that when i get to heaven, and i hope i'm going to get there, i'm going to see him with one of the guest crowns on his head. the lord looks at what is in our heart and rewards us that way. [laughter] host: all work is good then? governor kasich: all work is noble and dignity. host: many would assume that

ohio's largest industry is manufacturing but according to the ohio farm bureau, it appears that agriculture is in fact ohio's top industry. agriculture contributes like $108 billion to the state's economy and there are literally like 75,000 farms in your state. i'm an american. i was born in this country. but growing up, i was a micro farmworker. i know what it's like to work in the sun all day long. no coffee break. no such thing as child labor laws, you are working from sun up to sun down. if you wanted shade you put on a hat. there were no bathrooms. no running water. if i wanted water i had to pay a

nickel for a label of water. so i know the abuses suffered by america's agriculture workers. adding this up because back in april of this year, the columbus dispatch cited a report conducted by ucla ranking of ohio as a last among all 50 states for having policies and laws that support the health and well-being of agriculture workers, many of whom are immigrants. i believe they can be found contributing to ohio's largest industry. governor, you have been pegged as a compassionate conservative and i believe you are. i respect you don't shy away from refuting views on immigration and a number of things are -- as president, what do you say to

what's going on in ohio? ensure thatd you all of america's working poor are treated poorly -- fairly and recently. -- decently? governor kasich: a lot of times things come out and when you dig under the hood you find out they are not true. i can promise you that i would have an understanding of the situation in ohio. would carry mail on his back. he would go house to house. he would be there in all weather conditions. he never made a lot of money. his father was a coal miner who died of black lung. he lost a lot of vision in his eye. they told me when the time came for them to get their

pensions, the plant shutdown. these injustices are not appropriate and i will find out exactly what the situation is. in no way, shape, or form do i think people ought to be abused and that there shouldn't be child labor laws and people shouldn't be treated with respect. not at war with organized labor, i have had problems but i have made it clear that as long as we work together it will be fine so i will find out what is going on and we will deal with it. we don't let things like that stand. sometimes things are more complicated than they appear on the surface but we will take into it. host: let's talk about marriage equality. ohio is notich: just manufacturing and agriculture, we are medical devices and i.t.. financial services, logistics. ohio is different than what you

perceive it to be because we have diversified. host: i completely agree. during the equality, first gop debate and i was watching and i think you did an amazing job. you are applauded for your answer on how you would explain to your child on your opposition to same-sex marriage while talking about god's unconditional love and how that should be applied to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. you stated that when it comes to gay marriage that the court has ruled and we will accept it. i want to get more clarity on the phrase he will accept it -- we will accept it. a report shows 56% of americans in support same-sex marriage. is it your view that the gop should be more cognizant of the views of mainstream america and marx epting of that, -- and more accepting of that and not fight the supreme court ruling?

governor kasich: we had an amendment in ohio, but it is decided and we have moved on. , don't support gay marriage all my friends, a number of whom are gay understand that. but we move on and one of the guys that used to work for me who is a friend of mine, i went to his wedding. i said to my wife, what do you think. she said i will be there whether you are there or not. it was good. let me say something because it is an appropriate time. there was an incredible article in the wall street journal on saturday in the review section of the paper. west growing drifts of the toward a secular society, and how people are always trying to pursue happiness and wealth and comfort and what we are finding

is that this aggressive search for a secular society is not working. embedded in all of us is the sense of meaning. i have mentioned god and faith and all of that several times. i think the pope did it best when he said we should focus on the dues and not the don'ts. excitedon people got about the potential of religion which is about grace, hope, purpose, and living beyond yourself. there is a bigger issue. when the west becomes fully secularized, how are we supposed operate in a free society when everyone wants to pursue things their own way? with two guys walking across the bridge, who gets knocked off? what is the appropriate way for us to be able to guide ourselves with an absence of laws? if we become a secular society without a sense that there is a

set of expectations, morals that are set on high that should guide us, who is right and wrong becomes completely subjective. i don't think that is how we would have the best society. i don't think hispanics would believe that. i think they believe, and i think most americans, there is a change going on. all i am is suggesting this. when we become secular and face a radical islam that is the farthest thing from secular, and we cannot unite with our friends in the jewish, muslim, and christian community to espouse a set of values, that is the true way for human beings to conduct their lives and live. we will be at a severe crisis point. to -- theyt anybody

the sense of right and wrong that comes from the great religions is something that the west should begin to pay attention to and not continue to drive toward a totally secular society. i think it is dangerous for our children and our culture. host: .1 made. governor kasich: while you didn't expect to hear that today. it's something we need to talk about. host: let's talk about the economy. i think this is an issue all americans, not specifically hispanics, but all americans care about the jobs in this country and the well-being of our economy. hcc is standing for an economy where americans can pursue their dream with limited government intervention. at 4.1 million,

contributing $661 billion to our economy. we are at the forefront of economic growth and starting ventures at three to one compared to the general market. you continue how'd to spur the growth of all american businesses, and hispanic and minority owned? for all kasich: listening, i went all hispanic businesses to move to ohio. state,son is, in our --oh, now we have multiple phones. we have no income tax on virtually all small businesses in our state. if you don't have economic growth, it stunts your ability to reach out to people who do live in the shadows and do creative things.

if mom and dad are in a financial bind, the kids don't do as well. if they do well, the kids do better. what do we need to do? first of all, we have a nightmare of regulations. what we need is a people's court where normal folks can ask why government is so dumb, why are you killing my ability to create jobs? on the regulatory side, it is a big deal. you're talking about wall street. we are making big banks bigger and killing the community and the midsize banks. if you are hispanic and trying to get a loan, do you think you will get one, where is it easier? citigroup or the local bank? these rules and regulations are choking us. rules get promulgated by

agencies and it is a blizzard of stuff that trips us up. number two, you have to have a tax code that encourages economic growth, particularly at the corporate side so businesses will be able to bring money from europe and invest in plant equipment so workers can have higher productivity and wages. and when it gets to the individual tax code, we would like to bring those rates down and make it simple. we are working on ways we are talking about soon. we need to get to a balanced budget. when we balance the budget and cut the capital gains tax and add a family tax credit on the deal of which i was an architect, the economy was going to investors. in ohio with simplified rules and a balanced budget, workforce training, we are up 347,000 private sector jobs.

ohio is reborn. we have to get back to the basics. it is not that difficult. we have to deal with entitlements, the balanced at the rebuild defense same time as reforming the pentagon, rebuild tax reform, change regulatory environments. these things can happen with a solid plan. you have 120 days. reform individual tax will be difficult but corporate tax reform can happen. you cannot delay or walk around trying to look at the pictures in the white house asking how our plans are coming. you have to go in there doing what you will do because this town will fight you every single inch of the way. they are for themselves and self protecting. if you don't go in there with a purpose and intensity and the team, you will get eight more years of what we got now.

us or givet help people work and hope and jobs. host: in transparency and fairness, we work with all of the large banks and small ones. ok, goodkasich: advertisement, i know you need their money it would be better if we didn't strangle little banks. big banks have their place but it is the community banks where they look at you and say i've known you for a long time, it do we give you the loan? we know the person you are. isn't that the way it works? trying to run education out of washington as opposed to local. you can't even get in the building here to talk about education but there you can go to the meeting. the more local it is, the more customized it is, the better we all are.

that is why i am republican because i am for bottom-up, not top-down. host: amazing job of mentioning. governor kasich: you started this. host: let's move on to the wage gap. throughout our country, women's wages continue to lead behind men's. women todaye stand, earn $.70 on the dollar when compared to men for doing the same work. theanic women is at $.60 on dollar. according to the american association of the university of women and the census bureau, median earnings for women in ohio where $47,000 compared women'smpared to

$37,000. so comfortably doing a little better than the rest of the country, women in ohio getting paid 24% less than men doing the same job. as a father, how would you explain that to your daughters? as the president, what would you do to address this disparity? governor kasich: wherever we see this, we try to do what we can. a lot is based on experience. a lot of different factors go into it that we don't want to have a woman paid less than a man for the same job. how would i expect that my daughters? i would say we have to work on this. i have two daughters who will be out there in the workplace and i want them to be treated and have the same opportunities as a man. i am glad we are doing better according to that study but who knows, 50 studies. we want to make sure in these

places that people are treated and not disseminated against. they are at best discriminated against -- that they are not discriminated against. talk about equality we are not talking about taking from the top and redistributing wealth. i don't think that's how it works. i asked my dad what we think about the rich and he said we want to be the rich, we don't hate the rich. i think it is all tied up in skills, to you get good education, or do you not have the skills to be able to compete? i have to suggest to all of us think our k-12't system is working as well as it should be. in my state, we now have passed a law that says the school is a row, weree years in have a board that can pick a ceo

that will still keep in place teacher salary and benefits but everything else can be changed. we started that in cleveland. the city of youngstown, 1% of the graduates are college ready. what kind of money do you think they will make? to really workn inside the schools to make sure our schools are performing. in massachusetts where they an active high standards and took a schools are, the performing better than most of the schools in the country. we can't want to live in lake wobegon where we think our kids are doing great because 40% of the graduates are taking remedial courses. when you have skills you can't be kept back. nobody cares if you are an i.t. expert, they just want your talents and they will pay for it.

it is a big education issue and life on education. lifelong training. you can't sit there and think the world is standing still. work programs have to be shifted to the states. but john kasich did not say women are less skilled than men. governor kasich: no. i didn't say that. staff, the first time a governor brought a woman and to be the new chief of staff. she is now running my campaign. the lady i mentioned running mental health and drug addiction, she is doing a good job heading our welfare reform. i believe having women in the room having a big voice makes you better. if you have an exclusion of them you're not as effective. i am saying for all people, skills matter. host: let's talk about trade.

ushcc hasssue the worked on has been trade and specifically the transpacific partnership. considering that 98% of u.s. businesses that do export are actually small businesses, which have accounted for nearly two thirds of new jobs in recent decades, we think access to more markets abroad is a good thing for the entrepreneurs we represent. being a state that somewhat say has been hurt from portrayed deals in the past, i would like to hear your thoughts of tpp on future trade deals under president caskasich. governor kasich: i think it is important for several reasons. you talk about how it has helped small businesses and there is a

national security element to it. i like the idea of having deeper economic relations and ties to asntries in the pacific strengthening of our relations vis-a-vis china. here's writing trade as a problem. it is a problem when people cheat and we look the other way. or we file our complaints and they go into where we are going to study it been. -- bin. where they make a final decision and the people who are affected are out of work. we need next that i did process to blow the whistle and stop the ability of countries to dump their products in our country or to steal our intellectual property. part of the reason i think we don't act aggressively might be for geopolitical considerations.

you are a steel worker in you are not caring about geopolitical considerations. your considerations of amounts you have to feed at home. while trade is good, we have to learn to blow the whistle when we are getting ripped off. i think america may be arrogant. i don't think we should take it. i also think we have to be careful in these negotiations. i don't know what this will look like. the senate will look at it, they should. but i am going to work like the dickens to make sure we have an expedited process that can respond to countries when they are ripping us off. national security. be theident, you would

nation's commander-in-chief. the u.s.global power, is constantly facing threats both here and abroad. we are currently seeing a syrian regime being aided by russian forces. we have a refugee crisis that nations throughout the world are trying to grapple with. and the continued spread of isis throughout the middle east to name a few things. my question is. governor kasich: you left ukraine out. in your question is, view, what are the biggest national security threats our nation faces and how would you prioritize the national resources to combat them? governor kasich: you can chew gum and walk at the same time when you are america. our problem has been the voice we have created around the world and our inability to assert ourselves. i think the president's spokesman defined it best that

said you lead from behind. you have never led from behind or have i. when you do that, it doesn't work. so i don't know where you want to start. syria? i propose no-fly zones and sanctions. somebody violates the no-fly zone, they will face the consequences. have ay we have to coalition of people in the middle east and our european allies to destroy isis as soon as possible and come home. nationbuilding is not something i am keen on. the iran deal should never have been negotiated. until the minimum that iran whatever recognized israel. some candidates say they would rip it up. all, 18 months before you are elected and then but what do we do? is is better to

work with partners to show violations so that the slap sanctions back on which can be effective which is what brought iran to the table. they need to be applied. if we know they are developing a nuclear weapon, we don't want them to have one. there is appropriate action you can take if you know where it is and you have the capability to deal with it. i served on the armed services committee with some of the s, barryefense mind goldwater, john tower, i lived with those people for a lot of years from the standpoint of working through things. israel, the prime minister was to come here, i will have a cup of coffee with him day or night. ukraine, given the defensive weapons they need. how can america look the other way when the ukrainians are under this kind of pressure? i don't understand. put in is a bully. have you ever had a bully?

did you run away? you popped ihim one. putin is a bully and he will push until we say enough. pre-positioning equipment in the east which we are beginning to do. making it clear an attack on the baltics as an attack on us. the south china sea, we should be sending a carrier. the problem is the chinese think they on it and they do not. this is about america asserting itself more in the world. i think if we do it as a group and coalition, we don't have to be policeman. we should intervene directly when our direct national interests are at risk. there's a possibility of being able to help people who share our goals and visions and we should help them. we have to rebuild the military, i saw them rebuild -- what withdraw the carrier but now we don't have one in the station so

we have to rebuild the military but the pentagon has become so bureaucratic with almost 900,000 people involved in all of this, we start throwing good money after bad. it has to be reformed at the same time we are rebuilding the military. why did i want to run for this job? these are very tricky things. the president of the united states has to look over at the pentagon, get it right. the president of the united states can't have the secretary defense say trim down the bureaucracy and fix the thing and by the way you are on your own. it takes presidential leadership to get this done. we have to spend a fortune rebuilding the military. but we don't want to spend a fortune on things we don't need or have red tape and lack of common sense over there being the order of the day. you cannot go over there and pound people because they will not move and you can't go over there and suck up because there were be no change. porridge has to be made at the

right temperature. the president has to be staying engaged. what you have with a clear vision and the notion that our allies matter. when the shot and murdered all those people, charlie over there in paris, the million people morning, nobody was sent. i don't even send t -- understand that. have you ignore that? canfriends to know if they trust us and our enemies are emboldened. is that a reason to panic? no. we are america and we do not panic. host: you remind me of an old adage in terms of leading from the front that my grandfather used to use. he used to say unless you are the lead dog, the lead never changes. you strike me as a lead dog. any final thoughts? governor kasich: this was great. i hope they enjoyed it.

we talked on a lot of issues. [applause] it was great.h: let's do it again. host: governor john kasich, thank you. [applause] >> we have time for maybe one or two questions. oh, we do not. let's do it. governor, either question from the associated press. >> thank you for coming today. i wanted to ask you about guns. and your you yesterday

speech from richmond to referring to some as a troublemaker so here's your chance on this issue. republican presidential candidates mostly are calling for more attention to mental health issues. with regard to gun violence. we have not heard specifics. what is your specific plan or do you believe that government has no role in preventing or cutting down on gun violence? governor kasich: i was talking about the issue of mental illness in regard to guns for months. it's not something that was just discovered today. if you read the new york times story about this young man and the terrible problems the mother was having, we have to think when someone is clearly unstable, how are you able to be in a position where

they cannot get a gun because nobody i know would want them to have access to it. but i don't think that can control would solve this problem. here is where i think part of the problem is. alienation,ssue is is the deeper issues loneliness. the deeper issue is no attention to an individual who is struggling. i was in aisle at this place called the house of hope the other day. a nondenominational, no government house for women who edge of a breakdown i said why is this house here? families are not connected. we do not know who our neighbors are. this