years and grew older, wiser, more mature foreign policies not something you learn on the job, not by shouting people foreign-policy is complicated -- at people. foreign-policy is complicated. you can't spend six months figuring out where the bathroom is. you have to hit the ground running. the fact is that if you don't understand the complications of foreign policy, it is hard to learned on the job. -- learn it on the job. i worked in politics for 10 years, it was fantastic.

i told my wife i go back into public life, and she said, "that's just great." [laughter] today, she is involved in keeping kids healthy, whether it is food or exercise. she has raised marcaine about candy and vending machines than any woman i know in america. kids need to be healthy, all the kids. not just my kids, all kids. she is involved in helping people who have been human traffic. -- human trafficked. how old are you abby? 17. they're taking 13-year-old and 14-year-old kids in my state and

sex trading them. did you know about this? we found out about this. people in human traffic, we are labeling them as criminals. we're throwing the real criminals in jail and helping these ladies get up on their feet, get reformed. my wife went down to the courthouse with the judge who worked with these women to get them on their feet. they say, we can't believe you're here. she says, i can't believe you would allow me to be here.

now, she hosts them every year at the governor's residence to honor their graduation, to celebrate the fact that they are on their feet. they have been their addictions. they are free. i told her i have to go back in. she did not like it. it is a bad business. she said, you go back in. we've got jobs open, we have everybody back on their feet and do you have a kid that autistic -- that is autistic? you get insurance today in ohio. do you have mental illness? we are able to do these things because we have got jobs, prosperity. same formula.

balanced budgets. common sense relations. i don't want anybody to be left behind. i don't want any young person to grow up without having an opportunity to be special. it has happened. i did not know i would run for this job. i've only been a candidate for five months. this is my 43rd town hall meeting in five months. i know on getting started. -- i am just getting started. i tell people, there's 1.2 million people in new hampshire, and i've met them all twice. i'm only halfway there. same formula. we have a formula, we have a plan to give to congress.

congress passed a bill over the weekend that violated all this stuff they said they would not fight. -- violent. -- they would not violate. there's no leadership. this is not that hard. it is the politics that hard -- that is hard. it's not hard to realize the world needs america. we have to lead as americans. it is not hard about the budget and grow the economy. i know how to do it. it takes leadership. don't worry about democrats and republicans fighting if i'm

president. i forgotten in the work together all of my life. to fix problems. do you know how you do it? you grab them here and say, you did not come here to take up space. you came here to improve people's lives. are you with me? they never say no, they always say yes. so for the last 40 or 50 days, whatever we have left, i'm not in the loud statements, i'm not into banging my fist on the table. i'm not into calling names. i'm only into fixing the country. i've done it before with a great team of people, like my great friend johnson in her -- and doug scammon.

we will do it -- again. we believe no one behind. [applause] thanks for coming out on sunday. i know i you are here, because the patriots aren't playing. [laughter] >> so you have your two children, i have mine. young people have more skin in the game when i look at the tally than anybody. how do you draw them in? they will carry the wagon. gov. kasich: the way in which young people come in is that you tell that there is purpose in life. that you can change the world. it's not about promises, it is about vision. it is about saying to kids, do you know how special you are?

do you know that you can change the world? this has to be dealt with, because if it isn't, they graduate from college and have no job. you have to deal to work. we need to get this under control for your kids, my kids, all kids in the country. john, it is not that hard, we know what it takes is very common sense. we have to get people out of their own way. that's all we have to do. when we have certainty, when business is no budget can get balanced, they will not put

stupid rules on me, shook me, -- took me, even cut my taxes, that is what gets them to say, let's invest. let's take a risk. let's create jobs. it is an amazing thing that will happens in ohio. we are the seventh largest state. this is not a bucket shop over here. i have 11.5 million people. my credit rating is strong, not weeks. -- weak. i don't use gimmicks. i don't make stuff up when i come to the meetings. my people will say, "promise than this." -- them this." i don't promise anything.

i want people to believe in this. we passed a bill this last weekend that broke all the spending rules they have. it didn't surprise me, but they are a flock that wonders aimlessly around. a they need a shepherd. >> and a cattle prod. [laughter] gov. kasich: maybe one of those too. reese, come on out. she's doing her best to support her dad. [applause] a cattle prod. here's the other thing you've got to know, i will give you the insight, you can't beat people up into doing what you want them to do.

once in a while, with a few, but the u screen, the more you burn rate, the less result you get. if you're a schoolteacher, you cannot yell kids into a good grade. you unlock them. you figure out what motivates them. when you raise kids, you can yell at them all day long, but that only go so far. it's fun to talk about the cattle prod, and i will let you come to washington with that. but what we need to do is to remind them of their purpose. when you are a member of the united states congress, the day i was elected to congressman, i was 30. my mother and father were in shock.

my dad carried mail, and my mother's mother couldn't speaking whispered i thought, i'm going to washington to work with ronald reagan. we will remind them. they will get the act together. come down, i will have you stand outside the fence of the white a house and scream if this does not work. >> i'm an independent looking for a candidate that makes sense to me, not someone trying to scapegoat the issues. someone who's coming up with solutions. i'd like to ask a history question. at the debate, you said you would not have gone into iraq if it wasn't for wmds.

explain what you meant. gov. kasich: what is clear is that we had faulty intelligence. i don't know how it happened. i don't know how they thought they had something that they didn't have. that's about human intelligence, which we crippled in parts of the world. the reason why, if there had not been weapons of mass destruction, if we hadn't thought they were there, the reason i wouldn't have gone is because i don't want the country to go into a civil war. there's the sunni, the shia, the kurds. they don't belong together exist together -- along together. they don't exist together. you have to understand the division, which has existed forever.

ali, who was a shia, was assassinated in a city in iraq. there's not another person running for president incities. i did not study it. i know it. there is a revenge that exists between those sects. to get in the middle of it is like flying into someplace and walking and when allie which is a knife fight going on -- into an alley where there is a knife fight going on. we are not going to be a. it--to be able to stop it. when we went to iraq to push saddam hussein out of kuwait, we had the arabs and the west. i remember that, because i have a friend who was the former

egyptian in her, who stood in the rose garden and said, we are all going. the first george bush stopped, and d remember what people said? "we should finish the job." no, he shouldn't have. if we went in there, we would own the place. do you know how it was put together? after wwi, they just went in and drew those lines. so now we have advisors and share you -- in syria. i don't want the united states

and the civil war in syria. can we help people who were opposed to assad? absolutely. but i am not forgetting us into a civil war. i'm for destroying isis, but not getting us into the middle of the civil war. in 1983, i decided i do not believe america should have marines in beirut. there were 14 americans who shared that position. ronald reagan was the president. i was 31. i love reagan, i met him when i was a little kid. tech o'neil came up to me. he heard i put against u.s. troops in lebanon.

he poked me in the chest and said, "i'm a when we used to elect men to this body." he went on television and blasted reagan for having troops there. then, we left. it was a searing moment. we had marines in the barracks in beirut. the guards did not have bullets in their guns. the marines were in the barracks in beirut, and a navy ship was floating off the coast. they could not communicate. they had he use a pay phone, because the services had not learned to work together.

i got involved in a major proposal called goldwater nichols to get the services to train together, to exercise together. it was a massive reform i happen to be a part of. civil war, i don't want to go there. you take your business, and you go home. you we cannot keep men and women in the military in the middle of the country. i hope that makes sense. [applause] >> thank you. my name is anna grace, i ran for massachusetts state senate.

i wrote three initiatives to prevent human trafficking. i was wondering if you'd like to look at them? gov. kasich: absolutely. i got to human trafficking because i was going to make this big speech. i used to be an aid in the legislature -- an aide in the legislature. i no longer make speeches at the podium of the capital of ohio. i go to communities to make my speech. it's been incredible. i don't know why the state of the union always occurs in the capital of the united states. because it says so in the constitution this woman jumps up halfway through and lisa protest against me in the capital.

she sees me many months later. she's a democrat and told me what she was trying to do. she told me what she was doing wasn't going well, and i said, well, why do we pass legislation. she couldn't believe a republican would take up her issue. she hugged me and said i was the best. when iran for reelection comes to blasphemy--i ran for reelection, she blasted me. that's politics. [laughter] >> i think it's self-evident that the political system this is dysfunctional. could you speak to the system itself? for example, legislators who take campaign money from the

same -- they seem more interested in maintaining their own power than serving the people. is it we the people that have created this dysfunction, or something else? gov. kasich: you're not going to let my answer. it's been this way forever. every time we change the campaign finance laws, there's another set. what's missing is leadership. i have fights in my own state that i can't win. their interest groups that have been powerful, but i will wear them down and get what i want when the moment comes. i get about 90% of what i want. and i have to face the same kind of issues they face in washington.

do not how many people are fighting us there? everybody you can imagine said, oh no, not me, somebody else. we got them to do it. can there be change in the system? i'm open to it. for me, the biggest problem is gerrymandering. people in the town halls don't know a lot about politics, but everybody knows about gerrymandering. that's when you draw funny districts. i'm a republican, they give me a safe republican district, and i have to watch for the extreme on my right you'd in a democrat district, i have to look for the extreme on the left. it polarizes people. campaign finance law, do you think i like billionaires determining who becomes president because they put all the money in and run all the

ads? of course i don't. if i knew a few more billionaires, i might feel different. i don't. [laughter] do you know what i tell billionaires? you want to help me, great. do you know it you get for it? the government. -- good government. [applause] go check it out. the problem is the media can't defy me-- define me. i'm hard to define. i'm all for term limits. do you know who runs things most of the time? the staff. make sure they can learn the job

before they have to leave. it ultimately gets down to character, which comes through leadership at all levels. in the prison system, we have less than 27% recidivism rate. leaders can bring about great things. >> can the system produce good leaders? gov. kasich: i guess we will find out. glad -- >> i guess a system such

as ours that requires so much begging and groveling for money. it's not going to produce good leaders. gov. kasich: let's talk about that. you think there were less resources and groveling when teddy roosevelt was president? they threw him out of new york. hang on, i got this right here. teddy roosevelt cause more trouble in new york. why do you think john mccain likes roosevelt? troublemaker. mckinley is assassinated, he becomes president. i hope that's right. [laughter] my history. teddy was a trust buster, he took on everybody. harry truman. my wife's been reading him. one day she comes down and says, "oh my god."

she says the koreans have gone to war. she's saying it's in the book about harry. the other day she comes downstairs and says, "harry has died." i say, harry who? think about truman, reagan. these guys, it did not faze them that they had a job to do. that's the way i see it. i see it that way. take doug scammon former house , speaker. he whipped them into line. [indiscernible] gov. kasich: that's right, he got them to do it. all is not lost because the system is goofy. i'm not kidding you. i'm telling you the truth. we have got to get the people to

make the best changes. it is always going to be like this. good leaders, bad leaders, what we've had is the line has been flatly. -- flat lately. paul ryan has great potential. we need to get it up here for a little while. it will fall off eventually, but we really good runs to clean it up -- we need good runs to clean it up. yes? >> the middle east drawn along the lines of she is and sunnis iraq becoming a shia country? gov. kasich: no, but i mean

look, i think ultimately the kurds need a place to live. if turkey does not like the kurds, we need turkey. turkey is important. it is a bridge. they need to be our bridge. we want them to go west, not east. they are a bridge to the middle east. we talk about israel, and here is what i would tell you about that situation, there is no solution. the goal is no super bowl it -- silver bullet, but stability, and absence of violence. what i hope for with syria is that i do not want iran to be

able to move across iraq and syria to create a shia crescent. there is a way there to kind of block it. they don't have to be at war. they just have to have distinct differences. when they drew the map in world war i, they didn't give a flip about it. that's why we have the problems we are having. we have got to come up with a solution for the kurds. the saudi's want to solve things in syria. part of the reason we have isis is the war in iraq. some people say we left too early.

no, we made a mistake even going in. in. colin powell said if you break it you own it -- there's a name for that. the pottery barn. it just happened. we destroy isis and we have a good coalition of people. down, but we can't let it fester and wait. there's no way to destroy isis without having both an air campaign into ground campaign, and we will have to be on the ground in the air. that is the way it has to be, if america is going to lead and if we are going to be successful. the other countries are going on the ground. i read an article today saying that now the sunnis have committed to being able to fight terror. if you say, will you put boots on the ground? they say -- we are not going alone. that was the problem with the red line, when the president

said we have a redline and he didn't enforce it, he created doubt. these countries are nervous to begin with. now all of a sudden, where is america? can we trust america? that is the problem we got into redline. when i think is you will see shifts and changes, but by and --ge ultimately you will see they will be an informal division of that country, which it is basically now. here.ir, right >> in 2008 we elected a when i look around the country today i see disunity that hardly be described, whether it is racial or

economic, political, and we have all listened to do you speak about leadership, but how do you actually overcome the forces that have divided us this way and bring the country back together? kasich: let me tell you about a thing i did -- i don't know how long it was -- i guess a year and a half. we had cleveland, columbus, cincinnati, dayton. we had a shooting at a walmart store outside dayton, where a g uy who had a fake gun was shot and killed. clevelandituation in where the police chased his car, stopped the car, a police officer jumped on the roof and shot into the car. they shot many bullets into the and, the couple had no gun,

they had a grand jury that failed to indict. we have these circumstances that happened and now we have a 12-year-old boy who was shot holding a gun. the police pulled up and now we are waiting for a grand jury decision. we have had no violence. after this issue in cleveland with the officer on of hood of the car, a number african-american legislators came to see me and said we should have a task force, we will have a commission. won't have a commission, but we will have a we will have a with yo you will be on the task

force. one is the former head of highway patrol, the other is a very liberal african-american woman who ran against a republican. her son is a police officer. i've been invited community leaders, ministers, law enforcement, all on this task force. they came back and reported, believe it or not, today's and the baltimore riots. they recommended a statewide policy on the use of deadly we needed toso know the recruiting and hiring policies of the police agencies throughout the state. african-american community , we got it all done. now we have broken it into a collaborative where we all sit together and figure out the trouble of the community of the problems of the police. three weeks ago i was in

cleveland and i met with african-american ministers. how do we keep things calm with this result? there ain't tougher stuff than that and i am not telling you we are out of the woods, but it is communication, it is respect. that is what is missing. when john and i were on the budget committee, and they would say -- you remember, they would say let's wrap up this budget negotiation in three hours and tell the democrats to shut up. i said, we are not going to do that. we will sit here for 12 hours if we have to and we will omit a couple things. it is always better to let the steam come out of the pressure cooker. my mother taught me that when she made potatoes in that old pressure cooker. that is how you do it. it's like this lady on the human trafficking -- i can call her

tonight and say we have stuff we have to do, will you help me? it takes work. that the well has been so badly poisoned it is just going to take an extra a lot of effort but if i didn't think i could fix this -- i have this one and this one and this one. i am going to waste their lives by wasting mine, no way. the fact is that you just got to work at it. respect is a big part. you don't have to agree. i said the other day at the opening of the debate, i said we need to come together. coming together doesn't mean i give up what i believe. it doesn't mean that. it just means that i give a little bit and sometimes you walk away. reagan was in reykjavik, he walked away. most of the time you don't have to walk away. you can find your way there.

is gordon humphrey back here, the senator? there aren't two tougher guys that exist on the face of the earth, that they were successful because they knew how to stick to principle and yet accomplish things. that is the magic of it. please don't give up on that. we can do it. yelling and screaming into going to do it. -- ain't going to do it. you know better than that. yes, right here. wefor more than 40 years, had a national strategy around the containment of communism, and that didn't just read military and foreign policy, it affected research and development and olympic athletes. in the last 20 years, what do you think has been our national strategy? whoever'sves sits in the white house and in congress. in the last 20 years, what has been our national strategy, and

if elected, how will you steer it? >> i don't think we have a national strategy. once the wall came down, we never thought we would have to use these nuclear weapons. mutual assured destruction probably assured as we did in have to. the ones that enemy came down, it was like, now what do we do? i think we did not recognize early enough the issue of this radical terrorism jihad. you may have picked it up, though, if you thought about afghanistan, if you thought about what the russians were experiencing in chechnya. tellember having an aide the time, that is the next fight, but we didn't engage it. then we allowed our relationship with our allies to deteriorate. do you remember -- one of the first debates they asked what

would you do with iran nuclear do? up!" ld tear it how do you know what you would do? that is good press. all of our allies are supporting this thing. isdoingought to be chewing -- if we have a debate, they are going to lose. no more debate, we just slap the sanctions back on and if we know there is a new queen will deal with it. they kill all these people at "charlie hebdo" in paris and we don't send anyone to paris to mourn with the french. then we have a climate conference and say that is the way we are fighting radicals, these things i don't understand. sir, it seems to me that there are three parts to this.

the first part is the russians. the russians have to understand that nato still exists and you are not going to invade a nato country and now that you have invaded ukraine we are going to arm them so they can defend themselves. you are going to go to finland or sweden or lithuania or estonia, you are going to meet us, that is all that needs to be said. then work out a framework over there in central europe. china? articles.read these b-52s not tong our fly within several miles of these islands, trying to take over the south china sea. you don't telle, them, you just do something. talk is cheap with the chinese,

so what do you do? these are not your islands, we will have free navigation and freer flight, and that is the way it is going to be, and by the way, if you want a cyber attack us and steal our secrets in our businesses or disrupt our government, we know how to defend ourselves and we also know how to go on the offense. now let's get along. china's a fact. they are not going to go away and we are going to have a war with them, just let people know what we think. then we have to get our allies back together again. best leader in europe? merkel. why is merkel the best leader? why is that? two lessons, why else? she leads. i can't wait to meet that lady. we need to be close with our allies. we need to listen to them. we need to know that it is never going to be fair. we are always going to care

more of a burden than we would like. we are america. i'm just telling you. then we have to tell the world who we are. and we have to destroy isis. this is a really, really, -- forget johnson, you know wherhyi worry about? i worry about them. what is it i worry about the most? proliferation of these weapons. done even worry about proliferation of these weapons in the hands of a country that i know where they are. i worry about it in the hands of not have a country and do not wear uniform. who would i be talking about? hamas, hezbollah, al nusra. that is what i worry about. isis, do you think they would ever hesitate?

this radical, deranged ideologue. they get somewhere, they get a reward for destroying us, so you have to take them out. i don't like to talk about -- i had to vote on more. you think i want to vote on this? all we have to do this. the longer we wait, but more dangerous it will be, more complicated it will be, the more and il lose, disagree with the strategy of the president and his people. seen it all. it's time to go. tell the world who we are. tell them what it means to have equality for women and respect for education and science. tell the world. we used to tell them. we stopped telling them, go tell them. then deal with these groups and rebuild our intelligence. peace on earth? maybe for christmas.

but it is always going to be these problems. we just have to manage them. peace comes later, cannot hear. manage them. and as aeen addressed, result we have created void, and voids have been filled by things that are not in the interest of civilization, not america just but civilization. yes, sir. >> i am a native of ohio. i have lived in new hampshire for the past 40 years my parents still live there. first thing i wanted to do is congratulate you on bringing ohio's economy back. gov. kasich: you are starting strong. [laughter] >> i know what it's like today. winter, columbus last it has improved significantly. so congratulations. you accomplish something as an executive and i appreciate that. you also have the legislative

and defense background that i think we need in a presidential candidate. how would you handle the syrian refugee crisis today? winter, it has improved significantly. what is america's role? gov. kasich: we have got to figure out a way to vet them. one of the things that always worries the people who support me in politics is sometimes case kasich's heart is so big. i do have a big heart but i'm not going to endanger folks, so let's talk about controlling our borders. border,ion, control the guestworker program, 11.5 million who didn't commit a crime, have to legalization, let's move on. let's control our borders and we have to control the issue of visas, k-1 visas. with the syrians, we really have to be in a position -- what i have been proposing is that

there are no fly zones, no sanctuaries for these folks. help jordan -- i don't think lebanon would do it but it would great if lebanon would take some. they all have responsibilities and we can give them some money. i don't know that they need money but we have got to keep them there, in the region. let me tell you something about the administration. fought ebola in ohio. i called the center for disease control, i get voicemail. secretary of health and human services, i get voicemail. situation where minors from central america were placed in our state, we got no idea who they were over their sponsors were. we asked them to give us information and they didn't do it. we just had another incident

where all i got was voicemail -- does anybody as a phone? what do they do in washington? answer the phone, i'm serious. they don't answer the telephone. we should abolish voicemail in washington, because when you have voicemail known has to answer the phone. i don't think we have the capability now to figure out who they are. in all theet the fbi intelligence people to say these people here will be safe, i am fine with that. but i don't trust them now. you they are bad people or something like that, i just don't trust what is going to come and that is how i feel about that. didn't allow refugees in i would be running for president of croatia so that is kind of where i am on it.

the whole thing needs to be fixed. that is why we have talked long , the welfare department, move that back to the states. let's move the education programs back to the state and get the government to do what it is supposed to do and let us do what we can do. you worry about highways in the state -- we voted on it a bunch of times. we send our money to washington for gas tax and they have .ommittees down there i will take it to committee sometime, it is really something. , therek about monopoly is a committee they used to divide up our money. they want to build a high-speed pern that would go 39 miles hour. you could run faster than that train, and allah would do was

put you in a whole. so here is what i suggest. by the way, after they divided up, they send it back and you get less, so why do we do this? why don't we send a couple pennies to washington to maintain the interstate system and then we don't send any more. then we fix the roads the way we want to, and if they raise the gas tax, then all the money stays here. you can't even pull a road that has a federal dollar in it. you can't because the rules prohibit you from doing it. i would get rid of all the rules and regulations. we will send a couple pennies to maintain the interstate. you can even have a tax cut. now we can keep this "federal money." makes perfect sense.

you know who doesn't like that idea? the committee. the committee doesn't like that idea. these are the kinds of things we need to do and we know how to do them, and we know how to do them responsibly. that is part of the other issue. you can't come with crazy ideas and get stuff done. right, doug? you can have bold ideas for the numbers of got to add up. you won't be able to stick it on the wall, you will not have any votes on it. think you will a 10% flat tax, raise your hand. why do you like when they say that? what we can do is get lower taxes, a simpler tax code. we can do those things. but we have to be realistic. yes, sir. how did you hurt yourself?

>> [indiscernible] gov. kasich: good. [laughter] gov. kasich: how you coming along? >> [indiscernible] gov. kasich: did you guys go to -- yes, sir. >> i worked for the senate when i first got out of college. election, a big influence at the end of the day is going to be those folks with stagnant incomes over the past eight-plus years. there are a bunch of guys saying it is the billionaires' fault, we have to regulate these unaccountable industries, we will take care of you.

that is appealing to some. so what would you say to that group, who i think you have to get out in big numbers to believe that self-reliance -- gov. kasich: hillary and bill collecting all these millions and millions are not those who can relate to that. i grew up in that. you think about stagnant wages -- everything goes up, low-inflation but not zero. for people who have to shop, they are stuck, and when they are stuck, they get frustrated and angry and i don't blame them. my mailman father told me we don't hate the rich, we want to be the rich. i think that is right. why are wages growing fast in

ohio? because we are creating jobs and diversifying. we are faster than the national average because we have exciting new jobs. we have amazon, we have energy, we have jobs and financial services. manufacturing we have advanced manufacturing which means you have to have a bit of thi a skill to operate in this new world. you want to know what i believe about it it is this. education systeme fails to give a person a skill, the known have the value that somebody who has that education has. education is the hardest thing to change. because we all believe that our schools are great. and some are. in some are not. this is not a washington thing, this is you. that whole system needs change.

she lovesere, fashion. ise of the best days she had when she went to pink and she went to victoria's secret sports. she learned about fashion. i wish she could go a couple hours every week and then they would teach her more about the importance of math in the importance of computing. runner., emma, she is a she got injured playing soccer. she would like to be in the medical area, maybe physical therapy. , butoesn't love biology maybe if she was working -- and i took her down and saw all the little babies, the preemies. we have to connect people with

their passions and their skills and their god-given purpose. give them something they get excited about, give them a skill. some will go into vocational education. we have been doing it for years now and seventh grade you can go .nto it .ou get a skill, autos you know the kind of money you can make with autos? and then moreills education to be more narrow. you go to community college to up your game here is what also is necessary. when you go to school you ought to have a sense of what you want to be in the school ought? tosay, what do you want to be this is a job that exists, this is what it takes to get one. all of my schools are doing this

now, and if they don't, they will. words, we hook education with the in demand jobs, with the training, skills, more money. sir, is not that complicated. if you have skills they have to pay you. they pay the best football players, computer operators, it is all about skills. education in america today in the 21st century's lifetime education. it should never stop. and let's stop beating up these companies and get these profits home from europe so they invest in our country. we have to get the jobs going. we have to realize that we are in a new environment here. we can get this done, we are doing it in our state. wages can go faster. but let me tell

you one other thing you need. you.y smart people around you can't do this on your own. you've got have the smartest people you can find. are you smart? >> sign me up. gov. kasich: [laughter] ok, good. last one, ma'am. >> [indiscernible] in developing quality jobs, not low-paying jobs, so we can rebuild the middle class. -- ikasich: well, trade is voted for nafta. why? because the mexicans were keeping our stuff out and their stuff is getting in. we lowered barriers and now our stuff gets in. but i think our trade agreement

sometimes -- i'll tell you, i think we don't enforce them. i think there are countries that play games and they don't put products and our countries, and it takes years to get it resolved, and by the time we sometimeswin, our men and woment of work. we want to have a next that i process that when we see something happens that represents an unfair trade practice we act immediately. we go immediately to the international group and if they don't do it then we will cut it off. cannot think we should put up with nonsense. they arey dumping, producing a product low-cost and shipping it in here to take our jobs. that has to stop. we are not aggressive enough of that, as i think we need to be. but also want to tell you that there is hope. i was in michigan at what was called a tier one manufacturing company. they are the ones that provide the parts to the major auto companies. they have to be really good.

i go into this factory, everyone is who i grew up with. there were no high polluting full -- highfalutin folks. in that factory, they don't touch anything anymore. they use a computer. and these conveyor belts, they hit this and hit that -- i say, how is it going? wages are up. really? higher productivity. that you can make and missing a lot of time, the more your wages are. well, how about employment? claimant is up as well. -- employment is up as well. it has changed and it is more skilled based, which means more money for the worker. you've got to remember, those are the folks i grew up with. i grew up with the steelworker in the chemical worker.

anybody know how the steelers are doing? anybody watching the? -- that? no? are they really getting slaughtered? i got to go. i want to wish everybody here a merry christmas. gordon.-- oh, gordon will talk. we will take some pictures until the cows come home. ere you, i'd want them of my wife more than me. john's wife, who has to put up with all the nonsense of john being into politics, give her was.d the [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, you are

now invited and encouraged and welcomed to come to the center of the room with your cameras. your opportunity to get a photo for your grandchildren with the next president of the united states. we will help you, come forward. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> c-span takes you on the road

to the white house. best access to the candidates at town hall meetings, rallies, and meet and greets. we are taking our comments on twitter, facebook, and by phone. always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website, c-span.org. >> last week, special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, richard olson, testified before the house foreign affairs committee on u.s.-pakistan relationss. . he says they are becoming a more constructive partner, but more needs to be done to target terrorist groups. the hearing also focused on their nuclear arsenal and u.s. foreign assistance to pakistan. the hearings began as he began testimony.

>> we are pleased to be joined by ambassador richard olson. he is the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. immediately prior to this appointment, he served as the u.s. ambassador to pakistan, but he has served in many capacities before joining the state department in 1982. ambassador olson has been recognized several times for his service, including being awarded the distinguished service award. without objection, the witnesses prepared statement will be made a part of the record, and members will have five calendar days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous material for the record. ambassador olson, please summarize your remarks. of the committee,

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the current state of the united states bilateral relationship with pakistan. frontnored to testify in of you for the first time in my capacity as u.s. special representative for afghanistan and pakistan after having served as your ambassador in kazakhstan and previously in kabul. privileged to be in this new role and such a critical time. it is clear to me that this fight many challenges, pakistan will continue to be an important partner for the united states for the perceivable future, particularly in light of our enduring presence in afghanistan. but we do not always see eye to eye on every issue. our relationship is still vital to the national security of the united states. most importantly we have the opportunity to continue working with pakistan today on counterterrorism issues and strategic stability, economic

growth, and democratic governments to help shape the future in which pakistan is more stable, increasingly prosperous, and place a constructive role in the region. andstan is a complex place, it is important not to overlook the significant progress made in the last few years. in 2013, pakistan completed its first democratic transition from one elected official to the other. imperfect,s, however made across the economic insecurities sectors. hase minister sharif encouraged economic growth. while structural changes are still needed to set pakistan's economy on a path to accelerating growth, the reforms are considerable, judgments. -- considerable confidence. e accomplishments. scalerganize large

counterterrorism operations. it galvanized public opinion about pakistan and prompted them to increase its counterterrorism efforts, not just in trouble areas. operations,e pakistan has rooted out many terrorists safe havens and recovered more than 160 tons of improvised explosive devices. in addition to taking action on neutral threats, pakistan has cooperated on al qaeda, been critical in decimating their organization. but while pakistan has made wenificant sacrifices, believe it could also take more steps to put pressure on all terrorist groups in pakistan that threaten regional stability. pakistan is becoming a more constructive actor in the region. directcilitated a

meeting between the taliban and pakistani representative, a milestone in our efforts to pursue political settlement in afghanistan. pakistan hosted the regional heart of asia conference which shielded productive discussions about advancing the peace process in afghanistan's long-term stability. india andn, pakistan's commitment to restart a bilateral dialogue is particularly important. this process it is nonetheless clear the real challenges remain. well we see progress decreasing the presence of certain terrorists, we continue to push them to target all militant groups that have safe haven in pakistan, particularly the taliban. we have made it clear to the pakistanis that these organizations threaten pakistan, the region, and the panoply of

our mutual's natural security interest. we have also asked pakistan to do all that it can to help recover u.s. hostages held on pakistani territory continue to press for greater cooperation between afghanistan and pakistan, books to stabilize the common border region and to build the constructive relationship necessary for regional stability. it's also critical that pakistan improve relations with its other neighbor, india. recent high-level talks between indian and pakistani officials s how a formal dialogue is welcome. we hope it will be used to reduce tension. naturally, as pakistan seeks to combat violent extremism and counterinsurgency objectives, we continue to encourage and support pakistan to strengthen the rule of law, civil liberties, respect for human

rights, accountability, and freedom of speech, which we thoroughly believe are necessary for lasting peace. it is essential they are sustained at current levels. without i would like to conclude madamtement, ada chairman. >> thank you so much. last month i let the congressional delegation trip to afghanistan and was joined by my right and colleague from this committee. on thehis hearing is future of u.s.-pakistan relations, we all know that we can really address the future of our bilateral relationship without also this testing afghanistan. when our delegation met with the president, he told us that he reached out his hand for pakistan only to be rebuffed. we all know that for afghanistan

to be stable and secure, pakistan will have to play a key role there. some argue that pakistan's ultimate goal is to use afghanistan as a teach strategic and they are using their proxies and ties to insurgent groups to exert control in afghanistan. i wanted for your perspective on that. congress, thet to pakistany stated that uses these proxy forces to hedge against the loss of insulins in afghanistan and to counter india's superior military. do you know if it's true that they are being rebuffed by pakistan, and what is their strategic objective with regard to afghanistan?

then i wanted to ask about the terrorist safe havens inside pakistan's quarters. >> thank you, madam chair. with regard to president ghani,he did travel to the heart of asia conference last week, and of course we have applauded his outreach to pakistan, which had been one of the notable characteristics of his time in office. pakistan hasat been trying to reciprocate this outreach. pakistan has taken several steps that are important in this regard. the first is that they hosted the talks with the taliban in

july between the government of afghanistan and the taliban, the first time that the taliban had sat down with the government afghanistan, and at the heart of asia conference last week the reaffirm that the president supported this the sovereignty of afghanistan, the legitimacy of this government, and its constitution. withll continue to work pakistan to encourage them to bring the taliban to the table to resume a peace and reconciliation process that is led by the afghans and owned by the afghans. >> the country has had a rocky relationship. you believe with the new

government, there will be brighter days ahead, and the level of cooperation will be higher, and that there will be more trust and partnerships. yes, ma'am. we think there are many challenges in the u.s.-pakistan relationship, about what we think the interests of a stable and peaceful afghanistan are , which i think is a strategic vision of the president and the prime minister. >> thank you, we hope so. what is pakistan doing to help eliminate the terrorist safe havens inside its borders? we hear so much about that, in that believes the u.s. isn't effectively using our leverage in afghanistan to convince the pakistanis to do more with us and our afghan partners on the counterterrorism front, to work with them rather than against

the afghan government and against its security forces. we have a pending military package of this committee, and some say we need to use that as leverage. in do we make progress getting buy-in from pakistan on our counterterrorism efforts in afghanistan in eliminating terrorist safe havens inside pakistan, and why should congress approve arms sales to pakistan win our own defense department is selling them, openly working against our objective when it comes to afghanistan safe havens and counterterrorism? >> thank you, madam chair. pakistan's own counterterrorism operations, in june of 2014 pakistan launched an operation against militant

strongholds. something that the united states has wanted for a number of years, because there were a number of groups located threatenedh that u.s.-afghanistan as well as others. during the course of this operation, over the course of more than a year and a half, pakistanis have lost nearly 500 troops. 488 was just announced. at the same time they have carried out counterterrorism operations throughout settled areas of pakistan, the non-tribal areas. incident atterrible the school year ago, there has been less blowback that might have been expected from the

terrorists. as i said at the outset in my statement, most of the action has been -- we think there is more that can be done in terms of targeting groups that go just target the pakistan internally but that that's their neighbors. we continue to have an active dialogue with them. i have very active dialogue in pakistan on the question of the haqqanis. although pakistan has taken steps -- >> i will leave the other questions to another member. we will move on to dr. barra. >> thank you. as the only indian-american member of congress, the stability of the region is incredibly important to me. that i have spent a lot of time thinking about. it's very much interconnected when you think about india,

pakistan, and afghanistan. it is not easy. e, the counterterrorism sid i think possible by in 2008 -- post mumbai in 2008, india displayed -- an, ambassadorstor olson, as you mentioned it is the anniversary of the school shooting. i would have expected pakistan to have a much more robust crackdown on the terrorist threats on the haqqani network. from theperspective, perspective of indians, there is almost the side-by-side relationship in pakistan with some of these terrorist networks, almost symbiotic. what are perspective,

the steps that pakistan's government, its military needs to do to reduce terrorist threats? in some ways, it is though they allow these networks to exist in pakistan, to destabilize the region, or to have this constant on india. indieat >> thank you. i agree that there continues to be challenges in this area. it's important to note that pakistan has had a shift over the course of the last year and a half. enormouslyuffered from terrorism, over 2000 soldiers in service members killed, many thousands of individual pakistani citizens

have died as a result. the government has a stated commitment, articulated both by the prime minister and the army chief to go after all terrorists without distinction. we believe there is more that with the taliban,egar and that is a very active element of our dialogue. it's safe to say that we have almost no meeting with the appropriate officials in which those topics are not raised in very vigorous terms. i think it is safe to say that have resulted in disruption, if not illumination, of the haqqani network's

operational ability. there is still work to be done. >> from my perspective, it appears that there is this -- that they tolerate some of these service networks. projecting out -- india undergoes this dramatic growth in its economy and gdp, and i do worry that pakistan seems to be stagnating. things change in these countries, it does worry me a little bit that pakistan doesn't seem to be developing its economy, doesn't seem to be billing those institutions that would create stability, the institutions you would want to

create a more stable pakistan. those investments certainly aren't occurring. and now we have over the years tried to create schools, tried to create civilian institutions that would create some stability. from your perspective, ambassador olson, where should the united states focus? i am critical that much of our focus has been on military sales, which i don't think stabilizes the region, in fact i think they destabilize the region. if we were to focus on civilian institutions, where would you suggest we place our focus? >> thank you, congressman. let me just say a quick word, since he began talking about india, about the recent upturn in relations between india and pakistan, which i think is quite significant. as you know, the national security advisers met in bangkok, and foreign ministers attended the heart of asia

conference and extended hands of friendship to pakistan, and that was well received. they have agreed to launch a comprehensive dialogue, which i think hopefully improve the relationship. one of the emphases we have placed in our program has been to build regional connectivity. the real launch of a copperheads of dialogue will hopefully, exactly as you say, lead to the possibility of increased trade, for instance between india and pakistan, which we think would be beneficial to both sides, particularly pakistan. they could do more in some ways that are assistance programs to risk level of prosperity. >> thank you. >> i think the chair. -- i thank the chair. i want to be specific with what i am concerned about, the sale

of american fighter jets to pakistan or the giving of american fighter jets to pakistan through military aid. it has been used in the united states to buy those jets, and i use the example of osama bin laden. the united states didn't tell pakistan we were going after him. we sent helicopters over there in the rain was successful in pakistan scrambles to american-made f-16s to intercept helicopters. americans are able to get away. there could have for the confrontation. how ironic that would have been. american-made jets used by pakistan in a confrontation with america in the rate against osama bin laden. we are getting into an issue of more military aide. are $660and there

million going to pakistan, some of that military aide. supposedly the eight fighter f-16s, are in this package, and it is supposed to be used for humanitarian aide. i don't know how an f-16 with all of its hardware for combat can be used to h for humanitarian aide. back in texas, i could see those being used, but f-16, it is not humanitarian aid they are built for. are we going to be in the same with the sell of fighter jets for humanitarian in with osamaere

bin laden where they are used for other purposes? i don't trust pakistan. maybe you do, i don't. we had a former ambassador of pakistan here who testified before my subcommittee, and said that pakistan still ends up supporting terrorists. then in any way? does pakistan support terrorist groups in any way? not just a little, but do they support them? are they free from doing that now. mr. ambassador. >> thank you. with regard to -- pakistan does have a fleet of f-16s, and they have been developing a precision strike capability, which they have used to considerable effect

in the north and tribal areas generally. this is within a framework of our security assistance to pakistan, which has six centered around andterinsurgency counterterrorism. it is our belief that the f-16s have been used very effectively for precision strike capability, to take out terrorist targets, including safe havens that threaten our forces in afghanistan. >> my question. it's very specific. doe and counterterrorism. it is our belief that the f-16s have been used verys the pakiste government, do they still give a safe haven or support, directly or indirectly, to terrorist groups? they may go after some, but do

they still give them a safe haven or a pass? or are they after all the terrorist groups? do we have any assurance one way or the other? >> congressman, with regard to these groups, we have had a very active dialogue with them where we have pressed them repeatedly to take action against those groups that has the presence on pakistani soil, including the haqqani network and the taliban. there are operations in the north that have had a destructive effect. for instance, they have uncovered arms caches that belong to haqqani and were associated with the haqqani mosque, seen some of the results

of these efforts. but we do believe that there is more that could be done, and that we continue to press them very hard on that. >> thank you. ms. kelly of illinois recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. when you consider u.s.-pakistan relations, what do you see is the key aims in drivers of our pakistan policy? >> thank you very much, congresswoman. we believe that the best way forward with pakistan is continued engagement, developing pakistan's civilian economy, its ability to be a stable and prosperous region. country that faces many

challenges, some of which we have already identified. it faces challenges from terrorism, from violent extremism. it faces a large demographic youthenge as the us bulge comes in. we believe it is in our interest to continue to engage pakistan. so that pakistan can play a more constructive role in the region as a whole. >> where do you think our policies have been most looking back, if there was something you could change, what could that be? >> well, i think that our assistance programs over the past five years, our civilian

asistance programs, have made real impact on the life of ordinary pakistanis. theave, through so-called burman authorization, it has been focused in five areas, energy, economic growth, stabilization, health, and education. some of the accomplishments include adding 1750 megawatts to pakistan's electricity grid. we have added 1000 kilometers of roads, many in the western part of the country connecting to afghanistan so there is greater regional conductivity and farmers can get produce to market. committed over 250 million in troop returning refugees from the north waziristan operation to their homes.

we have extensive exchange programs. we bring many pakistanis to the united states for study, which we think will shape their future attitudes to the united states. we have the most extensively funded fulbright program in the world in pakistan, and we have built 1000 schools and funded 15,000 domestic scholarships, and 23 u.s.-pakistan university partnerships. in health, we have launched a hospital and rehabilitated a major ob/gyn center at the postgraduate medical center in karachi. we are focusing on maternal health care, each is a very important issue in terms of the overall health of the population. >> is there something you think should be altered? what should that be? mr. olson: i think it is

important for us to continue engagement with pakistan. despite the challenges of the relationship, which are many, we believe that it is in our international interest not to allow pakistan to become disengaged from us. i think we can draw on the lessons of history there, especially the period in the 19 80's and the 1990's, where we did disengage, and we paid i think a significant price as a country for that, at the beginning of the last decade. i think that with all the challenges of the relationship, it is most important for the u.s. to be engaged and to still, to build a partnership with pakistan. >> thank you, i yield back. >> now we will move to mr. were bacher of california.

>> mr. ambassador, you have got a mighty tough job. we have to respect you for that, and thank you for trying to do your best. unfortunately, what i am about to say does not reflect on your commitment but on the visibility of you succeeding and what you are trying to do. the fact is that pakistan has from its very beginning, been plagued with corruption and oppression by its own government. the brutality and corruption in pakistan was so bad that early on in 1971, the people of bangladesh could not take it anymore, and their uprising was of course answered, not by trying to reform their government but instead by brutal

suppression, which led to the independence of bangladesh. we see similar -- feel free to correct me if i am wrong -- but we see similar type of sentiments in a situation with the people of baluchistan. there is now these f-16s the judge is talking about. those f-16s and the military equipment we are providing pakistan are being used against their own people, just like they did against the people of, over there in bangladesh. so am i mistaken and that we are using weapons that are provided -- that they are using weapons provided by us against their own people in baluchistan and elsewhere? mr. olson: first of all, thank you, congressman, for your

support and kind words. i appreciate it greatly. let me say, with regard to corruption, there have been as part of the national action plan that pakistan adopted after the horrific attack on the army school, there is an element of improving governance and going after corruption. that is been particularly notable lately in some of the operations that have taken place in karachi. there has been an anticorruption element to the government's action. >> mr. ambassador, this is about the third time over the last 25 years that i have heard this.

it is always, they are moving forward with anticorruption. i will not count on it, but if it happens i will be very happy about that. the american people will rejoice with the people of pakistan that the crux finally got -- crooks finally got displaced in islamic. the -- in islamabad. the isi is still engaged in terrorism as a strategy for what they believe is going to defend their country, or give their country leverage. we saw that in attacks on india and attacks on, and the efforts of course supporting the taliban, etc.. until that changes, until the people of baluchistan do not have to suffer with her people are being grabbed and bodies are dumped in large numbers, this is a tragic state.

for the united states to provide weapons to a government like islamabad, which then is used against them, but even worse, pakistan and these people from that country, their approach to the united states, the judge was right. if we were thwarted in trying to bring to justice osama bin laden, it would have been because the pakistanis were using american jet to shoot our people down. we calculated on that. that was not out of the realm of possibility and the fact that that is the reality of it, and we end up giving them billions of dollars of military

equipment, no wonder they do not respect us. one last thing. dr., we know osama bin laden was given safe haven in that country, the man who slaughtered 3000 americans was given safe haven. the one guy that helped us bring that monster to justice is now lingering in a dungeon in pakistan. this is their answer to us. that is a message to the people of the united states. they are thumbing their nose at us and taking our money and they are saying, here is the guy, tell those americans the guy who helped bring osama bin laden to justice, we are just going to throw him in that dungeon and that is the message to the american people. it is time for us to quit taking that and stand up for proof and justice. we will be siding with the pakistani people, and not their corrupt, brutal government. >> thank you. >> thank you, adam chair. -- madam chair. he spoke of the hopeful signs of the relationship between pakistan and india. i want to focus on the more

troubling signs with that of india and the united states. pakistan plays a double game. they are our military partner, but they are the protector of our enemies. this has been going on for 15 years. since 2002, the united states' aid to pakistan has averaged about $2 billion per year. pakistan's annual budget is about $5 billion per year. we in the united states finance 80 great portion of their military and economic budget. by every measure, terrorism has become worse in afghanistan and pakistan. in 2010, the most generous u.s. aid package to pakistan, $4.5 billion, the united states suffered the highest level of casualties in afghanistan,

almost 500 soldiers. also, pakistan is involved in an arms race against what it believes is its accidental -- it's x essential threat with india test existential threat with india. pakistan could have 350 nuclear warheads in the next decade, becoming the world's third biggest nuclear power, outpacing india, france, china, and the united kingdom. there is no positive sign of any improved relations with india because pakistan justifies its nuclear proliferation as a deterrent against aggression

from the outside. so the united states has to get tougher. we have to call them out on this double game that they have been playing, not this year, not last year, not five years, but for the past 15 years. i can appreciate you and your capacity must try -- you in your capacity must try to deal with these issues as diplomatically as possible, but when you really look at the cold, hard facts, pakistan is not an ally to the united states. they have facilitated, they have encouraged, they have been a protector of the very enemy. there is these two conversations going on.

there is one when the americans are in the room and another when we are not. the one that is most detrimental to us is the one that is going on when we are not in the room. i would ask you to comment. thank you, congressman. -- mr. olson: thank you, congressman. we do share your concern about the development of pakistan's nuclear program, including its pursuit of short range nuclear systems. we are concerned that a conventional conflict in south asia to escalate to include nuclear use, as well as the increased security challenges that accompany growing stockpiles. i can tell you we have had a very active dialogue at the

highest levels with the pakistanis, in which we have made clear the nature of our very specific concerns. >> mr. ambassador, we have heard this for the past 15 years. here is my concern, and i apologize for cutting you off but i have a minute. if pakistan falls apart, or if islamic extremists take over, it is a nightmare scenario for us. it is a big country with 100 and 80 million people. it has exotic extremists and nuclear weapons -- islamic

extremists and nuclear weapons. that is a primary goal of al qaeda, and it would be a major victory for them and the outgrowth of al qaeda, the islamic state, and a major defeat for us in the united states. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman. many of the questions or comments are things that i was going to a dress, and i just wanted to follow through on that. i think mr. higgins made some great comments, and i think we are all concerned similarly because of the size and nuclear weapons and everything else. there is a part of me that wants to say, in all fairness, pakistan has been a great ally of ours, particularly from the military standpoint, and we never would have gotten that equipment out of iraq because there was only one way to go,

through pakistan. we kind of overlooked that. i still think the only country that is going to control afghanistan's destiny is -- is pakistan. i see you shaking your head and you agree with that. all those things considered, i am going to throw something which really, really scares me. there has been talk in light of the iranian deal and the nuclear weapons in a persian country, in a shiite country. in your opinion, is there any possibility that pakistan would not just give the technology but actually sell nuclear weapons to the sunni states with money, i will not name them but i think we know who they are, that this proliferation would start on a scale and change the whole calculus of the region? mr. olson: thank you, congressman. thank you for flagging the role pakistan had with other forms of support of our operations in afghanistan. with regard to nuclear weapons, i want to assure you that we agree that nuclear security is a key issue. we have confidence in the capabilities of the security forces, the pakistani security

forces, to control and secure their nuclear weapons. we want to make sure that continues to be the case. with regard to proliferation concerns, pakistan has made an effort over the past few years, and we have worked very closely with them, to tighten export controls and to make sure that they are not in a position of proliferating nuclear materials. this involved of course a cleanup from the premia situation -- previous situation of a decade ago. our assessment is that they have made considerable progress in this area. >> thank you. switching gears a little bit, just like everybody on this committee i am afraid there is

one agency that impacts and i think the vast majority of us are afraid of them, and that is because of their past history, and that is isi. their corruption, their agenda, and everything else, and more than that, the influence that they have on the pakistani government in terms of the entry -- i could go on and on -- but just in certain decisions. can you give me any warm and fuzzy feeling about an organization i think most of us are very nervous about? from san bandito -- from san bernardino, i am worried about that. that more than anything else in terms of what are the power factors in pakistan, i am very, very nervous and cynical about. mr. olson: yes, thank you very

much, congressman. let me just mention a couple things on isi. we do have a very robust engagement with isi. i'm that with the chief regularly during my tenure in pakistan, and made the points i described earlier about terrorism directly to him. isi does have a role to play with regard to afghan reconciliation, and we think it is a role that pakistan at large played in bringing the taliban to the table last summer was quite important. they need to do that again, in our view, following up on the positive statements out of the heart of asia conference. >> thank you very much, i know

they are going to cut me off. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. following up on my colleague mr. cook's questions, you are talking about robust engagement with isi but there has been evidenced time and time again of their direct and indirect connections with the haqqani network. in 2011, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff call the haqqani network a veritable arm of the isi. so as you are having these discussions, you have talked a lot about how more must be done but i am wondering what action, what change in u.s. policy has occurred that would actually bring about a consequential shift?

mr. olson: well, we continue to press at every point for action on the haqqanis. we have done this at the highest levels of our government. >> has there been any change in the aid packages of the funding we are providing? mr. olson: as you know, there was a decrement of $300 million from the coalition support funds, i believe under last year's national defense authorization act. i would have to refer you to the department of defense for how that is being implemented. the 300 million was subject to a certification of cooperation from the huck connie -- from the haqqanis. i would have to refer you to the department of defense. >> to say there were serious doubts is an understatement, on

pakistani's credibility. even with nuclear cooperation, i think one of the greatest concerns as we look at how closely connected the haqqani network and others are to pakistan, is the safety of the nuclear weapons that they have in preventing misuse. you have just said you have confidence in the pakistani security forces, but when you have these insider threats, the have connie network being an arm of the -- the haqqani network being an arm of the isi, how can you make sure they do not have access to these nuclear weapons or traffic them or get them in the wrong hands? mr. olson: i think pakistan has taken a lot of steps to tighten up its control of nuclear

security. they are well aware of their responsibilities with regard to protecting. i think they have specifically taken into account the insider threat as well. >> can you speak with some specificity? mr. olson: ma'am, honestly i would not be able to address these issues in this forum but in another form it might be possible to do so. >> can you speak specifically to what pakistan and the government has done to crack down on the haqqani network or these other terrorist networks which are directly linked? mr. olson: the launching of operations in north waziristan in june 2014 was something the united states had actually wanted to see for quite some time. north waziristan was where many

of these militants, including the haqqani network were based. it was completely cleared, including the haqqani network facilities and armaments, bunkers were uncovered and destroyed, and arms caches taken away, including 160 times of precursors for improvised explosive devices. this has had and it -- and disruptive effect, not only on the pakistani taliban but also on the haqqani network, and by the way al qaeda, which probably had some presence there as well. pakistanis including isi have corporate it with us in taking down al qaeda cells, including a man who was wanted for his plotting of attacks on the new york subway, and one other

american citizen who was extradited from pakistan in april of this year. there has been quite a bit of counterterrorism cooperation between isi and the pakistan government at large, and the united states. >> my time has expired but i think as we look at u.s. policy toward pakistan, this is something we need to carefully consider. >> the chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes himself. i had the privilege of traveling

to islam as bod -- as long a bod and south waziristan -- islamabad and south waziristan. do we, as a department of state, as the united states government, have a time related series of metrics to determine success or failure of our relationship and the money the american taxpayer is spending with regard to that relationship? mr. olson: thank you very much, and it is a great pleasure to see you after seeing you in islamabad. for the assistance programs, that of course is the responsibility of our colleagues, and they do have an extensive program of metrics and tracking their development. >> i do not mean to cut you off, but i'm trying to get to the terror situation. we know we spend billions of

dollars on military assistance, humanitarian assistance, but what we are getting to is this relationship where pakistan seems to be walking the line somewhere between terrorism and support of the united states government. with all due respect, as long as we allow them to walk the line they will continue as it is in their interest to do that. i will give you some of my metrics, but are there any metrics with regard to terrorism that our time related with the american people can see they are getting value out of the billions of dollars that we spend? mr. olson: i think there has been a shift in pakistan. during the time i was there, i definitely saw a shift in the

public discourse on the terrorism issue. i think there is now a very broad consensus in pakistani politics that it is necessary to go after these extremist groups. there was a period of doubt about the efficacy of going after the pakistani taliban, and that ended with the operation in north waziristan in june of 2014. there was a broad consensus, and it certainly was reinforced by the horrific incident of a year ago at the peshawar army school. >> what is the cost of the f-16 to the american taxpayer, do you know? mr. olson: mr. chair, as a matter of policy, we do not discuss prospective arms sales until they have been -- >> we know it is not cheap. let me just give you some of my metrics. in pakistan you have al qaeda, the taliban, the haqqani network, which are all tears

organizations. at the same time -- terrorist organizations. meanwhile, a poll conducted by the pew research center said only 14% of pakistanis expressed a positive view of the united states. they seem neither democratic nor tolerant regarding their governance or religious tolerance. and then we talk about this individual who allegedly helped the united states get the number one terrorist on our list and meanwhile, the backdrop is that this terrorist organization, the let has been active in pakistan and kashmir since the 1990's. pakistan funded the group and the pakistani isi helped establish the military structure. in november 2000 8, 10 let

members conducted a coordinated attack on mumbai, india. in december 2008, pakistan arrested the leader who organized the mumbai attacks. in april 2015, he was released from jail on a $2300 bond and there has been no trial scheduled. meanwhile, the doctor remains in a jail and we are going to make some deal of pakistan for f-16s where we have got neighbors that are much better allies. when are we going to equate our relationship, our financial relationship with results about terrorism? quantifiable results where the american people can see the value of this relationship.

mr. olson: if i could respond to a couple of points, first, on the doctor we fully agree with you that he has been unjustly imprisoned, and we have communicated this at the highest levels. >> why don't we tie it to our actions? his release, why don't we tied the future of this individual to the sale of our weapon systems and our aid? who is negotiating these deals on our behalf? mr. olson: we believe, a