rationalize terrorists. i tell you when john kerry was nominated, only three senators voted against his confirmation. never have i been prouder than to have been in that gang of three. [applause] and when kerry called israel an apartheid state, i went to the senate floor and called for kerry's resignation. and i would note that we need more senators, both republicans and democrats, that likewise call for accountability when the secretary of state uses language that undermines the safety and security of our allies. [applause]

that's the second thing we need to do, we need to stand by our ally. all of us knew early in the obama administration, there are warning signs when in the opening week the president sent back to the united kingdom the bust of winston churchill. that was just a foreshadowing of things to come. after seven years we have not seen an administration more antagonistic and hostile to the nation of israel in the history of this country. if i'd suggested to you six years ago that the elected prime minister of israel would come to america, would address a joint session of congress, and he would be boycotted by the president of the united states, the vice president of the united states and every member of the cabinet, our friends in the media would have dismissed that as crazy conspiracy talk. that would never happen. i'll tell you, on the eve of that speech, i organized a panel

discussion with elie wiesel to discuss the threat of the iranian nuclear deal. elie weisel wanted that to be a bipartisan discussion. so i invited one democrat after another democrat after another democrat after another democrat, we invited roughly a dozen democrats and not a single democrat was willing to stand on stage with elie weisel and discuss the iranian nuclear deal. i will tell you it was truly humbling and powerful to be on that stage with a man who has seen the face of evil and can speak with a moral gravity that when he said, as he did, that never again must mean never again and the one threat of that happening is a nuclear iran. [applause]

we need a president who will stand unapologetically with the ation of israel. when hamas murdered three israeli teenagers, i joined with new jersey democrat bob me then december to introdution -- to introduce legislation providing for the 0 reward naftali who kidnapped fran tell. that passed the senate and thankfully they captured the terrorist before the house could take it up. just in the past couple of weeks, i put together a bipartisan coalition soft some 30 senators to write to the e.u.

to pose their plan to require -- to oppose their plan to require labeling on the products coming out of israel. and i have pledged that if i'm elected president, on the very first day in office, we will begin the profwess -- process of moving the american embassy to jerusalem, the once and eternal capital of israel. [applause] and let me tell you now as we see the global b.d.f. movement, unfortunately get more and more momentum behind it, in a cruz administration, any university that supports the b.d.s.

movement will find its federal funds stripped away. and the third thing we need is we need to defeat our enemies. not to weaken them, not to degrate them but to defeat them. two years ago, the nation of iran named their ambassador to he united nations hamid ab udalabi a known terrorist who participated in holding americans hostage. everyone in this town said, this is terrible, there's nothing we can do. i introduced legislation barring him and other known terrorists from coming to america. it passed the senate 100-0. it passed the house 435-0. and president obama signed it

nto law. part of the feeting our enemies is understanding who they are. and that means not going down he misguided foreign policy of barack obama and hillary clinton and unfortunately too many republicans in this town. in 2009, hillary clinton and barack obama led the effort to topple the government in libya. the consequence of that, libya has been handed over to radical islamic terrorists fighting in a war zone. short think thereafter, the obama administration led the effort to topple mubarak in egypt. the consequence of that, the muslim brotherhood a terrorist organization became the government in egypt. and now we see the obama administration with the support of politicians in both parties trying to topple the government

in syria with no plan for what will replace it. if we are to defeat our enemies we need to be clear-eyed. that toppling a government and allowing radical islamic terrorists to take over a nation is not benefiting our national security interests. putting istiss or al qaeda or the muslim brotherhood in charge of yet another state in the middle east is not benefiting our national security. instead, we need a president who focuses clearly and says we will tterly destroy isis. who makes abundantly clear to any militant on the face of the earth if you go and join isis, if you wage jihad against the united states of america, you re signing your death warrant.

and then finally, we have the iranian nuclear deal. if i am elected president, i have pledged on the very first day in office to rip to shreds this catastrophic iranian uclear deal. [applause] you the, at some of these republican debates there have been other republican candidates for president who have said, gosh, that's not a very sophisticated approach. you don't understand, we need to wait and see if we can trust the iranians. let me tell you what. i do trust the iranians.

when the ayatollah khomeini burns american and israeli flags and says death to america, i rust him that he means it. and i believe in peace through strength. we are facing a moment like munich in 1938. and president obama, like chamberlain, has come back from tehran promising peace in our time. yet history has not been kind to those who have facilitated the gathering storm of homicidal maniacs who tell us they want to kill us. the next president needs to have the fortitude to say to the ayatollah khomeini in no

uncertain terms, either you will stop your nuclear weapons program or we will stop it for you. [applause] and i want to give a word of hope and encouragement on all of this. i've said many times this election, moment in time, is eerily similar to the late 1970's. the parallels between barack obama and jimmy carter are uncanny. the same failed economic policies, the same misery, stagnation, and malaise, the same feckless and nay eve foreign policy. in fact, the exact same countries, russia and iran. openly laughing at and mocking the president of the united states. i believe this next election,

2016, is going to be an election like 1980 that we are going to win by painting in bold colors and not pale pastels. [applause] the manifest failures of the carter administration set the stage for the reagan revolution, which came from millions of americans across this country. it was a grass roots movement. t didn't come from washington. washington despised reagan. it came from the american people and it transformed this country and the word of optimism i will give you is the same thing is happening all over this country. people are waking up incredibly and when it comes to foreign policy, the difference a strong president can make is underscored by the simple fact that this very same nation, the nation of iran, released our

hostages the day ronald reagan was sworn into office. to with that, i'm happy answer or dodge any question you like. matt: on behalf of the republican jewish coalition -- [applause] this is great, i've never gotten a standing ovation before. i have a couple of questions, we've been collecting questions over the last few weeks, but one

thing that comes up, and my apologies in advance for this comparison, but a number of people have asked, much has been made of barack obama coming into office as a first-term senator with no foreign policy experience. how do you respond to those who raise the same concerns about you? senator cruz: i'll say two things, when the media asks, gosh, aren't you like barack obama, my reaction to reporters is, i thought you thought that as a good thing? last i checked, he won two presidential elections. and listen, barack obama is not a bad president because he was a senator. barack obama is a bad president because he's an unmitigated socialist who won't stand up and defend the united states of america. [applause]

but there's a broader point in this. if you look at the last 50 years and at the two moments that had the greatest impacts on human liberty, i would suggest it was 1980, the election of ronald reagan, and in 2008, the election of barack obama. the first in a positive way, the second in a very negative way. they shared something in common. both reagan and obama believed profoundly in their principles, had the courage to fight for them. when barack obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform this country, he meant it. and the damage that has been done in the last seven years is enormous and i believe the only way to undo the damage is if republican -- is as republicans we need to nominate a candidate for president as committed to conservative principles as barack obama is to liberal principles. matt: this dove tails into the

next question, which is, how would you convince staunchly pro-choice voters who love your views on security, and israel, that they can still be pro-choice and vote for you? senator cruz: that's a question that comes up a lot. the simple raality is to win. every one of us wants to win. at this point desperately. it's not just a question of our team winning, it's a question of saving this country. i believe the stakes have never been higher than they are right now. that we are at the edge of a precipice, we're bankrupting our kids and grandkids, the safety and security of this country is hanging in the balance. if we continue another four or eight more years down this road, we will lose this country. so we should all look with a stone cold seriousness at how we win. now in washington, there are political consultants who tell us over and over and over again, the way you run is -- the way

you win is you run to the middle. and this is no longer an abstract theory. we have now beta tested this theory. and every time we follow that advice we get clobbered. it doesn't work. and the reason it doesn't work is very simple. if you compare 2004, the last race we won nationally, to 2008 and 2012, the biggest difference is the millions upon millions of conservative voters who showed up in 2004, who stayed home in 2008 and stayed home in bigger numbers in 2012. and i believe if we're going to win, the central question in this general election is how do you motivate and inspire and bring back to the polls the 54 million evangelical christians who stayed home in 2012? how do you motivate and bring back to the polls the reagan democrat the blue collar catholics across the midwest and up into new england who stayed home in the polls? and the one thing that is abundantly clear is if we

nominate another candidate, in the mold of obab dole, or a john mccain, or a mitt romney. all of whom are good, honorable, decent men, who love this country, but what they did didn't work. and if we do it again, the same millions of voters who stayed home in 2008 and 2012 will stay home in 2016 and hillary becomes the next president. so how do we win? if you look since world war ii, the only republicans who have ever won have won -- have run on all three legs of the conservative stool. they have run as fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and national security conservatives. if you chop off one of those legs, we don't get to 51%. so the trick is to speak in a way that energizes, so for

example you asked about the question of life. i'll tell you the context in which i most like to discuss life, and that is the little sisters of the poor. the little sisters of the poor are a catholic charity of nuns who have taken voufs poverty. they spend their lives taking care of the poor and elderly. right now the obama administration is litigating against the little sisters of the poor, trying to force the nuns to pay for abortion inducing drugs in others. aye joked before a really good rule of thumb if you're lit gating against nuns, you've probably done something wrong. if we focus on values that unify us, that wring us -- that bring us together, bringing back jobs and growth and opportunity, defending our constitutional rights and restoring america's leadership in the world, that in

1980 is how the reagan revolution rose up. it's what brought millions of people to the polls who had never voted again and it's what we're seeing happening now. there is a reason why in six months, we've had over 500,000 contributions at tedcruz.org. our average contribution is $63. there is a reason why when we dorallies, a couple of weeks ago we were in kalamazoo, michigan, 9:00 a.m. on a monday morning, in a hockey rink, 800 people came out, almost all reagan democrats. irish catholic union members, working men and women, the the getting hammered by obama economy. if we're going to win, we run a populist campaign of hardworking men and women who want to believe again in the promise of america and we run it against

the bipartisan corruption of washington that hillary clinton embodies. let me say one final thing, matt, which is, i cannot wait to stand on a debate stage with hillary clinton. [applause] reagan understood that you win elections by making choices that are meaningful choices. you don't blur the difference. there's a reason there's only one republican in the last 50 years who has a group of democrats named after him. reagan democrats. we need to nominate a candidate who has the clarity to stand up and say, if you vote for hillary clinton, you are voting for the ayatollah khomeini to have nuclear weapons. and if you vote for me, iran will never have nuclear weapons.

if you vote for hillary clinton, you're voting for 12 million people who are here illegally to be granted amnesty. if you vote for me, we'll secure the border and stop illegal immigration. if you vote for hillary, you are voting for obamacare to be a permanent feature of our economy in perpetuity. if you vote for me, we will repeal every word of obamacare. that i believe is how we win with a cheerful, clear, meaningful distinction that makes a difference to working men and women across this country. matt: thank you, senator. [applause] >> program update, attorney general loretta lynch will speak tonight at the annual dinner of the group muslim advocates, at

8:00 p.m. -- 8:30 p.m. eastern, you can see it live here on c-span. right now, ashton carter who announced the military will open all combat jobs to women. he said there will be no exception to the new policy. secretary carter: good afternoon. good morning. no good afternoon. now before i turn to my statement on the subject about which i'd like to speak to you, i'd first like to offer my condolences to the families of those who were killed yesterday in san bernardino, california. president obama just spoke about this tragedy. we're monitoring the situation closely in coordination with the rest of the president's national security team. our highest priority, of course, is the protection of our people.

the law enforcement community is taking the lead on this and will be able to provide more information as it becomes available. i'm confident they'll have more answers in the days ahead. let me now turn to my statement. when i became secretary of defense, i made a commitment to building america's force for the future. the all-volunteer military that will defend our nation for generations to come. like our outstanding force of today, our force of the future must continue to benefit from the best people america has to offer. in the 21st century, that requires drawing strength from the broadst possible pool of talent. this includes women, because they make over -- make up over 50% of the american population. to succeed in our mission of national defense, we cannot afford to cut ourselves off from half the country's talents and

skills. we have to take full advantage of every individual who can meet our standards. the defense department is increasingly -- has increasingly done this in recent decades. in 1975, for example, opening up the military service academies to women. and in 1993, allowing women to fly fighter jets and serve on combat ships at sea. about the same time, though, d.o.d. also issued the direct ground combat definition and assignment rule. which still prohibited women from being assigned to units whose primary mission was engaging in direct ground combat. that rule was in turn rescinded in january, 2013. when then san francisco ex-- when-then -- when then-secretary order that ed the

all combat posts be open to women by january 1, 2016, less than a month from today, while also giving the secretary of the army, the secretary of the navy, the secretary of the air force and the commander of u.s. special operations command three years to request any exceptions. which would have to be reviewed first by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and then approved by the secretary of defense. as many of you know, i was deputy secretary of defense at the time. that decision reflected among other things the fact that by that time the issue of women in combat, per se, was no longer a question. it was a reality. because women had seen combat throughout the wars in iraq and afghanistan. serving, fighting, and in some cases making the ultimate sacrifice alongside their fellow comrades in arms. we've made important strides over the last three years since then. we've seen women soldiers graduate from the army's ranger

school. we have women serving on submarines. and we opened up over 111,000 positions to women across the services. while that represents real progress, it also means that approximately 10% of positions in the military, that is nearly 220,000, currently remain closed to women. including infantry, armor, reconnaissance and some special operations units. over the last three years, the senior civilian and military leaders across the army, navy, air force, marine corps and special operations command have been studying the integration of women into these positions and last month i receive their recommendations. as well as the data, studies and surveys on which they were based. regarding whether any of those remaining positions warrant a continued exemption from being opened to women.

i reviewed these inputs carefully and today i'm announcing my decision not to make continued exceptions. that is, to proceed -- proceed with opening all these remaining occupations and positions to women. there will be no exceptions. this means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. they will be allowed to drive tanks, fire mor for -- mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat. they'll be able to serve as army rangers, green berets, navy seals, marine corps infantry, parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men. even more importantly, our military will be able to -- better able to harness the skills and perspectives that alented women have to offer.

no exceptions was the recommendation of the sec retear of the army, secretary of the navy, as well as the secretary of the army and the u.s. special operations command. while the marine corps asked for a partial exception in some areas such as infantry, machine gunner, fire support, reconnaissance and others, we are a joint force and i decided to make a decision which applies to the entire force. let me explain how i came to this decision. first i've been mindful of several issues in this process. defending this country is our primary responsibility and cannot be compromised that means everyone who serves in uniform, men and women alike, has to be able to meet the high standards for whatever job they're in.

to be sure, fairness is also important because everyone who is able and willing to serve their country who can meet those standards should have the full and equal opportunity to do so. but the important factor in making my decision was to have access to every american who could add strength to the joint force. now more than ever we cannot afford to have barriers limiting our access to talent. the past three years of extensive studies and reviews leading up to this decision, all of which we're going to post online, by the way, have led to genuine insights and real progress. where we found that some standards previously were either outdated or didn't reflect the tasks actually required in combat, important work has been done to ensure each position now has standards that are grounded in real world operational requirements. both physical and otherwise. so we're positioned to be better

at fighting not -- finding not only the most qualified women but also the most qualified men for military specialties. another principle is if the careful implementation of integrating women into combat positions would be a key to success integration and also that any decision to do so or not would have to be based on rigorous analysis of factual data. and that's exactly how we've conducted this review. it's been evidence-based and iterative. i'm confident the defense department can implement this successfully because throughout our history we've consistently proven ourselves to be a learning organization. just look at the last decade and a half. we've seen this in war where we adapted to counterinsurgency and counterterrorism missions in the wake of 9/11 and in the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we've seen it technically as new capabilities like unmanned systems and cybercapabilities

have entered our inventory. and we've also seen it institutionally when we repealed don't ask, don't tell. in every case, our people have mastered change excellently. and they've been able to do so because their leaders have taken care to implement change thoughtfully, always putting the mission and our people first. we will do the same today. as we integrate women into the remaining combat positions we must keep in mind the welfare and total readiness of our entire force. as we focus on the individual contributions that each service member makes, we also have to remember that in military operations, teams matters. -- matter. that's why it's important that the services chose to study both individual performance and team performance. they not only made comparisons to other elite units like nasa, long dureation flight crews and police swat teams, they also worked with our international partners to examine how they

have integrated women into ground combat roles. again, how we implement this is key. as chairman dunford has noted, simply declaring all career fields open is not successful integration. we must not only continue to implement change thoughtfully but also track and monitor our progress to ensure we're doing it right. leveraging the skills an strengths of our entire population. all of us have a role to play. as we proceed with full integration of women into combat roles in a deliberate and methodical manner, i'm directing that seven guidelines be used to steer this implementation. first, implementation must be pursued with the clear objective of improved force effectiveness. leaders must emphasize that objective to all service members, men and women alike.

second, leaders must assign tasks and jobs throughout the force based on ability, not gender. advancement must be based on objective and validated standards. a good example of this is socom selection processes which combine objective and subjective criteria in, i quote, a whole person concept. that includes rigorous physical standards and also strong moral character, leadership skills, mental agility, problem solving skills, selflessness, maturity and humility. the third guideline is that for a variety to have reasons, equal opportunity likely will not mean equal participation by men and women in all specialties. there must be no quotas or perception thereof. so we will work as a joint force to expertly manage the impacts of what studies may -- of what

the studies that have been done may be smaller numbers of women in these fields, the fields previously closed. fourth, the studies conducted by the services and socomm indicate there are physical and other differences on average between men and women. while this cannot be applied to every man or woman it is real and must be taken into account in implementation. thus far, we've only seen small numbers of women qualify to meet our high physical standards in some of our most physically demanding combat occupational specialties and going forward we shouldn't be surprised if these small numbers are also reflecked in areas like recruitment, voluntary assignment, retention and advancement in some of these specific specialties. fifth, we will have to address the fact that some surveys suggest that some service members, both men and women, have a perception that

integration would be pursued at the cost of combat effectiveness. survey data also suggests that women service members emphatically do not want integration to be based on any considerations other than the ability to perform and combat effectiveness. in both cases, based on these surveys, leaders have to be clear that mission effect iness comes first. not -- i'm confident that given the strength of our leaders throughout the ranks, other time these concerns will no longer be an issue. sixth, as i noted, both survey data and the judgment of the services leadership strongly indicate that particularly in the specialties that will be opened, the performance of small teams is important. even as individual performance is important. the seventh guideline has to do with international realities. while we know the united states as a nation committed to using

our entire population to the fullest, as are some of our closest friends and allies, we also know that not all nations share this perspective. our military has long dealt with this reality. notably over the last 15 years, in iact -- iraq and also afghanistan and we need to be prepared to do so going forward as it bears on the specialties that will be opened by this decision. with all these factors in mind, chairman dunford recommended that if we were to integrate women into combat positions, implementation should be done in a combined manner by all the services working together. i agree. and that will be my direction. accordingly, i'm directing all the military services to proceed to open all military occupational specialties to women 30 days from today. that is after a 30-day waiting period required by law and to provide their updated

implementation plans for integrating women into these ositions by that date. deputy secretary of defense bobwork and general paul salva will work with the services to oversee the short-term implementation of this decision, ensure there are no unintended consequences on the joint force and periodically update me and chairman dunford. before i conclude, it's important to keep all this in perspective. implementation won't happen overnight. while at the end of the day this will make us a better and stronger force, there still will be problems to fix and challenges to overcome. we shouldn't diminish that. at the same time, we should also remember that the military has long prided itself on being a hering tocy where those who serve are -- meriting to becy ere those who serve are base

meritocracy, where those who serve are judged based on their abilities. that's why we have the finest fighting worse ever phone. -- known. it's one other way we will strive to ensure that the best force will remain so long into the the future. today we take another step toward that continued excellence. thank you. now i'll take your questions. >> you mentioned the marine corps asked for a partial exception. the marine corps made a vigorous and detailed keas for keeping some combat positions open to men only. in what ways did you find their argument unpersuasive? secretary carter: i did review the marine corps data, surveys, studies and recommendations, the commandant of the marine corps, general dunford, now our chairman, that certain marine corps specialties remain closed to women. i reviewed that information and

i looked at it carefully. i also heard from other leaders of other services who had studied similar issues in their own force. the recommendations of the other service secretaries and service chiefs and i came to a different conclusion in respect of those specialties of the marine corps here i strongly agree with now-chairman dunford is two very important points. i noted them here. the first is that the key here is going to be implementation. and i viewed the issues that were raised by all the services, by the way, in varying degrees and obviously by the marine corps, that we need to take those seriously and address them in implementation. i believe the issues raised including by the marine corps could be addressed successfully in implementation.

second, that there was great value in having a joint or combined approach to implementation. that's why i decided to have no exceptions in any service and to have them all working together on implementation. >> just a quick followup. you said you came to a different conclusion, obviously. i was asking what about the argument you found lacking. secretary carter: i believe we could in implementation address the issues that were raised. >> since you opened up referencing san bernardino and said you're hon mor -- monitoring it closely, can you share with the american people your concerns, what are you mono-- what are you monitoring, what concerns you about the incident, what's your assessment of the potential growing issue of seeing acts of potentially

terrorist inspired violence in this country? what does that raise for you? and on this issue that you're discussing here today, can you tell us why general dunford is not here with you? secretary carter: on the question of san bernardino, the law enforcement community is investigating what happened there, again, i'm not going to speculate on what happened. to your general question, protecting our people is our most important mission. but we don't know what the causes are of the san bernardino tragedy and law enforcement i'm sure will get to the bottom of that but i can't tell you what that is. >> the broader issue we have seen so many times, though. you the other day on capitol ll i believe referenced chattanooga, and you have raised this issue of concern in the past. so i'm just wondering what your latest assessment is of how much it worries you?

secretary carter: we don't know the reasons behind this particular shooting but the protection of our people, including our service people, and concern about radicalization including of american citizens living in america in the manner that we saw in chattanooga is a huge concern. yet another reason why isil needs to be fought and defeated in its heartland, syria and iraq, about which i have spoken a great deal. but it's a global campaign. including one that involves law enforcement, homeland security, intelligence, and other elements right here at home. that's the world we are in. and we need to protect our people in that world. >> and why is general dunford not here? secretary carter: i'm announcing my decision. i was the one who took this decision. i'm announcing my decision. i should say about general dunford, you'll have an opportunity to talk to him. i've talked to him extensively

about this. -- about this subject. he's very knowledging -- knowledgeable about it. he will be with me as we proceed with implementation. i have taken parts of his, the conclusions he drew. others drew different conclusions, including myself. and that's the decision i've taken and that's the direction we're going to go. >> does this decision now lead to a greater debate about whether women need to register for selective service? >> it may -- secretary carter: it may do that. that's a matter of legal dispute and litigation. i don't know how that will turn out. -- the legal -- that legal determination won't affect what i announce today, that is, our timetable for the implementation of the decisions

i've announced today. it is an issue that's out there, unfortunately it's subject to litigation. >> the three women who made it through the ranger school, will they now be welcomed into the ranger regiment? will they become a part of the regiment because they weren't until now. secretary carter: those positions will be available to women. once again, just to remind you, people have to qualify for positions, positions have to be open, and so forth. so last -- so there's a lot that goes into that. those positions will be open to them, yes. >> secondly, can we assume you found the marine corps study which concluded that mixed gender units aren't as capable as male units to be flawed? sec reair -- secretary carter: it's not defin ty, not determinative. there are other issues, other than -- those studies are reflective of something i spoke of which is teams do matter.

and we need to take that into account. at the same time, the individuals' capabilities, the capabilities of the individual to contribute are extremely important. on average, and i said this very directly, men and women will have different physical capabilities. the data show that clearly. that's on average. so there will be women who can meet the physical requirements of these even as there are men who cannot meet those requirements. and so averages tell you something about the need to pay attention to numbers, team dynamics and so forth. but they do not determine whether -- determine whether an individual is qualified to participate in a given unit. >> mr. speaker.

the general that led this marine corps stud said in a memo to then commandant joe dunford that opening up ground combat jobs would increase the risk, meaning more casualties for marines. is that statement overblown? one of generalnd dunford's concerns was, since women in the experimental unit suffer more injuries than men, he was concerned that you would lose some hard charging women marines. what did you think about that? sec reair -- secretary carter: first of all, to the first point, combat effectiveness is the critical criterion in implementation. so the issue you raise, that your first quote dealt with, is something that must be dealt with and i believe can be dealt with in implementation. it needs to be taken into account. that's a serious issue. combat effectiveness is why you are here.

with respect -- i'm second -- i'm sorry, your second point was? >> the concern that some of the women in the experimental battalion, the fear is you would lose hard-charging women marines due to injuries. secretary carter: there are a number of studies that indicate that. that doesn't suggest to me that women shouldn't be admitted to those specialties if they're qualified but it's something that needs -- that is going to need to be taken into account in implementation. so these are real phenomena that are -- that affect gender, that are affected by gender and need to be taken into account. >> the marine corps concluded it would harm combat effectiveness, that's something secretary panetta mentioned. secretary carter: combat effectiveness is the criterion. this change will be implemented and i'm confident can be implemented in a way that will

enhance combat effectiveness, not detract from combat effectiveness. >> mr. speaker, will the women's desire -- mr. secretary, will the women's desire to enter combat roles or missions be entirely voluntary or will there be a time where they could, like many of their male counterparts, be required to go into combat missions? secretary carter: absolutely. if you're a service member you have some choices but you don't have absolute choice. people are assigned to missions, tasks, and functions according to need as well as their capabilities and women will be subject to the same standards and rules that men will. >> are you concerned as you alluded to in your opening remarks that that could actually cause women not to want to enlist in the military, if they thought there was a possibility they would be required to go into a combat role?

sec recare carter: -- secretary carter: i assume there are people, men and women who don't join the military because they don't want to live by the military' standards. but if you do decide to join you're subject to our rules an standards, periods. >> mr. secretary, back to the absence of general dunford ecause given that he was the only service chief that asked for an exemption of all of them and given that he's now the senior military advisor, wouldn't it be important for him to be here to send the message that the u.s. military is ready to is lute smartly and carry out your orders. his absence may be sending an unintended message that he's not fully on board. secretary carter: general dunford and i have discussed this many, many times. i met with him on the other chiefs earlier today.

he will be a full part of implementation. i came to a different judgment act a part of the conclusions of the studies conducted by the marine corps when he was commandant but agreed with the great bulk of them and they will be reflected in implementation. the issues that were raise by those studies, i believe, can be addressed in implementation and will be, that's my judgment, and he understands that's my judgment and we will -- he will be at my side as we do the implementation. that's the idea. >> he's on board with your decision? secretary carter: you'll have to speak to him about that, but he understands what my decision is, and my decision is my decision an we'll implement it. >> i want to move on to she shooting down of the russian jet. wonder if you can give us an assessment of how that complicates the issue and if turkey overreached on that shooting down of the jet.

secretary carter: first of all, we said repeatedly, the president said the turks are entitled to defend their own air space. e have urged both sides not to allow this to lead to further escalation. it has not had any effect on our prosecution of our own air campaign. as you know we have a memorandum of understanding with the russian military which is being -- whicho and which is provides procedures that guarantee the operations of our own air campaign, i mean with respect to the relations between obviously russia, we have our differences of perspective with russia about what is going on in syria.

that doesn't translate in our judgment into any desire to see conflict of any kind between russia and syria and in turkey -- and turkey for its part is a member of our coalition. and they're working with us and we'd like them, like many other members of the coalition, to do more. in syria and iraq. >> to fol -- to follow up on that, what would it take, you're pressing them to do more, particularly along a stretch of the boarder to help eliminate the flow of foreign fighters. what do you think it will take for turkey to kind of agree to do that and move forward? >> i don't know. my -- in my view they have ample evidence of isil's -- secretary carter: they have ample evidence of the threat isil poses to their own people and their own

country. we also understand the other dangers they face. they need to join in the fight against isil. i think there is more that they could do. it involves their military, it involves their intelligence services. it involve theirs border and homeland security forces. so we would like to see turkey do more. it's essential. >> i want to tie together the fight against isil with your decision today. the fact that socomm did not press for any exemptions, does that necessarily mean women over the next year could become part of the specialized counterterrorism commando units that you want to accelerate in the fight against isil like the specialized targeting expeditionary task force you announced? secretary carter: yes, that is reflected in my decision and was also reflecked in the recommendation of the commander of special operations command.

and i saw it the same way and therefore my decision is the -- as the decision of the the recommendations of general votel in this case. as far as the time scale goes, remember that with -- that the -- from the time a service member joins to the time they're assigned to a special team to undergo training and so forth, people will be going through the pipeline including women who are admitted pursuant to my decision today. >> another question. in the same vein were there any amenable to women, did they say, we couldudes more here, there. the military is at capacity, shrinking the size of the force, and the second question, on the

targeting expeditionary forces, could you ex-plin to us when that -- whone those get started? or they're already started? you mentioned the goal was to capture isis leaders. when they do that, what happens to them? >> ok. two things. well, there are, kevin, specialties and i don't want to go into this too much, but that for-- designed specifically women. these are women who are part of the female engagement teams and so forth in places where it is sensitive for an american male service member to interact with local females. so -- and i was alluding to that in my statement. there are situations like that. i suppose it's also fair to say that as a statistical thing,

doesn't apply to individuals, but there are specialties in which women have historically excelled. you have to be careful about that because it's sometimes a matter of where they felt they could advance rather than anything else. but some women are represented differently across specialties that have long been open. and that's why i think that we need to focus on stan cards as we go into implementation. and we're going to learn a lot, we already have learned in this service studies and surveys suggests this, about standards and about how to think about standards in the course of considering this matter of gender. the expeditionary targeting force and capture, we'll deal with that on a case-by-case basis, it's going to depend on the circumstances and that is of

course just one of the purposes of the expeditionary targeting orce but it is one capture and we will be doing such operations as you know both in syria and also in iraq and just to repeat what i said the other day, when we do it in iraq, it will be with the knowledge and approval of the iraqi government and prime minister abbadi to make that once again quite clear. >> sit possible that an isis fighter could be -- the full range either military -- secretary carter: full range, all the way. and other law enforcement of other nations. so the full range. it really has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. thank you all. thank you very much. appreciate you being here.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> erler today the house approved a five-year, $250 billion highway and funding bill. some money comes from drawing down the federal reserve's capital surplus. testifying on capitol hill today, federal reserve chair janet yellen said federal spending money shouldn't come rom the nation's central bank. chair yellen: the highway bill as i understand it will take a large share of our operating surplus, which is part of the federal reserve's capital, to pay for this bill and not allow us to build it up. this concerns me. think financing federal spend

big tapping the resources of the federal reserve sets a bad precedent and impinges on the independence of the central bank. it weakens fiscal discipline. and i would point out that repurposing the federal reserve's capital surplus doesn't actually create any new money for the federal government. if you don't mind my quoting what c.b.o. wrote in scoring this bill they said as follows, it's important to note that the transfer of surplus funds pr -- from the federal reserve to the treasury has in import for the fiscal status of the federal government. although federal budget accounting does not recognize additions to the federal reserve surplus account as revenues, such additions have the same effects if they had instead been paid to the treasury and were counted as revenues. a transfer of those funds would have no effect on national

savings, economic growth, or income, so in effect by taking our uh surplus, our holdings of u.s. treasury securities declines and the interest we would earn on those securities would be money that would be transferred every year for many years to come back to the federal coffers and by taking this surplus now, you're diminishing the stream of revenues into the federal budget other many years. now -- over many years. now central bank differs from a commercial bank in the role of capital -- and the role of capital is somewhat different but almost all central central banks and holding such a surplus or capital enhances the credibility and confidence in the