were. the >> i was an instructor in iraq most of 2009. and host: what part of the country? aller: kirkut. host: and you were working with what organization? caller: teaching iraqis how to fly. bring to wanted to this discussion, i have communicated with some of those former students in the last few days and one of them relayed the fact that he had lost everything and had to send his family out of the country and they were experiencing pure hell.

and he was -- i believe he is in tikrit area right now. and the other one flew the last airplane out of tikrit and they , wherey disillusiononned we can't depend on the u.s. and they were the same kids who are rotc ike any of our graduates academy graduates, sharp, intelligent, motivated it's veral of them said not our generation that is going o experience the peace and

tranquility. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good morning. happy early 4th of july. i hope you all have big plans tomorrow. i'm going to make a couple of opening comments and then ask chairman dempsey for some thoughts and we'll go to your questions. i know as chairman dempsey does, you have been receiving updates on the situation in iraq here on a regular basis. and i would like to focus a couple of comments on iraq as i start. our efforts here at d.o.d. have been focused on two specific missions. and i want to lay a bit of a framework down and a base down on what those missions are and then i know you'll have questions.

but in a very clear, deliberate way, first securing our embassy. facilities and our personnel in iraq. second, assessing the situation in iraq and advising the iraqi security forces. both of these missions are important components of the president's overall strategy in iraq. helping iraq's leaders resolve the political crisis that has enabled isis advance and supporting iraqi forces. by reinforcing security, its support facilities in baghdad international airport, we're helping provide our diplomats time and space to work with sunni, kurds political leaders as they try to form a new

national unity government. by understanding the conditions on the ground and the capabilities of the iraqi security forces we will be better help advise them as they combat isis forces inside their own country. approximately 200 military advisers are now on the ground. we have established a joint operation center with iraqis in baghdad. and we have personnel in the ground where our second joint operations center has achieved initial operating capability. assessment teams are evaluating the cohesiveness of iraqi forces. none of these troops are performing combat missions. none will perform combat missions. president obama has been clear that american combat troops are not going to be fighting in iraq again. the situation in iraq, as you all know, is complex and it's

fluid, but there is no exclusively military solution to the threats proposed by isis. our approach is deliberate and flexible and designed to bolster our depp low matic efforts and support the iraqi people. we will remain prepared. as most americans enjoy this holiday weekend, military around the world and especially in the middle east will stay postured for any contingency in that region. as we celebrate independence day tomorrow, i want to particularly express my gratitude to the men and women and their families, who serve our nation at home and abroad, both civilian and in uniform. thank you all for what you do to keep our country safe every day. now aisle ask chairman dempsey

for his comments and we'll take questions. >> you would probably hear from clint dempsey today but you're stuck with me but i'm sitting with the real secretary of dens. i will begin with iraq. the secretary described our current mission and role in iraq and the actions we are taking are part of a broader line of effort to contribute to stability in the region. iraq's future depends as much on political inclusiveness as it does on security, which will be an important factor in determining what we do going forward. we are, of course, a force that's engaged across the globe. let me comment briefly on my travels over the past several weeks and some of the insights that i gained. n brussels, i met with my nato counterparts. preparations in afghanistan and he threat of further russian

coercion and weigh heavily on our european allies. the joint chiefs met with the united kingdom chiefs in london. we talked through common strategic concerns and now is not a time for business as usual in europe. i met with my counterparts in saudi arabia and united emirates and they are plagued with instability. i met with partner nations in the pacific region. we had a frank conversation about north korean provocations and china's activities in the east china sea and south china sea. yesterday, i returned from hawaii where they are participating in the rim exercise for the first time. not the first time they were invited but first time to choose to participate. military relationships in the region are important and we remain engaged. i met with my counterparts while

in hawaii to discuss the national and regional implications of north korean provocation. this was the first time in the history that the chiefs of defense from these three countries, myself, its republic of korea and the japanese have met together in this context. across the board, these engagements reaffirm the importance of close partnerships in protecting our national interests and assuring our allies against an increasing number of threats. u.s. leadership is still regarded as the world's best hope for stability and prosperity. i think of the extraordinary men and women who safeguard these freedoms. they are on my minds as their families. thank you. > i was wondering if you could give us your most up-to-date assessment of the insurgency in

iraq, what you are seeing, if it is imagining strength, and mr. chairman, you have mentioned the possibility that the u.s. at some point could use assets in order to go after high-value targets. i wonder if the mail tear has done that yet. do you see what kind of tipping point would you want to see in order for that to begin and would you have to communicate with iran in order to avoid any conflict or miscalculation? >> as you know, i noted this in my opening comments. we have six assessment teams now on the ground in iraq. and we have two joint operation centers that are operating. these individuals who are making these assessments essentially

focusing on your question, what is going on. the strength, cohesion of the i.s.f., an assessment of the strength of isil, where they are deeply embedded, all this is part of the larger sectarian dynamic that as you all know is in play in iraq. also part of what's going on is probably -- is an important process as any, and that is the process of forming a new government. that is in play and very active. as you know the next time they meet is the 8th of july. now that said, both the chairman and i are getting some assessments back early

assessments through the general, who as you know is overseeing all of this. we won't have the full complement of all those assessments for a while. but that is in process, ongoing. and you know that we have -- as i have noted here and general -- ey has and admirable admiral kirby where we have additional people, airport, embassy. all of that is essentially getting to your questions and answering your questions on a realistic assessment so we can therefore be better prepared to advise the iraqis on what we think they need to do and the different dynamics that are presented there on the ground

and how they can best use their forces as we continue to advise them. >> if i could briefly, i think you asked me four questions. state of the insurgency, state of the i.s.f., whether we are going to strike and let me see what i can do. why are we there? we are there we have two overriding national security interests. a stable iraq within a region that can be and probably should e a partner with us in countering terrorism that stretches from beirut to damascus and to syria. they are a regional threat today that overtime could become a transregional and global threat and that's why we are there. the actions we have taken fall

into two bins. one is we're protecting our personnel and our facilities to preserve options and we are assessing to develop options, ok? earlier -- you asked me about the insurgency. the insurgency after some initial gains and collaboration with other sunni groups in northern iraq made some pretty significant and rapid advances. they're stretched right now, stretched to control what they have gained and stretched across the although gist particular ines of communication. >> i don't have the assessment teams' exact language but some initial insights is that they are stiffening and capable of defending baghdad and challenged

. go on the offense and the call that they called out for volunteers is being answered and it complicates the situation frankly a bit. the reality of the assessment is it is being done in the situation and it is important to note that the assessment is being done as the political situation unfolds. and they will affect each other. the ability of the iraqi security forces to act on behalf of other iraqis will be affected whether they will be conformed to a government of national unity. we continue to gain insights and establish trends. we will be able to measure some intangibles and some intangibles like leadership and it is very dynamic. strikes, that is one of the options that we will continue to

develop pending the assessment and pending iraqi's political process. >> my question is very specific, what is your measure of success in doing that, how dune how much do you break the momentum. how dune mission accomplished this time that you can say, we have achieved those objectives? and is it enough for the iraqi forces simply to be able to hold baghdad? is the measure of success that or is it the iraqi forces able to go north and regain this massive territory that isis has right now? is the united states military prepared, if they have to, to defend baghdad and defend the airport? >> so, the questions get more and more complex.

>> i don't see you in a long time. >> it's impossible to wrestle the podium away from john kirby. i don't think you have heard me say we will break the momentum. >> actually the admiral did. >> that's my problem. the issue has been us for us to determine the ability of the i.s.f. to be able to stabilize the situation and eventually go back on the offensive to regain their side of the territory and what we would be willing to contribute to that cause and that's not a question we are prepared to answer just yet. you mentioned the airport and you mentioned our intentions, remember the phrase i used is that we were protecting that which would allow us to preserve options. the airport, not the entire airport but for that part we need for supply and potentially for evacuation, we are

protecting that part of the airport for that purpose. it is about deliberately first preserving options and then developing options and if you are asking, will the iraqis at some point be able to go back on the offensive to recapture the part of iraq that they've lost, i think that is a really broad campaign-quality question. probably not by themselves. doesn't mean we would have to provide ki netic support. i'm not suggesting this is the direction this is heading, but in my military campaign you want to develop multiple akis and squeeze them from the north and from baghdad and that's a campaign that has to be developed. but the first step in developing that campaign is to determine whether we have a reliable iraqi partner that is committed to growing their country into something that all iraqis will be willing to participate in. if the answer to that is no,

then the future is pretty bleak. >> what you just described is an open-ended commitment or mission to the u.s. military, a stable iraq, inclusive government, the into some force isil find of treat or when is the end game. when will the president be able to say, let's bring our boys home? >> first of all, this is not 2003, it's not 2006, this is a very different approach than we've taken in the past. i mean, assessing, advising and enabling are different words than attacking, defeating and disrupting. we may get to that point if our national interests drive us

there. if they become such a threat to the homeland that the president of the united states with our advice decides that we have to take direct action. we are not there yet. in terms of the open-endedness of it, you heard me say before that the ideology that stretches from south asia across the arab world and into north and west africa, the ideology which is an anti-western, very conservative, religious and in some cases radically violent ideology, we are stuck with that. a generation or two. it doesn't mean that we have to throw that rock and take it on by themselves. it should not be that. and what we owe the president of the united states over time in consultation with the congress and explanation with the people of the united states is how we can deal with this long-term threat without having to repeat what we did in 2003 and 2006.

>> you said the advisers would not be involved in commenting. general dempsey, you have raised the possibility that the advisers could be used as forward air controllers in the event you call in air strikes that most people would be regarding that as being involved in comment. and second, you mentioned that iraqis to go on the offensive would most likely need help, which sounds like a prescription for sending in more u.s. advisers, troops, opening up supply depots. is that on the table? >> there is a tendency to think of this as kind of industrial strength, where we are going to put a mountain of supplies someplace and that's going to require us to protect and then move it forward into the hands

of the iraqis to ensure they use it and responsibly and effective. and that is one possibility, but it's not one that personally, i think the situation demands. i think the situation demands first and foremost that the iraqi political system find a way to separate the sunnis who have partnered now with isil because they are zero confidence in iraqi's politicians to govern. if you can separate the groups and it allows us to be in a position to enable iraq not with a huge effort but rather with the special skills, leadership and niche capabilities that we possess daily. we haven't made -- right now as we sit here the advisers are not involved in combat operations but literally assessing. that's their task. if the assessment comes back and

reveals it would be beneficial to this effort and to our national security interests to put the advisers in a different role, i will first consult with the secretary. we will consult with the president. we'll provide that option and move ahead. but that's where we are today. >> you will not be involved? >> i think the chairman made it clear, these are assessment teams and that's their mission. their mission is limited and it is a clear scope of what the mission is. and it is to assess. it is to come back with their assessment of where they believe where we are regarding isil and other dimensions that i said. advisers or what may come as a result of any assessments as to what they would come back to general dempsey with or general austin and eventually me and the president, i don't know where they are going to be, but their

mission today is making those assessments. the general is pretty clear. that wasn't your question. we have one mission today and that's assessments. and i don't know what they are going to say or what they'll recommend. we'll wait to see what general austin and general dempsey then recommend. that's the whole point of assessments. >> i watch television. i know that is going to shock some of you and i won't tell you what channel i watch. that's the wrong phrase. we will match the resources we apply with the authorities and responsibilities that go with them based on the mission we undertake and that is to be determined. >> can you explain what this joint operation center in the north is doing, how many u.s. troops have been sent there and what is the purpose of it?

and general dempsey and back to iran, what is your assessment of iran's strength inside iraq right now? what have they sent militarilyly. are you going to have to deconflict inside iraq and the decoys they sent over in recent days is that breaking international sanctions? >> well, first, on the two joint operation centers, you need centers or some kind of center to have component of organization and focus omission and what you're going to do. and in baghdad, the first one that we had up, we had iraqis in that mission with us. we're behind -- further behind in irbil and we will coordinate

with iraqis whereas we put our assessment teams out as they are out, on their mission, their focus. and we get better information if we have cooperation and coordination from the iraqis. so that's essentially, they will have that mission as a centerpiece but will include coordination as well. >> on iran, look, anyone who has served in iraq through the years knows that iran has been active in iraq since 2005. so the thought that they are active in iraq in 2014 is completely unsurprising. it's probably more overt than it has been up till now. they, too, have come over in some ways to advise this call for young shia men to rise in the defense of their nation.

when that proclamation was made, he made it for all iraqis. i hope so. that is a question yet to be answered. but the iranians are there and flying unmanned aerial vehicles and provided some military equipment. i don't know if it has violated any national security resolutions. that has to be determined. whether we intend to coordinate with them or not, we do not intend to coordinate them. it's not impossible in the future to have reason to do so. in terms of deconflicting, that is sovereign iraqi airspace. our i.s.r. and their i.s.r., that's an iraqi responsibility which they are capable of fulfilling. > going back to the air strike issues, a couple of weeks ago, senator feinstein asked you about the issue and you paid the

point that it's not like looking at an i-phone video and you need clarity on the ground. two weeks later, is the clarity there if the president says i need options to strike? >> we have much better didlligence picture than we two weeks ago. the complexity is the sunni groups that had formally opposed the iraqi government in any case, they have intermingled with the isil groups in particular. and that's going to be a tough tough challenge to separate them if we were to take a decision to strike. you might say does it really matter. i think it does matter. it matters for the future of iraq which allows me to roll back to the place i continue to

start, unless the iraqi government gets the message out that it really does intend to allow participation by groups, everything we are talking about makes no difference. >> the united states has spent $25 billion, 250,000 army and another 600,000 security force personnel, they are going up to 10,000 isil, the public might be asking you, what did we get for our money? is it just collapsing? >> the collapse of the i.s.f. in the face of this radical extremist group called isil occurred over time. this wasn't isil decided to drive across the board and everybody collapsed. they infiltrated into western iraq, into mosul. if i know anything about their tactics, which i do, they bought

some people off and threatened the families of others and remind pd everyone that the government of iraq was not operating on their behalf and undermined the iraqi security forces and stripped away their will to fight for a government that didn't support them. at that point, it wasn't a fight. they didn't collapse in the face of a fight, but collapsed in the face of a future that didn't hold out any hope for them. it's different than collapsing in the face of a fight. what we are seeing now is the remaining i.s.f. is fighting and his is the important signal. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> that wraps up today's defense department briefing with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the defense secretary. live now to the u.s. house where house is coming in for a short pro forma session. no legislative business is scheduled for today. journal" continues.

host: many of you hit the roads of for the july 4 holiday. we want to turn to the issue of the federal gas tax. joining us, beth osborne, who is

with transportation for america. guest: it is looking to see more funding go into local representatives who are closest to the people and their needs. host: i want to begin with this story that points out anthony foxx, who met with reporters, states can expect a large topple -- pothole in their construction budgets. the deadline is early august. if the highway trust fund reaches below $4 billion, the cuts will begin to take effect. >> this is something congress needs to fix. raising the federal gas tax is not the solution. let's keep in mind the federal gas tax is a user fee. it is a good tax.

the more you drive, the more gas you buy, the more you pay. the bigger and heavier your car is, the more gas you buy, the more you pay into the fund. the federal gas tax has not been used as a user fee for a long time. a good portion of the funds are diverted to non-highway usage. talking about raising it now would be unfair to drivers until we get the gas tax used to pay for just roads and bridges and infrastructure. host: let me share this chart. you can see two significant plot lines when it came to the federal gasoline tax rate. throughes us from 1933 2012. a big increase in the 1980's and again in 1993. . flat line since then just over $.18 per gallon. guest: that is correct. the cost for construction and for everything has gone up.

the cost of gasoline since 1993 has gone up substantially. gasolineyou could find for less than a dollar per gallon. of the maintenance on the roadways, having a flat line fund has eroded its ability to keep up with its need. our needs are great. we need 30 million -- $30 billion more poor year -- per year to bring our transit up to a state of repair and keep track of conditions at current level. considering we are moving over 50 million tons of freight every single day and we will be moving 60 million additional people over the next 20 years. they could be an economically competitive nation. we're going to have to get people to jobs. the pointael gets to with regard to highway traffic calming -- highway traffic,

saying roads and bridges would be far lower if it were not for heavy track traffic. guest: i had gray -- i agree with everything beth said. we do not need to raise the gas tax, but right now, it is unfair and premature because the funds are convert -- are diverted. subways, buses, metropolitan planning, sidewalks, ferry boats and interpretive science. i -- interpretive signage. i have no idea what interpretive signage is, but that is where money is going to. until we get the highway trust fund money going to what it is supposed to pay for, we should not be talking about increasing the tax. from the federal highway

administration. these are in terms of billions of dollars for the most recent fiscal year. the performance fund is about $22 billion. surface transportation is just over 10 billion. two point 5 billion for highway safety improvement. administration expenses, .4%. guest: i am not saying we look at raising it in the future, but until it is used for what is devoted to, it is unfair. are really high. to increase that tax now is not fair to the american people. talking about the federal highway tax. maryland is the latest to raise its tax. taxes around the country, you can see in the northeast come pennsylvania is just over $.60 per gallon. almost $.70 per gallon in new york state. california is almost $.72 per gallon. gallon innts a

florida. far lower in louisian it can be much cheaper to move them outside of their car. so we're looking for efficiencies, for good outcomes in the program. and it's very useful. my trip in this morning was by transit.

i think curtis came in on foot. and it would be a lot more expensive if we were both required to come in by car. being able to utilize people. host: wayne is on the phone. good morning. caller: happy pre-fourth of july. hen i see highway trust fund i see highway slush fund here in the boston area. it was since the stimulus in 2009, putting americans back to work on all these massive projects, some of them they're still working on. they're rebuilding a bridge, it's taken over four years and i drive by there -- and beth, you just mentioned efficiency. these projects will never end. i see these sound barriers. multimillion-dollar sound barriers in front of swamps. and this is not helping the efficiency of the drivers. we're stuck in traffic. we're paying more in gas being

stuck in traffic. this is all just for union jobs. they are not efficiently using this money. it's going to waste. they're planting shrubs three feet apart that are going to be growing into each other in a few years. they're digging up spots that's complete and utter waste of money. leave it as it is. when the road needs potholes to fix, fix them. this is crazy what i see around here, folks. host: ok. wayne, thanks for weighing in. let's go to debbie from oregon. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, caller. caller: my question is this -- in 2009 when president obama took office, he had this $800 billion -- $854 billion bailout and a lot of money was supposed to go to fixing our bridges and our roads and everything else. what happened to that? host: ok. let me follow-up with you. two points on the waste in all of this?

guest: sure. in terms of the last question, about $45 billion was dedicated to surface transportation. most of that has been obligated or is being spent -- has already been spent. in terms of waste, one of the things that the federal program is doing now and i hope to see them do even more is do performance measures to get more accountability for how that money is being spent. right now the funds go out to state departments of transportation and transit agencies with very, very wide eligibility and flexibility on how the money is spent. and in return we are now setting up performance measures to get a sense of what we're getting. and where those states are not spending the money in a way that will get the best return on investment, where it will not be improving safety and state of repair and those sorts of things that you mentioned, it will then be required to spend more money in those areas. hopefully the u.s. department of transportation, as they issue rules in this matter, will make sure that those rules are very stringent and if not

congress will step up and require it going forward. host: we made reference to maryland where the gas tax just went up. one of our viewers, laura says, in maryland, the price for a gallon of gas is almost $4. she's calling it painful. and from the "washington post," there is this essay, why do we need to raise the gas tax and get rid of it. this is a conversation we need to have writes "the washington post." we have not had sangle hearing since my republican friends took over on the transportation finance issue. we have not had a single opportunity for the truckers and the a.a.a., the environmentalists to come in and talk about the pros and cons, what they need, what they're willing to do, what the governors need as well as the mayors. why aren't we having this conversation? guest: the highway trust fund is low. the senate finance committee has had some hearings on it and i'm sure the ways and means

committee will pick up on it soon. another reason, i think gas price has been high. politicians are rightfully weary of raising it. one thing i want to go back to is the discussion of diverting the money to nonhighway -- nonhighway uses. i don't have a problem with those other types of spending. if states and localities determine that's efficient and they want to do that, but that doesn't mean the highway -- the gas tax should be used to fund it. the gas tax, i see it and view it very much as a user fee and the user fee should go to pay for what the user pay is supposed to pay for. i think it's unfair for people who are paying gas taxes and assume it's paying for surface transportation, roads and bridges, that it's being diverted to other purposes. if so they should go through the appropriations. host: here is the gas tax, it's 18.5 cents per gallon for regular gasoline. the diesel tax is 24.4 cents a gallon. there hasn't been an increase

in the federal gas tax since 1994. it's index for -- if index for inflation the gas tax would be 29 cents per gallon. the diesel tax would be about 39 cents a gallon. and the average miles traveled per vehicle per year is just over 11,000 miles. the average fuel consumed for a vehicle is about 529 gallons. the average gas tax paid by each vehicle is under $100. guest: yes. as curtis was saying, this is a user fee, and that in terms of taxing is something that americans are a little more comfortable with. i pay in as a user and i get benefit to the system i am using. but there's a lot of different ways you can get benefit in that system. quite frankly if i'm a driver i can get benefit from making sure my road is in good condition but i can also get benefit from removing people who are in front of me that maybe don't need to be in front of me. by reducing the amount of traffic on roadways. this is highly useful to me as

a driver and something i'm very much in favor of. host: another viewer saying many americans are still opting for higher performance, heavier vehicles which wear out roads. jim from hamilton, ohio. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question i'd like the gentleman to answer. i've heard from a couple different sources but they are not official sources that the federal government subsidized the corn growing industry to make alcohol and it's also a act that there's less use in gasoline and we are getting less power instead of more. i'd like to know if there's any truth behind this statement? guest: yes. the federal government mandate that ethanol be put into motor fuels. i think it's 10% is the mandate. they also provide a tax credit for producers and for buyers i think. there are two sides of the credit to offset the mandate. it's certainly -- it's certainly distorted energy markets, no doubt about that.

there's a growing -- i won't say revolt but a growing dissatisfaction between the ethanol mandate and ethanol subsidies. but it seems to always crop back up because honestly because of the power that iowa holds in our electoral process. you'll see candidates starting in a few months going back to iowa saying we need to invest in ethanol. my position is we should not be investing -- we should not tilt the market in any forms of energy. it's not fair. we should let the energy market work itself out. host: curtis dubay from price water cooper is a graduate from the university of houston. and beth osborne who is the -- current vice president, i should say, of transportation and development at transportation for america. is a graduate of louisiana state university. next caller is gary, sterling, virginia. good morning. caller: thank you, everyone. >> good afternoon, everybody.

it's nice to see everybody so chipper. i'm sure it's because a thursday that feels like a friday, right? that's good. before we get started i just wanted to do a brief announcement at the top. both yesterday and today the president was briefed by his home left-hand turn security advisor lisa monaco on the administration's efforts to prepare for the storm, ongoing coordination with state, local and tribal partners. the storm i'm referring to, of course, is hurricane arthur. the president directed his team to ensure that state and local officials in the storm's path have all the support and resources they need to prepare for and respond to any potential impacts. he'll continue to receive updates as necessary through the weekend. also wanted to point out that fema administrator spoke with the north carolina governor and emergency management director michael about preparedness efforts and to ensure that state has no unmet needs. as part of our administration's

approach to preparing for and responding to disasters, fema has deployed a special coordination team to north carolina and prepositioned staff in north carolina and south carolina's emergency operation centers to work closely and ensure we're closely integrated with state and local teams. so that's one way in which some administration officials are preparing for the weekend. jim, i'll let you go ahead and get started today. >> thanks, josh. want to ask you about the jobs report today. the president has argued that republicans have blocked his legislative power. republicans and democrats are blocking theirs. given that both sides essentially acknowledged there's been no progress legislatively, can the president truly take credit for these positive job numbers today? >> well, let me just start by saying the people who deserve the most credit for the strong

recovery of the american economy are the american people. including american entrepreneurs and american workers. it is through their great determination that we have recovered so strongly from the worst economic downturn since the great depression. but they have been aided by some of the policies that this president put in place at the very beginning of his presidency. from the recovery act to the politically courageous decision that the president made to rescue the auto industry to a range of other reforms, some of which we put in place with congressional support and some of which have required independent action by the president have laid the foundation that has been helpful to the private sector as they have led the recovery of the american economy. >> that was five, six years ago. >> throughout this recovery in actually much darker times, we talked about the fact that the kind of crisis that was created didn't occur overnight.

it wasn't caused by conditions overnight, and our recovery wasn't going to occur overnight. these are longer term trends we are talking about. and because of the critically important decisions that this president made over the course of his presidency, again, it put in place a foundation that has allowed the private sector to lead our economic recovery. the president's very pleased with the progress we have made. you know, there have been -- there's some history associated with today's statistics. in the first six months of this year, 1.4 million private sector jobs were created. that is more jobs that have been created in the first six months of any year since 1999. we've seen the last five consecutive months more than 200,000 jobs have been created. that's the first time that's happened since the end of 1999. we've created now 9.7 million private sector jobs over the last 52 months, and the

unemployment rate has actually declined more quickly where you consider year-over-year numbers than at any point in the last three decades. we've made tremendous progress, and the numbers bear that out. but what's also important is the president believes that there's more that we can do to ensure that middle-class families all across the country are enjoying the benefits of what seems to be a strengthening recovery. and so that's why this president's so focused on putting in place the kind of policies that will expand the economic opportunity for the middle class so benefits of this recovery won't float just to the top but to those in the middle class as well. because the president believes if we're going to have a sustainable growing economy that we're going to grow this economy from the middle out. that's what the president's focused on, and these strong numbers that we saw in today's report only gives the president a greater sense of urgency to make sure we're capitalizing on this momentum and making sure that middle-class families

across the country are benefiting from this recovery. >> i want to ask something that the president said regarding the financial sector. he said he believes there's still room for reforms. i'm wondering what he had in mind since he also said that he believes that taxpayers are protected under the dodd-frank bill, a position that not everybody in his party agrees with. he was talking about risk-taking and how to control risk-taking to protect the investors and wonder whether he's discussed some of those potential proposals with anybody. >> well, the wall street reform legislation that passed in the first year and a half or so of this president's administration are another good example of policies that are put in place that have stabilized the financial system, ensured that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for bailing out big banks

that make risky bets na go bad, and that stability has also contributed significantly to our economic recovery, have allowed the financial markets to recover and the success of those financial markets has an important role in terms of the benefits that are enjoyed by our broader economy. the president alluded to this in the interview that strong and dynamic financial markets are part of what makes the american economy the envy of the world. it's performing financial markets to make sure that capital is available to entrepreneurs who want to start and grow their business. small businesses are an important contributor to job growth in this country. it's the efficient functioning of our capital markets that ensures that middle-class families across the country

will be able to go out and get a mortgage at an affordable rate that will allow them to purchase a home. there's an important role for our financial markets to play in the strength of our broader economy but also in terms of making sure that our economy -- our economy's strength benefits middle-class families across the country. in terms of the president's comments, jim, you've been covering the economic policymaking decisions of this administration for 5 1/2 years now. so you're familiar with the idea that the president and his team, since the president's very first day in office, has been focused on the financial markets and making sure that we both are stabilizing those financial markets through a regulatory regime that prevents banks from making the kind of risky bets that hurt our economy so badly in 2007 and 2008. he's also ensured -- he's also concerned about making sure that middle-class families have an advocate and a voice in the

policymaking process here in washington, d.c. when it comes to these kinds of financial regulations. too often we've seen in the past that special interests, big banks, wall street financial firms had been able to, you know, dictate a regulatory regime that, again, led to a system that incentivized big banks and other large financial institutions to make the kind of bets that ultimately were bad for our economy. in terms of the president's interview yesterday, he wasn't referring to any specific regulation or law that he had in mind but rather the need to continue to vigilantly monitor financial markets, to assess risk that may be emerging and tone sure that the necessary regulatory protections are in place. again, to ensure the stability of the financial markets but also make sure that somebody is

looking out for middle-class families. steve. >> he just sort of threw these things out there. he's not looking for legislation or any executive action, regulations, nothing? >> i guess what i'm saying, there's no specific thing the president had in mind. he's not referring to some -- to some specific plan, but, again, this is something that the president and senior members of his economic team are talking about every day as they monitor the financial markets and assess the risk that's embedded there. there obviously is an important role to play -- let me say it this way. there is obviously an important role for those agencies to play as they continue to implement wall street reform legislation. there's also an important role to play for these independent regulatory agencies that the fed and others who are responsible for monitoring this risk and putting in place rules that will ensure, again, that

taxpayers aren't left holding the bag when it comes to bailing out a big business who's placed a bunch of risky bets. >> on the economy, what do you say to the individual who can't find a job and has stopped looking? >> well, i think -- i say a couple things. first thing, the president's fighting for you. what you have is a president who is fighting to make sure that we're expanding economic opportunity to those who are looking hard for a job, those who are trying to get the kind of job training that will ensure that they're competitive when they go out and look for a job. after all, having those kind of job training programs in place isn't just good for those trying to find a job, it's good for businesses who are looking for workers to fulfill certain functions na will ensure the success of their -- that will ensure the success of their business. those people should understand there is a president here in washington, d.c., that despite all of the partisan sniping

that gets filtered down to them that behind the scenes there is a president who wakes up every morning and at the top of his list is thinking about and implementing measures that will be in the best interest of middle class families who are trying to succeed, who are trying to live out the american dream. . x -- >> we are talking about recovery and possibly the first hurricane of the season. the effect that could have on all of these local economies up the coast, the most densely populated part of the country, as well as the pressure it could put on the insurance industry and infrastructure, could you our primaryt? >> concern right now, michelle, is making sure that citizens who are in the path of the storm are taking the necessary precautions to prepare for the storm before it hits. it is very important for citizens to understaha