rates were low? was it a market force that kept them low and it had nothing to do with the fomc? >> i tried to comment on monetary policy to protect the independence of the fad, but i think most economists look back over the time and would say because in 2001-2002 we had a recession, rates were low, and as you know, you had a huge set of global forces causing a huge amount of investment to keep long-term rates down over that time. as i said, the reason why we had that boom in housing and elsewhere was because been a long time of low rates and a terrible erosion of underwriting standards from a complete breakdown of basic controls on risks and safeguards. those two things were very damaging. >> thank you for coming and i congratulate you for inadvertently supporting part of the republican jobs plan. >> i do not think there is much in there are support except tax

reforms. >> lowering marginal tax rates. we can agree to some of your plan, you can agree to some of ours, and we can move forward. >> have to be willing to raise some revenues because you cannot balance the budget unless you are willing to see some modest increase in revenues. we may disagree on who should bear that burden, but we think the wealthiest americans can afford that burden. >> lower loopholes and rates. >> senator hagan and then senator brown. >> thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate your holding this hearing. thank you for participating, secretary geithner. we are here to talk about the small business lending fund. in north carolina, eight banks have received over $155 million

in the capital assistance for small businesses, so there is no doubt that is helpful and positive, but i think the hopes for this program where much, much higher than that. while those banks that were approved to participate were obviously ultimately pleased with the program and started lending, more were also frustrated with the communications from the department. i heard from community banks to said that after they applied to the program that they did not hear back four weeks. i have also heard back from others that there was little explanation about why they were not approved. if you to comment on that. was there a standardized process for the department to respond to applicants about the small business lending fund application? was there any formal way to appeal or seek some kind of rebuke from the treasury's decision not to approve their application? i think the timing of it was

obviously very, very late in the game or the process. there has been an incredible amount of frustration. >> i share that frustration. why did it take so long to approve applications? it is to put in place to protect taxpayer resources a system where we rely on the primary supervisors and the committee of bank supervisors to make the judgment for us about whether banks were viable or not to benefit from this program. that took them some time, more than the estimated, more than we hoped. legislatee months to the bill. we did not get the first approval back for application to recommendations of approvals until really early june. the timeframe between when we started to get approval from regulators was actually very short. i would have loved to accelerate the process, but we are not in a position to design a program or we can make judgments about how to look at applications from hundreds of

small community banks. we have to rely on the supervisors. why did we not tell them why they were eligible? we have legal protections on the sharing of confidential and permission for lots of good reasons, to protect the system as a whole. we were not in the position as the treasury to tell banks why and it has taken us four weeks to work out a system whereby we could let them now and that is happening right now as we speak. we finally approved a way consistent with the law and protecting the system to let them understand why they did not meet the requirements of the program. i wish it could have been different, but we have been careful with taxpayer resources. we cannot force banks to apply for credit and we cannot lower the eligibility standards unless we risk putting an end level of risk to taxpayer money exposure to risk.

we wanted to look for ways to support these programs in the future. if we got that balance wrong in this program which would have undermined dramatically these programs in the future. >> but there is no opportunity to appeal the information that might have been interpreted in a different way. >> that is not quite true. and let me just draw out the pot -- the process as it applies. you apply and the treasury gives a application to the primary supervisor. the primary supervisor looks at application. >> and the primary supervisor is -- >> the federal reserve or the fdic. they provide an assessment of the application to a committee of supervisors. we wanted to have checks and balances so that they were being too tough or too soft that there would be a second glance. about allow for a pretty

careful -- that allowed for a pretty careful review. were they had confirmation from their banks and they were able to reflect that in their process. i do not know where we could have appealed to someone besides me a judgment by the supervisor. i do not think he would want to be in a position where you would have to do with the judgment of an individual supervisor but a committee of their peers to make sure that they were not being too tough or too soft in evaluating the merits of an application. i agree with and share your frustration and if they apply to only one-third of the money and it took us this long to put these safeguards in, but once we started to get assessments, we moved very quickly. >> is there any opportunity 4 cents dollars billion was allocated to apply for more? >> that is in the hands of congress, not without changes to the law. >> the fact that it took so long, now the timing, the way

it is now, it may be a catch-22. >> banks had a long time, too long frankly in my view, to get exposure to this program and decided they wanted to apply. it is possible if you were to do this again, you may see a few more, but there was a huge national effort by members of the congress and administration to get the word out. it was not a secret that this was out there. >> i guess i was to meaning to the people who did not receive funding. >> abruptly half of the banks that applied did not meet the standards of the program. it is not fundamentally a surprise to them. i do not know whether more time of increased what had been improved, because we cannot

change the fundamentals of their eligibility. >> thank you. senator brown and dan senators szczecin -- shaheen, rubio. >> some of the misinformation usually does not start with cooperation going the right way, so i appreciate you correcting the record that it took weeks, not a year to push this through. we checked our files and i know there was guidance from the treasury saying 7000 banks coming forward 930 applied in only a fraction were approved. listening to the conversation, you asked why senator vitter was concerned, basically because they could use additional money to refinance their tarp debt and very little of it went out to main street.

it was a slam dunk easily done. they got the money and then they were ok with the smaller banks ultimately the main street bar were was nothing, very little money out there. -- main street borrow more had nothing. >> it went out to more than 700 banks. but the worst by the mistaken in your numbers. it was designed to be "up to $30 billion." that was an abundance of caution. we cannot force them to apply. >> from what we have heard, there is a tremendous amount of red tape and not having any idea why. i know you address that the rally.

>> if you were in my shoes, okay? if you would want to be very careful that we're using the taxpayers' money carefully in this context. judging the health of a bank is complicated. we have to rely on the supervisors. you would have done the same. the fact that not all banks were eligible should be no surprise bid as our economy is still facing a very tough time coming out of the worst financial crisis since the great depression with 7000 community banks still under pressure. we will not meet eligibility. the reason why we have a smaller yield than expected and the reason why this took time was because we were careful to protect taxpayer resources. >> with all due respect, i do not think you can guess what i would do if i was in your shoes. as i travel around my stay in the country, contrary to what you said earlier, the number one thing that i find is the lack of regulatory certainty for every business.

in massachusetts, there is a wet blanket over their efforts to create jobs because in the last year we have had 488 regulations deemed significant buying did administration and costs by imposing the new rules. $88.90 -- 88.9 million hours of annual paperwork burden. these of the things i hear not only from banks as a result of the new legislation but individuals and businesses say the lack of certainty and stability not knowing what is next. the banks do not want to go in and take advantage because of the over-regulation. the people who are borrowing to not want to because of the strings attached. there is a complete disconnect between getting the money out the door in an effective and timely manner.

>> cash offer two contrary explanations. -- can i offered two explanations? if you look at the body of regulation proposed compared to the average in the bush administration, it is roughly in line. gunnoe material increase in the intensity of roles proposed in the bush administration, so it is unfair to suggest that there has been "dramatic sweeping changes" that could account for this. business is always complain about regulation. they want less of it, lower taxes. >> they just want to be streamlined and consolidated. >> they won less or more favorable ones. >> they want to know where they can walk in the door and get a sheet of paper dealing with the fda, epa, and they want to understand what the processes. i have time for one more

question that has been bugging me and many other people. the 1099 3% withholding tax issue. you have extended the deadline. clearly a cost more to implement than what we get back. why are you recommending this to him? just get rid of it so we can move on to something more important and not have that uncertainty, that lack of predictability. all these people say they will not hire because they need to pay a 3% withholding come january 1st. >> we would be willing to work with any of you on any idea to help strengthen the economy. happy to take any ideas. we have a substantial body before the senate today and there are a pretty par paulson of incentives for job creation. >> there are plenty of ideas. we all made them in the gang of six, some symbols, everyone has made them.

-- gang of six, simpson-bowles. to have you in the end ministration going around saying, "pass this bill. pass this bill." it will not pass, but in reality, we need to take the best of both bills whether there is the repatriation issue, which senator hagan talks about, whether you talk about the 3% issue with employer tax deduction, hire a hero, these are all things we all agree on. why cannot get them done? >> it cannot legislate without both sides. you need a bipartisan consensus and that is a challenge in such a divided country, but the proposals put before the senate on taxes, infrastructure, their

proposals that have had an overwhelming bipartisan support in the past. that is not the answer to our problems and there are things we can do beyond that. >> thank you, senator brown. i just want to remind this committee, and i know everyone is frustrated by regulatory reform, but we do not have oversight of regulatory reform. we will do our part. thank you to the secretary for his patience and thank you to senator brown for expressing his views. >> thank you, madam chair and thank you to you and ranking member snowe for holding the meeting and to secretary geithner for being here. like my colleagues on this committee, and you, have expressed this. i share the frustration for how long it has taken to get the small business lending fund up and running, the disappointment with the number of banks that have participated in new hampshire. having said that, i support the program. there is now $9 billion out

there to lend to small businesses that was not there before, so i do think it has helped the situation. i continue to hear from small businesses in new hampshire not so much that banks do not have money to lend, but more that they have been reluctant to take risks. when i talk to some of my friends in the banking community their response to their reluctant to take those risks because of what they hear from the regulators. i wonder if you could comment on that and the challenge that presents as we're trying to get this lending going? >> you are exactly right. if you talk to banks across the country, if we just talked about the small banks, when they still say is that they feel under tremendous pressure from their examiners to tighten lending standards more than they

think is necessary. if you look at lending standards, they are much looser than they were six, 12, 18, 24 months ago. they think examiners are being too tough on them, but you're right to say that they do say that. they say that more than the banks do that the concern is with the forthcoming reforms, because most of the reforms in dodd-frank mostly touch the big banks. the chairman of the fdic and others have been looking at ways to put out a series of guidance to examiners to try and tempered the risk of excess caution, but i suspect there's more to do.

what always happens in the aftermath of a big credit boom is that standards were too loose and then they over correct the market. sometime supervisors can reinforce that and we want to work against it which is why these capital programs are so important. is banks have capital, they will be more comfortable taking the risks that they can take. >> the other issue, and this is a little off topic, i know, but i think it is so we important to the underlying concerns that we all have, which is to get the economy moving again. we still have a housing market that is not functioning. the number one constituent concern i have had since i have been elected as been hearing from people in new hampshire facing foreclosure. the difficulty is not with the community banks but with the big banks that are still not willing in any real way to engage with homeowners on modifications and looking at how we can keep people in their homes. some people are able to do that

-- are not able to do that for a variety of reasons, but there are a lot of people who are. i find when we get involved with them that, very often, we can get some of those big bank's attention and they are willing to look at the mortgages and make modifications, but it should not take calling our congressmen or senators opposite to do that. i just wonder if the administration has any other efforts or initiatives that you would expect to take to help address this situation because we need to get some attention to this. >> it is still terrible out there. there is no other way to say this than that the major servicers, having built this business, are still doing an unacceptably bad job. if you look at the total number of modifications happening over the last 2.5 years, it is between three and 4 million, and that is a pretty reasonable

number of people taking advantage of lower interest rates and are now in homes again in these programs we support directly and indirectly, but there are millions more americans at risk of losing their home that, if given a chance, they would be able to keep their house for a period of time. we want to do as much as mccann -- as much as we can to reach as many people as we can, but as you have been reading and the president said in a statement to the congress, we are in the process of working with the fha to put in place a program that will allow many more americans to refinance to take advantage of lower interest rates even if they have a very high loan to value ratio. our hope in the coming days is to lay out the details of a program to make that possible. that is one thing that would help, too. q. can lower your interest rate, -- if you can lower your

interest rate, you can lower your monthly payment, makes it likely your job is affordable, which is a good modification. it would still indirectly reach three or 4 million americans. >> thank you. senator rubio. >> good morning. thank you for being here. all these issues we're talking about whether it is the lack of revenue, crisis, at the root of all of this is joblessness. is that right? >> and weak economic growth. do you do not have jobs without growth. >> ultimately people are not working. someone does not have a job, they cannot make a mortgage payment. i think most would agree that if you left this building and asked with the number one problem facing our country would be the lack of jobs, jobs not paying what they used to, the employment problems. >> for the 90% of americans to have a job, they fear they will lose their jobs. if you do not have a job, your main concern is being able to

get a job soon enough. >> right. jobs. the issue of jobs. i think you'd agree that it will be very difficult, quite frankly impossible, to turn around the joblessness issue. the 9.2% unemployment rate, without robust, significant, sustained private-sector growth. >> absolutely. >> of any plan, whether it is the one we're talking about today or the one of the president is proposing, it all needs to be judged by what effect it will have on private- sector behavior and job creation. >> i agree, although there is a very good case as a complement to that for public investments with two basic facts. one is to help rebuild america's infrastructure to leverage

private capital and the others to reduce some of the pressure on states and cities across the country to reduce first responders and teachers further. growth will overwhelm it come from the private sector. >> even with infrastructure and all the designs to help the private sector create jobs and growth. >> but the president and senator reid's plan called for a surtax on millionaires to generate revenue. that would hit about 30% of small business income. >> let me say that differently. under the tax proposals we have suggested, it is true that we suggested to allow the marginal tax rates for the top 2 percent of americans which affects 3% of small businesses -- to revert back to the level that they were before the bush administration. in addition to that, we have proposed to raise the bird and further on the most fortunate americans, but i think if you look at the growth affects about, they're likely to be very, very small.

what we are all trying to do is balance very difficult things. we want to do more to help the economy now and are restoring fiscal responsibility. >> the marginal rates will go up to about 35.6% and then under the president's plan another 5.6% surtax which of the top marginal rate at 45.2%. >> at the very small portion of americans. >> your testimony is that you think the top marginal rate up 45% when you add the marginal rate would have no impact on job creation? >> very, very, very little. if you look at the cbo's judgment, look at them as an independent arbiter committee will find a set of tax proposals would have a very small impact on growth. we have to look at the

alternatives. if you leave the economy is unsustainable fiscal issues or you cut spending further to support those low tax rates for upper-income americans, over time would be more damaging and less fair. >> what about the people who create jobs, for example the nfib. they call this a job killer. are they wrong? >> yes. we have difficult choices and we have to govern. >> the manufacturers say the same thing. they say this is a job killer. they are wrong as well? >> any business that faces a proposal from congress will oppose the proposal and say it will kill jobs. that is their job. >> "the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of the recession which will put businesses in a further whole.

-- hole, according to the president. >> that is one reason why this jobs tax is so important. q. do not act on these proposals and taxes will go up at the end of 2011. >> of the president stood behind the concept that raising taxes in a recession would hurt business. what has changed since he said that? >> a good question, but give me a chance to respond.

the proposal before the congress today would lower taxes on all americans that have a job and virtually all businesses across the country. if you do not enact those proposals, the taxes will hop -- will be higher. this would only take effect at the end of 2012 and only apply to a tiny fraction of americans. we're open to other ways to make sure we paper the things that government has to do, but we will not be able to dig your way out of these deficits without thinking about tax changes to raise revenue over time. >> the statement that the president made was in the context about not raising taxes on any one. we are not raising taxes, but what has changed? that is what he was bragging about. are we now doing so much better economically that we can afford tax increases? >> this is a very tough economy and i would differ not at all from how you characterize how tough this is. the difference is what we should do about it. the president has always proposed, and i fully support, that at the end of 2012 we allow what are pretty modest changes that apply to a small fraction of americans to go into effect. without that, you have asked me to go out and borrow $1 trillion to finance the tax breaks.

>> said the surcharge will have no-impact. >> no material impact. -- no negative impact. >> then you're either going to confine assets to unstable deficits for a long time or you're going to ask us to cut spending to damage the economy. that is our judgment. >> i have been very liberal and have been giving latitude. this hearing is about small business lending programs. this is all important and i thank senator rubio, but as a supporter for the surcharge amount to get one thing right for the record. the members of the senate that support raising taxes on families or individuals making over $1 million is not the same as raising taxes on millionaires. those are people with $1

million worth of assets. many people have that much, but their income is only $100,000. these are individuals and families that have an income of over $1 million. i just want to get that straight for the record. it is important not to confuse the two. many americans are millionaires. and many of them have made their own millions. contrary to believe, the have not inherited it. we have represented a lot of people who come up your hard work, have amassed over $1 million, but the proposal is to raise taxes on income over $1 million. the marginal rate at 45%, you could argue that, but it is a portion over the first $1 million. over $1 million they would pay a second rate. >> the millionaires' tax is not my terminology but the president's.

>> he has a different view, but for those of us supporting the tax, the one i am speaking about, is not a tax for millionaires but a tax on family income over $1 million. i just want that to be straight. >> may i add one thing madam senator? >> i have one more senator. >> i want to add one thing. >> can i offer another way to think about this? if you want to keep the tax rates low where they are today for the most fortunate 1 or 2% of americans, in either have to ask me to go out and borrow $1 trillion over 10 years to finance them, which i cannot do, or you have to figure out a way to find $1 trillion in savings from medicare, medicaid, to do this. unless you want to assume peace breaks out around the world, you have to make choices in this context.

we do not relish the prospect of letting this tax cuts expire. we do not like the choice we have to face by reducing tax expenditures for the top 2% of americans, but looking at choices to preserve the core functions of government, that is the trade-off which base. -- the trade-off we face. >> i am not arguing, but i do not want to support anything that will hurt job creation. this is not protecting anybody, but not doing anything that will hurt job creation. >> madam chairman, thank you. thank you for being here. on what to follow up on senator hagan's of line of questioning. she addressed what i wanted to address on the inability for bankers to another reason for the outcomes. mr. secretary, at least in visiting with our bankers, they

were told by their primary regulators that they qualified, that the application would be supported, and the regulators then when the denial occurred, you were the one delivering the denial, not the regulator, and they could not get an answer from the people who told them that they would be receiving these bonds. -- these funds. my understanding as of this morning is that the treasury department has notified those who were rejected to have an opportunity to sit down with a person, maybe at the treasury or a regulator, to explain the denial. the other complicating factors that the stage at which the denial occurred, so close to the end of the program, that there was no effective way to appeal even if he could have sat down and spoke to the regulator. at this point, it is just too late because of the statutory conclusion of the program. am i missing something? >> you're basically right. as of today, we are forming the communications approved and the reasons why banks were denied. we did not rely just on the judgment of the primary bank supervisor.

we provided the judgment of a committee of their peers. because they wanted to protect banks from the risk that individual supervisors were too tough or too soft, and the balance is not perfect. we were trying to be careful and i think we got the balance as broadly as good as we could have. >> i have a couple of other questions semi-related to the topic and i will try not to wander as far as some of my other colleagues have gone, but the president said something about the consumer financial protection bureau that caught my attention and was troublesome to me. in regards to the cfbb, of the bank of america would not have been able to raise the charges upon its customers as has been so prevalent in the news. is there something in the consumer protection financial

vera that allows a regulator to make a determination in regards to the fees charged by a bank? >> i would draw your attention carefully to the statements made about the basic issue and i will tell you what the church directions are. -- what the president of -- present objectives are. we want a system where there was a system for lebron and abuse and make sure they have a better understanding about what they pay for financial-services which requires much more transparency and simplicity in the basic fees. we are making some progress, but we have a ways to go. the basic approach is to get consumers better capacity to choose and to try to encourage banks to be more explicit from clear, and simple about the charges that a mortgage loan, credit card loans come automobile loan, checking account, etc.

>> is the cfbb granted the authority to determine what a>> i do not believe so. that was not the intent of the law, but i would have asked my lawyers to tell you any more detail. >> in part from that statement bothered me because it seemed like a threat to banks. did not do what we wanted you to do, so we will get you on the regulatory side, and it bothers me that we are again creating another opportunity for a regulatory agency to be, in my view, price-fixing the

relationship between a bank and its customer. the final topic of wanted to raise is that i have a worked in opening markets to keep above since 2000, food, medicine, agriculture, commodities, and the result in part of those efforts has been the passing of tesra. they have the ability to develop regulations and a generally we have had some success in those markets. this is related to job creation in the sense that it goes back to the administration's support for trade agreements with south korea, panama, colombia. the more we export, the greater opportunity for job creation, i have always thought. i thought we had a silly policy with regards to cuba, particularly when it comes to food and medicine, agricultural commodities. we're the only one enforcing the sanctions and they will buy from someone else. we worked to get a lot change and we were successful. regulations were there to make those sales more difficult and there was an entrenchment of 20% fewer sales after that and i would highlight the sales for cash up front. we were successful in adding to the financial-services in the fiscal year 2012 amendment to allow for direct payment.

cash up front, but get rid of the letters of credit that the current treasury regulations require. the challenge now is, among other things, the politics always paul -- troubling, but they have objections including this amendment as written. all i am looking for you this morning, mr. secretary, is that we're working very closely to try to modify the language that is will -- that will be ultimately be satisfactory, and i ask for your continued commitment in working with me to find the correct terminology that they will not include any opposition. commitment to work with you on that. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you secretary geithner for your work.

we are all frustrated that the $30 billion program did not generate more interest. i think senator levin's point about the republican delay is very much on point. there was a significant delay in considering legislation. we should have moved in a faster manner. larger interest in reality and there was not the interest we thought. i agree with senator snowe that the need is out there and it is trying to generate jobs. we need to anticipate the realities of the banking system in this country. it is interesting that we put out a lot less money for the state programs. i can speak for maryland, but not the rest of the country, but those funds were put out quicker and leveraged very well and have produced concrete results in our state, and i am sure other states around the nation.

i am pleased that we included that in the administration supported those funds being used for state programs. we can be proud about the manner in which they were used and i applaud governor o'malley for the ways in which maryland stepped up. there was another suggestion made by me and other members that did not receive the same enthusiasm from the administration which was direct loans. rather than going to the banks, let's try a direct program. we pointed out that in emergency circumstances there has been capacity by the government to make direct loans. there is a concern about whether you could gear up for that and make the proper evaluations. i mention that because the results on the $30 billion program less than we anticipated.

should we be reconsidering the use of direct loans for a way in which to generate the type of activity that we want recognizing full well the evaluations of loan guarantees gives you the same risk factors as if we made a direct loans? >> we have talked about this in private, and i think he knows my views on this. i would be very concerned about the capacity of the federal government to design a national program for direct lending, both because of the time it would take and because the risks that government officials are not the best people to make judgments about credit. i understand the merits of going around banks in this context, and i think there are special cases where it would make sense to do that.

i would be happy to talk to you in more detail about this, but based on the experience across other countries i think there is a risk that, in those programs, you would get less of good results and it would be much harder to get the balance of care for the taxpayer aligned with the amount of risky what the government to take in a crisis. >> i expected that reply and it does not surprise me. rethink this based on the experience that we had in the bank participation program, based upon the fact that we currently evaluate loan rest because the government is guaranteeing effectively the entire loan. third, the competition factor of having this source available might intrigue and the banks to

get more aggressively involved in the basic program itself. i would just urge us to perhaps to rethink this, because it may help us do exactly what senator snow and landrieu wants done. >> i am always happy to take another look at these things. >> thank you for your leadership on this issue. the final question will go to senator snowe and then i would do a quick wrap up. >> thank you, a l chairandriue -- thank you, chair landrieu. we have ranged on a number of issues including the jobs act because all this is small business, bottom line. taxes, regulations, and all entries into the fray in terms of how we will reconcile major impediments to job creation.

this is what it is really all about in being precise. we have to focus like a laser, but we now have to get it right. we are 24 months into a recovery. we have spent $800 billion in a stimulus, $700 billion in tarp, quantitative easing, so we have had the maximum when you consider all the stimulus and monetary policy initiatives. here we are, if you think about it in calculations that i have read 40 months since the start of the recession, in a post recession, you get generally 4.6%. this is the greatest recession since the start of world war ii. we are 0.1%. the trial -- the era of trial

and error has to be over now. we cannot accept 9% or higher unemployment rates. it really is disturbing and disconcerting. that is the message i want to impart today. if there is what i can give to you, you know, it is not working, and people are hurting. i wish we could tackle tax reform and regulatory reform. you mentioned the small business lending. i do not know how you measure its success given the amount of lending. and you know how many jobs have been created? >> there is an average range of views. we have not given our own estimate to get. and we have tried to give congress a range of independent estimates. >> i want to bring up two

concluding things. the economy is much weaker than any of us would like. is lower today than it was in the early quarters of the recovery for the following reasons -- and it is important to understand the reasons because we are trying to figure out what we can fix. we had slowed oil prices. we have a disaster includin japt affected the world globally. we have a huge disaster in europe that is affecting the world globally. and we took on too much debt, built too many homes, and there is too much risk taking leveraging in the financial sector. those factors give us a weaker economy growing more slowly than any of us would like. the question is, what can we do about it? the question i would offer back is, apart from tax reform, which i share your views, we should not be living with this much uncertainty. and apart from regulatory

reform, we are going to disagree on where the balance is, but we can complete agreed. apart from that, though, what can you join us in supporting? because those things alone, tax reform, and even where we can agree on regulatory reform, they will not get the economy going fast enough given the pressures that we have globally and the other headwinds in this crisis. that is why we are focused on long-term infrastructure investment to help rebuild the economy and that is why we are focused on a set of -- i agree, they are temporary, but they can be very powerful in a recession, things that can help through the end of this year and for additional 15 months or so. the average american has a lower tax burden today and the average business has a lower tax burden today. without congress acting on that front, then the economy will be weaker. i agree with you about tax

reform. i agree there are things you can do about the regulatory burden broadly. i'm not sure how much we can do, but that will not be enough. >> but the president is calling for a comprehensive tax reform, as you are obviously reiterating in one breath, and at the same time he is calling for tax increases. you've got in a package of temporary incentives for one year, and tax increases that will affect small businesses, no doubt. why can't we do tax reform right now? >> because of we do not, the economy will be weaker. if we do not do these things down -- >> we need to breach the private sector and we need a permanency with it. one year is not going to create certainty. you can do those things, but you need the larger picture now. and i'm talking to everybody.

a lot of the people that you talk to. i have talked across a range in the private sector. we do not need to be growing government. we need to be growing private sector. they will not take those risks. the chamber of commerce gave their most recent outlook and it is not getting better. they are asking their members -- they are going to add more employees next year and they said 17%. the employment is down 19% since july. it is going in the wrong direction. if everybody is talking about it, then i think you cannot shift the conversation. we ought to talk about the things they care about. and that is job generators. that is what counts now. you ought to work with them because they are the ones we depend on. and it is taxes and regulation, let's do it now. we kept saying we were going to

get it on the floor. it is now, what? october. it will be november and we have not done anything. >> if you do not do anything in the next three months, then taxes go up substantially for everybody. they go substantially for business. that is the reason you have to expand temporary tax measures because if you do not, the economy will be weaker. they are not a substitute, but a necessary complement for tax reform. we are happy to move as quickly as possible and maybe the super committee will help us in that context. >> why can't we do that in these other committees? why can't the president work with congress and get it done? >> of course we can. we are happy to do it, but we have to get the near term stuff done, too, not just the long term stuff.

>> senator pryor. >> thank you. madam chairman, and senator snowe, i appreciate your focus on this and i just have a few questions. i'm sorry i had to step out of the room. i had a meeting in my office, but thank you for hanging around and taking my questions. first, i have a letter from liberty bancshares in arkansas and i wanted to share this with you. liberty bank of arkansas has a strategic goal of providing for the needs of small and medium- size businesses in our geographic landing area. the small-business lending fund allows us to have additional capital to better serve the needs of small and medium-sized businesses in our committee. the liberty bank continues in its commitment to serve small businesses. thus far in 2011, we are experiencing an increase in the volume of loans to small businesses. we are hopeful to seek increases in future months. and then he says, would

complement the u.s. treasury on its handling of the application, handling and processing. the for our organization, the process was viewed with minimal difficulties, which is quite an achievement, given the program was being initiated for the first time. and i was from the chairman and ceo. the -- that was from the chairman and ceo. some people are happy with where you are doing. i had a bill was scott brown -- and i know he had to step out. it is called the small business savings account act. i do not know if you are familiar with it, but basically, what it allows people to do is if they are dreaming about a small business, to set aside money tax-free come almost like a 401k. i think it cost $80,000 or so to start a new business.

to make, it seems that is a good approach because people are using their own money. it probably will go to a local lender and say, i've already saved $25,000, $30,000, can you help me out? do you have any comment on that? >> i am happy to look at that. and there is another bill, too, that creates incentives for small businesses. i am happy to work with you on those two things. there is a very good case for looking at temporary and permanent things that we can do in this country. again, we are open to ideas and happy to work with you on those. >> the second one is probably the american opportunity act that you are talking about. that is 25% angel investors and that could really get us over the hump. i would love to continue to work with you on that. the other question i have is -- i just read this letter from liberty bancshares in arkansas. it is a great financial

institution that is locally owned and operated. they are doing well, though it continues to be a difficult time. they continue to be strong. when i talk to some banks, what they say is that there is a lack of demand for small-business loans. and when i have talked to small businesses, they say the banks are not lending to them. when i talk to both of them, sometimes they say that the regulators have made it more difficult on our worst and lenders. could you help the committee through data and tell us -- through that and tell us from your standpoint how that is working? and also, we can do to get our economy out of neutral. >> limon demand -- it has fallen a lot during the recession and it has been slow to recover because economic growth has been relatively slow. because many people are too much.

by any measure, demand for loans has been very weak early in the recovery and has been slow to pick up. if you look at the broad measures of credit availability, they have dramatically improved. the cost is much, much lower and lending terms have come back ness.to more normal thu but still, banks have had a hard time getting access to credit. and that is because they are against the value of their real- estate assets if you were unlucky in your bank and your bank was under a lot of pressure, the bank may have cut your credit off. you might find it hard to find a new bank in a recession where people are judging harsher with credit risk. there is obviously some risk that the examiners are being pretty tough. maybe in some parts of the

country, some businesses are being conservative in a way that adds to those pressures. i think the best thing we can do to mitigate that is to do what we are doing, which is to make sure that banks that are reasonably strong and have access to capital, it will make lend.more likely to ech >> one last thing. this is from a homeland security. remember, i've been working with the scene that issue. one of the cases i've been working with has been turned over to the irs. we actually called someone at treasury last week to have a meeting on this and we have not heard back. if you could talk to the right person and make sure we could get a meeting this week, if possible, with the right person, would love to do that this week. >> thank you.

your a very proper the witness, as you can tell. >> i do not know if popular is what you were looking for. >> [laughter] it will start after -- a well sought after witness. as we consider what our next steps might be, could you tell us what the recommendations are for improvement if we were to go to fblf-2. i have a few suggestions myself and i have learned a lot today. secondly, i want to underscore the point made about banks reassessing the collateral against small-business loans. mr. secretary, if we do not come up with a way to address that -- and i do not have all the answers. i have someone to suggest.

we may come through a round of devaluation again and very soft landing, and you know the extent of that. -- a very soft lending, and you know the extent of that. and we have discussed trade with cuba today. tax relief, tax reform, and the price of bread. we have now all of the information we need to cover this. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> coming up here on c-span tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, homeland security secretary to janet nepalitano testifying before the senate judiciary committee on immigration and border security. over on c-span2 at 8:00 p.m., a discussion on concussions in suit student athlete. -- concussions in student athlete. >> this week, six republican presidential candidates travel to des moines for a candidates

forum. watch our live coverage of a herman cain, newt gingrich, and rick santorum, as well as governor perry, and representatives ron paul and michelle bachmann. that is live saturday starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. the senate banking committee looks at home loan proposals. one looks at whether 30-year to fix porges is -- fixed mortgages should remain the standard. that gets under way at 10:00 a.m. on thursday. and at 2:00 p.m., a senate banking committee looks at the global financial system. biggest wireless providers say they will notify customers when they use more cellphone and its, text messages, -- cellphone minutes, text messages, and data than

they are allowed. [applause] >> thank you all for being here this morning. i had the privilege last night of being at the memorial service for steve jobs in california. it was a powerful event for an american hero and visionary. but one of the teams that comes out so quickly from steve jobs' life is his focus on products that bring real benefits to people, that have a real positive affect on our economy.

and maybe above all else, products and services that the white people. -- delight people. these different things are at the heart of what we are announcing today. taking steps to make sure that mobile devices continue to delight every american that uses them. these are consumer-products that are used every day by hundreds at -- hundreds of millions of americans and everyone of those deserves to be treated fairly.

and power in consumers with the tools and information that they need in the rapidly changing landscape has been one of the fcc's top priorities since i became chairman. as part of our agenda, we have crack down on mr. refreeze, phone bills, securing greco- record sediments. mystery fees on phone bills and securing record this element. last year were identified a growing problem we called "bill shock," and took steps that led to victory for more than 200 million wireless consumers.

this will give consumers the intimation they need to save money on their monthly wireless bills. consistent with the fcc's ongoing efforts, this will empower consumers and ensure consumers get a fair shake, not bill shop. what is bill shock? that is one wireless subscribers experienced a sudden unexpected increase in their monthly bill. common cases are when they are charged for unknowingly exceeding plan limits for voice, text, or data, or get hit with unexpected international roaming charges. according to a 2011 survey by consumers union, roughly one in five americans with the cellphone plants received unexpected charges on their bills during the previous year. that amounts to tens of millions of people nationwide.

add an sec forum highlighting the problem, that a woman who was shocked by and over 34,000 cellphone bill for international data and texting charges -- $34,000 cellphone bill for international data and texting charges two vs her after the earthquake in haiti. -- to her sister after the earthquake in haiti. after that, we had people riding into west saying it happen to them, too. a business executive saying he had been charged excessively for an overseas trip despite buying and in a rational plan before the trip. -- an international plan before the trip. obviously, these amounts of money make a real difference to real americans trying to get through this difficult economy. the conclusion from our work is clear. bill chaka is a real consumer

problem and it needs to be fixed -- bill shock is a real consumer problem and it means to be fixed. and there are ways to do this using technology widely available. whattreat consumers fairly with three steps. again and let consumers know when they reached levels but would lead to overage charges triggered -- overage charges. send alerts when they are about to reach international roaming charges. finally, disclose tools to let consumers disclose their own limits.

people are learning what a megabyte is and how it translates to how many videos and you watch, but they do not know that yet, so finding ways to help consumers understand what mb are, we know what minutes are, and weekend region we can do them in our head. those were the goals we set out for how we want to see consumers interact in this area, given the documented problem of bill shock. i am pleased to be here with consumers union to announce we are taking a major step to solve the problem of hill shock -- bill shock, and that the

wireless industry will take those three steps. we are moving ahead. these alerts will be offered for free hand automatically with no customer opts in required. the carriers are committed to moving as expeditiously as possible. i am grateful to the wireless industry for stepping on and to consumers union for helping ensure the commitments will help of power -- help empower citizens. we have achieved our goal. moving forward, the fcc will

take a trust but verify of roche -- approach. we will be closely monitoring industry practices to make sure all carriers to provide this information, and if we see noncompliance, we will take action. the union will work together to launch a new web portal but will allow consumers and anyone to see what types of colors are provided by each member region what types of alerts are provided by each member. this will allow the public to track whether members are complying with obligations. this will provide an incentive to see the characters are acting

quickly. a bigs announcement is win for consumers, and i want to thank the people for making it possible. first, innovative and new mobile devices and benefit consumers every day. your action today help show we can achieve those goals and ensure consumers are treated fairly, and in the near future, we hope to score another victory in the ongoing efforts through voluntary incentive options that will make sure that even as demand goes up, we can have an invisible infrastructure that will help keep new connections from going up or prices from skyrocketing. thank you for your leadership role in bringing this to the

attention of the public, in your national survey that establishes the scope of the problem, and for your laser light focus on making sure we achieved real benefits for real consumers. thank you for that. thank you to all of the consumers who participated. i want to acknowledge and thank our friends in congress who have shown real commitment. as well as the house commerce committee on behalf of consumers. finally, thank you to the staff who has worked so hard with the constant focus on doing the right thing to the american

public, including those in my office, as well as the staff of the consumer and governmental affairs bureau thank you all. in these challenging economic times, even a small unexpected bill can make a difference. i look forward to making sure that as we foster a thriving mobile economy but will benefit all americans and drives a real job creation, consumers are empowered and treated fairly and not every day. -- treated fairly every day.

>> good morning. thank you all for joining us today, end thank the brookings institute for allowing us to use your facilities. our shows are the place for people to go to talk about her wireless. what always strikes me is the number of exhibitors and a variety of services they provide visitors. it is everything from transportation to energy. there is no question the united states is the most innovative industry very good -- industry. we have more 3g units than any country. and we have more wireless users

spend some concerns triggered by this because they compete on everything. while our members compete now for every customer, there are some things we agree on. one of switches that we need more spectrum region one of which is that we need more spectrum. second, and we adopted our consumer code, and that is why we are here today. i am pleased to announce our consumer code is devolving to meet consumer needs. last week in san diego the board of directors voted to add a new wireless guideline to our code. i.s.o. result, wireless providers are going to be sending free awards to subscribers to help them avoid

unexpected charges for data, voice, messaging, and international roaming. consumers will not need to sign up to receive an alert for each of those areas. more than 300 million wireless customers will be protected against potential and billing suppliers by the industry's efforts to help subscribers manage uses. participating providers will offer customers a plays two of notifications for data, voice, messaging, and international roaming by october of 2012 and all of the service alerts by april 17, 2013. many provide other tools, and as part of the guidelines, wireless providers will clearly and conspicuously exposes these tools and services to continue to help consumers better managed

news's. -- better manage uses. we appreciate those who provide valuable insight into our development of wireless consumer usage notification and guidelines i have been there since 2003, so you have often heard me talk about the concerns of excessive government regulations, especially on our industry, since it has such a significant impact on our jobs and our lives. the chairman and his team worked with the industry on these guidelines that will honor his and the commission's mandate to protect consumers while avoiding costly regulation. today's announcement shows there is a different way to get things done in this city.

we also thank her team for supporting the guidelines. we are glad to provide free alerts to help mention when we did manage users and provide these unintended charges. now it is my privilege to let the consumer union's seat. -- consumer union speak. >> welcome, and thank you for taking this initiative to help consumers. a consumers union is glad to be here today with the chairman of the fcc. our consumer reports have consistently found consumers are printing bills shock as a result of overcharges a -- who are experiencing a bill shock as a result of overcharges that are

not expected syria -- are not expected triggered it could be up to $1,000. we have been looking for a form to crack down on the problem, so we are encouraged that industry is willing to provide free alert security and -- free awards. we understand they are willing to do it within 12 months, but we urge them to do it as soon as possible. we know some carriers are already providing certain alert send the verizon is also providing awareness for of fees, so we think it is possible to begin providing alerts for charges. it is especially important because many consumers cannot afford this overcharge in this house and difficulty economy. the consumers union is going to work on the website that will

shine a light on industry compliance with a code of conduct, and we are glad they will keep it ensure this continues. we applaud the fcc and members for this effort to do right by consumers. we encourage and challenge the rest of the industry to follow suit. thank you. [applause] >> thank you all. this concludes the program. g [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> first, who is this? all of the major carriers or some of the others? >> my understanding is it

applies to all members. good >> they will do something if carriers do not comply. what can the fcc do is they do not comply? >> we expect compliance. if there is not compliant, we will take appropriate action? what happens, we will see, but neither of those things that happens. it is a win-win situation that will do something for consumers, and we expect to see it play out. >> i do not understand where the fcc has the authority to take action on a voluntary agreement. >> if there is in noncompliance with these commitments, we will take appropriate action, and i think teh cta understand there is no upside to not following through with these commitments. >> we have had the consumer codes for eight years. we have never had any complaints issues with any of items on our

consumer code, and we do not think there will be any compliance issues with this particular i addition to our code anyway. >> i think that is something you will have to ask the members who introduced the legislation. i think all of us involved are confident that the steps we wanted the industry to take for consumers will be taken. right now what we are calling for its implementation of these guidelines. they meet the needs does serve consumers, and we are going to focus our attention on making sure it happens and providing the support of but will make visible the rate of progress. it is win-win for everyone here regard -- for everyone.

>> are some of the companies already doing it bowman -- doing it bowma? [inaudible] >> it is not easy to do, especially when you are talking about 300 million people in this country. it is not easy to do. there are systems that have to be change, and we came to an agreement on how long would the reasonable. i would tell you that we announced at our show there was an agreement that would have to be made to introduce -- to attach the phones to reach chargers, but we have implemented a particular proposal three months ahead of schedule. my understanding is it would be implemented ahead of deadlines, but we have deadlines to make

sure all carriers are moving forward. >> i think what we are seeing by virtue of is being implemented, i think we will see competition among carriers on the basis of providing the best service to consumers. and we're going to see more competition by carriers to delight consumers in every aspect of what they do, including how the charges were and whether the alerts meet the needs that consumers have, so i think we have set this topic on an excellent course, so i am very interested in the turnout. thank you very much.

>> coming up, homeland security secretary janice an apology on a testifying before the senate judiciary committee on -- janet napolitano testifying before the senate judiciary committee. and a hearing on student athletes, and in environment hearing on the environmental clean-up program. middle and high school students, it is time to get those cameras rolling for the season video competition. the theme is the constitution and you. get it in by january 20, and you can win a grand prize of $5,000. >> the senate and banking and housing committee looks at proposals to overhaul home loans in the u.s..

one issue the committee will consider is whether 30-year fixed mortgages should remain the special -- the preferred method. at 2:00, a banking subcommittee look set of financial crisis in europe and the future of the financial system. that is also on c-span. president obama announced an agreement with private employers to hire 25,000 military veterans and their spouses over the next two years. the companies provide consumer products to military bases. michelle obama joined the president in hampton, va. kovrov for the third day of his bus tour of north carolina -- for the third day of his bus tour of north carolina and virginia. >> i am presently an army colonel in the reserve, and i have had 10 years on active

duty, and i have about 16 years and counting in army reserves. for 10 years i have worked at tyson foods. i have worked to highlight how benefits can help our company. i have got our ceo and my commander in chief in the wings. it is a big day, but i am here to share my experiences as a corporate lawyer but mostly as an army officer. i led several and geographically dispersed project management teams. over that year, we were responsible for over $220

million worth of upgrades and commercialization of projects throughout iraq and afghanistan. i lead the team since the project were completed on time and under budget. our project included selling infrastructure like fiber optic cables and even managing the construction of of building. we work with government contractors, active duty units, and basically anyone else we needed to in order to get the job done. project management can be a challenge, but project management in a war zone certainly stepped it up a few notches. my team's military experience trained us to be leaders, and the men and women can get

multimillion-dollar projects done on time and on budget, and they are exactly the kind of people you need to hire to get the job done in your company. as a soldier, i want to take this opportunity to thank those of you in the audience who represent companies in exchanges around the world, to people like me, to our soldiers, to all these are men and their families. i cannot tell you what a treat it is to have access to a smaller exchanges in remote parts of the world. i m proud to say i am one of the veterans who works for these companies, tyson foods. as a member of corporate america, i am proud that the same companies that supply our military are stepping up to the plate once again with their pledge to hire thousands of military spouses. while they will be thankful for

the opportunity to have a good job when they get off active duty or the return from a deployment, i guarantee it will be your company that benefits the most from the skill set, a positive attitude, work ethic, and leadership abilities. finally, i am exceptionally appreciative for the emphasis this administration has placed on hiring our veterans. i am also pleased the michelle obama has supported them as one of the pillars of her service. mrs. obama and dr. biden are joining the initiative and served to mobilize all sectors of the society, to give our service members and their families the opportunities and support they have earned.

i personally thank michelle obama. it is my great pleasure to introduce, and i asked said you join me in giving a warm welcome to the commander in chief of the united states of america of. . president barack obama and his wife, michelle obama. [applause] ♪

>> hey, everyone. this is really cool. i am very thrilled to be here. i never get to do anything with my husband. i have not seen him in three days. you are looking good, and you are looking good as well. we are proud to be here. let me thank melissa for her service and for that wonderful introduction and for everything she has done for this country. truly one of my greatest pleasures as first lady has been meeting folks like melissa and all of you today, hearing your stories, true lies seeing your strength, and i cannot tell you how much you inspire me and

all of us. it is something to watch. you have inspired me not just to but to move oawe, forward in action, and all of you are the reasons why dr. joe biden and i have started this initiative. and we want to rally this nation around our veterans and military families because we know how incredible all of you are. you are veterans. goo[applause] we want america to know you are veterans who have completed missions with an of variables involved and to make most that you are spins, trained in state-of-the-art technology, that you have managed to dozens if not hundreds of years, and when mistakes are at their highest,

that is when you are at your best, and their spouses are amazing. yes to the military spouses. [applause] military spouses package and a full day of work. many of them then get back to get the kids to piano lessons. they volunteer a fund raisers. they with of dinner, but the kids to bed, and and cracker open -- crack open text notes. that is a tough day, far a military spouse, that is wednesday. i am exhausted thinking about it but so very proud. for most of us, that is the kind of day that leaves us on the couch to exhausted to move, but

for all of you troops and military spouses today, we are proud of you and want people to know you have so many skills that are just second nature to all of you, things like time management, and people skills, a complex decision making, and so many other skills, and that is the reason we are here today, because those are precisely the skills we need in workplaces across america, but the truth is sometimes employers may not always know about all you have to offer. they might have trouble understanding of military as ae, or they might see boss who live-in so many cities hinman five years as a red flag not -- now in five years as the red flag no. other the way of life. i am proud of this organization is going to do something about that, so they are committed to

hiring 25,000 veterans and military spouses in the next two years. [applause] they do not want to miss out on your potential. they want america's businesses to have the best, most talented, hard-working employees around. this announcement is a huge deal, which is why the president is here. it is huge and not for you to be involved -- huge enough for you to be involved. this includes companies of all shapes and sizes, which makes it the largest coordinated effort by the private sector to hire veterans than we have seen in years, and this commitment puts us a quarter of the way towards reaching the president's

challenge to the private sector to hire or train or 100,000 sets and military spouse those -- vets and military spouses by the end of 2013. the businesses and making this pledge include name brands like procter and gamble, tyson foods, hewlett-packard, but also smaller companies like prime- time services, which is planning to hire hundreds of military spouses and veterans next year alone, and today's announcement really builds on the efforts of businesses all across the country. siemens has hired hundreds of veterans this year. sears is increasing the number of veterans and military spouses in their work force by 10%. we just made that announcement this week. the chamber of commerce has hosted jobs fares for veterans

across the country, and companies like kmart and sam's club has promised that if the military spouse who works out their stores house to move to a new duty station, -- house to move to a new duty station, they will do their best -- has to move to a new duty station, they will do their best to have a job when they are rise. and here is a bold commitment, and these are companies that are making these pledges not just because it is the right thing to do or because it feels unpatriotic. they are also doing it because it is good for their bottom- line. it is good for business, because they know veterans and military spouses represent the best our country has to offer, and they want you on their team, and really, that is what joining forces is all about. it is about now tacking on all

of that goodwill that is already out there in every sector of society, and it is important for you to know that. i know sometimes it feels like a struggle. know that people are stepping top. they are doing it every day, and they are doing it with pride and pleasure. making a real difference is really what we want to do, and surely it is win-win to everyone. the motto of joining forces is very simple. everyone can do something. everyone can do something to honor and support a great men and women who have served us so well. the man i am about to introduce,

this guy here, that is what he does every day. during his presidency, he has directed the federal government to help with child care in military families to address veterans' homelessness, to step up on mental health issues and to provide unprecedented support to our military families. now it is our pleasure to introduce a man fighting for you every single day. get the cameras ready. it is your commander and chief and my husband, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you very much.

i hate following michelle. she is so good. how lucky am i to be married to michelle obama allen hammond -- michelle obama amere? for you men who are not married, the whole goal is to move up, to try to improve your gene pool, and we are lucky to have her as the first lady of the united states i think. [applause] i am thrilled to be here. i want to thank the outstanding leaders who welcome us today, the secretary of the air force, donly. sohn lal kevin robinson and reggie austin

are here. [applause] i want to give a shout out to your outstanding senior enlisted leaders, including kevin halowe. i want you to give of a round of applause to the air combat command heritage of america bear aunand. we have air combat command. we have got the 633rd air base in weighinwing. we have got the first fighter wing with our amazing raptors. i want to ride in one of those

sunday. -- some day. we are going to have to set that up. we have the 488 intelligence surveillance. they can cheer, but they cannot talk about what they do. they would have to kill you. i see we have got some army, stiltoo. i want to salute melissa lee. i want to salute christine and the extraordinary military spouses who are here as wanell. we are inspired by them. michelle is an honorary military spouse because she has to put up with me. we shares such incredible

admiration. we are thankful for our veterans who are here. we are honored to be joined by them. [applause] that is what euros look like. -- heroes look like. i want to thank the governor and his lovely wife for joining us today, and i want to thank all of the business leaders who have

committed to hiring our nation's heroes. those of you who have worn the uniform of these united states have done so with honor and have done so with distinction. you have done everything that is out for you. you have got a grateful nation. over the past decade over 3 million service members have made the transition back to civilian life.

they have attained in their ability to adapt to changing circumstances, and they have become leaders here at home. they have become leaders in businesses across the country. just think how many veterans have led missions from the time they were 25. but as the kind of responsibility every business should want to take the advantage of a. those are the ones every business should want to hire. there are far too many veterans who are coming home and having to struggle to find a job as curator -- to find a job. there are too many military spouses who have a hard time finding work. that is not right.

it does not make any sense. it does not make sense to america. [applause] if you can save a life in afghanistan you can save a life on an ambulance. if you can save millions of dollars in iraq, you can help balance the books are a home. -- at home. if you can juggle the demands of raising a family while a husband and wife are at war, you can juggle the demands of any job in the united states of america.

we asked our men and women in uniform to leave their families -- . we ask you to risk your lives for your country. the last thing you should have to do is fight for a job when you come here. not here, not in the united states of america. this has been one of my top priorities as your commander in chief. that is why we are fully funding the g.i. ago. b -- bil. we are helping them get an education. it is why we wanted to help make sure it included on-the-job

training. it is why i directed the federal government to lead by example, including 100,000 eyes of this summer, and it is also -- as of this summer, and it is also why we are here today. as michelle mentioned, in august i challenge america's business. i challenge them to hire or train 100,000 close 9-11 veterans -- post 9-11 veterans or their spouses by the end of 2013, and a few months later, thanks to the many extraordinary companies that are here today, we are already a quarter of the way there. already they have committed to train or higher 25,000 veterans and spouses in the next two years, and that is incredible.

it is a testament to their sense of patriotism. it is a testament to the fact that these veterans and military families are some of the most talented, trained, and experienced some distance we have. it is a testament to the commitment to this country. we are living through an economic crisis the partly came about because too many individuals or institutions were only thinking about their own interests, because they embrace and what said what is good enough for me is good enough. the men and women of our armed forces had a different beliefs. ethic butembraced an fa said the only thing that is good enough as what is best for the

united states of america. [applause] by making a commitment to these brave men and women, the companies represented today have shown they have got the same as they share that belief to the d.r. -- now the same esthic. they share the belief that we are all here together. not just with slogans or tv ads, but with choices to make. as president and commander in chief, i thank you for that. i also want to thank my extraordinary wife and dr. joe biden for leading the efforts to support an honor our military efforts and making today possible.

she does all of this, and she looks cute. that is right. considering how many veterans are out there looking for work, and we cannot stop with today's announcement. we have more work to do. last month i sent congress a piece of legislation called the american road to jobs at. -- the american jobs are. it is filled with things the republicans and democrats of supported in the past. good funding to rebuild our schools and put our teachers back in the classroom so our children can get the education they deserve, a tax credit for small businesses of higher

american veterans -- that hire american veterans. the idea is dead so many companies have committed to hiring our nation's heroes, we want to make it -- the idea is that so many companies have committed to hiring our nation's heroes, we want to make it easier for other companies to do that. gives them a tax break if they hire a veteran. give them of a bigger tax break if they hire a disabled veteran. so far, congress has not acted on this proposal, but i want you to know i am pushing them little thibt. -- a little bit. i am going to keep pushing them. we are going to hold a series of votes on individual pieces of my job skills, and one of the votes

i am going to urge members of congress to take is whether or not they think it is a good idea to give companies incentives to hire the men and women who have risked their lives for our countries, and i am hoping we can get both parties on board for this idea. when i first proposed this idea in a joint session of congress, people stood up and applauded on so whendes of the i/aisle, it comes to a vote on the senate, i expect to get votes from both sides of the aisle. do not just upon for it. vote for it -- do not just applaud it. vote for it. standing up for a veteran is not just a republican responsibility or a democratic responsibility. it is an american responsibility.

it is an obligation for every citizen who enjoys the freedom that our heroes defend, and it is time to meet those obligations today. this generation of veterans have learned that the challenges do not end in kandahar or bad debts. they continue right here at home, and we are saying -- or baghdad. they continue right here at home, and now we are saying this is the chance to keep america competitive economically in the 21st century. these are tough times for americans, but we face tough times before, and nobody suffers more than the men and women of america's armed forces. [applause] whenever we face a challenge in

this country, whether it was the depression or the civil war warrant when richard or when our union was at stake, are -- or the civil war or when our union was attacked, we did not falter, we pushed ourselves forward. we got ourselves on we do we got an for the country that so many have suffered and given their lives for. but as the spirit you represent. that is the spirit our nation needs right now. you remind us no problem is too hard and no challenges to great and no destiny is beyond our reach, so let's get together and show the world why it is the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you. god bless the men and women in

uniform, and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪ ♪ fate in ma

♪ \ ♪ ♪

♪ >> some road to the white house coming out. tomorrow morning, mr. romney at a town hall meeting in iowa, and

on friday at 9:00 p.m., congressman ron paul speaking to an a rally at the university of