U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

58–047 PDF 2010

INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE SMALL 

BUSINESS LENDING, JOBS, 

AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 18, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 111–137 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

JOHN ADLER, New Jersey 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

May 18, 2010 ..................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

May 18, 2010 ..................................................................................................... 57 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010 

Atkins, Hon. Paul, Member of the Congressional Oversight Panel, and former 

Securities and Exchange Commissioner ............................................................ 13 

Brown, Paul, Manager, Capital Markets Development, Michigan Economic 

Development Corporation .................................................................................... 11 

Determan, Jim, Hord Coplan Macht, Inc., on behalf of the American Institute 

of Architects (AIA) ................................................................................................ 16 

Johansson, Hon. Christian S., Secretary, Maryland Department of Business 

& Economic Development .................................................................................... 10 

MacPhee, James D., Chief Executive Officer, Kalamazoo County State Bank, 

on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) .......... 18 

Mica, Hon. Daniel A., President and Chief Executive Officer, Credit Union 

National Association (CUNA) .............................................................................. 15 

Sperling, Gene B., Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the Treasury ........................................................................................... 8 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Atkins, Hon. Paul ............................................................................................. 58 

Brown, Paul ...................................................................................................... 66 

Determan, Jim .................................................................................................. 71 

Johansson, Hon. Christian S. .......................................................................... 78 

MacPhee, James D. .......................................................................................... 85 

Mica, Hon. Daniel A. ........................................................................................ 94 

Sperling, Gene B. .............................................................................................. 111 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Frank, Hon. Barney: 

Written statement of the American Bankers Association (ABA) ................. 119 

Written statement of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) .............. 124 

Written statement of ACCION USA ............................................................... 125 

Written statement of the Financial Services Roundtable ............................. 126 

Written statement of the International Franchise Association (IFA) .......... 129 

Written statement of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions 

(NAFCU) ........................................................................................................ 130 

Written statement of the National Association of Home Builders ............... 132 

Peters, Hon. Gary: 

Written statement of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association 

(MEMA) ......................................................................................................... 142 

Written statement of various State Governors .............................................. 144 

(1) 

INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE SMALL 

BUSINESS LENDING, JOBS, 

AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in room 2128, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barney Frank [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Frank, Waters, Maloney, 

Velazquez, Watt, Sherman, Moore of Kansas, Baca, Lynch, Miller 

of North Carolina, Scott, Green, Cleaver, Bean, Moore of Wisconsin, Perlmutter, Donnelly, Foster, Carson, Minnick, Adler, Kilroy, Himes, Peters; Bachus, Royce, Biggert, Hensarling, Posey, Lee, 

and Lance. 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

We are here today to discuss a very important program which 

has been forwarded to us by the Administration. The lack of credit 

available to smaller businesses has been a serious problem in the 

economy and has concerned the Members here. We have had previous hearings on the subject, one in which blame for that situation 

was somewhat passed around. We have had arguments that the 

regulators have been too tough, that the banks have not been willing to lend, and that the demand is not there on behalf of the small 

businesses. 

We will continue to deal with this. But today, we will hear a proposal that should alleviate the situation from all accounts by making more funding available to the small banks in a way that includes some serious effort to ensure that money is in turn lent. 

Clearly, getting more funding for small businesses that are ready 

to expand or that need funding to even stay where they are is a 

critical part of our number one job right now, which is to continue 

the recovery. 

We are seeing the beginnings of a recovery. There have been very 

encouraging signs, including very good job numbers last week, 

somewhat obliterated 2 weeks ago by the stock market gyrations. 

But that is an argument for doing more, not less. I believe the 

economy has been responding to a variety of public policy initiatives, in addition of course to the dynamism of the economy itself 

and the natural countercyclical efforts; as inventory is drained, inventory gets restocked. 

2 

But it is important for us to build on initial successes and not 

in any way be complacent because there are very serious needs in 

the economy and we believe this is a very thoughtful approach. I 

should say at the outset that there is one thing which we understand is not here in the bill, and that this is how this will be paid 

for. There is a CBO score, it is an interesting situation, which CBO 

tells us I believe that this will cost some money in the first 5 years, 

but over 10 years, will make money for the Federal Government. 

That is a factor that we will be keeping in mind. 

But the bill that we have before us today, which will be markedup tomorrow and could go to the Floor next week, is, for that reason, an authorization. If this bill were to pass unanimously in the 

House tomorrow or next week, it would not lead to the spending 

of money until the House says, and the Senate and the President 

subscribe to a way to pay for it. So, yes, we understand this is a 

very important program that should be paid for. We will be dealing 

as a legislative body with the mechanism for paying for it. 

I will say this: One proposal early on had been to pay for it in 

the TARP. Nobody likes the TARP at this point. And if you were 

to use TARP funds for this program, you wouldn’t have a program 

unless you reinstated the draft. But since we are not likely to draft 

people to be in this program, it is not going to be in the TARP. And 

there will be no TARP trappings, no TARP restrictions, and, I believe, no TARP oversight. There will be oversight. There will be 

other requirements, but it will be entirely separate from the TARP 

because we want to get people involved. 

With that, I now recognize the ranking member for 4 minutes. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today’s hearing to consider these two recently introduced bills designed to jump 

start lending in small businesses. 

While Republicans share the goal of promoting credit availability 

for small businesses, many of us in the Minority disagree that the 

best method for achieving the goal is to create a new $30 billion 

program that is not paid for and that follows a model of government investment in private businesses that most Americans want 

to see brought to an end, and that is the bailouts. I count myself 

as one of those who wants to see all bailouts come to an end. 

We are told that this new program is not TARP and that no 

TARP funds will be used to pay for it. But the reality is considerably more complicated than that. Indeed, Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the TARP, wrote in a letter to the Appropriations Committee yesterday that, ‘‘in terms of its basic design, 

its participants, its application process, and perhaps its funding 

source, from an oversight perspective, the small business lending 

fund would essentially be an extension of TARP’s Capital Purchase 

Program.’’ 

While I take Chairman Frank at his word that he has rejected 

the Administration’s original proposal to pay for the new initiative 

from repaid TARP funds, the fact that no funding source has yet 

to be identified gives rise to legitimate questions about taxpayer accountability that must be answered before this committee votes to 

authorize another $30 billion in new spending, particularly on the 

heels of what we have witnessed in Europe over the past 2 weeks, 

as we call on the Greek people and the Greek government to act 

3 

in a responsible manner. We must not ask others to do what we 

are not willing to do ourselves. 

The sponsors of this legislation also assure us that any taxpayer 

losses from new investments in financial institutions are likely to 

be minimal, but it is worth noting that some 90 institutions that 

received money under the Capital Purchase Program still owe more 

than $182 million in missed dividend payments to American taxpayers, and that some institutions like Citigroup have gone bankrupt and will never repay their government funds. Why should we 

have any confidence that Treasury can manage TARP II any better 

than TARP I? 

Additionally, in a report issued just last week, the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel chaired by Elizabeth Warren raised serious questions about the prospects for success in this program. 

Former SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins, a member of that panel, 

is here with us today at the invitation of committee Republicans, 

and I look forward to hearing his insights. 

While I support the Majority’s decision to finally focus on one of 

the driving causes of the Nation’s 10 percent unemployment crisis, 

lending to small businesses and lack of lending to those institutions, I cannot support ill-conceived proposals that likely will do little to help the economy but continue to drive up the national debt 

and crowd out funding in the private market for small businesses. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 15 additional seconds, which 

can be added to the time on that side. 

And the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moore, is recognized for 3 

minutes. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am proud to be an original sponsor of H.R. 5297, the Small 

Business Lending Fund Act, and the role that our Oversight Subcommittee played in in laying the groundwork for this legislation. 

Representative Gary Peters invited our subcommittee to visit 

Michigan last November to hear directly from local business leaders, community banks, and credit unions about the severe credit 

crunch facing small businesses, especially in a time and a place 

that desperately needs an economic turnaround. 

I am pleased to co-sponsor a bill Representatives Peters, Dingell, 

and Levin drafted to create a State credit program modeled on a 

successful Michigan program which we learned about at the hearing. And we just held a field hearing yesterday in Chicago requested by Ranking Member Biggert to focus on the problems in 

commercial real estate. We were joined by Luis Gutierrez as well 

as Representatives Melissa Bean and Bill Foster, and we again 

heard from local businesses and financial institutions on the overlapping challenges they face with respect to CRE and small business credit. 

As the evidence and facts from these hearings showed, restoring 

responsible credit availability to small businesses is crucial if we 

want a strong economic recovery. I look forward to working with 

my colleagues on this needed legislation, ensuring the bill is fiscally responsible by the time the full House votes on the measure. 

4 

And let me stress that we will have much more flexibility to find 

offsets after our committee reports out the bill as other committees 

have jurisdiction over a broader array of options to pay for the bill. 

So there is no reason we can’t move this bill quickly out of committee and work together to ensure it is fiscally responsibly before 

the full House considers the measure. 

I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has used 11⁄2 minutes. We have 

another half minute here. 

So now the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hensarling, is recognized 

for 3 minutes. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is another day and another opportunity to borrow $30 billion 

we do not have, to borrow it from the Chinese and send a bill to 

our children and our grandchildren. 

The American people are increasingly asking, what part of broke 

doesn’t this Congress understand? In just the last 2 years, the deficit has exploded, increased tenfold. The national debt is tripling 

before our very eyes. By the end of the decade, under CBO’s score, 

we will be paying almost $1 trillion in year in interest alone on the 

national debt. 

We have to go back to World War II to find such debt-to-GDP 

ratios as what we are soon to see in the United States of America. 

By the end of the decade, they will be wider than those of Greece, 

and we know what is occurring in Greece. 

Moody’s, not generally known for their pessimism, has stated 

that the United States could soon lose its AAA bond rating. In a 

first, recently the bond markets, during a debt offering, seemingly 

showed that they had greater confidence in Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway repaying their debt than the United States Government repaying theirs. 

So after a $700 billion dollar TARP program, which has now 

morphed into little more than a revolving bailout fund for the Administration; after a $1.2 trillion stimulus plan, which has stimulated our national debt but otherwise leaves us mired in almost 

double-digit unemployment, the highest in a generation; we have 

the next idea of the same philosophy that seemingly you can borrow, spend, and bail out your way into economic prosperity. 

Although the $30 billion proposal is called SBLF, it reads like 

TARP to me. Now, this is TARP’s Capital Purchase Program without the accountability and with an incentive to lend. But we have 

to look carefully at the incentive. Will taxpayers end up subsidizing 

banks to lend to businesses that they are soon to lend to anyway? 

Or perhaps more ominously, reminiscent of the Government-Sponsored Enterprises, is this an incentive to lend taxpayer money to 

marginal borrowers who may not be creditworthy? 

The preponderance of the evidence points to a lack of creditworthy small business demand, not a lack of community bank capital supply, as the primary challenge that we face in our Nation. 

And until the Congress ceases its spending spree, its bailouts, its 

threatened higher healthcare costs, its threatened higher energy 

costs, more small business taxes, regulatory uncertainty, and the 

list goes on, that is unlikely to change. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

5 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, 

for 2 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

And I want to thank our panelists for helping the committee 

with its work. I think we all understand the urgency of this issue. 

Small businesses across the country have struggled since the financial crisis began. Banks have retracted lending and credit even for 

otherwise healthy businesses, and many businesses have been 

forced to cut jobs, reducing the size of their workforce. 

I believe further efforts are necessary to assist small businesses, 

but they need to be targeted to those small businesses which are 

the backbone of our economy. They are the key to a successful economic recovery. Tax credits for job creation and improving access 

to credit for small businesses, two main components of the legislation before us will, I think, help put more Americans back to work, 

and that should be our number one priority. 

Obviously, we have to be careful and deliberate about how we 

plan to pay for this program. Just 2 weeks ago, in this same hearing room, we heard from the Peterson Foundation about our everincreasing national debt and that continuous spending outlays with 

no revenue stream to offset their costs are simply not sustainable. 

Our projected Federal deficit of $1.368 trillion no doubt is alarming, but also our structural deficit and escalating debt levels are 

even a greater concern. 

We must get our economy back on track while simultaneously 

taking steps to address our Federal budget problems. The small 

business lending program is just one example of how we can begin. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, is 

recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Albert Einstein once said, the definition of insanity is doing the 

same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. 

We have tried this command-and-control, borrow-and-spend approach before, and it has failed us. The more our Nation borrows 

and spends, the closer we get in terms of our policies to that of 

Greece and the less economic growth we will see in the future. Our Nation does not have $30 billion to give out. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Federal budget deficit at $92.7 billion for the 

month hit an all-time high for April, and that was $53 billion higher than economists had predicted just for that month. We will have 

to borrow that money from China and elsewhere, just as we will 

have to borrow this $30 billion if we go forward here elsewhere. 

And as Chairman Bernanke has repeatedly said, this path is simply unsustainable. 

Businesses around the country understand that the wealth creators in the economy will be burdened with picking up the tab. 

They see the coming spike in capital gains and dividends taxes. 

They see the potential for a value-added tax increasing by the day. 

They also see the new mandates and taxes that were just enacted in the health care bill. 

They understand that the cap-and-trade legislation will increase 

the cost of doing business. It will certainly restrict future growth. 

6 

They see, throughout the financial system, businesses are facing 

these new hurdles. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is 

coming down the pike with broad undefined powers. 

And they see the 230 co-sponsors on legislation to abolish secret 

ballot elections for unionization. 

So it is no wonder business confidence is at an all-time low. And 

the NFIB just released the study from last month noting that the 

prolonged pessimism found among business owners is unprecedented in survey history. 

Real economic growth will not come from another program run 

out of the Treasury Department, but from Washington providing a 

modicum of certainty for businesses going forward. 

I think we would be well served to take a step back and reassess 

the message coming from Washington, D.C. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Donnelly, for 

2 minutes. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There are few things more important than enabling small business to obtain credit. What I have consistently heard from the 

small businesses throughout Indiana is that to create additional 

jobs, their ability to obtain credit is critical. If they can have the 

credit, they can create the jobs and put the people of this country 

back to work. 

Their biggest challenge remains; they are good companies with 

good credit ratings who still are not able to get credit. My commitment will be to continue to work nonstop so that these small businesses with good credit ratings who have struggled so hard to get 

the credit to run their businesses, that they can obtain this credit 

and that they, these small businesses, the engine of our economy, 

can succeed into the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I now recognize—and let me be clear that this 

is an allocation that I do not make; I simply take what the Minority tells me—for 30 seconds the gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. 

Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to concur in what Representative Moore talked about, the oversight hearing that we had in Chicago yesterday and just a couple of things 

that we learned. 

Number one is that there really is not the demand for loans at 

the community banks, because there is not enough businesses that 

are applying for the loans because of the trouble that they are all 

in. And in addition, we learned that a tax increase on income— 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

As I said, this is the allocation I was asked to give. 

The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We all know how important small businesses are to our economy. 

They have generated 64 percent of new jobs over the past 15 years. 

They create more than half of the non-farm private gross national 

product and hire 40 percent of all high-tech workers. 

As our economy continues to recover, it is critical that small businesses have access to credit so that they can grow, add jobs in our 

7 

communities, and create the innovative technologies of the future. 

I am pleased that today we are meeting to discuss two bills that 

have been introduced with the support of the Administration: the 

Small Business Lending Fund Act; and legislation that I introduced, called the State Small Business Credit Initiative Act. 

Last November, Chairman Moore traveled with me to Oakland 

County, Michigan, where we held a field hearing to hear from representatives of small businesses, particularly small manufacturing 

companies, about the need for increased lending. We also heard 

from community banks and credit unions about their ideas of how 

to increase access to capital for small businesses. One of the ideas 

discussed at the hearing was to promote Federal funding for State 

lending support programs, such as the Michigan Supplier Diversification Fund. And since that hearing, I have worked with my colleagues from Michigan—Chairman Levin and Chairman Dingell 

and our Governor—to turn this idea into one of the proposals that 

we are debating today. 

I am happy that Paul Brown from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation can be with us today to discuss how successful 

this program has been in our State and the support that it has received from both the business community and the financial industry. 

I am also pleased that James MacPhee can be with us today on 

behalf of the ICBA. He is also a Michigan community banker who 

can speak to the need for this legislation from a community banker’s perspective. 

I am also pleased that another native Michigander, Gene 

Sperling, could be with us. His work over the last few months to 

turn this idea into a legislative proposal with such broad support 

has been incredible. 

Chairman Frank, I would also like to thank you for holding this 

hearing today and for your continued leadership, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. 

I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record statements 

in support of this bill from the American Bankers Association, the 

Financial Services Roundtable, the International Franchising Association, the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, the National Association of Home Builders, and the Associated Builders 

and Contractors. 

Hearing no objection, we will enter these into the record. 

We will now begin the testimony. And I also appreciate that Mr. 

Sperling is with us. 

We have one panel that includes the Administration, but with 

this large committee, by the time we go around twice, everybody 

went to dinner, so we will try to get this in, in a reasonable time. 

And let me say I appreciate the members showing up today. And 

I just want to address for a minute a question I had, which was, 

why are you having an important hearing on a day when there 

aren’t votes? 

And the answer is, this committee has a business agenda. Members on both sides frequently ask for hearings. We simply cannot 

accommodate them on 2 days a week. So there will be from time 

to time hearings during times when we don’t have votes because 

8 

the alternative is to have hearings 2 days a week, and that is why 

this day is different from all other days, a little out of season. 

The first witness is Gene Sperling, Counselor to the Secretary of 

the Treasury, who has been working very hard and very cooperatively with us on this bill. Mr. Sperling? 

STATEMENT OF GENE B. SPERLING, COUNSELOR TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

TREASURY 

Mr. SPERLING. Thank you very much, Chairman Frank, Ranking 

Member Bachus, and members of the committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the topic of small business 

lending and small business job creation today. I think it is safe to 

say that small businesses who have been responsible have been 

very deeply hurt in this financial crisis by those who were not responsible in their actions, and that this has been damaging, not 

only to those small business owners but to our economy, because 

we need small business job creation to help make this recovery a 

strong job-creation recovery. 

And at this point, small businesses have taken greater hits in job 

loss and have had less recovery jobs-wise, optimism-wise, than 

larger companies, and this is of concern to our Administration, and 

we think it should be of concern to this Congress as well. 

We do not believe there is a single silver bullet to respond to a 

single problem on small business lending. Rather, we think there 

are multiple barriers that we need to attack on all fronts. So, is it 

demand? Is it supply? It is all of these things. And if we care about 

getting small business lending and job creation going, we need a 

comprehensive strategy. 

Of course, this Congress, this President, have focused on increasing overall demand in the economy through the Recovery Act 

through the financial crisis. As difficult and painful as this economy still is, the movement from a contraction of 6.4 percent in the 

first quarter of 2009 to averaging 4.4 percent growth over the last 

half year is one of the greatest swings we have probably seen in 

a century. 

This Congress, and this President, have encouraged demand in 

investment by expensing net operating loss, tax cuts, bonus depreciation, 75 percent exclusions on capital gains, and a new HIRE 

Act to encourage hiring those who are unemployed. 

We have seen success in the Recovery Act measures that have 

been done by SBA, under Karen Mills, working jointly with Treasury to free up secondary markets and see SBA lending rebound by 

90 percent. These have all made a difference. They are all not 

enough: not enough when unemployment is at 9.9 percent; not 

enough when there is a record number of the unemployed who 

have been unemployed for longer than 6 months; and not enough 

when there are 5 unemployed people looking for every available 

job. 

But it is wrong to think that it is just about hitting the demand 

side. The NFIB survey in February 2010 showed that 45 percent, 

nearly half of small business borrowers trying to get lending, could 

not access the full credit they wanted, 45 percent. The last time 

that study was done, in 2006, it was 11 percent. That means 4 

9 

times more small business owners cannot get the full amount of 

credit that they want. 

So, yes, this is a multi-faceted problem. And that is why we are 

hitting on different levels, and that is why we support the efforts 

to have a strong small business job package, to go to zero capital 

gains for small business investment, to extend the Recovery Act 

SBA provisions, to work with Chairwoman Velazquez, as we are 

right now, on additional measures you could do through the SBA 

to help the early financing of companies and to try to bring good 

borrowers back into the picture who might be on the sidelines now. 

And that is why we are also making special efforts to go after programs that are for CDFI and new markets. I want to stress very clearly on our $30 billion lending initiative 

here a few things. One, despite things I have heard already today, 

these are your community banks. These are your neighborhood 

banks. These are the banks of Main Street, not Wall Street. These 

are not the banks that led the financial crisis. They are not the 

banks doing synthetic CDOs. They are not the banks which paid 

multibillion dollar bonuses. These are your small community banks 

on Main Street that are the ones that predominantly lend to small 

businesses. They were the ones that kept lending during the crisis 

when larger banks pulled back. These are the banks we are trying 

to help in this initiative. 

This should be labeled the small business lending fund because 

that is what it is. It will not cost the taxpayers a penny, as Chairman Frank said. CBO may estimate that it actually raises taxpayer money. But whether it costs or not, like every other measure, 

it will be offset, it will be deficit neutral when it is passed, and it 

will be a very strong bang for the buck. 

It is for private sector lending, for private sector banks, for the 

private sector small businesses that will drive our recovery. And we 

are also happy that we are supporting and have worked together 

on this State Small Business Capital Initiative. This will help 

Democrat and Republican Governors in States across the country 

who have programs that are up and going, that are being cut back 

at a time of increased demand because of budget constraints. This 

program we think could spur almost $20 billion in additional lending at the State level in programs that are up and running. 

There have to be answers. Can our answer really be to just criticize any program that is trying to address credit needs for small 

business lending? Haven’t we seen the pain? Haven’t we all gotten 

enough mail to know we have to put forward a constructive program? It is high bang for the buck. It would help community 

banks, and it would help successful State programs. It would be 

deficit neutral, and it would help the community and local banks 

that are at the core of Main Street and the core of lending to the 

small businesses who need credit so that they can lend, expand, 

and create the jobs our economy desperately needs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sperling can be found on page 

111 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The time has expired. 

Next, we have Christian Johansson, who is the secretary of the 

Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development. 

10 

And he is here at the strong suggestion of Representative Van Hollen and other members of the Maryland delegation. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTIAN S. JOHANSSON, 

SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and 

distinguished members of the Financial Services Committee, good 

afternoon. 

My name is Christian Johansson, and I am the secretary of the 

Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development. On 

behalf of Martin O’Malley, I want to thank you for inviting me to 

testify in support of the State Small Business Credit Initiative Act 

of 2010. 

I am here today to endorse a key component of this Act, using 

existing State loan guarantee programs to extend credit to worthy 

small businesses. While the lifeblood of every American is a paycheck and a job, the lifeblood of every small business is access to 

credit. This piece of legislation helps accomplish both. 

Loan guarantee programs are one of the single most effective 

tools we have to restore the economy. By expanding the capacity 

of existing guarantee programs, we truly have a shovel-ready solution to restore the flow of credit to small businesses crippled by 

tougher lending standards and devalued collateral. 

In Maryland, we have established a loan guarantee program that 

helps banks and businesses bridge the collateral gap and address 

the issue that even if banks have the money, the playing field has 

changed, and many of our borrowers simply do not qualify. 

But we are not alone. A nationwide network of 34 States and territories have existing loan guarantee programs. These programs 

have the infrastructure and the expertise to immediately put operating capital in the hands of business owners to hire new employees, to restock shelves, to expand locations. Federal support to 

guaranteed programs will significantly leverage multiples of bank 

lending to spur economic recovery. 

You have the power to unlock billions of dollars of private bank 

lending by funding these existing guarantee programs. As the State 

economic development director, I can assure you that this legislation offers me and my colleagues sufficient flexibility to use our existing, often more nimble, grassroots programs to have the 

quickest, most meaningful impact in our communities. Strengthening these programs also serves as an important complement to 

the SBA. 

Let me tell you a little bit about our program. It was established 

45 years ago to increase capital to small- and medium-sized companies. In the first decade, we have done 823 loans, and in loans and 

bonds, we total $2.1 billion in credit that we have been able to extend. In the last 5 years, we have not had a single credit loss. 

This year, we guaranteed $40 million in private sector loans, and 

we have over $150 million in our pipeline. These loans represent 

direct investments in businesses which ultimately create jobs, moving our economy from recovery to prosperity. 

And while MIDFA historically operated in the $5 million to $15 

million range, we amended the program this year to be able to do 

11 

guarantees at $100,000 and below. The MIDFA small business 

guarantee would unlock $10 in private sector lending for every dollar of Federal funds you inject into the program. 

Even in one of the toughest fiscal environments, Governor 

O’Malley demonstrated his commitment to this program by increasing funding and dedicating an additional $10 million to small business loan guarantees this past year. 

Mr. Chairman, allow me to introduce Darius Davis, who is sitting behind me. He is the executive vice president of Harbor Bank, 

one of the Nation’s largest minority-owned community banks. And 

I want to tell you the story of one of his customers, Bass Machining, a growing metal fabricator in Baltimore. These two businesses, 

Harbor Bank and Bass, embody the success of our guarantee program. To date, their stories intertwine. 

Bass Machining was established almost 30 years ago. The company recently tripled their factory space and received a major contract to build power tools. He needed a line of credit support to fulfill his new contract. Harbor Bank was willing to fulfill that line 

of contract if they received support for their collateral position. 

MIDFA’s $87,000 guarantee made it possible for Bass to obtain 

$350,000 in financing to fuel their expansion. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the committee, 

there are many opportunities for States to assist small businesses. 

And as Mr. Sperling said, there is no silver bullet to solving the 

effects of our prolonged recession. But loan guarantees are a proven and effective tool. They work. They are shovel-ready. And they 

have an immediate impact. 

We urge this committee and Congress as a whole to pass this legislation quickly so our Nation’s small businesses can access the 

capital they need to grow and create much-needed jobs. Thank you 

for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johansson can be found on page 

78 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Next, is Mr. Paul Brown, the manager of capital 

markets development in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation. 

Mr. Brown. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL BROWN, MANAGER, CAPITAL MARKETS 

DEVELOPMENT, MICHIGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bachus, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to 

discuss the topic of small business lending and job creation, and 

specifically the programs we have created in Michigan. 

It is humbling to testify before those who are so dedicated to ensuring the opportunities for our small businesses and banks. 

I especially would like to thank the Administration, specifically 

Mr. Sperling, and members of our congressional delegation, specifically Representatives Peters, Levin, and Dingell. 

Unfortunately, Michigan has been dealing with the effects of the 

so-called ‘‘Great Recession’’ longer than most. But it is because of 

this long and severe experience that we have been able to develop 

12 

programs which effectively tackle the difficulties our small businesses have in accessing capital. 

I want to give you one example of a business in Michigan that 

demonstrates the typical stresses in the banking and small business field. Laurie Moncrieff is a third-generation owner of Adaptive 

Manufacturing Solutions. It was founded in 1948 by her grandfather. AMS lost their financing because they were in technical default of their loan, a term you have probably heard a lot of in the 

last 18 months. Because of this, they had to lay off some of their 

employees, going from 14 to 12 employees. 

But the resilient Ms. Moncrieff has been able to keep her business alive by moving out, moving herself and her family out of her 

family home and renting it, and moving her family into the small 

apartment above the shop. Laurie is typical of small businesses in 

Michigan, especially manufacturers. And it is because of stories 

like hers that Governor Jennifer Granholm charged the MEDC 

with investigating and implementing a program that would assist 

companies like Laurie’s. 

We spoke to dozens of banks and dozens of borrowers, small businesses, and manufacturers, to understand what they were facing in 

the credit markets. There are two main factors a bank uses to determine the creditworthiness of a borrower. And these factors are 

getting particular scrutiny in this environment by the Feds. 

The first is free cash flow. Typically, banks require 1.25 free cash 

flow to debt service. And they do that calculation based on a 3-year 

average. With the ‘‘Great Recession’’ hopefully behind us, there is 

a large portion of that average which is artificially low. So the 3- 

year average does not necessarily represent the ability of a business to pay now or in the future on an individual loan. 

We designed what we call the Loan Participation Program to attack this issue. The Michigan Economic Development Corporation 

will work with the banks, and that is an important factor because 

the banks are the decision-makers, and they perform the due diligence and the administration of the loan. We will work with these 

banks to purchase a portion of that loan that is out of formula. And 

we will give a grace period in principal and/or interest for up to 36 

months for that borrower. 

In theory, they are traditional, in many cases revenue will increase during the grace period, as well as their diversification plan 

will come on-line and become profitable. 

The second program attacks the collateral problem in Michigan. 

Many of our manufacturers rely on their property plan equipment 

value to borrow. Banks, in looking at a property plan equipment 

loan, like your typical home mortgage, will loan 80 percent to 

value. With many of our small businesses losing a huge portion of 

the value in their assets, they are unable to qualify for the current 

loans, let alone eligible for a loan diversification or an increase in 

their capital needs. 

In this situation, we will work with the banks to determine what 

the gap is. And so as long as the bank has the majority of the loan, 

we will deposit the collateral gap in the bank. We get interest on 

the loan. We get points from the borrower. The bank gets a fully 

collateralized loan so that they can then make loans and make 

13 

money on those loans. They also get increased deposits, which is 

very important in this strict regulatory environment. 

One of the greatest examples of the success of our program is 

Mark One Corporation, a company in a small town in northern 

Michigan. Mark One developed a product that cleans metal in a 

green fashion, preparing it for manufacturing. They had purchase 

orders from companies around the world, including China, but they 

were unable to access the capital they needed to fill these purchase 

orders. Because of our loan and our loan guarantee in the form of 

collateral support—I am sorry, my time is up—Mark One was able 

to get a loan from Huntington Bank and hire up to 230 workers. 

This is just one example of our State’s programs that has been 

successful and we urge this committee and this Congress— 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown can be found on page 66 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brown. We got to the meat of it. 

Mr. BROWN. We did. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next, is Paul Atkins, a member of the Congressional Oversight Panel on the TARP. He is also a former SEC Commissioner. 

And Mr. Atkins, to even out my lapse from before, you are going 

to get 6 minutes and 15 seconds, so, please, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL ATKINS, MEMBER OF 

THE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL, AND FORMER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONER 

Mr. ATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and distinguished members of the committee, 

I am Paul Atkins, a member of the Congressional Oversight Panel 

for the TARP. 

I appreciate this opportunity to testify about the Panel’s recent 

work assessing small business lending initiatives. I should note 

that the views expressed in my testimony here today are my own. 

I will do my best to convey the Panel’s views, but my statements 

cannot always reflect the opinions of five very diverse thinkers on 

our Panel. I should also emphasize that the Congressional Oversight Panel has taken no position on whether any of the programs 

discussed today, including the Small Business Lending Fund or the 

State Small Business Credit Initiative, should be implemented. 

During the Panel’s recent field hearing in Arizona, a local bank 

president laid out the problem in stark terms, ‘‘We could grow the 

bank by $100 million in new assets and not need any new capital. 

Our lack of loan growth is a reflection of the impact of the recession on the small businesses in this State. We will do more, but it 

is difficult to find anyone who is not being impacted and remains 

creditworthy.’’ 

Another concern is that the current regulatory climate may make 

it extremely difficult for banks to increase their small business 

lending. There have been anecdotal reports that bank examiners 

have become more conservative and have required increasing levels 

of capital in the last year. 

The balance between sufficient regulation and overregulation is 

a fine one. In an overly permissive regulatory environment, banks 

may tend to make riskier loans. In an overly restrictive regulatory 

14 

environment, however, banks may become too conservative, and 

there will be insufficient credit available to help pull the economy 

out of the recession. 

The SBLF’s prospects, we think, are far from certain. Even if it 

is established by Congress immediately, it may not become fully 

operational for some time. It could arrive too late to contribute 

meaningfully to economic recovery. 

Moreover, banks may shun the program in order to avoid the 

stigma of government funding. As Assistant Secretary Allison recently acknowledged before this committee, the TARP recipient 

label in negative advertising resonates with the public. 

I recently took a photograph of this billboard held up behind me 

in Winchester, Virginia, which I think really says it all. 

Even if the SBLF’s incentive is sufficiently strong, the program 

may produce one key unintended consequence. A capital infusion 

program that provides financial institutions with cheap capital, 

along with penalties for failing to increase lending, runs the risk 

of creating moral hazard by encouraging banks to make loans to 

borrowers who are not creditworthy. The stronger the incentive, 

the greater the likelihood that the program will spur some amount 

of imprudent lending activity. 

In my personal view, the Administration’s proposal appears to 

share much of its design and business model with those adopted by 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Treasury should have learned from 

Fannie and Freddie that the combination of easily accessible belowmarket credit, matched with pressure to lend, regardless of credible 

demand or the employment of prudent underwriting standards, 

serves as the perfect recipe for extension of problematic loans and 

the creation and implosion of asset bubbles. That was the essential 

cause of the recent financial crisis. 

Through my years in public service, I have been a big advocate 

of easing regulatory burdens on small businesses which get hurt in 

a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley 

internal control provisions. Because small businesses play such a 

critical role in the American economy, there is little doubt that 

they must be part of any sustainable recovery. It remains unclear 

however whether Treasury’s programs can or will play a major role 

in putting small businesses on the path to growth. 

In my opinion, the Administration and Congress could encourage 

the robust recovery of commercial credit and small business lending markets, as well as the overall U.S. economy, by sending an 

unambiguous message that the government will not directly or indirectly raise taxes or increase the regulatory burden of commercial 

credit in small business market participants and other business enterprises. Without that action, the recovery of the commercial credit and small business lending markets will most likely proceed at 

a sluggish and costly pace. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Atkins can be found on page 58 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Next, we will hear from a former colleague, and 

the departing, very able chief executive of the Credit Union National Association, Dan Mica. 

15 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL A. MICA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CREDIT UNION NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (CUNA) 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking-Member-inattendance Hensarling. 

It is good to be with you, and I will try to make this very brief 

to get straight to questions here, but there is a need for the Congress to act, absolutely, without a doubt. And you heard it from 

this committee to my right just last week. 

Something has to be done. We will follow the judgment and leadership of this committee on some parts of the legislation you have 

here before you today. But I would tell you that credit unions want 

to be a part of the solution. Credit unions, for 100 years, have been 

a part of the solution, and we want to continue that fine tradition. 

All we need to do, as far as credit unions are concerned, is 

change a statutory limit on lending, and we can participate in this 

recovery. We are not asking for a government agency. We are not 

asking for a penny of U.S. Government dollars. All we are saying 

is, raise the limit on our lending from 121⁄4 percent to 25 percent 

or so, and we can put $10 billion into the economy, and we can create 100,000 jobs, and we can do it with safety and soundness. And 

we have a track record of 100 years to prove it. More recently, 

going through the last few years of this financial crisis, not only 

have we done it, but our default losses were one-sixth the rate of 

commercial banks. So we can do it. We are looking for that. I will 

come back to that in a second. 

The State Small Business Initiative, as we understand it, 34 

States have this initiative. It is aimed at those States that are hurt 

the worst in the recession, need help, have high unemployment, 

and we support that. We support trying to help in any way you 

can. Each State has a little different program, a little different approach, but any way that you can put the guidelines in place to 

help, and this is a loan, a loan guarantee fund, we think would be 

helpful. 

With regard to the Administration proposal before you, a $30 billion bailout fund, credit unions are not eligible for that. Credit 

unions were not technically eligible for TARP. And frankly, we are 

not asking to be eligible. We are simply saying, give us that other 

opportunity by giving us some regulatory relief with zero cost to 

the taxpayers. We don’t need $30 billion to make us do what we 

are already chartered to do and what we have a great track record 

to do. 

We do understand this is a difficult decision for the committee. 

We understand that the committee has some very tough questions 

to answer about funding and so on. But we will support the committee on this, whatever decision they make. We are asking the 

committee to look a step beyond it and do something for 93 million 

Americans that doesn’t cost the taxpayers a dime, doesn’t create a 

government agency, and puts $10 billion in new loans out there. 

And generally, these loans average less than $200,000. Our loan 

portfolio, when others in the commercial sector were saying it was 

drying up in the last year, our increase in net portfolio was 20 percent. 

16 

There is a need. It is not drying up, and we can meet that need. 

We have 26 percent of our assets in cash and investments, so we 

could do it without even hurting the bottom line on credit unions. 

So the only group in America to oppose it is the group that is 

about to get $30 billion. And we find that a little ironic in that we 

don’t come up here, and we haven’t for 100 years, to oppose what 

they want. But they have come up here and opposed every single 

thing we have ever asked for, and now we are asking for some relief to help America, to help credit unions, and we hope we can get 

some attention here. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just say this: We have had tremendous support on that proposal, both on the House and the Senate side, working with you and your staff, with Mr. Kanjorski, with 

Mr. Royce, with Mr. Udall, with Mr. Schumer, with Mr. Reid, and 

with dozens of other Members. We think we have an agreement 

with the other body to get this thing moving if we get something 

from this committee. And I would just like to thank you all for this 

opportunity. 

As you said, Mr. Chairman, I spent 40 years on Capitol Hill; I 

have done every job in the congressional office, from intern to legislative assistant to Congressman to chairman of the committee, so 

I know this. I love this institution, but I love credit unions. They 

need an opportunity to help lead this country, and they are not 

asking for any kind of a bailout. So I appreciate your attention, 

your support, and we hope you can help us. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mica can be found on page 94 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Next, will be Mr. Determan from Hord Coplan 

Macht on behalf of the American Institute of Architects. And I 

should note that he was the witness suggested by our colleague, 

the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Velazquez, who chairs the 

Small Business Committee. So he is here at the particular urging 

of the Small Business Committee. 

Mr. Determan. 

STATEMENT OF JIM DETERMAN, HORD COPLAN MACHT, INC., 

ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS 

(AIA) 

Mr. DETERMAN. Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and 

members of the committee, I am Jim Determan, an architect at 

Hord Coplan Macht of Baltimore, Maryland. I want to thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of my firm and the 

American Institute of Architects. 

I want to use my 5 minutes to make a few key points that I raise 

in my written statement. The design and construction industry accounts for $1 in $9 of gross domestic product and created over $1 

trillion in economic activity in 2008. 

But today, my industry is suffering to a degree we have not seen 

since the Great Depression. According to the Labor Department, 

the unemployment rate in the construction industry in March was 

24.9 percent; that is 1 out of 4 workers out of a job. And that is 

not counting those of my colleagues who are underemployed or who 

have been working without pay for as long as 18 months. 

17 

If you ask architects across the country today why conditions are 

so bad, you will inevitably hear the same two responses: One, firms 

are unable to secure credit to keep operations going; and two, clients are unable to secure the financing needed to get construction 

projects started. 

Architecture firms in general, and in particular smaller firms, 

rely heavily on short-term lines of credit to finance their operations. However, lending to small businesses has dropped severely. 

As banks restrict lending it has become increasingly difficult for 

firms to continue to make payroll and fulfill benefit obligations for 

employees, let alone expand and pursue new projects. 

More problematic is the lack of access to capital for design and 

construction projects, which has depressed demand for our services 

to historically low levels. The pendulum has swung so far in the 

direction of restricted credit, that even worthy, well-secured 

projects are being denied access to financing. The mentality appears to be, since financing everything didn’t work, let’s finance 

nothing. 

Last year, this reduction in work forced my partners and me to 

close the doors on our firm, a firm that had weathered previous recessions for over 60 years. A significant contributing factor was the 

lack of credit available to our clients to finance their projects. 

Projects stopped dead in the water. We couldn’t move fast enough 

to shed employees or office space. And near the end, the bank 

called in our credit line. 

Over 100 people lost their jobs, some of whom had been with the 

firm for 30 years. My story is hardly unique. No region in the country and no sector of our industry is immune from crisis. That is 

why I am pleased that this committee is considering legislation 

that would help small businesses weather the economic storm. 

The Small Business Lending Fund Act and the State Small Business Credit Initiative both would inject billions of dollars into the 

small business market, thus providing vital relief for millions of 

small entrepreneurs who are struggling to make ends meet. I 

would urge the committee to ensure that the funds provided to 

small community banks under this legislation are lent to small 

businesses at rates and under conditions that make them attractive 

and useable. 

These proposals will address some of the main causes of small 

business failure we are facing. However, I urge the committee to 

address the second problem I raised, the lack of demand for design 

and construction services caused by a lack of access to financing for 

our clients. Members of this committee have introduced numerous 

bills to address this issue, and they deserve serious consideration. 

The bottom line is this: Until we find a way to get financial institutions to move the pendulum back to the center and begin to providing credit for worthy and vital projects, we are not going to see 

a broadbased recovery. Every idle construction site represents jobs 

lost and our Nation’s competitive edge weakened. I call on Congress and the Administration to use every tool at its disposal to address the profound challenges that the lack of credit is presenting 

to our communities and our Nation. 

18 

I wish to thank the committee for its hard work in addressing 

these complex issues, and I look forward to answering any questions committee members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Determan can be found on page 

71 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And finally, Mr. James MacPhee, the chief executive officer of 

the Kalamazoo County State Bank, and he is here on behalf of the 

Independent Community Bankers of America. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES D. MacPhee, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KALAMAZOO COUNTY STATE BANK, ON BEHALF OF 

THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY BANKERS OF AMERICA 

(ICBA) 

Mr. MACPHEE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Bachus, and members of the committee, I am James MacPhee, 

CEO of Kalamazoo County State Bank in Schoolcraft, Michigan, 

and chairman of the Independent Community Bankers of America. 

I am pleased to represent community bankers and ICBA’s nearly 

5,000 members holding $1.1 trillion in assets at this important 

hearing on initiatives to promote small business lending. 

Small businesses create jobs when they have access to credit, and 

they will play a leading role in the economic recovery. In my State 

of Michigan, we face the Nation’s highest unemployment at 14.1 

percent. For me, this discussion is not in the least abstract. It is 

personal and close to home. My customers, friends, and neighbors 

have felt the full impact of the recession. The need for resolution 

is urgent. 

ICBA strongly supports the proposed Small Business Lending 

Fund Act because it will help community banks do what they do 

best, support small business lending. Community banks are prolific 

lenders to small businesses. We continued to lend during the economic crisis, while the megabanks cut back most dramatically. Our 

business model is built on longstanding relationships with our customers, and we stand by them in good times and bad. 

My bank survived the Great Depression and many recessions in 

its more than 100-year history. We are proud to continue serving 

our community through this difficult economic climate. 

The SBLF is a fresh, bold program with the incentives needed to 

get credit flowing to many thousands of businesses, using community banks as conduits. TARP and other emergency capital programs were enacted in the urgency of the crisis and were used primarily by the mega banks. The SBLF would target community 

banks and is structured to incentivize small business lending. 

ICBA is pleased to see that the proposal has many of the features we have recommended, features that will make the program 

attractive to community banks and successful increasing lending. 

First, it appears to completely avoid the onerous TARP restrictions such as warrants, compensation restrictions, bank dividend 

restrictions or restrictions on net operating loss carryback. Such 

punitive conditions would only discourage participation. 

Second, we support appropriate Treasury oversight of the plan 

which will give the public confidence of the funds being well used. 

19 

However, oversight should not be so overbearing that it would discharge participation. 

Third, we are pleased that no applicant will be denied based solely on its CAMELS rating. This will ensure that the broadest possible number of community banks can participate and the small 

business customers of these banks will have access to SBLF-financed loans. Interest at community banks should be evaluated 

with the inclusion of capital provided by the program. This will 

give a fuller picture of the bank’s position under the plan. 

And, fourth, we are pleased that agricultural loans are explicitly 

eligible. Farms are an important component of this small business 

sector. 

Though we await the final legislative outcome on various aspects 

of the program, we believe that it could attract broad participation 

by banks and result in more lending to small businesses. Notably, 

$30 billion in SBLF capital can be leveraged by community banks 

to support $300 billion in new lending. The plan would have tremendous bang for the buck. 

In addition, Mr. Chairman, no one program in isolation is going 

to do the job of restoring credit to small businesses. To maximize 

its impact, the SBLF should be considered with other initiatives. 

These include: one, restoring the value of GSE preferred shares. 

The banking sector, including many community banks, lost an estimated $15 billion to $20 billion when the Treasury Department 

took Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship in September of 2008 

and destroyed the value of their preferred shares. 

Two, moderating an aggressive exam environment. Overreaching 

exams are exacerbating the conditions, the contraction, and credit 

for small businesses. The SBLF program will only work if bank 

regulators do not choke off lending with overly aggressive bank 

regulation. 

Three, extending the FDIC’s Transaction Account Guarantee Program, TAG, gives the assurance to small businesses that the payroll accounts are guaranteed and provides community banks with 

liquidity to make additional loans. 

Lastly, recognizing State programs that have been successful in 

increasing credit to small businesses. 

In conclusion, ICBA strongly supports the SBLF proposal, which 

has the potential to increase the flow of credit to small businesses. 

We look forward to working with the committee to make the program a success. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. MacPhee can be found on page 

85 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I have a couple of quick questions, and then I 

will give some time to the gentlewoman from New York, who has 

an important role here. 

Mr. Sperling, as you said, you talked to Mr. Kanjorski, who is 

very interested in this. I am told that the Administration is essentially supportive of the provision that Mr. Mica talked about to increase the possibility of credit union lending; is that correct? 

Mr. SPERLING. The Administration, having worked with Congressman Kanjorski in the House, and Senator Udall and Senator 

Schumer in the Senate, believe that we could support— 

The CHAIRMAN. No, not could you, would you? Do you? 

20 

Mr. SPERLING. We do support— 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SPERLING. —a compromise expansion of the credit union 

business loan program. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I wanted to get that on the record. It 

is not germane to this bill, but I have talked—I gather there is a 

proposal, but I did want to clear that up. 

Mr. SPERLING. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make clear so there 

is no confusion, we do support an expansion on the member business loan limit, but we do have stronger safety and soundness safeguards we believe that are in— 

The CHAIRMAN. So will there be a proposal coming forward with 

your support? 

Mr. SPERLING. We have been working with Congressman Kanjorski. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is not what I asked you, Gene. Come on. 

Are you going to be giving us a proposal that you support? 

Mr. SPERLING. Yes, we have a— 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SPERLING. I am willing to discuss it now and willing to send 

it up to you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Five minutes are up. I thought that ought to be 

clear so everyone would know where we are. 

One more question, for Mr. Determan, people have said, no, the 

problem is not that there isn’t enough lending capacity in the 

banks, but that there is no demand by small businesses. Your answer to that? 

Mr. DETERMAN. Not accurate. There are a lot of laid-off architects these days who are starting their own businesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. To speed this up, as I heard you, you said you 

are aware of people who have projects they could do if they could 

get the lending, the loans; is that correct? 

Mr. DETERMAN. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Let me ask Mr. MacPhee, the characterization from your members, is it a lack of demand or is there also—is there a demand that 

could be better met if you had more capital? 

Mr. MACPHEE. There is definitely starting to—we are showing 

demand in the marketplace right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is important, both from the lender 

and the borrower, we have an acknowledgement that there is a demand out there that is not being met at the current level of available funds. 

I yield back the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 

New York. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sperling, the proposal from Treasury at this point does not 

specify how a small business loan should be defined; is that correct? 

Mr. SPERLING. What it does, chairwoman, is that— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Just tell me yes or no. 

Mr. SPERLING. It uses what we believe is the single-best proxy 

that we can for whether a small bank is increasing their lending 

to small businesses. 

21 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. What is that? 

Mr. SPERLING. We rely on four criteria: CNI loans; owner-occupied CRE loans; loans that support agriculture production; and 

loans secured by farmland, of which, in small banks, 80 percent— 

70, 80 percent of those tend to be small loans to small businesses. 

So that is the baseline. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. My question to you now is, how can we make 

sure that large businesses do not benefit from this program and 

that banks are not provided with incentives for making loans that 

they are no relation to small businesses? 

Mr. SPERLING. I think if you look at small banks, community 

banks, first of all, they have concentration limits, limits of how 

much they can give on a single loan as a percentage of their assets 

or a percentage of their capital. I think it is definitely the case that 

people may be giving loans to over a million or to companies that 

employ a couple of hundred people. But we still think that these 

are the type of small- and medium-sized businesses that are very 

important— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. What about if banks participate in making loans 

that are syndicated loans? 

Mr. SPERLING. I think that we would be open to discussion on 

that. Right now, what we are doing is looking at what their baseline is for 2009 in those four areas. If they are expanding above 

that, then they would be meeting the test. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So why is it so difficult to include in the proposal that loans will be made that fit the definition under the 

Small Business Act? 

Mr. SPERLING. Well, I think Mr. MacPhee would back me up on 

this as well, that if you are doing a proposal that is performancebased, in other words, it is showing the increase from 1 year to the 

next, you have to use what is the existing data. You are stuck with 

the existing data. So we couldn’t go back and tell a bank, small 

community banks, which average $200 million in assets, that they 

have to reconstruct a new baseline. 

Now, going forward, maybe we should have better data to do 

that. But I think if we want to focus on performance, which so 

many people do, we have to use the data that exist right now and 

do the best proxy for small businesses. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Which is not the best data. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will have her 5 minutes in 

turn. 

The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

During your time I heard earlier, I listened carefully to the various banking organizations and financial institutions that have endorsed this particular bill. I am not sure that you needed unanimous consent to enter it into the record. I would be very happy to 

stipulate that most people, if they had an opportunity to get a taxpayer subsidy with few if any strings attached, would probably sign 

up for that deal. So, in the future, I am not sure that we need 

unanimous consent to enter that into the record. I think it is a 

great deal for everyone except perhaps for the taxpayer. 

Now, we are having a debate somewhat on whether or not when 

we look at small business lending, is the greatest challenge from 

22 

a bank capital insufficiency or from a lack of creditworthy loan demand. Mr. Atkins, I think I read in the Congressional Oversight 

Panel—and, again, I congratulate you for your service and I am 

personally happy I don’t have to do it anymore, but I believe I read 

in the Congressional Oversight Panel, you alluded to a report from 

the Fed, I think dated in February, that said the ratio of cash on 

bank balance sheets to corporate loans outstanding has more than 

quadrupled since mid-2008. And I think this was in your report— 

if not, it was in a press report—that in an April survey of the Federal Reserve, a senior loan officer says that loan demand has generally weakened further. Is that correct, and is that what the panel 

has observed? 

Mr. ATKINS. Yes. In fact, sir, we have a couple of charges here 

that I think have been taken from our report that demonstrate 

this. The first one shows cash as a percentage of total assets, and 

you can see how here during the last few years since 2007, 2008, 

they have really—it spiked as a percentage approaching 8 percent 

from down at a low of 4, you know, and a half or so. 

Secondly, the second chart here shows the outstanding commercial industrial loans at commercial banks since 1980. And so you 

can see in the various recessions that we have had here, first in 

the 1987 one and then also in the 1990’s, the early 1990’s and then 

now, you can see how in each instance, CNI loans have decreased 

at the commercial banks. So I think the data does support what 

you are saying, and that has been in our report. 

Mr. HENSARLING. I have another question for you. In the time 

that I served on the Congressional Oversight Panel, which consists 

of three Democrats and two Republicans, frankly, getting a unanimous report was greatly the exception and not the rule, although 

it did happen from time to time. As I understand it, your most recent report was a unanimous decision, although I don’t have the 

language right in front of me, or perhaps this is it: ‘‘After a thorough review, we found little evidence that these programs—referring to the TARP programs dealing with small business lending— 

have had a noticeable effect on small business credit availability.’’ 

Is that correct? Is that what the Congressional Oversight Panel reported unanimously? 

Mr. ATKINS. Officially, we found that the Capital Purchase Plan 

and the other programs have not had any discernible effect. Part 

of it is there is just hardly any information out there, and Treasury 

could do a lot better job of keeping information. But there is a real 

dearth. 

But you are right. We found hardly any evidence of that. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. MacPhee, I have a question for you about 

bank capital. If I have this correct—and correct me if I am wrong— 

that based on the call report for the first quarter of 2010, your 

bank reported a Tier I capital ratio over 23 percent, and to be well 

capitalized I believe you need capital over 6 percent. Doesn’t that 

suggest that your particular bank is sitting on a lot of untapped 

lending capacity? 

Mr. MACPHEE. Actually, our Tier I capital is 13.1 percent. That 

is total risk base, I think you are looking at. But we are well capitalized. We saved our money during the good times so we could 

withstand this downturn. So we are one of the fortunate ones. 

23 

Mr. HENSARLING. Ostensibly, a number of banks are in that condition. Some aren’t. 

My time’s running out, but, Mr. Sperling, you recently had a 

number of bank failures, as you are aware of. Just recently, Midwest Bank and Trust on May 14th; Southwest Community Bank, 

May 14th; New Liberty Bank. These are in Illinois, Missouri, and 

Michigan. Is there anything in this proposal, in the underlying legislation that would have prevented these banks from accessing 

SBLF funds? 

Mr. SPERLING. Congressman, I think that the record on the overall Capital Purchase Plan so far is that it has actually been profitable for the American taxpayer. Whatever the wisdom that you— 

our support for the program is, we still support the idea that they 

have to apply to the regulators. You have to— 

Mr. HENSARLING. Is that a yes or a no? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SPERLING. I’m sorry. I don’t know what the yes or no question was. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlewoman from California. But I will ask her for 10 seconds in order to—I think my colleague said that the TARP Small 

Business Lending Program had not worked. It had not worked because it doesn’t exist. I am not aware of any TARP Small Business 

Lending Program. There was a TARP program. This is the first effort I have seen to focus on small business. 

The gentlewoman from California. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank the panelists for being here today, and it is good 

to see Mr. Gene Sperling. He has been around working on these 

issues for a long time. I am very pleased about the two initiatives 

that we are talking about today. 

I don’t know, Mr. Sperling, whether or not you are aware that 

this committee worked very hard on the Wall Street reform bill 

that left here and passed out on the Floor, now being discussed, its 

counterpart, on the Senate side, that the costs we discovered and 

we know that only 2.4 percent of all minority-owned firms and 2.6 

percent of women-owned firms are in the finance and insurance industry. 

So we also know that, according to a 2006 GAO report, minorityowned businesses have a higher rate of having their loans denied 

or paying higher interest rates even after controlling for creditworthiness and other factors and on and on and on, that we need 

to do something, and we need to stop lamenting this year in and 

year out. So we created in that legislation the offices of—minority 

and women-owned offices minority assistance, and we are not getting any help from the Administration. 

The Congressional Black Caucus and, I believe, the Latino Caucus, we are focused on trying to create some real opportunities for 

minorities in funding and finance. And so I want to know what you 

know about it and whether or not the Administration is going to 

help us on the Senate side. 

Also, I would like to basically know, we talked about eligible 

banks. What we find is, oftentimes, the eligibility is such that it 

24 

denies the very institutions that need help—the small banks, the 

community banks, the CDFIs. 

For example, in one initiative, the President’s Community Development Capital Initiative does not include the nonprofit CDFIs, 

which make up 50 percent of the CDFIs. So quickly, your response 

on the offices of minority assistance and women-owned business assistance; and, secondly, on the Community Development Capital 

Initiative that cuts out the nonprofits; and, thirdly, the criteria for 

eligibility. We really want to understand it. Can you help me? 

Mr. SPERLING. Congresswoman, on the first issue, I guess I 

would get back to you, just in that we have a team who is working 

on the Senate side. The amendments are fluid right now. I would 

rather to get back to you later today than inadvertently interfere 

with any negotiations going on. 

On the CDFI initiative, I want to stress that was an issue we 

were able to do through TARP, because the CDFIs, unlike the community banks, were willing to partake in this program. This was, 

I think, a very strong program in that it allows them to get capital 

for 8 years at 2 percent, a low rate. It also allows them to get— 

Ms. WATERS. What about the nonprofits? 

Mr. SPERLING. You are referring to, I think, the CDFI loan funds; 

and I think it is true that, while our initiative deals with the CDFI 

credit unions and the CDFI banks that make up 80 percent of the 

assets in the CDFI community, it was not something that could be 

used for the CDFI loan funds. I think that is a shortcoming, and 

I am not sure what the best vehicle is for that. But we think there 

are excellent CDFI loan funds. We are trying to do more just 

through the appropriation process, but that is something we would 

be very interested in working with you on, because we do think 

CDFI loan funds— 

Ms. WATERS. That is very good. 

Let me just say, before you try even to attempt to talk about the 

criteria, my time is up, that we want to send a serious message, 

a serious message about the recovery bill that the African American, Black Caucus, Latino Caucus, we are going to seriously take 

a look at what the Administration is doing to give some assistance 

to us; and we are not poised to support that unless we do. 

And, thirdly, these minority—these small banks, these community banks, we have to make sure that you don’t have criteria that 

is going to prevent them. They should not have to jump through 

a lot of hoops. We want them to have the money. If they put the 

money out there, it will help to stimulate the economy. The small 

businesses need it. How are you going to expedite it and make sure 

it happens? 

Mr. SPERLING. Well, I want you to know that one of the first 

groups that we did consult with in doing this was the National 

Banking Association. Michael Grant brought in banks; and they 

were very supportive of the fact that having an initiative that was 

supported just on smaller banks, where the focus was just for 

banks under a billion with somewhat less from a billion to $10 billion, would very much target the minority banks around the country. And several of them are also—a few of them are trying to 

apply to be CDFIs now, additional CDFIs, to access the more generous terms because they fit the criteria of lending 60 percent 

25 

below moderate-income communities. So I do think we have made 

some process, although not enough. 

Ms. WATERS. All small banks, all. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, Mr. Sperling—you seem to be the popular one today, so I 

will ask you—when discussing how they arrived at the decision to 

request $700 billion from the American taxpayers—and Secretary 

Paulson, as you may remember, made the infamous statement: ‘‘It 

is not based on any particular data point; we just wanted to choose 

a really large number.’’ At least for some of us on this committee, 

$30 billion is also a pretty large number. Would you please describe 

in detail for us how you arrived at the $30 billion number you are 

asking us to authorize? 

Mr. SPERLING. I think that $30 billion reflected the best efforts 

of the people at Domestic Finance in Treasury having consulted 

with different community banks as to what we thought the maximum amount of participation would be. You try to get the best 

amount. 

I think the important— 

Mr. POSEY. Okay, okay, that is good. So, in other words, it is another ‘‘Hail Mary.’’ 

Mr. SPERLING. No, I didn’t say that, sir. 

Mr. POSEY. All right, I said it. That is what we have done so far. What gives the Administration confidence that the $30 billion will succeed where $700 billion failed? 

Mr. SPERLING. So here are some very, very important differences. 

One, this is targeted just to small banks. You can only get the 5 

percent of risk-rated assets if you are a community bank under $1 

billion. Those are banks that average about $200 million in assets. 

They are the Main Street banks, the community banks, the neighborhood banks, the banks that do relationship lending to small 

businesses that I think many people in this body have asked us repeatedly to focus on. 

Secondly, this is performance-based; a lot of what people were 

upset about was the idea of a perception of benefit without proof 

of an increase in lending. So we have an initiative where it only 

costs the taxpayers, only a benefit going—in the dividend if you are 

increasing your small business lending over the past year. And, in 

fact, if you don’t, the rate actually goes higher, making it even that 

much more performance-based. So I think it is very different in 

that it is for small businesses and performance-based. 

Mr. POSEY. So you are trying to get some more money out there. 

Mr. Mica has a proposal to get some more money there without the 

Federal Government pouring it out of their bucket. What you do 

think of that? 

Mr. SPERLING. I think that—as I said, I think we have been 

working with Mr. Mica, with Congressman Kanjorski, Senator 

Udall, and others and think that we can support going to a higher 

member business loan limit. In fact, we are willing to go as high 

as 271⁄2 percent for some banks, credit unions which are approved 

by their regulator. However, we want to make sure they have been 

doing at least 5 years of member business lending. We want to 

make sure they have 7 percent capital, equivalent ratios. 

26 

Mr. POSEY. I am surprised that wasn’t part of this plan. I mean, 

here we have money already out there without throwing any more 

taxpayer money at it. They want to help solve the problem, but you 

apparently don’t think that is a good idea, where at least that is 

on the back burner right now. Why don’t we put some of the public 

money up, some of the people who want to help solve this thing 

without more taxpayer help? Why don’t we give them a little bit 

more priority? 

Mr. SPERLING. We actually believe that the terms of the Small 

Business Lending Fund that we put down, as Chairman Frank 

said, may not cost the taxpayers a penny, may even raise potential 

money, and they address 8,000 community banks in our country. 

And if we do not make an effort on the community banks— 

Let me say something about community banks. Community 

banks may make up 20 percent of the assets. They probably hold 

60 percent of the small business loans. An average community 

bank, 80 percent of their lending is in either agricultural— 

Mr. POSEY. We know most of that. That is why we wonder why 

you excluded them previously from funding. If they are so important, why weren’t they given any help before? 

Mr. SPERLING. This is a very important point: They were eligible, 

and more than 600 of them who applied backed off because they 

felt that the TARP stigma discouraged them from doing that. Even 

though in this context, it is not a bailout; it is not to bail out the 

bank. It is to encourage more small business lending because we 

want small businesses to expand, get credit, and create jobs. 

So by taking away the TARP stigma and offering them an opportunity to get more capital performance-based for the purpose of increasing small business lending and creating small business jobs 

that this was a cost-efficient, high-bang-for-the-buck method to do 

that. 

But we support—as I said in my testimony, this is a multifaceted 

problem. It needs a multifaceted answer on the demand side, the 

credit union side, the community bank side. 

Mr. POSEY. This is TARP with lipstick. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having 

this very important hearing. 

On the Joint Economic Committee, some of the studies that are 

coming forward from the Treasury Department, and the Labor Department are showing that, unlike prior recessions, small businesses usually hire very quickly, but we are not seeing that. They 

are very steady, and the hiring that is taking place is taking place 

with larger and middle-sized banks. When you talk to small businesses, they inevitably say it has been lack of access to capital. So 

I strongly support the chairman’s bill that would target lending 

and that these dollars would get into lending, into the pipeline to 

help small businesses. 

If we were able to do this, how quickly could we expect increased 

capital to flow through to hiring, to be realized in hiring in small 

businesses with this $30 billion bank working through the community banks and the regional banks? Anyone? 

27 

Mr. SPERLING. Our belief is that we could get this up and running very quickly, within a couple of months. And that we also do 

believe that—I know this committee has focused a lot on the strain 

from commercial real estate loans on community banks. And one 

of the things you don’t want is for community banks to respond to 

that by conserving capital by pulling back on their small business 

lending. So our hope is, as soon as this passes, community banks 

would understand that they do have a potential capital cushion 

that would be an alternative to restricting their small business 

lending. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Would anyone else like to comment on it? 

Mr. ATKINS. I think we are a bit more sanguine about that. I 

think we have doubts that programmers can get up and running 

very quickly or that it would be effective once it is. 

Mr. MICA. I would like to say our program is up and running. 

A recent NFIB study said that, right now, 40 percent of all lending 

needs are unmet; and it was—they couldn’t make loans to 40 percent—I am sorry—40 percent were not getting the loans. But 

throughout the 2000’s up until now, 90 percent were getting loans. 

So there is a disparity in those who need loans, and we are ready 

to do it. Our program is up and running, wouldn’t cost a penny, 

and we are ready to go. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentlewoman yield to me for a 

minute? 

You strongly disagree with those who say the problem is simply 

a lack of loan demand. 

Mr. MICA. Now, I would say it is both. There is a lack of—loan 

demand has gone down, but meeting the loan needs of those who 

want it has also restricted tremendously. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlewoman. 

Mrs. MALONEY. There has really not been a lot of data compiled 

on small businesses, but it is certainly something that all of my colleagues are talking about in their districts across the country. People cannot get access to capital. And how fast do you think conditions would improve if we could get this out to the small businesses 

so that they are hiring and moving forward? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. I was going to say we have $150 million in backlog right now for our loan guarantee program. We can put this 

money to work tomorrow, and those are thousands of jobs that the 

State of Maryland would retain and create. There is a network of 

34 other States and territories that have these. So there are active 

programs in place that have backlogs that can use the money right 

now. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay. Any other comments? 

Mr. MACPHEE. On the eastern side of the State of Michigan, we 

have a lot of small community banks that are financing Tier II and 

III auto suppliers that make about 3,000 parts for the auto industry that aren’t made at the factory. Many of those small companies 

are out of capital; and many of the small banks, due to the tremendous deflation in property values, have had to write down property. 

On the margin, these banks are making money. They are secondand third-generation banks, well-managed, 30-year CEOs, but they 

can’t track private capital. And this program would go a long way 

28 

towards helping them reestablish, get these suppliers back into 

good shape and get things moving for the State of Michigan. 

Mr. BROWN. I would like to point out the demand letter is somewhat misleading in that it represents those who are eligible under 

the current criteria, and it is precisely those loans that are just 

outside the margins that the State programs aim to support and, 

therefore, make eligible. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Lee. Mr. 

Royce, I’m sorry. Mr. Royce, the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was going to ask a question of Mr. MacPhee, and this goes to 

a concern that we often hear out in California from our banking 

community. The basic gist of it is there is $3 trillion in commercial 

real estate loans out there that are on banks’ balance sheets or 

they are securitized through NBS, and we are going have $1.4 trillion of that roll over between now and 2013. 

This is what banks communicate to me. They say, we have to go 

out there and get a new appraisal on property value. These are 

performing loans. In many cases, they are performing loans. But 

we can’t roll these loans over because even though the revenue 

coming from the property remains strong, we have overzealous regulators leaning on us. And so we cut off the credit, and we are creating in that process—according to any number of bankers that I 

have talked to, we are creating something of a vicious circle. Because the more we close down access, the more we refuse to roll 

over these loans that are performing, the more we are impacting 

these communities; and it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if 

we continue to do enough of this. 

And so the question they have is, do we have to be so doctrinaire 

in terms of this concept that—we know the value of the property. 

There is no market out there for the property. So, by definition, we 

can’t meet that test. 

Now, we have had a number of discussions back here with regulators in Washington, but their point is the discussions we have 

with regulators in Washington never seem to reach the front, never 

seem to reach out in at least the Southwest where they are dealing 

with very overzealous regulators telling them that this is the way 

they have to do business. 

Again, their point is, let us be bankers. Let us make these judgments on our own. You are creating this lack of liquidity in the system. And I was wondering, Mr. MacPhee, have you heard a certain 

number of these complaints? I would suspect you might have. 

Mr. MACPHEE. Yes, sir. Being a community banker in any one 

of these States like Michigan, California, Georgia, or Florida is like 

being a candle in a hurricane. It has been a difficult process to 

keep the flame lit. 

I only point back to the farm crisis, and I lived through that farm 

crisis. When the income stream was steady, payments were on 

time, but property values had dropped drastically, and there was 

forbearance. And through that forbearance, rather than write down 

property values to some ridiculous level that we were never going 

to get back, we were able to hang in there with our customers, accept payments on a timely basis; and, sure enough, property values 

29 

came back over time. I think that is a really important lesson during this critical time. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, I would hope, in my frame of reference here, 

instead of putting more taxpayers’ dollars at risk, if we would first 

pursue efforts to have field examiners implement their authority 

maybe in a more balanced manner, that would, I think, address 

part of the problem. 

Another part of the problem—and this goes to legislation that I 

and the ranking member have on—Mr. Kanjorski and I have on 

the issue of trying to expand the 12.25 percent cap, it seems—and 

I was going to ask Mr. Mica this question. It seems that we could 

also provide some liquidity by raising the statutory limit on credit 

unions for member business lending at this time; and, again, that 

would have no cost to the American taxpayers. 

I was going to ask you, Mr. Mica, considering that getting into 

the business of lending into the market requires quite a bit of capital expenditure. For one thing, it requires hiring and training personnel. So many credit unions probably don’t believe it is a worthwhile endeavor if they are going to quickly hit that 12.25 percent 

cap. Whereas if that is raised, it might be worth making the investment rather than—you know, if you are just going to handle five 

or eight loans in your portfolio for your local business, for your 

small credit union, that is one thing. If you know that cap is going 

to be raised. I was going to ask you, do you agree with that? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired, but the question has been thoroughly discussed, so I don’t think we have lost 

anything. Mr. Mica and Mr. Sperling have talked about it significantly. 

Mr. ROYCE. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Velazquez. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sperling, last week, the Congressional Oversight Panel released a report where, basically, they criticized Treasury’s proposal, 

saying that he raised a question about whether the capital infusion 

program that focused on the supply side solution is good enough or 

do we need more to incentivize small businesses to get them off the 

sideline to spur demand on loans? And are you considering any incentives? 

Mr. SPERLING. Yes. As I think I said at the beginning, and as I 

think we have discussed, I think you have to look at the demand 

and the supply side. As we said, we are seeing 45 percent of small 

businesses who want lending can’t get the lending they need. 

The Congressional Oversight Panel, I will also mention, in May 

put out a report in which they stressed that raising capital has 

been difficult in the last year even for healthy banks. It went on 

to say that uncertainty which is making raising capital difficult can 

also lead banks to conserve capital instead of making loans. So we 

want to make sure the banks have the loans, the capital, and the 

incentive. 

But I think, as you have discussed with us, we also could face 

an issue where there are creditworthy borrowers who are just a little uncertain about the economy at this moment; and I do think, 

as you have suggested to us, that there may be ways that we could 

30 

have a temporary program that would help get some good borrowers who are uncertain about the economy to increase their demand going forward. That is something we look forward to working 

with you on, not just in the long term but in the next several days 

as to whether that could be part of this small business jobs bill. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Determan, in your opinion, what will encourage a creditworthy business person to get off the sidelines and apply for loans? 

Mr. DETERMAN. Very simply, growth. We have a lot of architects, 

for example, right now, who have been laid off because of the economy, and are starting up their own businesses. You have to have 

money to start that business, to get office space, to hire employees, 

to pay payroll for the first 3 months before you get your first dollar 

in. So you have to have the loans to support that. At the same 

time, you have to have the projects to do. The biggest problem we 

are seeing is that there is no financing for construction. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Atkins, we have heard repeatedly here today and in previous 

hearings conducted by this committee and the Small Business 

Committee especially from small banks that an overly restrictive 

regulatory environment is a significant factor in the credit crunch 

that is affecting small businesses. Does the data reviewed by the 

Congressional Oversight Panel bear out this perspective? And I 

would like to ask you, you are a former regulator, in your opinion, 

how should we address this issue? 

Mr. ATKINS. Well, first of all, the data is mixed. I think there are 

a lot of anecdotes about how bank examiners are tightening down 

a lot, just like they did back in previous recessions as well. After 

you have had an asset bubble and there is a lot of scrutiny being 

paid— 

For example, with respect to architects, we just came through a 

huge real estate housing and we still have a significant commercial 

real estate overhang. So there just is not the demand for new 

projects. And even if you had money you have to have revenue to 

support these projects from rent and everything else. I mean, that 

is a big—sorry to say, unfortunately, for architects, that is a big 

problem right now. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Atkins, in previous recessions we saw that 

people who were laid off created the startups. They created new 

businesses. We are not seeing that now. How can we get the 

startups and small businesses that are struggling to cope with the 

consequences of this economic downturn to be able to get credit? 

Mr. ATKINS. Well, in order to have credit and to be able to pass 

the scrutiny of bank regulators and everything else, you have to 

have the anticipation of being able to have that loan pay off, so 

that you are going to be able to sell services or products or whatever once you make that loan. That is the crucial thing when you 

have a economic downturn, whether or not you have the consumer 

demand out there to support the business. That is why, again, you 

have a structural situation here in the economy to look at taxation, 

regulation, and those other sorts of things that inhibit businesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized 

to make a unanimous consent request. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

31 

I am requesting unanimous consent to insert into the record for 

purpose of disclosure the fact that my husband, Ambassador Sidney Williams, is an investor in OneUnited Bank, a small minority 

community bank in Los Angeles. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is now recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate everyone coming in today. This is an important 

issue. 

In fact, I just had—the President of the United States was in 

Buffalo, New York, this past week, and it was nice to have him 

there. What I wanted to have him do was to sit and listen. The 

people who are going to get us out of this recession are the people 

outside of Washington, D.C. In my mind, it is bringing back a level 

of certainty to this economy. 

You talk to people throughout my district—it is a very Midwestern-type community; and what I hear, loud and clear, is people 

are tired of the taxpayers’ subsidies, tired of it. We are fortunate 

that the local banks and community banks have actually flourished 

during this period. They were responsible lenders. We had people 

who didn’t overreach. But what they are tired of—and we talk 

about in this case another $30 billion. I hate to tell you the revenue 

of Microsoft Corporation last year was about $60 billion. We are 

just going to throw another $30 billion—we throw numbers around 

with no regard when we are criticizing countries like Greece. We 

have to get our fiscal house back in order. 

What I have seen—I am a new Member to Congress, having been 

here about 16 months, and I came out of the private sector. Certainty into the marketplace is what is going to get investors back 

in there. But all I have seen in 16 months is we have a health care 

legislation we are still trying to understand, small business owners 

are afraid to go out and reinvest until they know the repercussions 

of that. We have tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 that are sitting out 

there. We have potential with a cap and trade. We have the President’s Debt Commission. We have issues on carried interest. There 

are dividends, capital gains. 

These are what—to my mind, these are the issues that are helping to keep people off in investing. But surely I can tell you people 

in my district only want bankers to lend to those who are creditworthy. They are tired of the bailouts. 

With that being said, maybe I can go over to Mr. MacPhee. As 

I said, many people believe the issue is a lack of demand from creditworthy borrowers brought on by the adverse economic conditions. 

To what percent do you think that is versus this issue and the lack 

of demand right now? 

Mr. MACPHEE. Let me just say this, community bankers are commonsense lenders. We have to live with our decisions every day because these people are our neighbors. We didn’t create this mess. 

We have always been steady lenders to our communities. And if we 

don’t loan within our communities, we don’t have a market. 

For anyone to insinuate that we are going to take this money 

and just go out and gamble it after what just happened, I just can’t 

believe that would ever happen in a community bank environment. 

That is not how we work. That is not how we function. We are part 

32 

of our communities. We have to do the right thing by our customer 

or we are out of business. 

Mr. LEE. Well, let me shift gears and go back to Mr. Sperling. 

Elizabeth Warren has criticized TARP for not requiring banks to 

lend the capital they received from the taxpayer. I am still trying 

to understand this. Maybe you can help clarify it in terms of what 

provision of this bill requires banks to lend the funds that they are 

receiving? 

Mr. SPERLING. What it does is it builds in a very strong incentive. So when you get—if you are a bank— 

Mr. LEE. There is an incentive, not a requirement. 

Mr. SPERLING. That is right. And if you were to do a requirement— 

Mr. LEE. I appreciate that. 

Mr. SPERLING. —then you would be in danger of— 

Mr. LEE. Mr. Sperling, I only have a minute— 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York’s time— 

Mr. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Sperling. 

Understand, again, I am getting back to the point that it is a 

nice thing to do potentially, but there is not a requirement for them 

to lend and taxpayers surely have had enough. 

Last question, I would love to go back to—where am I here— 

sorry. One more to Mr. Brown. What are you hearing from local 

businessmen? I know you have from your—based on your background, given that commercial banks—as the reasons given by the 

commercial banks for this denial of credit. 

Mr. BROWN. I think it goes back to the temporary downturn in 

the economy which affects their 3-year average of free cash flow, 

which, frankly, we at the MEDC don’t believe is a true measure of 

their ability to pay going forward, as well as the decrease in the 

collateral value. 

As I said, I think the demand numbers are misleading, because 

many borrowers are not looking for capital, merely because they 

have been turned down so many times they have just shrunk and 

almost browned out their businesses. And the ones that we are 

lending to are putting them to work. 

Mr. LEE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was here for the testimony on both of these legislative proposals, H.R. 5297 and H.R. 5302, proposals of the Administration. 

So I presume Mr. Sperling is here in support of these; and it 

sounded to me like everybody else on the panel, with the exception 

of Mr. Atkins, thought that both of those legislative proposals were 

good ideas. If I have misread that, please raise your hand if you 

disagree with what I just said. 

Okay, then I want to focus on the two pieces of legislation for everybody other than Mr. Sperling and Mr. Atkins. Mr. Atkins, I understand, disagrees with the proposals, but, for the other people on 

the panel, are there things in either of these proposals that need— 

specific things that need to be tweaked to make the proposal 

stronger? Does anybody have any suggestions to make the proposal 

stronger or more effective? 

33 

I am not talking to you, Mr. Atkins. You already told me you disagree with the proposal. 

Mr. ATKINS. I could suggest something. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Mr. MacPhee? 

Mr. MACPHEE. Yes, sir. 

Well, I think the key to this proposal is that it is different in purpose and structure than TARP was. This is not a bailout bill. This 

is a bill to help create lending by small banks for small business. 

That is what we do best. And I think if we can not overregulate 

this, it can certainly go a long way towards freeing up this capital 

and getting— 

Mr. WATT. Are there things in either of these pieces of legislation 

that you believe to be overregulating it? 

Mr. MACPHEE. Not at this point, not that I am aware. 

Mr. WATT. All right, I am just—I guess I am just baffled at the 

amount of opposition. I think a number of my colleagues on the 

other side have just reached a conclusion that it is more prudent 

for them politically to just say no to everything, rather than trying 

to be constructive in trying to evaluate what is being proposed. 

They say they support small businesses, they say they support 

community banks, they say they trust community banks, and we 

come with a proposal that seemingly would be the exact kind of 

thing that they would be supporting and they say no, no, no, no, 

no, this is terrible. I just don’t understand. 

Now, Mr. Atkins, maybe you can explain that to me. If you want 

to try to explain how somebody can tell me out of one side of their 

mouth that they trust community banks and they trust people in 

the community to be responsible lenders and then when you try to 

provide funds to them to do exactly that, if you can explain that 

to me, I would love to hear your answer to that. 

Mr. ATKINS. I think part of the disagreement here is we are talking about— 

Mr. WATT. I just want an answer, if you could explain that particular disconnect to me. I don’t really need you to describe part of 

the problem again. I am just looking for what the disconnect is, 

other than this is a political year and it is politically expedient for 

some of my colleagues to say no to everything. 

Mr. ATKINS. I think it comes down to looking at the data. And 

I think when you look at whether a capital infusion program actually will result in increased lending, I think that is where we part 

ways. You are talking about using $30 billion of taxpayer funds 

where there are not very—to disagree with Mr. Sperling, there are 

not huge incentives for banks to lend this out. There are a lot of 

incentives to keep it in. 

Mr. WATT. You were getting ready to tell us why there is not a 

requirement. I thought I understood that if you required a bank to 

loan— 

Mr. SPERLING. I have to— 

Mr. WATT. —you would do exactly what Mr. MacPhee said was 

detrimental. You would create a situation that required people to 

make bad loans. So— 

Okay, I yield back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time has expired. 

34 

Members on the panel who have other things they want to say, 

somebody asked a question, at some point later on, you will be able 

to get it in there. 

The gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to commend Chairman Moore for the hearing that 

we had yesterday in Chicago on commercial real estate. We spent 

a lot of time talking about a lot of things that are here today, and 

I was really sorry that Treasury could not find one staff member 

to be there for that hearing. We had most of the other regulators— 

the SEC, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the FDIC, and a couple 

others. 

What we heard was—and, as you know, this was to be the regional regulator, so we got to those that were on the ground to 

compare with what we are hearing in Washington. And one of the 

things that troubled me was that—obviously, Chicago and the surrounding area has a very high deficiency and default rate for these 

banks; and one of the things that came up was the Federal Reserve 

talked about how they had been really looking at for almost 16 

years—looking at the fact that there was a severe concentration in 

commercial real estate by many of the banks there and all over the 

country. 

Just recently, last week, we had—one Midwest bank failed in 

Chicago, and the week before there were seven banks that failed, 

including the Broadway Bank, which was owned by our State 

Treasurer; and all of these involved overconcentration of real estate. 

Now, you are talking about putting money into these banks to be 

able to loan to small businesses; and, in the hearing, we found that 

there wasn’t an overabundance or plea for loans because—for the 

small businesses was because they are really looking for certainty 

in the market. If there is no certainty, they don’t know whether 

they can have the ability if they do get a loan to do what they want 

to do. 

And they talked about how what they need are expanding ideas 

for more than 1 year. It doesn’t help if you increase section 179, 

expanding amounts that only last until the end of 2010. And having the 5-year net operating loss carrybacks, and that is going to 

expire. The accelerated depreciation, I think that is expired. These 

would immediately inject small businesses with the money to expand and create the jobs, not looking at just what—the loan they 

can get. There is no certainty in what is going to expire and what 

is going to be available to them. 

And the high concentration of these real estate loans that are 

going to come due, does this mean—and I was looking at page 11 

of one of the bills, that it says that the Secretary may not deny an 

application for a capital investment of the program solely on the 

basis of composite rating of the eligible institution and the uniform 

financial institution rating system. So I don’t know where, if you 

have a 1 or a 5, if they are going to be able to get these loans and 

is this a basis for disqualification. 

So I think we really need to look more in—rather than just saying here is another $30 million—$30 billion that we are going to 

35 

give to those banks and yet the small businesses don’t have that 

certainty. If anybody would like to speak to that? 

Mr. ATKINS. I could add one thing. I think we have to remember 

these loans are not pennies from heaven. Basically, you have to 

have a business person who has a business plan that he thinks is 

going to make money. Then you are going to have the flinty-eyed 

banker looking at that business plan to see is that going to yield 

any money. And that flinty-eyed banker needs to know that there 

is a flinty-eyed regulator in back of him to look and see if this loan 

is going to pay off or not. Because, ultimately, we are talking about 

capital infused into a bank and it is not otherwise a subsidized 

loan. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Do you think that if it is infused and yet this 

might keep that bank just barely qualifying, while if they didn’t 

have that money they would go under as so many banks are? 

Mr. ATKINS. There is a huge incentive in this program—because 

the incentives are so weak, there is a huge incentive for the banks 

to hold this capital in, to bolster—especially for poorly rated 

CAMEL rated banks to hold this in as capital and not lend it out. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Sperling, it is good to see you again. 

One approach is that we buy the stock and subordinated debt of 

healthy insured financial institutions. The second approach is that 

we buy the toxic assets gathering mildew in the back of bank safes. 

The third approach is that we just give the Administration total 

authority to do either. Would we achieve the intended purpose if 

this bill required that we—it is limited to the purchase of stock and 

subordinated debt of healthy insured financial institutions on 

terms that represent fair value? 

Mr. SPERLING. Congressman, all I can do is comment on the proposal that we have before us. We think—and this goes to the point 

just being made—this would be capital for—in the form of preferred stock—for banks that were viable, where the regulators stated they were viable, that they had enough capital without the government assistance and that this would provide a cushion that 

could allow for them to increase their small business lending, to 

give them an incentive and only get the incentive if they are actually lending more than they were in 2009. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So, if I can interrupt, your plan is to buy preferred 

stock in healthy financial institutions. Does your plan involve doing 

this only on terms that represent fair value or does the Administration want to be free to overpay for the securities received? 

Mr. SPERLING. Again, we are offering people capital in terms of 

preferred stock. They would pay back at 5 percent. If they increased the small business lending, that dividend rate could go 

down as low as 1 percent. If after 2 years they had not increased 

the lending, it would go to 7 percent. We think that provides a 

strong incentive structure to lend. I completely disagree with Mr. 

Atkins. It does not in any way encourage somebody to get involved— 

Mr. SHERMAN. If I could interrupt, I want to thank you— 

Mr. SPERLING. —not be sound and credible— 

36 

Mr. SHERMAN. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. SPERLING. —to have a loan— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Reclaiming my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sperling, it is the member’s time. There was 

nothing in our oath of office that says we have to let other people 

talk. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to thank you for your answer; and if you 

want to comment on someone else, you can do that on another 

member’s time. 

Now Republican friends have rejected the idea—and it is a controversial idea—that we put public cash, public capital into private 

institutions. Mr. Mica, is there a way for credit unions to help the 

small business credit crunch without us having to take that highly 

controversial step of putting Federal capital at risk? What impediments do you see for increasing small business lending by credit 

unions? 

Mr. MICA. There is only one impediment right now, and that is 

that one group of financial institutions is opposing raising our limit 

on the amount of money that we can put into these loans. For 100 

years, we have made these loans, for 90 years with zero restriction. 

And for the last 10 years, we have outshined them one-sixth of the 

default rate of banks. We are often told we are not sophisticated 

enough; you don’t know how to do it. We know how to do it. We 

have done it for 100 years. We only had artificial restrictions for 

about a decade. We can put $10 billion into the economy right now, 

create 108,000 jobs, and we will not impact safety and soundness. 

Our records shows that. We are willing to work that compromise 

that Mr. Sperling said, and we can do it tomorrow. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So you are not looking for Federal dollars to be 

placed at risk or you are just looking for us to take the handcuffs 

off at least partially off? 

Mr. MICA. No government money, no new agency, nothing is 

needed, and our regulatory is ready to go. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Now, the Administration bill involves boosting 

bank capital by putting in Federal dollars. Are there steps Congress could encourage that would boost credit union capital without 

our having to put in any Federal dollars, and with this additional 

capital, could you do even more for small businesses? 

Mr. MICA. For the last 5 years, we have been asking for the opportunity to have alternative capital, get additional capital from 

our members with full disclosure so that we can grow and do a better job. It wouldn’t cost the taxpayers. It would be fully disclosed, 

and our regulator supports that plan. That is the other—one of the 

two items we have asked for, for 5 years, that have been totally opposed by that group. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Kansas Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MacPhee, as Mrs. Biggert mentioned yesterday, we had a 

field hearing in Chicago. We heard from Greg Ohlendorf, who represents the Community Bankers Association. Something you both 

stress is that community banks support the proposed Small Business Lending Fund as long as it is free from TARP restrictions that 

may have been more helpful in keeping a tight leash on large 

37 

banks who received TARP funds. Would you please elaborate on 

why keeping this proposed fund TARP-free is important to ensure 

participation by community banks? 

Mr. MACPHEE. Yes, sir, I will try. Community banks—this fund 

for community banks is not TARP. This fund for community banks 

is about creating small business loans to help get this economy rolling, and I think there is a distinct difference in how community 

banks run on a local board versus large institutions that run international corporations and what they have done. 

I don’t think it’s going to take the type of—well, we want oversight. Don’t make any mistake about that. We don’t want to do 

anything that we shouldn’t be doing here, and we won’t. Community banks by and large have been the commonsense lenders, and 

we will continue to be. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you. 

Mr. Sperling, as we have heard from Mr. MacPhee, I think it is 

important that this new fund be TARP-free, but we also need to ensure the bill is fully paid for by the time the House considers the 

measure. Do you believe there are modifications or offsets that can 

be identified by the time the full House considers the bill to ensure 

that we are being fiscally responsible? 

Mr. SPERLING. Not only can we, it is the only condition we should 

go forward. We are completely, 100 percent committed, as is the 

leadership in the House, that this will be deficit neutral. And, indeed, it may be that the Small Business Lending Fund as constructed would actually over 10 years save taxpayers money. The 

State initiative will leverage, we believe, $10 of lending for each 

dollar. 

We already believe there are measures that have passed through 

the Ways and Means Committee, others that could be used to afford the small costs that this bill would cause for the bang for the 

buck it would create. But, one, again I repeat I do not believe this 

program, the Small Business Lending Fund, will have a long-term 

cost at all to the taxpayer, and whatever costs that will happen will 

be offset. It will be deficit neutral. 

And I just want to say that while people have tried to suggest 

why capital, the reason why you support a capital plan is the capital plan paying dividends is capable of getting 20-, $30 billion from 

capital. That is leveraged to create multiples of that in lending. If 

you told the average American taxpayer you had a plan where you 

could provide capital that would basically be paid back in a way 

that wouldn’t cost the taxpayer a penny, but could allow community banks to increase their lending to the small businesses that 

they are relying on for job growth and might not cost the taxpayer 

a penny, and any small cost would be paid for so it didn’t cost the 

deficit a penny, I think, correctly described that way, which is the 

correct description, it would have very broad support. 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. So is there any legitimate reason in your 

estimation to oppose this bill if other committees would be able to 

help ensure the final bill of the House is fiscally responsible? 

Mr. SPERLING. No. I think there is every reason to support these 

measures and additional measures that might be packaged together to support small business job growth in our country right 

now. It is desperately important. 

38 

Mr. MOORE OF KANSAS. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will take the gentleman’s time briefly if I can, 

if he would yield to me. 

Mr. MacPhee, I heard your answer regarding the TARP. The Inspector General of the TARP, who has done a very good job over 

there, has asked that this bill be amended to put it under the jurisdiction of the TARP Inspector General. Would your comment about 

the problems that would cause apply to that? 

Mr. MACPHEE. I am not sure of the answer, Mr. Chairman, but 

I would be willing to find out and get back to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Because I would say that I think there 

are ways to provide oversight, and I understand the TARP issue, 

and I would not want to see this in any way compromised. So I am 

skeptical. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Baca. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member, for having this hearing, and I thank the witnesses for 

being here. 

The first question is to Mr. MacPhee, you stated earlier that we 

did not create this mess. What do you mean by that, and who created this mess? 

Mr. MACPHEE. I was speaking of the subprime debacle and the 

economic crisis that we are in today. 

Mr. BACA. So who created that? 

Mr. MACPHEE. Well, in my opinion, it was the nonregulated and 

Wall Street. 

Mr. BACA. Because we weren’t regulated, we didn’t have oversight; is that correct, that caused some of the problems? 

Mr. MACPHEE. That is correct. 

Mr. BACA. And now we are trying to do the right thing in creating jobs and creating opportunities and creating incentives for 

businesses to operate, especially to provide small business loans to 

individuals. This bill is creating incentives for banks to level, but 

even with these, little is done to break down the barriers of credit 

and capital that banks require of borrowers to make the loans. 

How does this bill work to alter the landscape of eligible borrowers 

and in turn increase eligibility for small businesses? I would leave 

it to any one of you to answer. 

Mr. ATKINS. I think you hit the nail on the head that this is looking at the supposed supply side, but as we were talking before, the 

demand coming from small businesses, we think, because of all the 

other aspects of the current situation in the economy, inhibits that 

demand from banks. 

Mr. BACA. Mr. Sperling? 

Mr. SPERLING. I don’t understand why there is this constant desire to determine whether there is a single solution to the lack of 

small business loans. There is clearly a demand side. And I should 

point out that a program like ours encourages a bank to actually 

lower interest rates, which could help increase the demand for 

lending. 

But, again, I am going to go back and say the NFIB study in 

February 2010 of this year showed that 45 percent of small businesses that sought credit could not get the full amount of credit 

that they needed. The last time that survey had been done, in 

39 

2006, it was 11 percent. It is 4 times greater the number of small 

businesses, and I would expect that most of the members here, like 

the President, could rely on their mail alone to know that there are 

creditworthy small businesses who cannot get the credit they need 

to expand, meet payroll, create jobs— 

Mr. BACA. And that seems to be an ongoing program. I know in 

the Inland Empire where I come from, the hub for major industry 

is the small businesses, but they are unable to obtain loans, and 

that seems to be a major problem where we have to break down 

the barriers and provide them an opportunity for them to exist, as 

all of you indicated, that jobs could be created immediately. 

One of the other areas that I want to address in doing something, we recently saw what happened with the dealers, the auto 

dealers. Where do the auto dealers fit into this bill? A lot of small 

dealers have been forced to close their doors, not because of their 

own actions, but because of the mistakes of corporate parents like 

Chrysler and GM; they were once part of a thriving auto industry, 

and now little thought has been given to them to survive, and yet 

the majority of them provided a lot of jobs, and they were the last 

to be hired. Minority dealers, Black and Brown, were the last to 

be hired, first to be fired, and yet a lot of these have lost their dealerships. They created a lot of jobs, created a lot of philanthropy, 

gave a lot back to their communities. But what is this bill doing 

to help small businesses, especially the automobile industry? 

Mr. SPERLING. I might defer to Mr. Brown, who has been someone we have talked to often, and part of the inspiration for the 

State option that Congressman Peters, Congressman Levin and 

others have inspired is not only the manufacturers, but the credit 

issues for auto suppliers. So— 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. If your question refers to the auto suppliers, 

they have been the major recipients of our program, and I think, 

to Mr. Atkins’ point, it is the— 

Mr. BACA. We want to make sure that it gets down to minority 

dealers, though, because the auto dealers are getting them up at 

the top, but the minority dealers, who were the last to receive their 

ownership, were the first to be closed. And we want to make sure 

that these minority dealers—and they are the ones that are actually selling a lot more vehicles than some of the others as well. 

Mr. BROWN. I think what we have found in Michigan is that 

dealers, like suppliers, it is particularly the minority business owners who don’t have the capital and have built that business over 

the years to act as a borrowing base, and it is often those minority 

business owners who are most in need of these types of support. 

Mr. BACA. So will this be able to provide assistance to them? 

Mr. BROWN. Absolutely, which in turn attacks the demand issue. 

Mr. BACA. Okay. Good. 

One of the other areas, because I know my time is running out, 

but I also wanted to talk about the minority underserved communities and the impact of this bill. It has been well documented that 

these communities and minority-owned businesses were struggling 

before the economic crisis, and from what it looks like, they will be 

the last to recover. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BACA. Hopefully, we can address that, too, as well. 

40 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have agreed with some of the observations of my colleague, Mr. 

Watt, that the criticisms of this program are so mind-bogglingly inconsistent from the other side that it is hard to imagine that the 

real objection is not that it is a proposal of the Obama Administration: There are too many strings attached. 

There are no strings attached. It is designed to subsidize failing 

banks; it won’t keep banks from failing. The purpose that I understand is behind the bill I support is to encourage small business 

lending, to put money in the hands of community banks that will 

in turn lend it out to creditworthy borrowers. I agree with Mr. 

Sperling that the incentives to do that for a bank not worried about 

its solvency are strong. There is a strong incentive to lend. There 

is a strong disincentive for not lending. But Mr. Atkins points out 

for those banks that are perhaps on shaky ground, the incentives 

aren’t strong enough, and they will hold onto their capital. 

The FDIC—I know the legislation says that there is supposed to 

be consultation with the regulator, they are supposed to have small 

business lending, but why should we lend this money to shaky 

banks? It seems like there is a lot that could go wrong. They might 

not lend it out. We might not get our money back. They might not 

make the kind of sensible loans we want them to make. They 

might make loans that have higher interest rates if they are trying 

to get back in the game that might, in fact, be more likely to go 

into default. 

There is a list—the FDIC maintains a list, a private list, the 

problem bank list, those who score 4 or 5 on their scale. Why 

should those banks on double secret probation be eligible for this 

lending at all? Mr. MacPhee, I know you were just consulted, but 

why should this not be limited to those banks that the FDIC feels 

very confident are solvent and will make sensible lending decisions 

and will lend it? 

Mr. MACPHEE. My understanding of the procedure for this draw 

on this program is that Treasury would consult with the prudential 

regulator for that bank and get approval before they would be allowed to take a draw on this fund. So I think there is a safeguard 

in place for those banks that have not been running well on the 

margin and maybe had some history. Those banks that have always been strong community banks, well-run community banks, 

again, maybe have taken some hits on property values and have 

drawn down their capital because of it, should be able to work 

through the regulator to be— 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. It appears to be about 1 of 11 

are on this double secret probation list, problem list. Why not simply limit this program to the 10 out of 11 banks that are not, that 

we know will not feel a need to hold onto capital rather than lend 

it out? Why not limit it to those banks that the FDIC is not worried 

about? 

Mr. Sperling, time yielded to you has proved to be a black hole, 

but go ahead. 

Mr. SPERLING. We agree with you. That is the way the legislation 

is drafted. The bank would have to apply to the regulator, who 

41 

would have to determine that they were viable, thus they had 

enough capital at that time on their own to be sustainable. That 

would be the conditions. We would not imagine that a bank with 

a CAMEL 4 rating would be eligible for this. So I think that we 

believe the legislation is written in support of what you are suggesting here. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Is there an outright prohibition 

or just a general kind of viability standard? 

Mr. SPERLING. It is a viability. And one of the few—one of the 

suggestions that we have refused to incorporate that has come from 

some people is for us to somehow mandate to the regulators that 

they lower their viability standard. We think that would be a bad 

idea. It would drive the costs of this program up. So that is why 

we are keeping the stance with the regulator to recommend to us 

that the bank is viable, meaning they have enough capital without 

the government assistance to be viable going forward, and this is 

providing additional capital that would be fully to support lending. 

The increment would all be there to support additional lending to 

small businesses. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Why not an outright prohibition if they have a CAMEL 4 or 5 that they not be eligible for this 

lending program? 

Mr. SPERLING. I think that is—as written, I believe it is an effective prohibition on a CAMEL 4 or a CAMEL 5, so I am not sure 

that it would be necessary to intrude on the regulators by doing 

that. But I think what we have is the equivalent of an outright ban 

on a 4 or 5. 

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to congratulate all of us for making 

no obvious camel metaphors. 

The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Atkins, you spoke of a moral hazard, and rather than state 

your position, tell me what your position is again with reference to 

the moral hazard. 

Mr. ATKINS. Well, just that by providing very cheap credit, and 

that is what this essentially is to banks, cheap capital, that they 

will be—and then just spurring them to go out to lend maybe to 

less than ideal credits, that that will create some of the same sorts 

of situations that we have seen in the past that led to this financial 

crisis. 

Mr. GREEN. And, Mr. Sperling, I would like to ask you to respond, please, to Mr. Atkins’ contention with reference to the moral 

hazard. 

Mr. SPERLING. I simply don’t agree. In fact, I am having a hard 

time knowing which way he is criticizing it. At one point, he has 

said the incentive is not strong enough. Then he has said it is so 

strong, there will be moral hazard. 

The fact is that the economics of this, which is that it would 

never make sense for a bank to do a loan that they thought was 

going to fail under this—what would make more sense, the more 

economic logic of this program, is since that you would get a lower 

dividend rate by increasing your lending, you would have an incentive to seek out creditworthy borrowers and perhaps offer them 

42 

lower interest rates to encourage them to take lending. So this plan 

is actually designed to pass on some of the benefit. 

And I can’t understand how this could be analogized to Fannie 

and Freddie, which is about the implied subsidy and ‘‘too-big-tofail.’’ These are small banks, as Mr. MacPhee will tell you, that do 

not—that are never considered ‘‘too-big-to-fail,’’ don’t have an implied subsidy, and this provides a reasonable benefit for them to increase their small business lending with—without, I think, any economic logic that would suggest there would be moral hazard. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. MacPhee, would you kindly respond to the moral 

hazard argument? 

Mr. MACPHEE. Yes, sir. I have been a community banker for 41 

years. I can honestly look anyone in the eye and say I have never 

made a bad loan. Now, loans have gone bad after I have made 

them, but I have never made a bad loan. We don’t do that on purpose, squinty-eyed or not, and I can tell you that from the standpoint of any banker that—I think it is pretty much a standard in 

this industry that community bankers have skin in the game. Most 

of us are shareholders. Many are second- and third-generation family-owned banks. They don’t make bad loans in good or bad times. 

They always try to make good loans. So they don’t—to suggest that 

the moral hazard is that it gives us incentive to make loans that 

will go bad just isn’t reasonable. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Mica, I want to thank you for your testimony as 

well, and I do look forward to working with the credit unions to see 

if we can reach some sort of amiable, amicable conclusion. I think 

that Mr. Sperling has indicated a willingness to work with you. Obviously, the ranking member, Mr. Kanjorski, and the others have 

indicated such, so I look forward to working with you as well. 

My final comment is simply this: I do understand the moral hazard argument, but there is also the moral hazard associated with 

doing nothing and simply allowing things to unfold at a time of crisis. Things have gotten better, but they are not where we have to 

ultimately try to get, and until we get there, we do have to try as 

best as we can to help this economy turn around. 

I marvel at how people say, we want you to do something, and 

then they can never agree with anything that you try to do. There 

has to be some way for us to reach across and come to some consensus on some of these things. 

I clearly believe that this is a good piece of legislation. Maybe we 

have to tweak it, but I think it is a good piece of legislation, and 

I am honored to support it. My hope is that it will help those small 

businesses in communities where we have high levels of unemployment, help those capable, competent, and qualified businesses, because that is what bankers, the bankers that I have dealt with, do. 

They look for capable, competent, qualified businesses to do business with. And hopefully, this will help us to create some jobs and 

turn this economy around. It is not a panacea, but it is another 

step in the right direction, and I want to compliment the President 

for following through on this commitment that he made, and I believe it was in his State of the Union Address he announced this. 

Is that right, Mr. Sperling? 

Mr. SPERLING. Yes. 

43 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the President. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your time has expired. 

I am going to ask unanimous consent to make a statement. I 

think it is important for people to know this. The credit union issue 

has come up. I had been made aware that there were conversations 

going on, negotiations with Mr. Kanjorski and Mr. Royce, the credit 

unions and the Administration. I have heard what Mr. Sperling 

has repeated. I know—let us be clear. People in my line of work 

hate to have to choose between their friends when they are fighting. This is the classic case where Members of Congress have 

friends on both sides, but I can, as chairman of the committee, suppress this. 

The Administration supports this. And I just wanted to put people on notice. Sometime soon, this committee is going to be dealing 

with this issue in a markup. Members will be free to do what they 

want, and I just put everybody on notice. There apparently is a revised version of this that is coming forward, and I just want to put 

everybody on notice that sometime fairly soon we will be dealing 

with this issue of an expansion of credit union business lending, 

and I just want to put everybody on fair notice of this. And that 

is about as neutral as I am capable of stating anything, and I am 

not going to say any more. 

The gentlewoman from Wisconsin. 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to address my first question to Mr. Sperling with regard to something the Honorable Paul Atkins and Representative 

Velazquez and others have talked about. They have talked about 

the regulatory climate as being one that perhaps is overly restrictive, and in such an environment it is impossible to pull out of this 

recession. And you also talked about the regulatory framework in 

response to, I believe it was Mr. Green’s questions. 

Do you think that we are in an overly restrictive regulatory environment? The anecdotal evidence out there is perhaps that as a result of some things that the ‘‘too-big-to-fail’’ companies have done, 

that this has fallen mighty heavily on community banks, and that 

these restrictions are arbitrary, and they have caused a great deal 

of havoc. 

Mr. SPERLING. It is certainly the opinion of many community 

bank CEOs that we have spoken to that their examiners have been 

overly rigorous. It is—I think, as Secretary Geithner says, it is always a bit of human nature when you have had a financial crisis 

that you go from taking way too little risk to perhaps becoming too 

restrictive. 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. Can I ask this, then: Is it inappropriate for the Treasury Department to make some sort of audit, examination, guidance as to what is scientifically or reasonably appropriate? Because what I am hearing is this is rather arbitrary, 

and it is more than just a failure of human nature. It is really 

causing the collapse of many businesses and the loss of jobs. 

Mr. SPERLING. One area where we have spoken with the regulators, and it is related to some of the State programs we have, is 

the idea that you do not want—when you are coming out of a recession into recovery, you do not want people to discourage lending to 

44 

a small business that has positive cash-flow prospects simply because their collateral has deteriorated. We have tried with regulators to pass that message down. In other words, if you are a good 

business, and your commercial real estate has gone down in Michigan or Ohio just because of the property values or the economy is 

weak, but your business would be good, you want that loan to take 

place. 

It does not always work, and one of the reasons, for example, the 

program in Michigan is important or other Midwestern States are 

interested in it is that in the absence of that happening, they provide collateral support. They provide a bit of a guarantee. The SBA 

loans that do the 90 percent guarantee do the same thing. They say 

to that bank, even if the collateral is deteriorated, we will protect 

you. 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. Mr. Sperling, I get the point, but it 

is also with regard to the capital requirements of the banks. Do you 

feel they are being too stringent? 

Mr. SPERLING. No— 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. And can Treasury do anything other 

than just sort of nudge them and beg them to be less human and 

be a little bit more scientific and businesslike about it, not arbitrary? 

Mr. SPERLING. It is actually very hard for us to control the bank 

examiner of— 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. Thank you. 

I would like to ask the Honorable Paul Atkins a couple of questions. 

I enjoyed listening to your testimony and reading it as well. I 

just was a little bit confused about your conclusions. You say that 

the CPP, which, of course, took $205 billion and gave it to the largest banks, had a very poor performance in lending to small businesses, but you also acknowledge that small businesses, in fact, 

historically were provided loans—that small banks provided loans 

to small businesses. So your conclusion that there was no evidence 

that this program would be helpful in terms of getting that money 

to small businesses based on the model of the big banks not doing 

it, I didn’t quite understand how you reached that conclusion. 

Mr. ATKINS. Well, you have to remember the CPP didn’t just go 

to big banks; it also went to hundreds of small banks, including in 

my neighborhood a bank of maybe $500 million of assets, a community bank. So it is a broad-based program, but a lot of people, of 

course, decided not to— 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. Okay. But then they also had these 

increased capital requirements that we just discussed, Mr. Sperling 

just discussed. So I think—Mr. Chairman— 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. [presiding] I am sorry. 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. Okay. I had time. I had about 10 seconds left. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Go ahead. 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. Thank you. 

I just wanted to talk about something that my colleague talked 

about with respect to the moral hazard. Is it your view, Mr. Atkins, 

that—we have talked about a whole lot of these small businesses 

really being very creditworthy, and because the capital requireVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:24 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 058047 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\58047.TXT TERRIE
45 

ments and collateral requirements have increased arbitrarily, that 

there are plenty of creditworthy businesses that are going under 

for lack of capital? And so how did you reach the conclusion that 

this, not being a permanent program, but a short, temporary program, could create moral hazard when there is, in fact, plenty of 

evidence that there are very worthy, credible businesses that have 

been run very well but for the fact that they have not been able 

to get the short-term credit that they rely upon to conduct their 

business? 

Mr. ATKINS. Well, from my testimony and also from our study, 

the Oversight Panel—and I disagree with Mr. Sperling, the NFIB 

survey actually did say that small businesses have not found that 

they have had a lack of credit. It seems like banks do have capital 

out there to lend, but the real question is, why are they not lending 

it? Is it because of regulatory reasons? Is it because of lack of the 

underwriting aspects of these particular people who are searching 

for loans, and do they need them? 

Getting to the moral hazard like with the SBA before you all 

here on this panel, you had an SBA official who said, ‘‘an extra incentive for risk-averse lenders to lend to small businesses is provided by the SBA guarantee.’’ That is what we are talking about 

with respect to moral hazard, that they have to bolster it to— 

Ms. MOORE OF WISCONSIN. I yield back. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Because the Chair almost shortchanged Ms. Moore 3 seconds, she got 2 minutes extra. I will not make that mistake again. 

The Chair yields 5 minutes to Mr. Lance. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, gentlemen. I think we are entering an interesting time in the congressional year between now and Memorial 

Day, or perhaps between now and the Fourth of July. It seems to 

me we ought to address some of the budgetary issues. We do not 

yet have a budget, and there is a debate as to whether or not we 

are going to have a budget act, and as I understand it, if we don’t 

have one, it would be the first time since the 1974 act that we do 

not pass a budget. In the next several weeks, we are supposed to 

consider unemployment benefits, money to continue funding for our 

troops in Afghanistan, etc. 

Mr. Sperling, regarding the $30 billion that would be the basis 

of this program, does the Administration yet have an indication of 

where the money would be identified to pay for the program? 

Mr. SPERLING. Congressman, as you know, what is required to 

meet the PAYGO scorecard is what CBO will say the cost is. So 

we will be looking for the score of this proposal both over the 5- 

year and the 10-year level. We think that over 10 years, as Chairman Frank said, the $30 billion initiative will actually not cost the 

taxpayer any money. There could be a small cost in the 5-year window. It will be a small fraction. And if that is the case, then when 

we are putting together the offsets for the overall small business 

jobs package, we will have to ensure that it is deficit neutral over 

5 years and deficit neutral over 10 years. 

So I think everybody who has spoken on this bill so far, whatever 

their philosophy, whatever their differences, agrees this must be 

passed in a way that does not add 1 penny to the Federal deficit. 

46 

And, of course, your goal is if you can do something deficit neutral 

that is creating jobs and activity and revenue, that it will actually 

have a positive impact. 

Mr. LANCE. And if I might continue, Mr. Sperling, what would 

be the timeframe for a determination that would be deficit neutral? 

Mr. SPERLING. I think we have already gotten a preliminary report that it would be deficit neutral, the $30 billion fund over 10 

years. I think we are looking at the design timing over the 5-year 

amount. But I think, you know, as you think about the extenders 

bill, you obviously are, I am sure, for extending the R&E tax credit, 

but you want to pay for that overall package when it comes 

through in the extenders. 

In this case, a bill will come together that pays for an overall 

jobs tax credit bill—I mean, jobs bill, which will include the tax 

cuts as well as this measure, and I think what Chairman Frank 

and the leadership has made a commitment to is that that package 

as a whole will be deficit neutral, and we will be working with the 

committees, including House Ways and Means, to make sure— 

Mr. LANCE. Our staff indicates to me that the CBO indicates that 

the cost would be $10 billion over 5 years and a savings of $1 billion over 10 years. At least, those are the current figures. 

Mr. SPERLING. That is because the program as initially put forward lasted 5 years until a lot of people would pay back the capital 

right after the 5-year window. So we have sent that back to the 

Congressional Budget Office at 41⁄2 years. It is our understanding 

that would bring the 5-year costs down to just $1 billion or $2 billion, but that is what I don’t know for certain at this time, Congressman. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

I raise this in the context that the CBO has recently indicated 

the additional costs in part of the health care proposal. This is an 

ongoing debate, and obviously we are concerned on our side of the 

aisle related to whether or not there will be a budget act this year. 

I know that is not specific to the discussion today, but there is an 

overall theme that is of great concern to our side of the aisle. 

Very briefly, as I understand it, the legislation says that for each 

eligible institution that applies to receive a capital investment 

under the program, the Secretary shall consult with the appropriate Federal banking agency for the eligible institution to determine whether the eligible institution may receive such capital investment. That impresses me as being broad language, and perhaps that is appropriate. But, Mr. Sperling, could you indicate 

what your views are regarding that legislation and whether that is 

specific enough? Does it need to be that broad given that we are 

trying to help the economic situation? 

Mr. SPERLING. I think Congressman Moore has asked the same 

thing. I think we believe it is, because we believe that the process 

of going through the regulator, they are the ones with the expertise, access confidential information to make the judgment that 

that firm is viable without existing capital. Therefore, the new capital would be simply additional capital to increase lending. 

So it is our understanding that language is strong enough, but 

if there were concerns about that, that would certainly—you know, 

47 

that would certainly be the type of thing we would be willing to 

discuss. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Sperling. 

I believe my time is up. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Lance. 

The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sperling, I want to follow up, if I might, on the exchange you 

had with Ms. Waters regarding—as she talked about the CDFIs. Is 

there a reason we aren’t doing more to assist the community development loan funds, who are actually doing some of the most difficult work in disadvantaged communities, and do you think that 

we should make them eligible under the Small Business Lending 

Fund? For example, this would be a way for them to meet increased demands they are facing with regard to the small business 

loans in lower-income communities all across the country. 

Mr. SPERLING. I think we should—we are actually at this point 

still trying to see if, through the existing TARP authority, there is 

a way that we could help the CDFI loan funds as we have done 

an initiative to help CDFI banks and CDFI credit unions. 

We agree with you. The question is finding the right vehicle. The 

Small Business Lending Fund is obviously designed more to bring 

capital to a regulated financial institution. CDFI loan funds, which 

we strongly support and agree with you, don’t fit that description. 

So I think the short answer is, we ought to be doing more, and 

we ought to work on that. And this may not be the best vehicle, 

but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t find a vehicle to do more for CDFI 

loan funds. Certainly, having strong appropriations for our CDFI 

program is the most certain way of doing that, but there could be 

others. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Does anybody differ with that? 

Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. The gentlewoman from Illinois 

Ms. Bean. 

Ms. BEAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for your testimony today and for sharing your 

expertise with us on this important subject. 

I happen to be a vice chair of the New Dems, which is a 70-member coalition that very much sees themselves as a voice for small 

businesses, which are so important to our economic growth. We 

were very involved in some of the stimulus provisions that made 

sure that we went further than just providing tax cuts to 95 percent of Americans on the consumer spending side, but to make sure 

the B2B space was addressed by including the NOL carryback. 

Over $9 billion has gone back into the hands of small businesses, 

taxes they had paid in previous profitable years, to help them 

weather through unprofitable ones. We encouraged the SBA loan 

guarantees, which have allowed $23 billion to go into the hands of 

small businesses when they need it, recognizing access to capital 

is important. We fought to include health IT initiatives, smart grid 

technology, the first-time homebuyer tax credit to bring 700,000 

new buyers into the market at an important time. I think that is 

why the Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers 

endorsed that important stimulus to our economy. 

48 

But we recognized more needed to be done. So that was done in 

February of last year. In March, we came to the White House. We 

met with the President. The number one issue we raised with him 

at the time was access to capital for small businesses. He committed at that time to putting $18 billion into the secondary market should it be necessary so that small community banks that 

were lending to small businesses could recycle those loans. It turns 

out we didn’t have to do that because the guarantees in the stimulus had already helped create a secondary market. 

But there is certainly more to do since then. We had the ARC 

loans, which had the smaller loans that allowed companies to restructure debt. There is a proposal to expand the 504 program, 

which would allow refinancing for the commercial real estate market, which right now is hampering the balance sheets of so many 

of our community banks. They want to lend in many cases, but 

they can’t because they have an examiner over their shoulder saying, your balance sheet is just not going to allow that given your 

exposure. 

So my question is, I guess, for Mr. Sperling. The Administration is proposing to increase both the SBA and 504 loan sizes to $5 million. There are a number of measures in Congress, some of them 

bipartisan, to support that; but some also expressed concerns that 

increasing those loans obviously increases taxpayer exposure. Why 

do you feel that is a sound approach? 

Mr. SPERLING. Actually, the experience on the SBA side has been 

that the larger loans have actually performed better. So by going 

to the $5 million, we believe that will be very strong for the economy. 

It was interesting, if you were to ask—I know they aren’t represented here—the franchisers, they would consider that to perhaps be their number one agenda item, and the reason why is because some of the most promising people who had opened new franchises often want to open several at one time, or they don’t go in. 

Those are obviously clear job-creating, small business-owning-type 

situations. So we feel that it is a good complement to what we have 

now to offer those loans up to $5 million, and that they actually 

perform well and have low subsidy costs. 

I know Chairwoman Velazquez has also been concerned that that 

doesn’t take away focus on the smaller loans, and that is why I 

think we could also imagine including in a jobs package something 

that made loans under $250,000 more attractive in this period as 

well. 

Ms. BEAN. How quickly do you think, assuming these proposals 

move forward, would the moneys from the Treasury be available to 

those community banks? 

Mr. SPERLING. Well, in the SBA program, that would just happen—that would just be part of the SBA’s relationship with the 

banks forward. In terms of the programs we have here, one is that 

the good part about the State option, and we have two representatives here, is that these are programs that are up and going. We 

know what has been frustrating is when there has been a Recovery 

Act, we had to start brand new. This is trying to get funding to 

programs that are up and going and having higher demand as they 

are getting budget cuts. 

49 

So I think on the State programs, money could go very quickly. 

And then on the capital program, it is our opinion that we could 

get this up in a couple of months at most. So we feel that we have 

learned some lessons in the Recovery Act, and one of the focuses 

we have had is on being able to implement quickly under these initiatives. 

Ms. BEAN. I thank you, and I thank you for your efforts on behalf 

of our small businesses. We feel the Administration has been working closely with those of us who don’t want to just talk about supporting small businesses, but actually act to do so. Thank you. 

Mr. SPERLING. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. The gentleman from Colorado, 

Mr. Perlmutter. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to hold up a couple of charts for you all, but basically 

from 2008 to the beginning of 2009, we had a falloff like we have 

never seen, none of you sitting at that table or anybody sitting up 

here has seen. Since President Obama took office, with the Recovery Act, we finally have crossed the axis to the point we are adding 

290,000. We had been losing 780,000 jobs. The area in the middle 

of this ‘‘V’’ is 8 million jobs. So I think everybody, Democrat or Republican, wants to put those people back to work, and the question 

is, how do we do it? 

Our principle is that small business, once it is back on its feet, 

is going to be the primary generator of those jobs. And as we put 

people back to work, then the budget deficit solves—there are a lot 

of problems solved by an improving economy and a reduction of 

people on the unemployment rolls. 

So, Mr. Determan, I want to start with you. You talked about 

one of the things that I think we have to address in any of these 

bills, and you said you all lost your line of credit. So—and a number of the Members have talked about this, but as part of this process, we have the old borrowers; we have, we hope, new borrowers; 

and I personally want to see competition so that we maintain community banks. Maybe we add credit unions to that mix. So in your 

situation, would some of the people for whom you did business, if 

there had been the opportunity for them to keep their lines of credit or you to keep your line of credit until you see the light at the 

end of the tunnel, which is coming here—go ahead, if you could respond to my sort of general statement. 

Mr. DETERMAN. Yes. Thank you for the question. 

We closed our business in October of 2009. We were waiting for 

a project to begin, and it went for years without being financed, 

and our fees were deferred until the project closed. We were expecting $1.8 million. Our credit line was finally called in. We had to 

pull the plug on the firm. In November of 2009, that project closed, 

a month after we ended the firm. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. So that is my point here. As we get to 

the light at the end of the tunnel, I want people to be able to get 

there, to maintain competition, to maintain good borrowers. I have 

a bill I am going to raise either tomorrow or at some point that 

does, Mr. MacPhee, one of the things you were talking about, 

which is to take a loss now and amortize it over 7 years so that 

you don’t have to take the entire loss to capital—the bank doesn’t 

50 

have to take the entire loss to capital—right now it is H.R. 5249— 

and spread it out over 7 years, which is what we did in Colorado 

so that the agricultural banks could stay in business. And we didn’t 

close everybody, because as you close those banks, you are going 

to dry up credit. 

I agree with my friend from North Carolina, you don’t want the 

bad banks staying in business, but I want to have competition 

when we get to the end of this thing. And that may be that we do 

some—we have new lending money, but we give some opportunity 

to amortize, because I don’t want the architectural firms, the small 

businesses that are going to put all those people back to work, I 

don’t want them going out of business. 

Now, Mr. Atkins, I have to quarrel with you for a second. You 

used the word ‘‘anecdote’’ twice, that it is anecdotal that the regulators have been harsher. We have had about a million hearings in 

here. It is no longer anecdotal for me. We have heard from too 

many people. And it is natural; Secretary Geithner says it is 

human nature where the regulators tighten up because they don’t 

want to lose a bank or a credit union on their watch, and the bankers tighten up. So in Congress, we need to do some things to tell 

them we want to be countercyclical. We want small businesses to 

survive and then thrive and put people back to work. So I will give 

you a chance to respond to my quarreling with you about anecdotes. 

Mr. ATKINS. I agree. All I meant was that there is no real survey 

data to support it, but we hear the same sort of thing as you that 

you are hearing in the hearings as well, and it frankly has existed 

in past recessions as well. We heard it when I was a staffer at the 

SEC back in the early 1990’s, basically that bank examiners are 

being, you know, much too particular. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. And I think the bankers are, too. 

And I will make just this last point. We had a company, a little 

restaurant, that wanted to franchise, that had two little barbecue 

franchises. They wanted a $250,000 operating line, not much. They 

went to 18 banks and were denied at all 18 banks. We intervened 

a little bit and said to some bankers, check this out. But 18 banks 

for a $250,000 line of credit? That is not right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Time has expired. 

The gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mica, what did you mean when you earlier stated that your 

regulator is prepared to take on the Member business lending efforts that we have discussed today? Does it support these efforts? 

Mr. MICA. Yes, absolutely. Our regulator has sent a letter to 

Treasury and to the Congress indicating they would support this. 

They, too, want to make sure, and we agree with that, that there 

are proper safety and soundness guidelines, that they continue to 

have proper oversight. We have no problem with that. Our record 

is very strong. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MacPhee, while the size gap is narrowing between men- and 

women-owned businesses, it is clear we still have a long way to go 

in terms of the current number of women-owned businesses. With 

regards to the banks that will receive funds pursuant to the Small 

51 

Business Lending Fund, will they be required to report how they 

plan to increase lending opportunities for women and minorityowned businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs? 

Mr. MACPHEE. I do not know the answer to that. I can get back 

to you on it, though. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. 

And, lastly, Mr. Atkins, for those States that apply for funds 

made available by the State Small Business Credit Initiative program, will they be required to submit a business strategy for how 

they plan to allocate funding to lending institutions that are most 

in need? 

Mr. ATKINS. That is a good question. I don’t think that the legislative language necessarily covers that, but I can get back to you 

on that as well. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PETERS. [presiding] The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman 

from Ohio, Ms. Kilroy. 

Ms. KILROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to all the panelists for joining us this afternoon. 

As my colleagues have indicated, I have heard also from people 

from central Ohio about their issues with access to credit, and 

many small business people tell me that they could expand, they 

could hire, they could invest in a building opportunity or a commercial opportunity if they had access to capital. And at the same time 

I hear from the small community banks that they are lending, that 

capital is going out there. And from some of them I am also hearing the issue that has also been raised here this afternoon that the 

regulators are holding them back from making those loans or requiring them to call in even loans that are productive. 

So given all the allegedly anecdotal reporting, are there going to 

be provisions that will require data be kept so that we actually 

know who is trying to access capital, and who is getting access to 

the loans, and who is being turned down for those loans, and also 

how many jobs are being created? 

Mr. SPERLING. I don’t know that—you know, right now on the 

Small Business Lending Fund, we are relying on the existing data 

sets that are out there, so we look at the—we look basically at the 

C&I loans, and the owner-occupied real estate loans, and the agriculture loans of small banks, which obviously are small and go to 

small businesses, and we are looking at how much they are increasing. 

You are asking another question, which is a good question, which 

is do we have a way of getting data as who is applying? And I don’t 

know that there is anything in this legislation that would be asking for kind of a new data set. I think the issue that anybody dealing with this deals with, that there is not perfect information at 

all. I think Chairwoman Velazquez was getting to that, too, on 

small business lending, and you are forced to use the best proxies 

that you can. 

The only thing I would just want to say is that, you know, while 

the examiner issue is controversial, it is difficult, when they classify a loan and make you give more capital or they worry about 

your collateral, some of these programs we are dealing with now 

do directly deal with that. If you can get more capital through the 

52 

Small Business Lending Fund, that could give you—puts you in a 

stronger position to keep lending, even if you feel your examiner 

is unfairly classifying one or two loans. If you have things like the 

collateral support program that the Michigan and others are doing, 

those are things that could more directly affect you and allow you 

to give a loan even if you felt a bank examiner was 

mischaracterizing a loan you are giving. 

Ms. KILROY. And yet, though, to be devil’s advocate here, there 

is a value in having underwriting standards so that bad loans 

aren’t being made, so that the program is being productive, and 

that the taxpayers are being protected. So should we have some 

minimum underwriting standards that are required in this bill? 

Mr. SPERLING. Well, I don’t think—and I think—as Mr. MacPhee 

said, I don’t think there is anything here that would encourage 

anybody to loosen their underwriting standards, nor should they, 

not just for the taxpayer, but to be honest, bad loans, like subprime 

loans that shouldn’t have been given, can make people lose everything and go into bankruptcy. We wouldn’t want to encourage those 

bad loans not only— 

Ms. KILROY. But aren’t we putting in incentives to provide loans 

here? 

Mr. SPERLING. But the incentive is—what you really want is a 

combination of things that will make banks who have maybe pulled 

back categorically from small business lending go back into lending. You know, the Recovery Act that many of you voted for encouraged 1,300 banks who hadn’t been doing SBA lending to come back, 

to set up shops and hire people to start doing small business lending. So by offering an incentive, you give an encouragement to do 

more in that area, and you make the lending performance-based, 

which was one of the big complaints about CPP. 

But, again, I don’t see any economic incentive that would make 

you actually give a bad loan. The loss you would suffer would be 

much greater than any incentive you would get if you had a loan 

that completely failed. 

Ms. KILROY. We have all been very interested in helping small 

business, as you suggest, the Recovery Act; and the HIRE Act; the 

Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act; tax credits 

for small business for health care. But how do we make sure that 

this is targeted towards those small businesses? The definition of 

lending seems pretty broad there to me, but I am deferring to you 

as the expert here. 

Mr. SPERLING. Well, again, the President is supporting a comprehensive approach. So we are supporting the expansion of the 

SBA recovery provisions which go—which, by definition, go only to 

certain small businesses of certain sizes. The expansions on the 

SBA program go to the small businesses. The State program also 

is there. This one program goes to small banks and uses the best 

possible proxy that exists that we could possibly use today to measure whether a small bank has increased their lending to small 

businesses and farmers. 

Mr. PETERS. [presiding] The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. KILROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you. 

53 

I am the last questioner for you, and you will be on your way 

shortly. We certainly appreciate all of you being here and giving 

this testimony on a very, very important topic, one that we had 

been dealing with for quite some time here. 

Before I ask a few questions, I want to make a unanimous consent request to those of us who are still here. I have two items to 

put into the record: I have a letter in support of the State Small 

Business Credit Initiative, signed by 13 Governors; and a letter of 

support from the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association. 

I would like to enter them into the record, with unanimous consent. 

Before I ask some questions, it certainly has been interesting in 

hearing the comments of some of our colleagues here on the other 

side that there is a lack of demand for this lending. Certainly, that 

is not what I hear. We have certainly been hearing from many 

folks on this side of the committee room as well. That is not what 

we are hearing from our small business owners. In fact, I had a 

meeting just yesterday with small business owners, and I had a 

gentleman who has the top credit rating, an outstanding entrepreneur in my area, who was attempting to expand his business in 

the local town, and he said he has been to eight banks and has not 

been able to get the loan, and he is now on his ninth bank, and 

he thinks that hopefully he will be able to get it. And he said he 

wouldn’t have gotten it except for incredible perseverance to do it. 

It is a job that can immediately lead to the creation of additional 

jobs. 

So we definitely have an issue out there. We definitely have to 

be working on that. And I think that perhaps maybe the definition 

of ‘‘demand’’ is one in which demand is not there from what is considered creditworthy, because the standards have changed as to 

what is creditworthy, which I think is why it is so important that 

we have these State programs. And I want—Mr. Brown, if you 

could just comment on that. Is it lack of demand from creditworthy? It is not that we have good companies that can immediately put people to work, it is that the goalposts have changed 

basically, and that is why these State programs are necessary? Is 

that an accurate statement? 

Mr. BROWN. I think that is a perfectly accurate statement. And, 

in fact, the existence of our program has created a huge pool of demand, basically pulling in loans that would otherwise have not 

been considered eligible. So its very existence is now bringing people back to the credit markets and encouraging them to expand 

their businesses. 

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Johansson, you are also heading a State program. Is that an accurate statement for your organization as well 

in Maryland and what you are doing? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Congressman, I think your statement is right 

on. And the evidence we have in the State of Maryland is that last 

fiscal year, we did $40 million in loan guarantees. At this point in 

time, we have $40 million already done, and we have $150 million 

in the pipeline. If that is not a signal of an uptick in demand, I 

don’t know what is. 

Mr. PETERS. And what sort of jobs would be created by that? Do 

you have any idea? 

54 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Well, it would be everyday businesses. We were 

talking a company that manufactures tools, Bass Manufacturing, 

and we gave them an $87,000 guarantee. They got a $350,000 loan 

as a result. 

These are small businesses that are throughout the State of 

Maryland, and we are talking about thousands and thousands of 

jobs that can be impacted by this. 

Mr. PETERS. The other complaint that I have heard, or I should 

say criticism of the potential, is the cost to the taxpayers. If I recall 

in your testimony, you mentioned that there has not been a loss. 

What would we expect the cost to the taxpayers would be from additional resources from your fund in Maryland? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Well, we haven’t had a single loss in the last 5 

years, and we expect that record to continue. 

Mr. PETERS. And the resources that would be put into your program, how would that be leveraged with private resources? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. We are estimating a minimum of 10 to 1. So for 

every dollar that you inject into a fund like the MTFA fund, you 

get $10 of private sector lending. 

And I think what you brought up before about the goalposts 

being changed, the fact is you are dealing with stricter lending 

standards. And the collateral, people’s houses, people’s equipment, 

the commercial land that they own, and so forth, the commercial 

real estate, all of that has been reassessed, and so that gap even 

when they are creditworthy, that is a gap that we need to help 

plug, and we can do it. 

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Brown, is that a similar experience in Michigan? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, it is quite a coincidence that actually our hard 

pipeline in terms of deals that have already been brought to us and 

our already under underwriting and due diligence by the banks is 

also $150 million. And our program right now has also, although 

it has only been in existence about a year, has never had a default. 

We expect that the portfolio theory will prevail, and there will be 

some defaults, but overall, we expect our fund to return 5 percent 

on invested public dollars. 

The PETERS. Mr. Atkins mentioned in his testimony that we 

should not have a one-size-fits-all plan with this legislation. But it 

seems to me the small credit business initiative is exactly the opposite. It is not a one-size-fits-all plan, but really is tailored to the 

unique needs of States, and they are going to be different. We have 

two for Michigan and Maryland. Your plans are going to be different, but you have different States and different needs. Is that 

an accurate assessment, Mr. Johansson? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Most definitely. If you look at loan guarantees, 

there are 34 States that have these. These are shovel-ready solutions that are ready to go, not tomorrow, but are ready to go today 

if they have the necessary capital to put to work. And this isn’t 

capital that will sit on the sidelines. For a loan guarantee, by its 

very nature it has to unlock private sector lending. So every dollar 

that someone puts in it effectively unlocks private sector lending. 

Mr. BROWN. I think one of the particularly elegant parts of this 

plan is that it relies on the States to develop their own programs. 

Michigan, I think it is not surprising that our program right now 

55 

is reserved for Tier II, III, and IV auto suppliers who are diversifying into four of our targeted industries. We have identified that 

manufacturing is something that we have a core competency in. We 

would like to continue it. We risk losing it and losing it permanently if we don’t get the capital to these companies. And every 

State may be different. It both allows, this program both allows the 

States to tailor theirs to their specific need as well as allows a diffuse pipeline to get those moneys out on the streets quicker. 

Mr. PETERS. I know my time has expired, but it is rare that I 

can have a chairman’s prerogative and take a little extra time. I 

will just ask one question, and that is, we are in 34 States. Are 

these programs that it is not just about those 34 States, these are 

State programs that can be replicated fairly easily? Based on the 

success of those 34 States, would you expect any problems for the 

other States? 

Mr. BROWN. Not at all. In fact, we have looked at this issue and 

have spoken to some States that currently don’t have a loan support program. Most of their economic development agencies, whether it is the Department of Commerce or something more similar to 

the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, are able to do 

that administratively. 

Mr. PETERS. Great. Thank you. 

Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? 

With that, the Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel which they may wish to submit in 

writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 

30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(57) 

A P P E N D I X 

May 18, 2010 

58 


58047.001
59 


58047.002
60 


58047.003
61 


58047.004
62 


58047.005
63 


58047.006
64 


58047.007
65 


58047.008
66 


58047.009
67 


58047.010
68 


58047.011
69 


58047.012
70 


58047.013
71 


58047.014
72 


58047.015
73 


58047.016
74 


58047.017
75 


58047.018
76 


58047.019
77 


58047.020
78 


58047.021
79 


58047.022
80 


58047.023
81 


58047.024
82 


58047.025
83 


58047.026
84 


58047.027
85 


58047.028
86 


58047.029
87 


58047.030
88 


58047.031
89 


58047.032
90 


58047.033
91 


58047.034
92 


58047.035
93 


58047.036
94 


58047.037
95 


58047.038
96 


58047.039
97 


58047.040
98 


58047.041
99 


58047.042
100 


58047.043
101 


58047.044
102 


58047.045
103 


58047.046
104 


58047.047
105 


58047.048
106 


58047.049
107 


58047.050
108 


58047.051
109 


58047.052
110 


58047.053
111 


58047.054
112 


58047.055
113 


58047.056
114 


58047.057
115 


58047.058
116 


58047.059
117 


58047.060
118 


58047.061
119 


58047.062
120 


58047.063
121 


58047.064
122 


58047.065
123 


58047.066
124 


58047.067
125 


58047.068
126 


58047.069
127 


58047.070
128 


58047.071
129 


58047.072
130 


58047.073
131 


58047.074
132 


58047.075
133 


58047.076
134 


58047.077
135 


58047.078
136 


58047.079
137 


58047.080
138 


58047.081
139 


58047.082
140 


58047.083
141 


58047.084
142 


58047.085
143 


58047.086
144 


58047.087
145 


58047.088