here. that's not the subject of this hearing, but i just want to put that out there as an ongoing concern that i have because people's utility rates under one model are likely to be higher than they with under another model. i want to say when congress created this 1705 program, which is the subject of this hearing, as i mentioned earlier it appropriated $2.74 million to pay credit subsidy cost for the energy project and this program became a partnership between a government and private sector and this committee held a hearing where we learned the 1705 loan guarantee portfolio is low risk. projects will likely achieve a degree of success within this particular model. now, there are some who feel, well, 1705 portfolio is a bunch

of companies on the verge of bankruptcy. that doesn't appear to be the case. it appears to be a collection of projects with solid private and public sector backing. i would like to hear from the witnesses on why they believe the projects will benefit their bottom line and the environment, but most importantly, and this the question that mr. kelly keeps raises, how do the taxpayers benefit? i want you to tell me that too. let's go mr. mancini, your company was able to build this project in southern colorado. you obtained a $90 million loan guarantee from d.o.e. clean energy is being sold to major colorado public utility. tell me how this is a win-win for your company. tell me. >> just a point of information before i answer the question. i am a managing director. i've been with the company

almost 20 years. fp there are any questions that you'd like to present, i'd be happy to answer the questions. that would be unusual to draw attention to myself but i think, for the record, i need to clarify my role. i'm not the ceo of goldman sachs, but i'd be happy to answer questions. i took it from, i would call it a context in which it was being applied in the space program and put it in a different context to prove that technology could be applied on a utility scale, commercial scale project to produce green power for the citizens of colorado or citizens anywhere in the country fp one of the benefits was to prove the

hypothesis that this particular type of technology could be deployed commercially. >> okay. i want to thank you. i just want to respond to you calling to our attention you're a managing director and that's in the commodities? >> correct. managing director in the commodities business unit. >> we want to talk to the person that runs goldman sachs. you don't run the whole company. >> i do not. once comment i think is very important to make is in respect to the d.o.e. loan program there was no political favor. >> you know what. thank you for saying that. you've just said that for the record. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me ask you this. if the 1705 program had not been

in place, would goldman sachs have funded, would you put capital at risk in the co-gentrix, in the project? >> if the 1705 program had not been available -- >> you're wholly subsidiary of gold mman sachs, if that money wasn't there, would this have been a worthy project? would goldman say we believe in this? we're going to put up the cash. >> our first stop was to no less than ten commercial banks to see if we could get the funding from a debt perspective. >> the answer is no? you wouldn't have done it? >> we would not have done the project. the cost of capital would be too expensive. >> again, i think that proves our point. this is not where private venture capital will go but it's okay to put the taxpayer money

at risk. is goldman a major investor in amanex company? are you an investor? >> my understanding is we own 3% and do not have any board seats. >> what about excel energy? do you have a direct financial interest in that company or an indirect financial interest in that company? >> we do not. there are funds that are managed by goldman sachs asset management which is like fidelity or vanguard that put together portfolios of security for investors in the mutual fund for which we earn a fee that's based not on the returns of any particular company within that portfolio but based on the raw dollar amounts that are invested across. >> would it be fair to say an indirect relationship there's a fund that you manage that does

have a direct relationship? >> i'd say it's ten youous. >> but it's there? >> not by goldman sachs. >> did the agreement also include the fact that co-gentrix or excel would by electricity and amanex would be the sole provider? >> they sell the electricity at no profit to its customers. there's no mark up to that electricity because it's regulated in a specific way in respect of this project that does not allow them to pass through any additional costs or market up. >> the question was the agreement, the loan agreement wean the department of energy and co-gentrix included the details that or part of that

agreement was there's a relationship? >> relationship between co-gentrix is with public sf service of colorado. and excel is the parent company. we don't have any relationship directly. >> certainly, with amanex? >> it's the panel provider. >> that's in the agreement? >> correct. >> goldman has a direct financial interest in amanex? >> sure. it has nothing to do with the selection of amex. they required us to use a certain type of technology. it was one of four companies that were the leading manufacturers. our engineers evaluated all four companies and based on the technology and the cost. >> do you have a financial interest in. >> not to my knowledge. >> it did work out that the, there were four possibilities based on what you just said and

the one that was selected is the one that goldman has a selected interest in. >> only because it provided the best technology at the lowest cost which was important. >> but benefits goldman. >> how it benefits goldman is almost inconsequential. >> it's inconsequential that the company that was chosen of the fath four possibilities is the only one that they have an interest in? >> that ignores the fact that -- >> you got to go back to the first point. just so you can see the chart. you have the department of energy given $90 billion to co-gentrix. part of the deal says four companies you can choose from and the agreement says you're going to pick the one they have

an agreement in, amanex, that's a pretty good deal for goldman all the way around? particularly when you said we wouldn't finance this. banks wouldn't do it, but we can put the taxpayers on the hook, and we're going to make a lot of money based on what mr. crane had to say earlier. this is a great deal for america. god bless america. this ask wonderful except the rate payers and the taxpayers. >> with all due respect, the process that we went through in order to select a manufacturer was blessed by the independent engineers and it was also required. >> you said the independent votes at d.o.e. if there's one thing we've proves today, if there's one thing that's completely clear, it's not independent. we got e-mails going back and forth. edit this for us. this is the letter we're going to send to the white house chief of staff. here is the exam.

you can plagiarize. >> the engineers are not our engineers meaning they are add viedsing someone other than us so they had to make an independent judgment that was not our judgment that they agreed that amanex was the better technology to the lowest cost to the rate payers. to suggest that there was some sort of -- >> let me ask you this. you would have preferred that, well, it's certainly a benefit that amanex was the run selected? >> say that again. >> it's better that they were selected by the independent enginee engineers? >> to suggest we would put our equity capital because a 3%

interest. >> i'm not suggesting that. i'm suggesting the deal is pretty good and you have to go back to the first point. you're one of the managing directors. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> i just want to associate myself with your line of questioning. >> you're suggesting that goldman sachs would put $116 million of its equity at risk in order to benefit itself through a 3% interest. >> i'm not suggesting that. i'm suggesting there's this close knit relationship up and down the line, and there's this cozy relationship between the department and folk who is are getting the loan. that's what i'm suggesting. i'm not saying it's bad thing you did this or bad that it worked out this way. i'm pointing out this is what's involved here and this is why we're having the hearings and

the american taxpayer is saying this is not what we're supposed to be doing. >> this depiction is incorrect. to suggest we have an interest in excel nrj aenergy and is benefitting goldman sachs is incorrect. >> the focus of my questioning wasn't on excel. i accept ta point. i'm not coming down the left hand side. i'm coming down the right hand side. i'll concede that. >> if we're making a decision to put as much as $116 million at risk for a minimal return that might, might accrue to a company in which we own 3%, that would be completely ir rational on the part of goldman sachs. >> it raids soses some concern light of what we've seen. in light of the fact that mr.

crane has been to the white house in seven different times. in light of the fact we have letters that are being sdrafted that will go to the white house chief of staff. i mean, at some point you got to say where does this all end? what really took place in here? no wonder a whole bunch of the companies didn't get a chance because the ones that did were so close with the government. we see why the projects got appro approved. >> i don't come to any conclusions myself with respect to any of those. i can only tell you that with respect to the one loan that we applied for, received, there was had nothing to do with any relationships with anyone in the administration, the white house. it was done on its merits. >> how much money, what's the dollar amount of the interest you have in amanex? do you know? >> it's less than $10 million, i

believe. >> okay. it's still real money. >> i guess my point is in relationship to $116 million that we're putting on the line for this project. >> it's 9%. it's still pretty significant. >> i think frankly it would be completely unprudent for us to risk $116 million to protect ten. >> i'm not arguing with that fact. all i'm saying is if you can get, if one of the four is the one you have to have an interest in, all the better. you don't concede that, right? >> if it happens by coincidence to be the case. >> it's not coincidence. >> it's all coincidence. >> you said the expert said it was the right thing to do. >> we had not only our engineers evaluating the technology and the cost but the engineers advising the d.o.e. and public

service of colorado itself all had to bless the same thing. >> the gentleman will yield now to our final round of questioning to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> is that a general sigh of relief. i know this is uncomfortable for you. mr. manicini, i understand when you said we would never risk $116 million on a prudent project. >> i said we wouldn't risk it to protect $10 million. >> how about the american taxpayers putting $15 billion at risk? i'm going to shift. it's not what you know but who you know, and obviously there's another part to that. it's who knows you. you may not a lot and you know some people but the real defining answer to this is when that phone call goes to somebody that says i need help or need you to weigh in on this, some

people say tell them i'm not in. tell them i'm on another call. if it's somebody you know, they say put the call through. for these 25 companies that were able to get through and cut through the navigation, somebody appreciated the fact and knew who was on the other end of the phone. this whole program, if i understood it correctly. i don't fault any of these people for taking money at very low rates. why would you pay it back ahead of time? that would be stupid. you don't pay back loans you don't owe a lot on. you pay back the ones with the heaviest weight. some of the ones at 18%, you want to lower that principal in headquart hurry. when there's no big number on it, i understand why they do it. at the end of the day we were

led to believe that if we invested all this money, there was going to be a return on this investment. the return that we were going to give people sitting at home unable to find a job, a job and this great opportunity that was out there. it was going to create thesejob. what was the number of jobs that was supposed to be created? >> originally, i think the claim made by investing in green technology would bring five million. >> five million jobs. do we know exactly what the number is? >> when i looked yesterday -- >> not the game numbers. not when you took the guy driving the bus. >> toraccording to to the department of energy it comes down to 2,388 jobs.

rough roughly 16 billion. >> it's an exposure to taxpayer 6.7 million. really these numbers meaning less. think about it this way, we can, this is the taxpayers exposure per job. the reality is if the company defaults, there are no jobs created. this is what we saw with solyndra. 538 million will have to be repaid by taxpayers one way or another. in the end there were zero jobs created. >> they get it in both ends. >> yeah. >> i'm just trying to understand because to me, this is not a democrat, republican situation. this is where we took american taxpayer money and we put it on the green. not the red or the black but the green. we spun the wheel and said i bet we're going to win on this and i bet we're going to create five million jobs.

we said put it on the green because i know we're going to win. at the end of the day what did the american taxpayers win? >> i think it comes down to the ability of the government to create jobs, and it can't. it can obviously pay for some jobs but to create sustainable jobs that will sustain themselves, the government money is gone, the government can't do this. >> stable jobs only come from the private sector. >> exactly. the private sector can sustain jobs and create economic growth for that matter. the private sector has been pretty good at even leading the way on green energy. >> sure. you know why. this has been the most irresponsible waste of taxpayer money that i've seen in my lifetime. i've been around for a little bit now. it's incredible that we can sit back and say mission established. this is ridiculous what we've done to the american taxpayer to

say keep funding this because i'm sure there's a pot goefld at the end of the rainbow. >> i don't know if it's the most things. >> this is the one we're talking about today. >> but certainly and more importantly there is something i don't quite understand is how we can reconcile the idea that these projects are low risks and at the same time these projects could not have found funding for themselves. i mean, if they are actually low risk, if one of the conditions for the company to get money is to actually have secured a source, a customer, a secure company for the next 20 years, i mean, it seems like a pretty safe bet, and why wouldn't a private company go ahead and fund this project? moreover, i find it surprising that while some of the companies

involved have had a hard time maybe finding funding and capital while the recession was going on and while european banks were in trouble, it does seem that it's also the same time where everyone in america is hurting, and it seems somewhat irresponsible to be asking taxpayers then to jump in to take that risk. >> well, you can actually do that when it's not your own money that's being risked. it's a very easy bet to make when it's not your money, and when it's your money, it's a much more difficult risk to take. >> but, i mean, i do not understand the -- if it's really low risks, which, i mean, i'm willing to -- to -- >> you make a good point. >> it is hard to understand. it's hard to understand because it doesn't make sense. it's not common sense that the average guy who goes out there, average girl who goes out there every day who has to pay their own bills out of their own pocket, they have their own skin in the game, when their nose is the one that's getting bloodied,

they note difference and whenever you can take money from somewheres out of your checkbook and out of your pocket, that's an easy roll of the dice when it's your own money that took so long to earn, hard to pay back and it's a much tougher bet to make. we've made a very, very easy bet using taxpayer dollars. chairman, i appreciate the -- the opportunity to be here, and i really appreciate y'all being here. i don't discredit you for doing what you did, makes sense to you. unfortunately, it doesn't make sense to taxpayers whose money is what was wagered as long as we clear the air on this. i know it's difficult to sit here. i don't represent me. i represent 75,000 people in western pennsylvania and they are not all republicans and they tell me all the time. you think you have a low approval rating, you ought to try to work with ours. it's very difficult. people have lost confidence and the reason they have lost confidence, because we have shown them time and time again we will risk their money any time we have a chance, so thank

you for being here. mr. chairman, thank you very much >> i take the gentleman. i want to thank our ranking member and mostly thank our witnesses. >> just brfly. within the closed system of the legislation that created 1705, you can make the argument while the program within that system and the way it was designed that it's been successful, but i think that this committee has asked the right questions in raise being -- in raising the question about who the winners and losers are here, and when i heard the gentle lady from mercatus speak about the fact that you have so many businesses out there. they are not getting access to capital. i mean, i -- i know and members of this committee know that the federal reserve famously was giving money to big banks and the big banks weren't turning around and loaning it to people. people in my district who had great credit ratings, who had been in business for 30 years or

more, mr. chairman, and people who were stalwarts in their business communities. their credit dried up, so, you know, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that we're designing systems here which do pick winners and losers, and, you know, i'll go again to my friend mr. kelly. that has to be something we have to pay attention to, and when we get to some of the largest companies in america who have been able to get advantages that smaller companies couldn't, those are really important questions that are raised. with all due respect to the gentleman who probably knows more about putting finance deals together for energy than anybody, these are questions this committee has to raise because there's a lot of people out there who are asking, hey, why not me? how come i didn't get in on this? how come they did? i didn't? what's the connection, and in this time in washington where there's such suspicion on both

sides of the aisle about where the money is coming from, why it's going there, why somebody gets a contract, why somebody doesn't get a contract, notwithstanding mr. mancini's comments about, well, there's no influence that was used there. listen, goldman sachs is synonymous with influence over the government, and that's what we all feel here, so it's not like some big moment when you say, well, there's no influence. i heard giggles up here with no insult to you. that's how we seem to figure this out, and, you know, you don't have to be matt taibb whoi has studied goldman sachs pretty carefully to understand that goldman sachs has a reputation around here of being able to -- to have massive influence, so you're going to have to forgive the members of this committee for raising that question back at you. so have a lovely day. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. i want to thank our witnesses.

it's not always the best experience, but you all did a great job. we appreciate you taking the time to be here and the work you're doing, and we will adjourn the committee. >> if you missed any of this hearing today on the energy department's loan guarantee program, you can see it in our overnight programming here on c-span 3. next, a look at congressional priorities and a recent poll on tax policy. a look at the latest congressional connection poll put out by "national journal." here to talk with us about that is shane goldmacher, congressional correspondent joining us from "national journal." good morning and thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> and c-span is pleased to be partnering with "national journal" during this campaign season. when we look at congressional races, let's look at the latest poll that's tracking the public's priorities for congress and washington. you looked at the bush-era tax cuts, and what americans want to

see in terms of having them extended or cut back. tell us what you found. >> the first finding is that americans don't want to see tax cuts extended for the wealthiest americans, so the bush tax cuts spanned across all income levels, and we asked do you think that everyone should have their tax cuts extended or just those earning less than $250,000? the answer by almost a 2-1 margin they would prefer to have only the tax cuts extended for those earning less than $250,000. what that does is explains a little bit of the rhetoric that you hear on the campaign trail. that's pretty much the line that president obama has been pushing. >> tell us about what people polled thought about letting everything expire or extending things permanently. >> absolutely. well, if you wanted to ask whether they would like to see all the tax cuts roll off the books, which means everybody's taxes go up, 1 in 5 voters said that was their preference. that wasn't the most popular the

most popular was extend the tax cuts permanently for all taxpayers and those earning less than 250,000. one was to extend the tax cuts for one year for the middle class and a 26% was to extend it for everybody for at least one year. >> okay. moving on to another poll. what congress can do to create jobs. looking at things like tax cuts for small businesses. what ranked high, and what do americans think that congress can really do? >> i don't know that americans have a lot of confidence that congress is going to do a lot between now and november, but if the first question was dealing with the bush tax cuts and mimicked the president's rhetoric, the second question on what should congress do really mimics what republicans in the house have been pushing, and so the most popular response was give small business tax cuts, and those small business tax cuts got almost twice as much support as something the democrats have been pushing is road building and road

construction to help spur economic growth and something that finished in between those two things was the idea of potentially taxing foreign goods, imports, to help spur u.s. goods sales both here and abroad. that idea polls well but it's a question of whether when people go to walmart if they want to see higher prices on their goods if they are taxed when they are imported from asia or anywhere else. >> the congressional connection poll asked what's keeping family's incomes down. what did you find there? >> again, talking about things from abroad, the number one response people said, 52% of people said a lot of impact is coming from economic competition abroad, but in that question you also saw really the sharp division between democrats and republicans, about equal number, about 46%, 47% for each of these, said either the government was giving too much away to the wealthy or the government was overregulating, so for the democrats that fits with their line on the wealthy, and for the republicans it's overregulating and too much bureaucracy that's holding back the economy and keeping our