think that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, particularly the people in the tea party movement and the people in this room are making the difference. and that's what we're doing at tea party patriots. our core values have remained the same since we charted. we are working this year to make sure that we create a mandate for these core values. so if what congressman jordan eluded to happens in november and voters vote for republicans to maintain control of the house and republicans to control the senate and the white house, we don't go what happened in the early 2000s. what happened was the spending went out of control when we

strayed from our constitution. so we want to make sure that we create a mandate. a mandate to balance the budget in five years or less without raising taxes. a mandate for full repeal of obama care, regardless of what the supreme court does. and a mandate to roll back the revolution e lugss so that our country can work. our country has created tremendous things from tremendous odds from the birt of our country to defeating naziism, putting a man on the moon, defeeting communism and the cold war. we are free markets have created lightbulbs, televisions, come puters -- the personal computer, the iphone, the ipad and googsle. and we can do this. we can balance our budget. we can restore our economy and we can make sure that the government gets out of the way so that free markets work again. thank you.

[ applause ] >> if anyone has any announcements, feel free to make them now. >> anyone? >> yeah. >> i want to yield to ashley? >> hi, everybody. i'm ashley. and i wanted to invite all of you this afternoon at 6:00 by south capitol metro stop. campaign for the govt. so we'll propose -- or have you work i working with the gop convention in august in tampa. so we hope to see you tomorrow.

>> anybody else? okay. well, see you next week. >> fed chair ben bernanke wraps up tomorrow. watch live coverage at 2:15 eastern, here on cspan-3. >> how do you approach book interviews dimpbtly than news reporting interviews? >> i think of the book that interviews as gathering history. i think of interviewing when i'm

working for the news side as gathering contemporary information. >> how difficult is it to remain impartial in your reporting and not get caught up in the hype of one campaign or another? >> i'm going to try to, as best as i can, give people as full an understanding of what is happening in this campaign. >> how has social media changed your line of work in terms of reporting? >> twiter, in particular, is now a primary news source for anybody who covers politics. twitter didn't exist four years ago. >>. >> announcer: sunday night, purdue university students interview covering presidential elections once newsworthy and the rise of social media.

>> announcer:. >> house oversight kmcommittee releasing e-mails between an energy department contractor and executives from one of the companies that receive government funds. the co-ceo testified before the government-spending subcommittee. he and three other executives said that government backing was instrumental in moving forward on a number of large-scale renewable projects. the program was administered by the energy department and is the same program that gave loans to the now bankrupt solar company. >> you have to listen to us talk for a few minutes first. kind of the normal procedure. it's got an echo today, doesn't it? maybe we can have somebody check that out.

the department of energy's loan guarantee program is of great concern after the bankruptcies of solyndra and other companies teetering on the brink. taxpayers have a right to know how and why their money was spent in such poor ways. >> the obama administration free kwently claims that the 1705 loan guarantee program and other stimulus-funding programs create green jobs in america and will create a strong energy sector. in contrast to these optimistic predictions at the administration, at the last hearing, before this sub committee, we heard from four loan guarantee recipient companies that were struggling financially, firing workers and halting production december piet receiving billions of dollars. today's hearing will investigate other beneficiaries that had

plenty of access to capital to fund green energy projects. but saw obama administration programs as an easier and more profitable way to make money with little or no risk to themselves. today, we will hear test testimony from the ceos of nig energy. >> these companies all had ties to the obama administration. the new york times described a loan guarantee program and other government programs as a "banquet of government subsidies and a windfall for the industry." this wasn't ignored by the companies represented today. he said, and i quote, i've never seen anything that i've had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects. and we intend to do as much business as we can get our hands on. the business model of these companies is clear.

sign long-term contracts with utilities that arered by state mandates to purchase renewable energy and then seek federal government backing to build green energy facilities. the losers are consumers of electricity all over the country who bear the risk if the projekts fail. this, my friends, is the obama administration's economics in a nut shell. i want to thank our witnesses for being here today. with that, i will yield to my good friend from ohio, mr. kasnich. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for calling this hearing. i look forward to our witnesses today and to learn more about the department of energy's 1705

loan guarantee program and what it has achieved for the american people. but before the witnesses take their oath to provide true and accurate testimony, i want to make sure our congressional record is accurate to the best of our ability. on march 20th, 2012, our chairman issued a majority staff report alleging that "d.o.e. violated the statutory requirement that projects commenced construction by september 30th, 2011. in approving a loan guarantee. >> now, accusing a federal agency of breaking the law is a very serious accusation. and it's not made lightly or without -- should be made lightly without substantial evidence. the committee has in its possession a report of a september 2nd, 23011 site visit

by engineers from d.o.e. and bank of america's independent contractor which appears to refute the accuracy of the majority's assertion. bank of america was the lender applicant of this project. at that time, both bank of america engineers and d.o.e. engineers confirmed that the commencement of con trux requirement had bnl met. now, once prior to the issuance of the majority's report, d.o.e. produced to the committee a document drafted dated september 20th, 2011. certifying that the prolow jus project had met the statutory requirement for commencement of construction.

in addition, a september 21st document also indicates in writing that both parties confirmed the commencement of construction. the only evidence that my friends in the majority have cited for concluding that the requirement was not met is an e-mail sent by a lawyer for bank of america months after these events. we don't know what the e-mail said. we do not know if banks of america said what the majority attributed to it. or if the majority misunderstood what the bank of america attorneys wrote because the majority has not released the mail to the public. despite bank of america's significant role as the source of both the consultants report and the e-mail, reportedly contradicting it, our chairman has not sent a formal document

request to the company. nor did the chairman invite bank of america here today to explain the bank's role in 1705 program or the discrepancy between the majority report and the independent consultants certification. if our chairman still believes that the do,violated the law, then it is incumbent upon our committee to invite bank of america to testify and to help us resolve the apparent contradiction in the majority's report. during previous hearings, some of my colleagues across the isle express concern that cronyism was at play in the 1705 program. the majorities witness today a scholar from the mercada center. points to loans like the one that goldsman sachs subsidiary, cogeneral tricks, received as

the worst kind. now this committee has not receive documents from goldman sach to offer testimony about why it believed its project was a good investment for its balance sheet or for the american taxpayers. both bank f america could help the process that our chairman has condemned. boet are substantial campaign contributors with very deep pock ets. who else could shed beter light on whether federal loan guarantees were necessary. or if politics was inappropri e inappropriately at play. curly, the committee has not inquired with them. and that's too bad. it's like we're having a party here and the main guests that

should be here aren't present. a review of campaign finance records would reveal that there are donors to political causes who are just waiting for an opportunity to be heard from. bank of america, for instance, made over 555,000 in contributions to my friends in the republican party's pact and individualings and several members of this committee. we have to understand the call that's cast over the proceedings when you have bank of america and goldman sachs being excluded from this kind of discussion. so i haven't seen the evidence of the favoritism that the majority has alleged in the federal program supporting renewable energy technologies. but i have noticed the absence

of several key players and i think we need to address that. just a month ago, the chairman said he would invite former governor. i hope that he will do so. today continues our 17805 loan guarantee program to the energy security. going forward, i hope we can invite the other essential parties in this program to hear their opinions. i yield back and i thank the jerntle man. >> i thank the gentleman for asking for unanimous consent that the gentleman be able to sit in on the committee and participate in asking questions. and i also point out to my good friend from ohio that we do have with us to yield the subsidiary. we'll be hearing from mr.

mancini in just a few minutes. >> if my friend would yield briefly? >> i would yield. >> i think with all due respect to the witness who is appearing here, wo e as part of a wholly owned subsidiary, i think that it would be ever-more instruktive to have the ceo of goldman sachs here. so i thank the genting man for pointing that out. >> okay. we want to introduce our panel and get right to our witnesses tods. we have with us mr. david crane, the pthd and ceo. >> mr. robert mancini is the ceo and director of ormen technologies.

we want to come you all here. that's the practice of this committee to swear you all in. if you could just stand up and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record show that everyone answered in the affirmative. and we will move down the line. you all know how this works. you get five minutes, more or less, keep it close there if you can. you've got the light system there in front of you. you can see. >> good morning, mr. chairman, ranking members and distinguished members. you've already introduced myself. let me introduce nrg. we're a fortune 300 company with 25,000 megawatts of coal, gas, wind and solar generation. it's nuch to power more than 20 million homes. we also serve more than 2 million customers in several

northeastern states. important to our discussion today is nrg is not a racte-basd utility. our shareholders bear 100% of the risk which is in stark contrast to rate-based utilities which tend to socialize the risk of their capital projects of their state. i ask that my written testimony be included in the record. nrg includes a majority interest under section 1705 and pictures of these three projekts taken very recently all appear next to me. i'm bleezed to report to you on the progress of these projects through the critical construction phase because that's typically the highest phase we are also involved in the rooftop projeblgt together with our partner prologics. there are no draw downs on the

project-amp loan. so let me go back to the three projects which are under construction. that is the picture on your left, my right. paul utilizes his solar power technology developing by bright source a california head kwaurterred company. ivan paul when it's cleompleted will be the largest in the world. all the electricity general rited will be sold under a series of long-term power to an a-3 rated investor or to southern california edison which is also rated a hfr 3. ivan paul which is located on the california-nevada border about 45 miles south of las vegas is being constructed by bectal corporation. the construction company that oversaw the construction of the

hoover dam and hundreds of american infrastructure projects since. >> i'm pleased to report not only on schedule, but under budget, as well. secondly, we own a hundred percent stake in the 250 megawatt solar ranch project which utilized sun power tech nothing. we also benefit from pg&e and is also being constructed by the bectal corporation. the first pageover this project will be online in september with final completion in late 2013. i'm pleased to report to you that cvsr is ahead of schedule and under budget. cvsr is this project on the far side. finally, we own a 51% stake in a

290 megawatt solar project near yuma, arizona with the power generated by this facility also solds under long term contract. >> congressmen complete will be the largest in the world. and i'm very pleased that half way through this scheduled construction peer r period, the largest solar plant operating in north america delivering almost 200 megawatts of power into the grid. as such, we're so far ahead of schedule that we will have to petition the department of energy to allow us to complete the projects sooner. in summary, mr. chairman, all of us at nrg recognize and respect this committee's focus on the taxpayer funds beings deployed to construct these projects and your interest in seeing those funds paid back with interest. i'm pleased to report that all three are on track and that nothing has occurred which

causes me to have particular concern that the taxpayer funds invest in these projects is at risk of nonpayment or even of late payment. having said that, there are nearly 5,000 people that work at nrg who are ficused on construction support and we will not rest and will remain ever vigilant until this money is, in fact, repaid. the reason for this is that all three are being funded not only by d.o.e. funding but by capital provided by nrg and our partners. in total, nrg itself has committed over $1 billion of shareholder capital. a considerable sum which represents about r 30% of our market capitalization. in blunt terms, we don't get paid unless the government has been repaid. and with over a billion dollars kmeted, you can rest assured

that we are very highly motivated to making sure that the government is repaid. >> thank you, mr. crane. when you said in the new york times it eegs filling the desert with panels, we can see that from those visuals certainly there. >>. >> mr. chairman, ranking member and mechl beshs of the subcommittee. >> goot morning, i'm the co-chief. thank you for the opportunity to be here today to talk to you about our company and our involment with the department of energy 1705 loan guarantee program. for over 20 years, prologis has been in the business of developing industrial real estate. we offer our customers approximately 500 million square feet of distribution space for

lease in over 20 countries. about 75% of our properties support local communities in the united states. as a result, prologis is a different sort of company from the others who have participated in the loan guarantee program. our corporate mix includes a focus on sustainability, which we believe provides a triple benefit. first, employee well being. second, environmental stewardship and, third, cost effective facilities for our customers. and to that end, we have begun to utilize the hundreds of square feet of rooftops for the installation of photo vol dayic systems. these rooftops face the sun and are directly adjacent to the electrical grid. standing alone, they generate no additional benefit. with rooftop solar, however, they provide a renewable source of power for the communities

where our buildings are located while providing an additional revenue stream to our shareholders. going back to as early as 2006, we began having conversations with dimpfferent solar panel abt the potential for future rooftop solar installations. since that time, we've installed 78 megawatts of solar on about 18 million square feet of rooftops. we put out a tender seeking an epc finance partner to lease our roofs and respond to a potential california utility request for proposals. one respond ds to our tender was solyndra who had e identified bank of america, meryll lynch as their financial partner.

>> in november, 2010, we partnered with bank of america to apply for a doe loan guarantee to support a much-larger nationally scaled program. while we had completed smaller-scale solar rooftop ins laegs projects before, mostly financed by utilities, a larger, nationally scaled project required a different approach. it would make our rooftop solar project more economical. working with bank of america as our lender and nrg ener je ji in up to 28 states. project proton which had been progressing would be the first phase.

in july, 2011, after receiving an additional kmitment, we began construction work on the rooftops of 15 buildings in southern california at a cost of just over $8 million. in september, 2011, solyndra declared bankruptcy. this created a considerable challenge. after reviewing solyndra's circumstances, we determined that there was an insufficient ability to provide the required solar module services and warrantees. as a result, we proactively informed our partners and the d.o.e. that we would not use solyndra technology for phase 1.

>> impb colluding the use of the sites on which we had already spent millions of dollars. under the terms of our loan agreement, each future phase of project amp will sbil a specific power purchase agreement, will be funded separately and must be approved in each instance. to date, we have not yet saugt or received any government loan guarantees under this arrangement. thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to speak to this committee about pro-lodges. we believe that our core assets in the industrial real estate area can be effectively utili utilized. >> mr. chairman, ranking members and members of the

subcommittee, good monomorning. i'm the chief executive officer. >> e am also managing director of the commodities business unit of that firm. thank you for the opportunity to appear and speak to you about cogentrics energy. cogentrics energy has been con struktsing power facilities since 1983. we currently employ more than 200 facilities that work in our head kwaurters in charlotte, north carolina. >> i'm here today to speak to you about our solar project. but cogentricss is not just in the solar business. we've beoc