>> we've had several questions to mr. block and your answer about the investigation you set with your general counsel, they asked if you're your independent counsel reveals that you accepted illegal funds from your charity or mr. cain paid off his harassment accusers, how will you remedy the situation? >> we'll respond accordingly. >> can you elaborate? >> no. >> and would mr. cain ever consider a third-party candidacy in 2012. >> no. >> thank you. >> all right. this question -- we have a very diverse field this cycle and here in the room multiple audience members have commented that the stage is comprised of white men. i was wondering some of your

thoughts on that if anyone cares to respond. >> we did get several cards on this actually. [laughter] >> is there -- >> we're all white? >> most of the campaigns there's actually more diversity than, unfortunately, is represented up here today. so i do think in fairness to the campaigns if you look at a lot of the people in upper level positions in all the campaigns this is not necessarily representative or reflective of the entire campaigns, quite frankly, or the candidates as michele bachmann and as herman cain and i think this party in general, if you look all the way down the line does encourage diversity and is succeeding in doing that. >> anyone else care to explain? >> can you elaborate on your

nails. >> that's what we get. the only female candidates, strange things. >> you highlighted this briefly but i'd like to expand on it. senator santorum has been very hard on herman cain for his comments on abortion. on one hand cain says he's 1 pro-life and on the other it's not up to the government to determine where life begins. has cain done enough to clarify his position on abortion? or will senator santorum have more to say about this in future ads or will he take him up on this in the next debate? >> i'm assuming that the other people will take this up. i know on cnn they put up on the website all the different statements herman cain has made on abortion and they seem to be in great conflict with another. as part of this process, it's a fair thing for people to ask campaigns to specify when they say here and a completely other thing here and the difference.

i think for republican primary voters, the life issue is a very important one. i think it's one we certainly will not back away from, and i think we're still waiting for clarification from the cain people. we're as confused as ever what his position is. >> senator santorum has sent out ads and we're hearing more. you're saying he has not done a good enough job clarifying his stance. >> i think you've seen the senator is not afraid to challenge any candidates for his differing views. he did with rick perry on immigration. he did with mitt romney on health care. and i think that he'll probably do anything any place where he has a different with herman cain, it t.a.r.p., it taxes, it the pro-life issue and i think that should be important to republican primary voters because they want to make sure that they have a candidate who's the nominee that's not going to be afraid to take on barack obama and she able to do it in

an effective matter when we get to debates in a fall campaign. >> what does cain need to say to convince you or convince the candidates? he said i'm 100% pro-life. what more can he say? >> some consistency would be wonderful. you can't repetitively say that it's up to the household to styl decide. it's their choice and say over here i'm pro-life. i would go as far say on this particular issue, i'm not sure there will ever be credibility. >> mr. block, we've been talking about your boss. would you like to respond in any way. >> mr. cain has stated that he's 100% pro-life from conception, period. >> end of story. [laughter] >> thank you. >> thank you. >> this next question comes from our audience for mr. walker of the gingrich campaign. would you comment on the early staff exodus from the gingrich

cain and the decision by some of those staffers to join perry campaign and how do you feel those staffers are doing now? [laughter] >> i didn't catch that -- oh, well, i think that rob and some of the other people that had been with newt early on did have a loyalty to rick perry when rick perry decided to become involved in the campaign. i think they felt that's where they could better serve. and we have picked up. we're staffing up the campaign as we speak and all the early primary states. and, you know, we move on from there. >> how do you feel the staffers are doing in their new roles? >> i think we're doing very, very well. clearly the campaign has been moving forward. we have a lot of momentum.

there is a very strong momentum for this campaign. and we think, if anything, we've got more momentum at the present time than rick perry does. >> so we'll move forward for the bachmann campaign. there's been a lot of reporting about turmoil in the campaign. new hampshire staff quit recently and former advisor ed rollins has been very critical. can you help us understand what's going on behind the scenes here and why there was a disconnect between the national campaign and the new hampshire team. can you tell us what l.a.p.d. >> we have a very focused campaign, we have a great team assembled we're adding people every day. some of the staff stuff has been taken out of context quite a bit. i haven't heard one voter ask about staff. it's kind of a blogger phenomenon. we don't really care. we're just trying to connect with voters and try to run the best campaign we can. some of our strategy has been

altered and moved around based upon some of the early primary states moving around. we have to go to a lot of debates but we're competing in new hampshire, south carolina, and in iowa. straight up. >> so the national campaign is at no fault based upon the grievances the new hampshire team put forward last week? >> not at all. the person that put that out wasn't a member of our campaign so we don't even know who she is. >> she's a spokesman for that team. >> no. she -- >> okay. >> she is not a part of our campaign. >> this next question was sore mr. johnson have the perry campaign. an audience member noted that there have been many reports that the jobs created in texas under the governor were either created by federal government dollars or part-time -- were part-time low wage jobs. is that a correct assessment? >> no. no. it's just not true. >> what's responsible for the

reports? is it misinformation or is there something being lost? >> no, it's just not true. and the governor has refuted this and made clear -- i mean, the facts are that 40% of all jobs in the country were created in texas since 2009 while the current resident of the white house has lost 2.5 million jobs. the environment governor perry created in texas has created a million jobs. the focus of everyone on this panel is to beat barack obama and we need someone who can energize the economy and help get america working and that person is rick perry. >> jesse, we haven't forgotten about the ron paul campaign. i promise get your emails all the time saying that we have but we're working on it. i'm wondering if you could help us compare this election for ron paul to the last election cycle. have there been any -- were there any mistakes made in 2008 that you've remedied this year or things you've said you've done better? and also if he does not win the

nomination, will -- who do you think ron paul will put his support behind or will he consider a third-party candidacy as well? >> there's nothing behind any kind of third-party. ron is a republican. elected 12 times as a republican. he's seeking the republican nomination. as far as who he might throw his support behind if he is not the nominee, we'll have to see. we'll have to see if a candidate can emerge that's really serious about cutting spending. ron has plans to cut this spending 12 trillion and get this balance budget. we need to cut the spending before we have a massive debt crisis and a run on our dollar before we destroy our dollar and we've seen a major prosperity take a hit for a long time. i think we're doing a lot better in this campaign. we try to do everything better. are we doing things completely no, we're organizing better.

we're raising more money and we're working harder and we got a better media team and we got more professionals involved in the campaign. at the same time, we're working to maintain our authenticity, our grassroots intensity and the things that made our '08 campaign so special. we're very, very well poised in this campaign. if you look at the four candidates that i think have some sort of path to the nomination, ron is the only candidate that fought against t.a.r.p. and opposed t.a.r.p. the 2010 election cycle was largely about an outrage against grassroots americans at bailouts, t.a.r.p., bailing out banks, taking care of wall street and doing it on the backs of the middle class and we're going to give out that message if you want to end the bailouts and get the budget under control and you want to restore what was great about america, ron is your candidate. >> how does the proportional --

i'm sorry, did you want to add something. >> i just wanted to make clear that governor perry is 100% opposed to were at that tarp and was for day one. >> that letter that he cosigned with governor manchin asking for stimulus right now for congress -- >> no, it didn't say that, jesse. it says congress needs to take other action. there's other actions on the table and he was opposed to t.a.r.p. >> that they in congress and so there were other opportunities. i just want to make clear he's against t.a.r.p. >> it's unfortunate he supported the stimulus. >> he never supported it. >> we'll let you guys go -- >> he never supported it. >> okay. >> how does the proportional nominating system play into your strategy. does that change anything in terms of this year versus past cycles or affect specific things. >> direct estimate? >> sure, for anyone, jesse?

>> like i said earlier, this is a race about delegates. who's going to get the necessary delegates to get the nominee and i think proportional delegation is very important for us. we plan to fight in caucus states, primary states where we can win a portion of the delegates. we plan to win there. this is about a delegate count. we're going to wake up on november 7th -- i'm sorry, on march 7th. we're going to see if one candidate has consolidated the delegates that it's going to take to be the nominee or if there's going to be a split and whether we're going to have several candidates go ahead and battle it out through primaries proportional and nonproportional. >> gentlemen it, looks like we're out of time. thank you so much for joining us and we'll send it back to you guys over there. [applause] >> yes. thank you, everybody. [applause] >> good job. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, guys, for joining us. next time we'll have podiums for

you all. so you could feel like your bosses. thank you. >> so this is --. >> okay. >> this is the formal part of filling out the declaration of candidacy which has been completed except for -- >> all it needs is a signature on there. i can do that. >> this is the filing fee of $1,000. >> right, you got that. >> and then this is some last slogan. you might want to leave this. we do this every four years. >> all together great secretary of state. and we appreciate your

leadership. you're going to make sure that new hampshire remains first in the nation. it's a responsibility and honor that new hampshire deserves and i'm happy to be part of this process and put my name on this sxap hoping this time it will take. [laughter] >> you've be able to be the nominee of the party and hopefully the next president of the united states. >> the primary is set for january 10th. and you can follow campaign 2012 online with a c-span video library. click on the campaign 2012 tab to access the candidates and the events, all searchable, shareable and free. the c-span video library. it's washington your way. >> you can't understand what marx's and his ideas and his line that so many people take offense from the line of religion is the opium of the people. well, unless you know, you know, that kings said they were the

emissaries of god, you know, you wouldn't understand what his revolt was about. >> this weekend on "after words" on booktv, mary gabriel, looks at karl marx, his wife jenny and gilad sharon looks at the career of his father. and live sunday three hours on in-depth his accidental billionaires was for the film the social network and the latest fills with a safe full of stolen moon rocks. booktv every weekend on c-span2.

>> energy secretary steven chu this week said global competition in generating renewable energy and he says america needs a comprehensive alternative policy. this is 45 minutes. >> a logjam on capitol hill for energy and climate legislation. today, on a day when we've gathered many of the most influential thinkers our country has on energy, all in this room, the conversation is quite different than the focus. today the focus is on the economy, lifting it, creating jobs and using technological advances in the energy field to help do that. the watch words are clean energy, smarter uses of energy and energy efficiency. individual consumers and business owners want the --

their bills or their homes and for their offices and factories reduced and they want to do the right thing for the planet. so today we're asking those in the know to talk about the biggest picture, national security issues, our energy security, the shifting geopolitical map of where the new demand and the new supply is coming from. and we're also going to ask our specialists to come into the smallest of detail to help us with that saturday morning decision at the heart of which light bulb to buy and to tell us what cars are going to look like in terms of mileage and shape and engine in even a couple of years. but let's start our forum right away on smart energy with the man in charge of our nation's energy department. steven chu is the united states secretary of energy. his job description, implement

president obama's agenda to invest in clean energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create new jobs. how is that for a job subscription. steven chu came to washington as a distinguished scientist. he's well-known as the winner of the nobel price for physics, something actually few members of the cabinet, if any, have had. he's also served as the director of the department of energy's lawrence berkeley national lab where he led the pursuit of alternative and renewable energy technology. please welcome steven chu. [applause] >> all right. thank you, mary, for that nice introduction. the focus of this conference is on the future of energy but i want to start with some lessons of america's past.

i'll take you back to a windy day of kitty hawk, december 17th, 1903 where the wright brothers launched the first airplane, that achieved human flight. with it a whole human history. within seven years those brothers led the world of aviation. what's least appreciated is the united states lost the lead and at the beginning of world war i we were hopelessly behind. although the u.s. major military was the first major customer of the wright brothers and their brother curtis, the united states ranked twelfth in governing investment in aviation.

>> after the war, the united states said we can't compete with europe we saw leadership in this industry as a national security imperative and an economic opportunity. and we launched an agency to support research and development, and provide legislation for the aviation companies to carry the demand, demand for the military in the postal service kept the industry alive during its early years. and laid the foundation for today's domestic commercial aviation industry. the second lesson i want to give is the history of the automobile. in 1885 the modern gasoline internal combustion was invented in germany. henry ford did not invent the automobile. he invented the assembly line which greatly increased worker productivity. america became the him to fortunate automobile manufacturing force in the world by becoming the low cost high quality mass producerer. the price came down and the

market exploded. more factors were built and more workers were employed. my final information about information and modern electronics were born but federal support helped usher in the federal telecommunications era. the u.s. saw the potential of this emerging energy. the military was an early adopter of transistors industries and to help lead the development of the internet technology. the purchasing power of the air force, nasa and other agencies guaranteed a market that drodown costs of the semiconductor technology. this all made them affordable, widely available and then disseminated around the world. the lessons from these examples are clear. the u.s. government recognized an economic opportunity, made a choice to compete and took the necessary actions to promote these industries. and now this brings me to today.

once again, there's a huge opportunity before us, a global clean energy market that's already worth a $240 billion a year and is growing rapidly. in fact, a very reasonable estimate perhaps even concern is that the solar photovoltaic system represents a global packet of more than $80 billion a year. $80 billion is a lot of money. it's as much as we spend on beer every year. however, this is a faster growing market. the united states built an early lead in clean energy race. solar cells, wind turbines and lithium batteries were all invented here. we're no longer leading manufacturing in any of these technologies. in keeping with the comparison with beer in 2009, we spent $7 point billion on potato chips. that's $2 billion more on our investments on energy research. history is repeating itself. just as we tok the lead in automobiles from germany and

other companies have studied the u.s. playbook and are using to take it from us. while some people in washington are debating whether the clean energy economy is real or we should compete, other companies are seizing the opportunity. nowhere is this more evident than in china. last year in shanghai, i visited sun tech, it's currently the leading photovoltaic manufacturer in the world. they import their silicon away material away from the united states because the technology costs much less in the u.s. they add all the high technology processing steps in china in a highly automated industry. sun tech is not only the low cost leader at the time of my visit, they held the record for the highest poly sills to us. sun tech is trying to do to us what henry ford did to daimler and benz. and china has learned from the

united states how government can support critical emerging industries. last year, china offered roughly $30 billion to government financing to solar countries and 7 billion to sun tech. at least 10 countries have adopted renewal scombrabl standards and 50 countries around the world offer some type of public financing for clean energy projects. for example, germany and canada operate government lending programs and in the last several months the u.k., australia and india have announced plans to do the same. since his first day in office, president obama has been working to strengthen the u.s. competitiveness in clean energy. the energy department has stimulated the energy chain by helping r & d, tax incentives like the i believe so 1603 program which is supported nearly 20,000 renewable energy projects and loan programs to finance innovative manufacturing and deployment of renewable

energy. while we made progress, united states is at the crossroads. many are expiring. the 1705 loan program is closed on september 30th and we've obligated virtually all of our money. america faces a choice today and do we compete in the clean energy race or watch the scombrobz go to -- watch the jobs go to china and germany. there comes inherent risks. not every company, not every product will succeed but there's no reason to sit on the sidelines and concede leadership and clean energy. some leaders don't think america can compete or they don't think it's worth trying. others think that the best thing we can do is for government to get out of the way and pet let the free market work. we had this debate in 2008 and

2009 about the u.s. auto industry. a lot of people in this town said we're ready to give up on u.s. auto manufacturing. president obama refused to let the auto industry collapse. today, ford, gm, chrysler are profitable and are creating jobs and quality projects. after seven straight years of decline, america's automobile manufacturers expanded their output by 35% this year. the president took action because automobile manufacturing is the life blood of our economy. a center for research says 8 million jobs are impacted by the dealers and builders. this is directly connected to manufacturing and benefit when workers spend their paychecks. their critics were wrong about the auto industry. i believe they're just as wrong today when they say we shouldn't bother in investing in efficient vehicles or clean energy. i recently read a paper of a friend of mine, michael spense

who is one of the nobel laureates and looked at data between 1990 and 2008. and he divided employment to two sectors. one sector he called a tradable jobs. these are jobs where he makes stuff like airplanes, cars, food, chickens that can be shipped and sold around the world. the second sector is called nontradable jobs. these are jobs that can't be traded, like real safe sector, hotel and restaurant workers, health care professionals, and government jobs on the u.s. secretary of energy. not tradable. the good news is that we added 27 million jobs in the united states in this period, 1990, 2008. the bad news is that job growth was virtually all in the no. 3 tradable sector. in other words, our job growth was in a sector of our economy where we did not have to

compete. now you don't have to be a nobel laureate to conclude that if our economy will not trade internationally we'll decline. some people say it doesn't matter they are manufactured as long as we invent them in america. the continued improvements in productivity of the kind that henry ford pioneered are due to the interplay between engineering and manufacturing. and in the long run production engineering follows manufacturing and research and development follows production and engineering. china and other countries in asia and europe regard clean energy and other high technology products as critical to their future prosperity. other countries, those economies are largely fueled by industries like energy and minerals say our future is secure because we're blessed with these natural resources. the leaders of those countries know that their supply will eventually run out. they have a finite window of time to develop a

knowledge-based economy. to those in washington who say we can't or shouldn't compete, i say that's not who we are. in earthquake some, when we fall behind, we don't give up. we dig in and we come back. why should we concede one of the biggest growing markets in the world that's our sweet spot, technology logical and manufacturing innovation? america has the opportunity to lead in the clean energy technologies of the world, provide a foundation for our prosperity. we remain the most innovative country in the world but invented in america is not good enough. we need to ensure that these technologys are invented in america, made in america and sold around the world. and that's how we'll prosper in the 21st century. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much. i have to ask you, is it harder

to cool and trap atoms the work you did in washington or work in washington as a member in washington. >> is that a softball question. >> tell me. i'm interested. >> it's not harder. they different but they require many of the same talents. you have to keep your wits about you. you have to allies and which path you go there. you're going to have to reach on your way. breakthroughs will happen, setbacks will happen. you use the breakthroughs and work around the setbacks and go forward. so in that respect, doing research and science is very similar to what it is in washington. >> that's surprising. now, it is unusual to have both the president and a member of the cabinet to both have nobel

prizes. so what's the nobel banter between the two of you? >> oh, we can't do that. that's a secret handshake. [laughter] >> have you had any interesting conversations about this? >> a little, but, again, it's i think we're very much, you know, i served with the president and i do my best as you say to enact the agenda that's so important for the country. >> well, so i think i've heard this word cylndra, i guess my question is if you were given a pile of stimulus money today, what would do you differently? >> i think the loan program was an important part of both the recovery and it's an important part of stimulating job growth and it's an important part as you heard me talk about, simulating what we need to do in the future to secure not only

jobs today but our future economic prosperity and that's why 50 other countries have similar financial programs. i think what one could do differently, you start with the idea that we -- congress and the administration can design a better loan program. a loan program that shares on the upside. there was a recognition in congress when they wrote the statute that not all the loans would succeed. but we think we can design a program so that it could actually be self-pay and still stimulate the most innovative industries. as we look what happened in cylndra. hindsight is 20/20 and some of the hindsight was 20/10 or better, clairvoyant. there were things where the market took an unexpected turn.

the cost of solar modules dropped tremendously in a very short period of time and by the time we gave the loan totally unexpected. we were watching all those market conditions but going forward, i think -- knowing what we know doing all these things, one has to take risks in order to promote innovative manufacturing. i think as-inch in my remarks, it's a very important part of the history of the united states. other countries are doing this. we just have to go forward. we can perhaps learn but always go forward just as i said about researching. >> your department still has quite a few billion dollars to spend, right, on new programs that might stimulate job growth? can you tell us a little bit about what you're going to do with that? >> no, the 1705 loan program is

done. there's only a little bit of subsidy left. and i think it's a very important discussion that the administration should be having with congress and the american people on how does one go forward and promote those industries. we know we'll be rapidly growing industries in the world. there's a huge growing market for all the things that i talked about. and it's in our tech logical sweet spot. if we -- we can compete with hightin manufacturing. we can compete in those areas and germany is competing in fact areas. there's nothing that says we can't and, quite frankly, i go away the world and i look at the truly inventive discoveries and innovations that are coming out of american universities and national laboratories, startup companies and major companies and these are all great things.

>> and so what is it that we're not doing that we need to do? you were saying we need this conversation with congress and the american people. what needs to happen? >> i think it's very important that we create a demand for these clean energies just as these other countries are doing so there's a market. i talked about the market for airplanes and the market for semiconductors. and there are more connections. i think there are ways to try to level the playing field in other countries again copying in the united states are using the united states playbook. we should not toss that playbook because it will still works and so we should continue to guide with a depth hand because in the end there's going to be private sector investments that will make a difference. >> we're going to open this to the floor very soon for some questions. we have two mics. one over here and one over here.

you were talking about the interesting technologies that are coming out of the labs. you used to work in the labs. tell us the exciting things that you see coming out. >> let me give you a example examples. there's been a remarkable development of battery technology. as i mentioned an american invented the modern lithium ion battery cap. >> i think it's very interesting. [laughter] >> but there have been improvements actually that came out of fundamental discoveries in one of our national labs that you put in a little magnesium and the batteries all of a sudden become higher energy density shifting to higher percent of density on the photovoltaic side and they become safer and less expensive to manufacture. the i.p. for those batteries and

we see a lot of ideas now in the laboratory going to towards manufacturing. another example -- for example in biofuels, we think that there is tremendous capacity for biofuels. biofuels, based on plants designed to raise energy, not food crops -- biofuels where you can take this material and a lot of agricultural waste and turn it not only spoke ethanol but already there are developments that have come out of national laboratories, have gone into companies where companies are powering plants you. feed them sugar and out comes drop-in replacement fuel for diesel jet fuel and gasoline. it's not yet economical. but we see a pathway -- it's not economical in the united states. actually, the sugar -- it's economical in brazil because sugar grows abundantly in

brazil. and it's a cheaper food stock than the starches we have in the united states. but we want to go to ultimately cellulosic feed stocks, corn carbs, wood residues and to make drop in fuels. there's a possibility some of the most rapidly developing areas in science are in biotechnology. >> you mentioned china and a lot of people are worried about us falling behind in clean energy especially to china. i know you talked a bit about it. is there something that china is doing. i know it's a different political system that we should be copying? >> well, they are making financing available. just in the united states. in the united states there's a competition between states who attract industries. there is a competition in china among their states and provinces

and cities. but china sees the opportunity for all the things in the energy sector. they consider it not an opportunity, they consider it to critical that anything in the highest voltage transmission lines to solar, to the solar industry they're now the world's leader. they're also the world's largest market internally for renewable energy in the world. so it's not just for export, that's a myth that some people think. they're the largest market. so you look at solar. you look at wind. they're trying to get into the wind energy. they're trying to catch up from other countries. they're trying to get in electric vehicles. they're building about two dozen clear reactors. they need very much and want very much to diversify of coal as their major source of electricity production because it's polluting. they recognize the climate risks. >> and is there something that they're doing that you wish we could just do.

like if we could just do that? >> yes. they have a national energy policy. and they're walking behind that. they remain focused. and, again, i think they recognize the economic opportunity. we're still debating this. >> and there's a lot of debate on capitol hill. some people say it's been paralyzing. what are your thoughts of congress and how helpful or not they are in energy policy? >> well, my job is to do my best to educate anyone, congress especially about what the opportunities are. my other job is whatever resources that they do give me, with administration backing to do what we can to promote anything in the innovation chain, of the basic scientific research, the deployment -- to

the deployment of these new energy technologies. again, this is vital to economic prosperity in the united states. this is a major part what we do in the department of energy. >> and your thoughts on congress? >> well, i hope, you know, i try to remain optimistic and hope that one can see -- this is essentially a nonpartisan issue. i know there are many people, republicans and democrats, actually know that we have to remain competitive in high technology manufacturing. that the opportunity of high technology manufacturing in the clean energy sector and energy efficiency is there and we shouldn't walk away from it. we should seize that opportunity. >> when you left your lab and one of the reasons you came to washington was you're pretty passionate about climate change and wanted to do something about it, now you've been here for a while, are you at all disheartened about the lack of

movement on climate change? >> well, it could be faster. i think we are moving -- it's true we don't have a comprehensive energy policy but if you consider the things that have happened, you consider especially during the recovery act all of the things that have advanced in terms of developing new renewable technologies, driving down those costs, it's only a matter of time when solar energy will achieve parity and become less than the generation of energy of fossil fuel. the debate is whether it's going to be in this decade or a decade and a half from now in the hundreds and so again when that happens, the demand is is going to be explode worldwide so we have done a lot in the department. a lot of the research of solar technology and biofuels and automobile efficiency.

we've done a lot in developing more of the fundamental research. and nuclear technology and nonproliferation and i think we strengthened those capabilities as well. >> there's been a lot of talk and things written lately about the changing the shift away from the dependence of middle east oil and there's more with greater technology and digging deeper into the world. into the ground, that we have more supplies in our hemisphere. what are your thoughts about the keystone pipeline? >> well, actually, before i answer that, let me say i forgot one very important thing. the mile standards in the united states have been markedly increased. this i think is going to be one of the single most important steps in increasing our dependency on oil, our dependency on foreign oil so that's another great thing. >> the standards for cars. >> the standards for automobiles and trucks, that's correct to go

from 55 miles a gallon. it's standards like that that will make our cars made in america competitive worldwide because now we're getting and reaching what people around the world want to buy. they see the long-term prospects of what's happening. regarding the keystone pipeline i think this is a very complicated decision. it's before the state department. >> you're the head of the energy department. it's a massive pipeline going from canada down to texas that surely they want your brain on this. what do you think? >> let's just say -- well, do i expect to be consulted on this? yes. [laughter] >> and what would you say if you were consulted on this? >> these are -- these are very

important decisions and let me just say this is a very important decision and i'm going to not commit one way or the other. >> oh, boy, okay. well, we're going to take some questions from the audience now and you can go to the mic. just go to the mic and identify yourself, please. >> i'm dr. sam hancock of emerald planet here in washington, dc, and we keep talking about the things we can't do or it's not happening with congress. based in your estimation what do you think some of the things that we can be doing alike the research and the national labs and working with these various states and national universities that we have in the united states? focus on the positive and what do you think we can do to really move forward over the next five to 10 years. >> well, i think in my remarks, first of all, saying that there are challenges. and we should step up to those

challenges. and many of the things we are doing. as i said, the research enterprise is based on energy. we support more of the physical sciences and the engineering than any other agency in the u.s. that we supported more nobel laureates than any other agency in the world. and these -- this research has been the cornerstone for all the innovation that's coming out in certainly two-thirds of the last century. so that will continue. we in the department are beginning to -- for example, we created arpae that's a new agency in the department. and we're able to recruit an extraordinary number of individuals, members of the national academy of engineering

who have come -- people from schools like berkeley or mit and members of the national academy who were elected in their 40s who are still in their 40s to come. and people with that extraordinarily high caliper are really what makes this program so special. to be able to identify very, very innovative ideas. knowing these -- they're high risk. looking for the home run connection that changed the landscape. that's a very successful program. and that's really transforming and it's don't rave reviews from industry, from the vc world, if universities and national labs. that's something that we started. there's other things -- energy innovation hubs which bring together teams of people of cross-disciplines bringing together an industry at the very beginning to say how can we solve the problem. just as we did this during world

war ii develop the radar. and the things -- so these things we had the first of those programs so there are things like that that are starting. we are aligning of everything along boundaries and where can the department of energy can spend whatever precious funds we can get in the most effective way to help american industry keep leadership positions in these critical areas? those things we think are going in the right direction. going very strongly in the right direction and i'm very encouraged by that. that largely less visible in washington, but people out there in the business community and the research community see these things. >> we'll take another question here. we'll have -- >> i just want to say thank you for your solar decathlon. that's a really excellent program and that's quite visible

and thank you for doing that. >> thank you. another question over here. >> mr. secretary, i'm bob groberg, i retired after 40 years of federal service. the last 30 working on energy. and i've worked with at the oe labs. and in the last at the point years promoting the use of combined heat and power in multifamily housing and now it's coming on in smaller buildings including single family. i don't see anything on the agenda that addresses the potential for combined heat and power which is already producing about 12% of the electricity in the u.s. and i'm hoping you can say a few words in support of the eight regional clean energy centers and the effort that the department is making to support it? >> yeah, as you know, we've been huge advocates of energy efficiency or more efficient generation.

power is more efficient ways of using energy. combined heat and power is a known technology that's going on in the world. we certainly promote it. it's something -- it's a known technology. it's very effective. there are other things we're adding to it. for example, sometimes you want to heat enough power and sometimes you want the power but not the heat and so we have a very active look at how restoring thermal energy in a way that's very, very efficient and cost-effective so you can really have these power plants at their true optum up to 80% of their true efficiency all the time so there's things like that that we do. we are promoting ways to get the technology we know worked today out in the field into the commercial sector both in residential homes but also commercial buildings and beyond

that, into systems in buildings in parts of cities where we think there are huge opportunity. that's one of our energy innovation hubs is on building inefficiency. and part of that is looking at those systems. >> i'm glad to hear your reference to the district energy systems in the '80s with d.o.e. to promote that and the brooklyn cogeneration system is an example. >> we're going around on a lot of different topics but you spent a lot of year looking at the oil spill. can that happen again? i mean, and is there something that you've learned from that, that's some kind of safe guard? we like everything else that happens, things happen, you go first the government played an important role in helping stop the leak. but beyond that, there are always things you can learn from

businesses like this. there's things we are learning from fukushima. there are things that we learn from any incident and one goes forward. and when you say can it ever happen again? no one can guarantee that something is going to be accident-proof but you can certainly do things very cost-effective things to make the probability less, significantly less. and so that's one of the things that we'll undoubtedly -- is coming out what we're learning there. but, again, the important part when things happen, we didn't say, okay, no more offshore drilling. some people said that. we didn't say no more use of oil. we said let's pick ourselves up, move forward and make it safer. and i think with any incident, whether it'scint or a gas explosion -- sorry about that, or an oil accident -- >> but you think drilling is

much safer now? >> drilling has become safer over the years. it will continue to be safer. offshore drilling especially and deep offshore drilling will be made safer. >> okay. another question here. >> good morning, secretary. my name is john from ever blue training institute my brother and i started a training company four years ago and we've now trained tens of thousands of workforce employees from companies and we partner with the universities so we teach all over the u.s. and we see a demand for workforce education but when you read the news one of the criticisms in one of your bullets was mentioned earlier was the neonatologist create jobs and generate essentially employment in this field and i was wondering how would you define success because if you read the news there's a lot of criticism that you can't define a green job and there's been no jobs created. >> i don't necessarily green on that and how would you define success on the jobs front? >> you define job success when

the jobs number goes down where today is intolerable. this is causing great hardship. so that is -- that's easy. that's how you define success. the charges that we haven't saved or we haven't created new jobs simply doesn't make any sense to me. the u.s. oil industry was -- had a near death or some say a death experience. it could have been catastrophic if you think of all the jobs associated with the assembly of the cars, the supply line changes, the dealerships and all the secondary jobs. but now we're bouncing back. and that's very clearly something where jobs, were saved. new jobs are being created. as i said, the production is increasing for the first time in seven or eight years by 35%.

this is tremendous. so i think we see already very clear examples of job creation. the other thing that's very important is -- just with the henry ford example. he made a highly productive assembly line so if you think you're only going to make "x" number of cars and you go to high productivity you're not creating that many scombrobz -- jobs. he wanted to build a car for the multitudes. and that mass market item became accessible to a much wider population which ultimately created much more job growth. so what we need to do is look for those areas where there's going to be a new thing that can be affordable for a lot of people. that adds value and comfortable to their lives and to make those things in america. so it's new markets, you know, the ipad and iphone were invented in the united states. it's being assembled in china.

the chips -- many of the chips are being made in korea. we would like to make the chips and have the assembly plants over here. there's a lot of engineers over there in china. and, again, to say it's okay to invent here but not to engineer -- one of my best friends we lived in the same house for four years worked for hp labs for most of his career. that part of hewlett-packard got sold off to a private equity firm. and the last part of his career, he wants to bring a product to the market. it's an optical mouse for apple. he's an optical engineer. and so i was visiting on vacation last summer and he comes home late at night, at 9:00 pm every night? why? he has to stay up to talk to the engineers in china about the

design of the optical mouse. >> john is an iraq war veteran. he started his company and created some new jobs. how many jobs has the stimulus money at the energy created, the energy department? >> it's something in the neighborhood of -- what we would call direct jobs. i believe it's something of over 60,000 plus jobs but these are very direct jobs. if we give let's say a loan to a company or a grant to a company and they subcontract out, we're not allowed to include those jobs. worry not allowed to include supply chain jobs. so it's a very conservative number. and -- >> and overall, of the billions that were given in stimulus money, do you feel that it was well worth -- it was well spent? >> yes. yes. >> and on november 17th, i guess we have to go up to the hill and

talk about cylndra, can you tell us what you'll say and then i'll let you go. >> we'll see what happens but my message to congress is more or less along the same lines that i said here today. that this is a key time in american history. there's key opportunity to seize the opportunity. to not walk away when there's a stumble. you can learn from those and keep going. because this is the direction i believe the president believes, the administration believes is the direction which is key to our job creation today and our future prosperity and so i think that is something that's very clear to me. i hope i can make it clear to members of congress.

i think with all my heart and soul that this is true, but i'm not alone who said there are many dozens of other countries out there who also believe this. >> and can we expect to see you in a secretary -- if there's a second obama administration? i know other cabinet members have been saying they're exhausted and they're -- even if obama wins they're not going to stay? how about you? >> this is between the president, me and our secret handshakes. let me just say i came to washington that i deeply believe in the importance of the mission of the department of energy. there's nothing that's happened that has said that ever has led moe to think that, no, maybe it wasn't the right belief. i believe this even more strongly today. >> and the last question is, did you see the jon stewart skit about cylndra? >> i saw